carnej1 This is the brainchild of Michael Iden, Union Pacific's General director for Car & Locomotive engineering. Here's the original patent:http://www.google.com/patents/US7784409 He has been working on a number of drag reduction concepts for both railcars and locomotives and holds several patents.
This is the brainchild of Michael Iden, Union Pacific's General director for Car & Locomotive engineering. Here's the original patent:http://www.google.com/patents/US7784409
He has been working on a number of drag reduction concepts for both railcars and locomotives and holds several patents.
We'll see. We simply do not have enough information to evaluate (as best we humble folks ever could) the innovation. But it's good they're trying to improve the efficiency. The analysis must look good in the computers for them to proceed. But not every innovation will be a success. And if you're afraid to fail you'll never succeed. The UP does run these trains a long way at relatively high speeds. So the fuel savings could be significant.
In my own uniformed humble opinion, Mr. Iden has taken a good shot. But at the wrong target. He should have focused on putting the aerodynamic devices on the rail cars, Not on the containers. You don't want to increase the containers' weight on the highway (it's limited by law) and you don't want to be fooling around in the terminal attaching stuff to the containers. Containers will show up from all over the world. ISO international standards are going to be difficult to change.
Instead, maybe modify the stack cars so that they provide a more aerodynamic ride. Maybe something enclosed such as an auto rack. It would be easier to control and there are fewer cars than containers to modify.
cx500 My first reaction is that it's a bit late for April 1st. But if the picture is to be believed, perhaps it is real. On the whole, I think it is a theoretical solution in search of a problem to solve, created by somebody who has little experience with actual rail operations. The tapered container will have the volume available for cargo greatly reduced, and shippers won't want to use it. So it would be carried around empty most of the time, taking the place of a load. That in itself probably negates any possible aerodynamic improvement. Assuming the intent is for it to be the upper container on the first wellcar, at terminals it will have to be moved to the opposite end of the train and rotated for correct orientation. As others have mentioned, it does not solve the problem of turbulence created by the many gaps between containers throughout the length of a train. John
My first reaction is that it's a bit late for April 1st. But if the picture is to be believed, perhaps it is real. On the whole, I think it is a theoretical solution in search of a problem to solve, created by somebody who has little experience with actual rail operations.
The tapered container will have the volume available for cargo greatly reduced, and shippers won't want to use it. So it would be carried around empty most of the time, taking the place of a load. That in itself probably negates any possible aerodynamic improvement.
Assuming the intent is for it to be the upper container on the first wellcar, at terminals it will have to be moved to the opposite end of the train and rotated for correct orientation. As others have mentioned, it does not solve the problem of turbulence created by the many gaps between containers throughout the length of a train.
John
John (CX500) ;
Pretty much the same assessment that I had after reading the piece in the Newswire. I was OTR actively, when the transition between the 45'-48' and53' Trailers cycled into the trucking business. As each new size became the 'Norm' it was the larger size that the shippers screamed and demanded. The larger trailers were,in part, sold as the perfect answer for "Balloon Freight"- (Light weight, High Cube). Even if they were shipping low cube high weight freight ( ie: steel, Beer, etc). The 53' became "The Industry Standard" .
That being the case, I am not sure how this new Arrowedge unit will fit in. My prediction it is going to be a very hard sale to potential users...As MudChicken predicted, it may wind up in some corner of the UP Property, repurposed by UPRR to gain back some of the original price. I would also predict that when a shipper sees that 48' mark on it, they'll order it off their docks, if there to be loaded,. [ It is even too short to load large aircraft main wing sections in. ]
As Bucyrus and a couple of others said. a single arrowedge on the fron car of a train is not going to have that much effect on the aerodynamics of the train...Certainly, not over the length of a large number of container well cars. A solif train of 53' double stacks has a better set of dynamics than a train of 40' &45' double stacked overseas containers, on cars that have been lengthened to accept can length up to 53'. At a track speed the inter-car turbulance has got to be ferocious..
As Operationally, I would expect it would be a headache from the perspective of it have to be specifically oriented to the front of the tain to achieve maximum effectiveness.
It is an interesting discussion. I just wish there had been more details published in the UPR's Press Release.
This concept needs a clear explanation. From the patent, it looks as though it includes more than just a fairing for the lead container. It suggests that the gaps between all stacks of containers will have some type filler or fairing for the leading face of the containters. Or maybe, these are just variation on one fairing for the lead, upper container.
What I want to see is U.P. publishing engineering figures indicating the amount of drag reduction the fairing supplies to a train.
The patent simply speaks of "drag reduction." Certainly the concept will provide drag reduction. The pertinent question is: how much reduction? Just keeping the train clean will provide drag reduction as well as weight reduction, but is it worth it?
I want to see how many gallons of fuel U.P. will save with this device. Surely they have made that calculation. Why not tell us what it says?
Has it been wind tunnel tested?
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
MOD: Worked great on spine cars (two of the six , one aluminum and one fiberglass, wound up as signal dept. storage sheds at Mission Tower in LA)...The comment had to do with the curved edges on the front of the container. I'm betting Uncle Pete got the idea from the dorm transition cars behind the baggage cars from the El Cap passenger train bi-levels...
The UP project reminds me of the old Triumph TR7 "Shape of things to come" ad campaign of the 1970-80'shttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk1QaAH-r_o
"Positioned on top of the first freight container..."
Sounds to me like it's an empty module rather than one intended to carry freight. I can't imagine that it would make much difference when it's followed by a long string of double-high square containers with great gaps between them.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Just looking at it I'd be surprised if there really would be any benefit. Depending on whether it is single unit per stack or not.
Not to mention the reduced cargo it looks like it would hold...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Bucyrus says it exactly. The Newswire story does not make clear what one finds elsewhere, that there is to be a single one of these affairs atop the first (lower) container on the train. Perhaps a physics-trained person can estimate for us how far back on the train the aerodynamic benefit could be expected to extend.
BaltACD Pictures - all this verbage is spoiling the view of what is being discussed!
Pictures - all this verbage is spoiling the view of what is being discussed!
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/intermodal/up-arrowedge-technology-to-debut-this-month.html
How much difference will ONE of these make for a whole train with big gaps and flat leading surfaces between each set of stacks? One-percent? Point-one-percent?
It brings to mind reading all the aerodynamic hype on streamlined passenger trains of the 1930's.
Looks like a trailer that somebody stepped on. Maybe that's where the idea came from?
Wonder when they'll get any sort of payback from the cost of the thing (and lost revenue for that space)?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
mudchicken (1) How soon everybody forgets the original Santa Fe Fuel Foiler doublestack containers.
(1) How soon everybody forgets the original Santa Fe Fuel Foiler doublestack containers.
How quickly Santa Fe forgot about those A-stacks. All six of them. (OK, OK ... maybe it was seven... )
And really doublestacks only by courtesy (you would NOT stack them with anything more than a light load on the 'top' one).
Personally, I'm sorry the idea didn't catch on, as it would have been a reasonable approach ... single-stacked, that is ... to operating freight through the ex-PRR/NH/LIRR tunnels in New York...
As to the rear-of-the-trailer issue: isn't that why God invented the AirTab? ;-}
Deggesty What about the back end of the containers? If they are flat, there will still be turbulence there.
What about the back end of the containers? If they are flat, there will still be turbulence there.
(2) Trucking industry has already addressed the rear of the trailer issue (how you graft that rascal to a COFC sea-can and expect it to survive is open to discussion.)
Johnny
How much difference in wind drag would one of those make on a long train? It does not seem like it would be very much.
The TRAINSNewswire of this date carries a story about a new Double Stack Technology called
The Arrowedge FTA; "..OMAHA, Neb. – Union Pacific recently unveiled its Arrowedge intermodal technology to reduce wind drag on double stack container trains. The employee-designed, 48-foot Arrowedge container has a tapered body that allows air to more easily flow around the train's containers. This reduces fuel consumption and locomotive emissions. UP expects to introduce the technology on double stack trains between Joliet, Ill., and Long Beach, Calif., this month. ."The Arrowedge represents Union Pacific's focus on pioneering technology for operational and environmentally sustainable gains that ultimately result in enhanced customer service and community stewardship,.."
It is an interesting concept vehicle, but is it practical? It has a metal brace frame on the fore end of the trailer ( not sure how areodynamically clean this will make the design.)
It would seem to work if the container's small end was apways pointed towards the front end of the train (F) . That kind of a mass reorientation of the containers would consume time and energy at the loading point.
Currently, there are modest areodynamic features on semi-trailers on TOFC cars. Some trailers are nose to front of train, which optimized their areodynamic skirting, but there are an generally,equal numbers who are reverse oriented on their cars. Which would seem to negatively optimize the areodynamics of their skirting.
THe last sentences of the press release seem to lean to the feel good aspect of the design:
"...."The Arrowedge represents Union Pacific's focus on pioneering technology for operational and environmentally sustainable gains that ultimately result in enhanced customer service and community stewardship,.."
My question would seem to beg the question is this just a feel good move to satisfy some kind of touchy-feel good Government Program? Or do any of the other FORUM Members, particularly those still in the trucking side or intermodal rail side have any ideas on the potential success of failure of this idea/concept.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.