Back when I was maintaining a chemical inventory, I received shipments of drums (four/pallet) and cartons (27/pallet) on pallets (in 53 footers). The drums stayed on the pallets and were returned to the supplier when "empty." From time to time, a driver would ask if I could let him have so many pallets because his next load would need them (usually, it was potatoes), and I could give him some of those that had held bottles in the cartons. I never weighed any, but I do not recall that any pallet I handled weighed close to seventy-five pounds-even the heavy pallets that were used for transporting vacuum pumps did not weigh that much (2 inch boards and 4x6 runners)--I also handled sending vacuum pumps for repair.
Johnny
Chep or CPC (grocery) pallets weigh about 75 lbs. while 48X40 white wood stringer pallets come in at about 50 lbs. Some variance depending upon the moisture in the wood.
Mudchicken, all modes of transportation have always been heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. All the modern projects like the Crescent Corridor are heavily subsidized, and with rare exception, most railroads were built with funding provided by the government (taxpayer). The money eventually comes back to the taxpayer in the form of lower shipping cost and greater affordability of consumer goods at the store.
Ulrichand with rare exception, most railroads were built with funding provided by the government (taxpayer).
I've always been under the impression that railroads were mostly built with private money. Even the land grant railroads (whose government largesse has often been overstated) had private money involved. It's a bit of a stretch to link the fact that money provided by investors large and small came from folks who are also taxpayers, thus the railroads were largely funded by taxpayers.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I've read that the Great Northern was the one exception... all others were heavily subsidized in the form of land grants or some other very favorable subsidization mechanism. Not that there's anything wrong with that... the railroad subsidies provided a first rate transportation infratructure to our manufacturers. Today the various state, provincial and federal governments spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on railroad and highway subsidies.
UlrichI've read that the Great Northern was the one exception...
If one looks at a map of land grant railroads, you'll find only a few east of the Mississippi - Michigan and Illinois, as well as several southern states. Money kicked in by local municipalities in the early days (to ensure the railroad visited their town) notwithstanding, the eastern railroads were built with investor money, not tax dollars.
But today we're all feeding at the government trough..railroads and highways..
http://www.multimodalways.org/archives/rrs/RRresearch/RRresearch.html
Go this site. There is a pdf, that I couldn't link to directly, that has information including maps about railroad land grants.
Jeff
Ulrich Mudchicken, all modes of transportation have always been heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. All the modern projects like the Crescent Corridor are heavily subsidized, and with rare exception, most railroads were built with funding provided by the government (taxpayer). The money eventually comes back to the taxpayer in the form of lower shipping cost and greater affordability of consumer goods at the store.
I think Ulrich is partially correct about railways in the Canadian context. Most did indeed have government support during the construction phase.
Thereafter, though, the railways were on their own. Today's main lines bear little resemblance to the sketchy thread of rail that first linked communities. In a number of places even the alignment was rerouted to improve operation. The cost for these betterments was the sole responsibility of the railway.
That is the difference between road and rail. When the railway went for heavier cars, or higher speed, they paid for the necessary upgrades themselves. When did you see a trucking company or association offer to cover the cost of upgrading highway bridges for higher axle loads, or widening intersections so long trailers could make safe turns?
In modern times we are finally seeing some public funding for improvements but these are special cases, most often primarily benefiting passenger trains rather than freight. Saskatchewan is finally providing very modest help to short lines, once the government discovered the cost of repairing the local highways that were collapsing under the heavy grain trucks. (Even that "subsidy" was probably not much different than what the railways were paying in fuel and property tax!)
Indeed some projects like the Crescent Corridor do get a partial subsidy. Like Saskatchewan, it is a case of finally recognizing economics. A challenge exists, one solution will cost ten billion dollars while an alternate option will only cost you 500 million (arbitrary numbers). Of course an alternative is to tax the trucking industry so that ten billion dollars for highway expansion is covered by the users of the road. But we all recognize that would completely disrupt the existing transport economy and is unfeasible in any immediate future.
BNSF is adding lots of second main track to their northern transcon, and UP has also been doing the same. That is all using their own money. Public funding to aid capital projects is very much the exception.
John
The trucking industry associations have long claimed that if all fuel taxes, municipal taxes, ton mile, weight mile and federal excise taxes, road/bridge/tunnel tolls, vehicle registration fees, heavy vehicle use taxes, licensing fees, oversize permit fees, and various other taxes were applied to upgrading roadwork, the entire interstate highway system could be revamped every year. The industry does pay its fair share of taxes, but the allocation of those monies and accountability for spending it leaves alot to be desired.
Randy Vos
"Ever have one of those days where you couldn't hit the ground with your hat??" - Waylon Jennings
"May the Lord take a liking to you and blow you up, real good" - SCTV
That's right.. 60 ft. won't work in many/most jurisdictions.. not in CA and not in NYC certainly. But they're looking at it for specialized purposes in certain lanes. It will be like an eight axle trailer or trombone trailer... meant for special uses only. Personally I don't think the cost savings will amount to that much once all of the indirect costs are factored in like driver training, more accidents, etc but who knows..maybe the gurus at Canadian Tire see something in this that others don't.
The 60' Trailers can only be used on highways and on entrance roads next to highways.
Even the 53' trailers are very close to hitting objects on the sides of streets when they make turns in villages and cities with roads built for the operation of only 40' long trailers.
The 53' Containers have a tight clearance on the top of the 40' and 48' well cars.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
I've been noticing some trailers with the new tail spoiler/aerdynamic wing things on the rear. Besides wondering if they'll ever be a cost benefit to them (esp. with the pictuers I've seen of them smashed up against the loading dock when the driver forgot to fold them in), doesn't that make the trailer longer? Or is there some sort of loophole?
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
Yes the verdict on trailer tails is still out. Under ideal conditions they probably do provide some benefit but in real world conditions not so much. For example, we've found that when they accumulate slush or ice under normal winter driving conditions, the tails actually produce more drag than fuel saving benefit as the fuel savings are very much tied to maintaining a smooth airflow. The other factors of course are the up front cost to purchase and install the tails as well as ongoing repairs and maintenance. The most effective way to cut fuel cost is to drive slower. All the other things added together won't add up to the savings one gets by simply reducing speed from 65 to 55.
This discussion reminds me (speaking of streamlining):
We haven't heard a report in some time on UP's experiment with its aerodynamic lead car -- forget the name -- for doublestackers. Seemed like a dumb idea to me (no physicist) whose benefit would reach back about two well cars.
Yeah, I remember seeing that a few issues ago... didn't seem like a great idea to me, but I'm no physicist either. The energy and effort required in placing that aeordynamic lead car would probably eat up any savings in fuel.
That wasn't you, was it Randy?
I never had to worry about such when I was unloading 53 footers--both docks on which I received such were open--and one had no roof even. The only thing a driver had to worry about was the close clearance between a dumpster that was right by the plate for that dock. I appreciated, greatly, those who could spot their rig just right without my having to direct them--some who were waiting for me, in the driveway, when I arrived in the morning were ready for me before I had to time get to my desk after telling security to let them in and then get out to the dock. There was a hydrant out in the yard that had posts around it to protect it from impacts; it gave very few drivers a problem.
dakotafred This discussion reminds me (speaking of streamlining): We haven't heard a report in some time on UP's experiment with its aerodynamic lead car -- forget the name -- for doublestackers. Seemed like a dumb idea to me (no physicist) whose benefit would reach back about two well cars.
Isn't this the "Arrowedge" that's being discussed simultaneously in a couple other threads?
I think you are correct in your opinion.
Think of a train of double-stacks with all 60-foot containers on top. Even better, longer ones--long enough to be very close to each other. Then, put an arrowedge on the front and maybe the rear. Also, longer ones for the coupled well cars as opposed to the drawbar connected ones, and assymmetrical ones for the ends of the multipacks. A streamliner!
OK, I've wasted enough time.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Paul of Covington Think of a train of double-stacks with all 60-foot containers on top. Even better, longer ones--long enough to be very close to each other. Then, put an arrowedge on the front and maybe the rear. Also, longer ones for the coupled well cars as opposed to the drawbar connected ones, and assymmetrical ones for the ends of the multipacks. A streamliner! OK, I've wasted enough time.
Deggesty Paul, are you thinking of having something like the wide diaphragms that were on some of the passenger cars built in the early fifties? They were supposed to make for a comparatively smooth surface all along the train, and they could give or take, to a certain extent, as the train went around curves
Paul, are you thinking of having something like the wide diaphragms that were on some of the passenger cars built in the early fifties? They were supposed to make for a comparatively smooth surface all along the train, and they could give or take, to a certain extent, as the train went around curves
My "recollection" was that the full width diaphragms were done in the mid-1930's at the beginning of the streamline era and were pretty out of favor by the early fifties. I do wonder if a similar eature would help with the stack cars.
Johnny, diaphragms did occur to me, by I didn't think the added bother would be practical. Of course, all those oversized and different sized containers of very limited use off the train aren't very practial either. Just musing.
60 foot trailers will work if you install giant caster wheels in all corners.. Or else perfect UFO type levitation technologies. In the late 60s a friend of mine Norman Colander designed and patented a suspension system for semi trailers. The system included having the rearmost axle pivoting to steer. There was a long tie rod that attached to the tractor. Their trailer was taken on the road for testing. One of the major tire companies was involved in the tire wear testing. They signed a contract with one of the large semi trailer manufacturers up in Canada. A result came back to them that tire wear on the trailer was down by double digits. Soon after those results came in the company in Canada that was going to manufacture the trailers cancelled the contract and no trailers of my friends design were commercially manufactured.
If it were me all semi trailers would have all of the trailers wheels steering so they can negotiate city intersections better.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Similarly, have you ridden typical articulated buses? Jerusalem is full of them, and also full of sharp turns and intersections where routes turn. I find it interesting how the drivers always swing wide to avoid the rear of the bus hitting parked cars or going up on the sidewalk or even hitting a building. Sometimes they have to wait for a break in opposing traffic to swing wide enough. And now most drivers, not all, behave the same way with the normal 40-ft two-axle buses so that they won't have to remember which kind of bus they are driving. Does anyone make articulated buses with steering rear axles that can minize this problem?
The design you posted was mechanical, but I would imagine today it would be ekectrical with a type of computer control.
I recall that the first batch of articulated buses in Chicago used the center axle as the drive axle and the rear axle was either castered or linked to the steering gear, I don't know which.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.