Norm48327 Johnny, I saw a similar ship in Newport, Rhode Island. It is used to transport yachts and is also open on the stern.
Johnny,
I saw a similar ship in Newport, Rhode Island. It is used to transport yachts and is also open on the stern.
The Dockwise ship is of quite a different design than the rail ferry: the heavy lift ship has ballast tanks that allow the lower hull to submerge like a drydock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ot5tzEHKktU
That video was shot of off Newport BTW..
The rail ferry is an open stern vessel without a lot of freeboard like most "Roll on-Roll off" ferry designs...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Norm48327 Leo, One thing I noticed in the video was that they have some sort of mechanism to secure the cars and not have to rely on brakes. They's likely have to rip out part of the ship to go overboard.
Leo,
One thing I noticed in the video was that they have some sort of mechanism to secure the cars and not have to rely on brakes. They's likely have to rip out part of the ship to go overboard.
Great Lakes carferries did as well, as mentioned. But in a bad storm, it's not unheard of for even secured cargo to break loose.
Just loose bulk cargo in the holds of a bulk carrier, like iron ore, can shift in severe wave action and create a dangerous list.
Murphy Siding Lack of any key product needing shipping that is time sensitive enough to preclude using what must be a lot cheaper ocean going boats?
Lack of any key product needing shipping that is time sensitive enough to preclude using what must be a lot cheaper ocean going boats?
Considering the cruising speed of a modern containership versus rail speed on a far more circuitous route beset by mountain grades (and a myriad of stops for customs inspection/shakedowns) my choice for time-sensitive cargo would be ship, not train.
For that matter, there's no reason that a rail -RORO ship can't be engined for 24 knot speed. The total diesel consumption for the NY - BA run would almost certainly be less than that of a train hauled by current locomotives for the same distance, and there are no mountain ranges or swamps in the open Atlantic.
Chuck (Ex engine cadet who aced naval architecture)
Leo_Ames Just loose bulk cargo in the holds of a bulk carrier, like iron ore, can shift in severe wave action and create a dangerous list.
Leo_Ames MidlandMike In the early days of Great Lakes car ferries, one was sunk by following seas. After that they were fitted with a sea-gate If you're talking about the SS Milwaukee, she had a sea gate not unlike what much more modern vessels had. But freight cars apparently broke free and crashed through it in the rough seas.
MidlandMike In the early days of Great Lakes car ferries, one was sunk by following seas. After that they were fitted with a sea-gate
In the early days of Great Lakes car ferries, one was sunk by following seas. After that they were fitted with a sea-gate
If you're talking about the SS Milwaukee, she had a sea gate not unlike what much more modern vessels had. But freight cars apparently broke free and crashed through it in the rough seas.
I re-read the car ferry chapter from the book Where Rails Meet the Sea. On p76 it talks about early AA ferry design with the open stern that was susepible to following seas, but did not give an example. On p80 they talk about the SS Milwaukee, and that the sea gate got bent and was taking on water fast. (could the sea gate have got bent when a rail car rolled onto it?). I guess I conflated the two stories.
blue streak 1 Leo_Ames Just loose bulk cargo in the holds of a bulk carrier, like iron ore, can shift in severe wave action and create a dangerous list. Edmond Fitzgerald ?
Something coming loose could've played a role. But I doubt her load of taconite caused any troubles since she never reported a list and was in regular radio contact before she disappeared.
Some speculate that something like cargo off another ship that was floating in the heavy seas came aboard and caused hatch damage, causing her to start taking on water.
I've also seen it speculated that a spare propeller blade stored on the fantail might've came loose in the storm and been responsible for the broken fence railing that the Fitzgerald's captain, Ernest Sorely, reported to the captain of the Arthur M. Anderson which had been accompanying her 10-15 miles back the whole trip.
But most figure this happened since she probably was hogging as she took on water after likely bottoming out on a shoal that wasn't marked on the maps that the Fitzgerald had. This created pressure in the midsection as the ship was weighed down at the bow and stern, causing the railing failure. She gradually lost buoyancy to such a degree that she couldn't recover from rogue waves (Three of which the Anderson went through in short succession) and took a nose dive.
tomikawaTT Murphy Siding Lack of any key product needing shipping that is time sensitive enough to preclude using what must be a lot cheaper ocean going boats? Considering the cruising speed of a modern containership versus rail speed on a far more circuitous route beset by mountain grades (and a myriad of stops for customs inspection/shakedowns) my choice for time-sensitive cargo would be ship, not train. For that matter, there's no reason that a rail -RORO ship can't be engined for 24 knot speed. The total diesel consumption for the NY - BA run would almost certainly be less than that of a train hauled by current locomotives for the same distance, and there are no mountain rangess or swamps in the open Atlantic. Chuck (Ex engine cadet who aced naval architecture)
For that matter, there's no reason that a rail -RORO ship can't be engined for 24 knot speed. The total diesel consumption for the NY - BA run would almost certainly be less than that of a train hauled by current locomotives for the same distance, and there are no mountain rangess or swamps in the open Atlantic.
New York to Baltimore (or Boston)?
I've seen some online discussion & proposals for the reintroduction of short sea shipping along the East Coast using smaller container vessels and RO-RO truck ferries (the latter generally hauling trailers only sans tractors).
I don't see how an Alaska style railcar barge/ferry system would offer any additional benefit in those service lanes. After all loose car railroading is all about heavier,bulkier loads which are not as time sensitive as intermodal. In addition a shipper would be paying to move a lot of Tare weight (i.e the mass of the railcars).
The current rail ferry/car float operations in North America tend to be to "You can't get there from here (by rail anyway)" destinations and that seems to be where the concept makes economic sense..
carnej1 tomikawaTT For that matter, there's no reason that a rail -RORO ship can't be engined for 24 knot speed. The total diesel consumption for the NY - BA run would almost certainly be less than that of a train hauled by current locomotives for the same distance, and there are no mountain rangess or swamps in the open Atlantic. Chuck (Ex engine cadet who aced naval architecture) New York to Baltimore (or Boston)? I've seen some online discussion & proposals for the reintroduction of short sea shipping along the East Coast using smaller container vessels and RO-RO truck ferries (the latter generally hauling trailers only sans tractors). I don't see how an Alaska style railcar barge/ferry system would offer any additional benefit in those service lanes. After all loose car railroading is all about heavier,bulkier loads which are not as time sensitive as intermodal. In addition a shipper would be paying to move a lot of Tare weight (i.e the mass of the railcars). The current rail ferry/car float operations in North America tend to be to "You can't get there from here (by rail anyway)" destinations and that seems to be where the concept makes economic sense..
tomikawaTT
Not domestic. BA = Buenos Aires. After all, the topic is a rail connection between North America and South America.
Note the term Roll On - Roll Off (RORO) means an operation akin to that of a Great Lakes car ferry, not the Alaska Railway barge.
Chuck
tomikawaTT carnej1 tomikawaTT For that matter, there's no reason that a rail -RORO ship can't be engined for 24 knot speed. The total diesel consumption for the NY - BA run would almost certainly be less than that of a train hauled by current locomotives for the same distance, and there are no mountain rangess or swamps in the open Atlantic. Chuck (Ex engine cadet who aced naval architecture) New York to Baltimore (or Boston)? I've seen some online discussion & proposals for the reintroduction of short sea shipping along the East Coast using smaller container vessels and RO-RO truck ferries (the latter generally hauling trailers only sans tractors). I don't see how an Alaska style railcar barge/ferry system would offer any additional benefit in those service lanes. After all loose car railroading is all about heavier,bulkier loads which are not as time sensitive as intermodal. In addition a shipper would be paying to move a lot of Tare weight (i.e the mass of the railcars). The current rail ferry/car float operations in North America tend to be to "You can't get there from here (by rail anyway)" destinations and that seems to be where the concept makes economic sense.. Not domestic. BA = Buenos Aires. After all, the topic is a rail connection between North America and South America. Note the term Roll On - Roll Off (RORO) means an operation akin to that of a Great Lakes car ferry, not the Alaska Railway barge. Chuck
I'm not sure a roro car ferry would work into Buenos Aires. Isn't there a gauge break?
Modeling the Pennsylvania Railroad in N Scale.
www.prr-nscale.blogspot.com
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.