greyhounds IslandMan Circus loading is like trying to load a subway train by permitting passengers to use only one set of doors at one end of the train. The longer the train, the slower loading/unloading becomes. Since economy of scale is rail's big selling point, this is a serious disadvantage. Ideally, it would be best if at TOFC loading points, many trailers could be loaded or unloaded simultaneously (just as on a normal subway train, many passengers can get on or off the train quickly). It would be possible to load a long TOFC train quickly by using many cranes/gantries simultaneously, but the capital cost of each loading point would be horrendous. There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/ The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies. Nope. Keep those damn expensive Tinker Toys in Europe. All you basically need is: 1) Some space around a track with some white rock dumped on it 2) A driver who knows what he/she is doing 3) Some ramps 4) Flatcars Anything more than that for a smaller market intermodal terminal is a waste of money. You do not have to back the length of a whole train with the tractor. You can break the train (or more likely the set out/pick up) between cars and move portable ramps into position. Then you can load/unload very quckly. This isn't rocket science and it doesn't benefit from expensive Tinker Toys.
IslandMan Circus loading is like trying to load a subway train by permitting passengers to use only one set of doors at one end of the train. The longer the train, the slower loading/unloading becomes. Since economy of scale is rail's big selling point, this is a serious disadvantage. Ideally, it would be best if at TOFC loading points, many trailers could be loaded or unloaded simultaneously (just as on a normal subway train, many passengers can get on or off the train quickly). It would be possible to load a long TOFC train quickly by using many cranes/gantries simultaneously, but the capital cost of each loading point would be horrendous. There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/ The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies.
Nope.
Keep those damn expensive Tinker Toys in Europe.
All you basically need is:
1) Some space around a track with some white rock dumped on it
2) A driver who knows what he/she is doing
3) Some ramps
4) Flatcars
Anything more than that for a smaller market intermodal terminal is a waste of money. You do not have to back the length of a whole train with the tractor. You can break the train (or more likely the set out/pick up) between cars and move portable ramps into position. Then you can load/unload very quckly.
This isn't rocket science and it doesn't benefit from expensive Tinker Toys.
Better tell the CEOs of the companies developing and manufacturing CargoBeamer and Modalohr that their 'Tinker Toys' have no USP before they spend any more money!
IslandManCircus loading is like trying to load a subway train by permitting passengers to use only one set of doors at one end of the train. The longer the train, the slower loading/unloading becomes. Since economy of scale is rail's big selling point, this is a serious disadvantage. Ideally, it would be best if at TOFC loading points, many trailers could be loaded or unloaded simultaneously (just as on a normal subway train, many passengers can get on or off the train quickly). It would be possible to load a long TOFC train quickly by using many cranes/gantries simultaneously, but the capital cost of each loading point would be horrendous. There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/ The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies.
IslandManThere have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/ The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies.
Something that I noticed with these systems is that for a large operation you need tracks 3 times the train length to load/unload. You have the length of the platform, then you need one vehicle length of open space between the platform and the bogies to get the inbound truck off and one vehicle length of open space between the platform and the bogies to get ithe outbound truck on. That would probably limit the application to smaller ramps.
Other questions would be reliability of 3 vs 1 air joints and mechanical connections per platform/car vs. conventional equipment.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Murphy SidingMathmaticaly, yes that is true. It's a comparion of stress that's being pointed out. Let's say both a rail car and a roadrailer car receive the same amount of stress from something like slack action. If the roadrailer weighs less thab a rail car (it does), it is stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight than the rail car. Bottom line- same stresses are applied, roadrailers, not being built as heavy as rail cars suffer proportionaly higher from those stresses.
Probably so if resistance to stress is simply a function of weight of the object in question. A materials science person or mechanical engineer would know. I still think corrosion from salt is a much bigger problem. Autos and pick ups in the North (especially around metro areas) last far less long than those in the South and on the west coast and that has nothing to do with stresses applied.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm BaltACD schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them. Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train? The slack action generated when being handled at the rear of a conventional train or in a train of up 150 road railers is signifigantly greater than anything highway vehicles area ever subjected to. Stresses over time in RR service are way higher than in highway service. Additionally whatever vertical stresses that are applied when in rail serivce are not attenuated by the highway suspension system. The slack action stress the Roadrailers would receive would be no more than what any ordinary railcar would receive in the same location. Obviously they received more stress than trailers in highway service. However, you claimed they were "stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are."
BaltACD schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them. Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train? The slack action generated when being handled at the rear of a conventional train or in a train of up 150 road railers is signifigantly greater than anything highway vehicles area ever subjected to. Stresses over time in RR service are way higher than in highway service. Additionally whatever vertical stresses that are applied when in rail serivce are not attenuated by the highway suspension system.
schlimm Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them. Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train?
schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them.
schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt.
BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span.
Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt.
It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them.
Maybe this I am wrong, but weren't they usually coupled at the rear of a train when mixed with other equipment? Or run as an entire, separate train?
The slack action generated when being handled at the rear of a conventional train or in a train of up 150 road railers is signifigantly greater than anything highway vehicles area ever subjected to. Stresses over time in RR service are way higher than in highway service. Additionally whatever vertical stresses that are applied when in rail serivce are not attenuated by the highway suspension system.
The slack action stress the Roadrailers would receive would be no more than what any ordinary railcar would receive in the same location. Obviously they received more stress than trailers in highway service. However, you claimed they were "stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are."
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
You win - they will last forever! They experience less strees in the rail world than they do on the highway.
Representitive trailer - TCSZ 364200 built in 2000 and Gross Vehicle Weight 65000 pounds - Tare Weight 15200 pounds - Allowable load 49800 pounds
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NorthWest IslandMan There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html Fascinating system, but it also appears to have significant capital cost and weather issues. Speed is impressive, though.
IslandMan There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html
Fascinating system, but it also appears to have significant capital cost and weather issues. Speed is impressive, though.
Looks like a high cost solution in search of a low cost problem!
IslandManThere have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr: http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html
Convicted One BaltACD Conventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies. Got any hard data to qualify and back that up? It's a logical assumption, but I'm guessing that is all that it is.
BaltACD Conventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies.
Got any hard data to qualify and back that up? It's a logical assumption, but I'm guessing that is all that it is.
Murphy Siding schlimm BaltACD FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span. Given that RRs are lighter than conventional railcars, not so sure about that. Perhaps the shorter lifespans of truck trailers is more a function of heavy corrosion from salt. It seems logical to me. The roadrailers would receive that extra stress from the railroad equipment coupled to them.
TOFC requires either (i) the loading of trains using gantries or cranes; or (ii) circus loading where the trailers are driven along the train to the next vacant place on a flat car.
Circus loading is like trying to load a subway train by permitting passengers to use only one set of doors at one end of the train. The longer the train, the slower loading/unloading becomes. Since economy of scale is rail's big selling point, this is a serious disadvantage.
Ideally, it would be best if at TOFC loading points, many trailers could be loaded or unloaded simultaneously (just as on a normal subway train, many passengers can get on or off the train quickly). It would be possible to load a long TOFC train quickly by using many cranes/gantries simultaneously, but the capital cost of each loading point would be horrendous.
There have been a few recent intermodal innovations in Europe which might point the way forward, for example CargoBeamer and Modalohr:
http://www.cargobeamer.eu/How-it-works-849768.html
http://lohr.fr/lohr-railway-system-en/
The key advantage of the systems above is quick turnaround times at terminals. Train length does not impact on loading times, capital cost at loading points is low and the road trailers do not need to be adapted or specialised in any way. Dwell time for both trucks and trains is low, benefitting both railroads and trucking companies.
BaltACDFRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span.
FRA railcar life rules - haven't seen many 40 year old highway trailers still rolling down the highways (and I hope I am never in their way). Then apply railroad train handling stresses to trailers and ..... Roadrailers are stressed harder per pound of vehicle weight in their railroad use than rail cars are and pay the price in their life span.
BaltACDConventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies.
Couple articles in the Wall Street Journal in the past 2 -3 days about automating contianer handling at the ports. Labor issues at most, but Long Beach is trying it.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/massive-robots-keep-docks-shipshape-1459104327
Ports introduce automated cargo handling, as free-trade pacts drive flood of goods
http://www.wsj.com/articles/automated-cargo-handling-glides-into-ports-1459104026
Container terminals seek lower labor costs, productivity improvements of up to 30%
http://www.wsj.com/articles/supersize-ships-prompt-more-automation-at-ports-1459202549
Southern California is the destination of choice for large container ships
- Paul North.
Those Viking ships with the large brakets where built to last forever. Flatcars have a unlimted lifespan
Convicted One zugmann When those trailers/bogies hit the end of life, it'll be interesting to see if they buy more. Just in contemplation of the "the fleet's all worn out" theory, I still see a lot of conventional equipment riding down the rails with "Southern Pacific" painted on the side of it, and I know that triple crown replaced all of it's 40' trailers with 53' units well after the Southern Pacific existed as a seperate and disctinct entity.
zugmann When those trailers/bogies hit the end of life, it'll be interesting to see if they buy more.
Just in contemplation of the "the fleet's all worn out" theory, I still see a lot of conventional equipment riding down the rails with "Southern Pacific" painted on the side of it, and I know that triple crown replaced all of it's 40' trailers with 53' units well after the Southern Pacific existed as a seperate and disctinct entity.
Conventional rail equipment and triple crown roadrailers have different life expectancies.
CSSHEGEWISCHUnless there is still a fair amount of TOFC equipment in service with full decks and bridge plates, circus loading and unloading would be out of the question since what was once standard would now be specialized equipment.
I believe we can add full decks and bridge plates to some existing spine cars and hold them in captive service. It should not be a major expense.
Don't get stopped by a problem, find a solution.
It doesn't take much ground space, though.
Johnny
wanswheelIntermodal helicopter
Very high cost container crane.
Intermodal helicopter
Unless there is still a fair amount of TOFC equipment in service with full decks and bridge plates, circus loading and unloading would be out of the question since what was once standard would now be specialized equipment.
A lot of talk about moving IM between Chicago and Omaha/Council Bluffs.
I don't know about BNSF, but all UP's IM business out of Omaha/Council Bluffs is to/from western points. IAIS (UP uses their ramp facilities in Council Bluffs) does handle IM business between there and Blue Island.
Once in a great while, a UP eastbound IM train will pick up at Council Bluffs. I think though it's usually cars that were accidently set out (the conductor didn't read his train list to see his CB cars were behind some through ones) rather than IM originating there for the Chicago area terminals.
Jeff
greyhoundsAs has been pointed out, there are westbound loads available to produce revenue in both directions. But there are going to be some empty miles. There isn't a transportation company in the world that doesn't have to move empty equipment around. The goal is to minimize empty, non revenue miles, but you cannot eliminate them. One final throught, I suspect that one reason intermodal service to/from Iowa isn't on CN's radar is because the line cannot clear domestic double stacks. Well, double stacks are wonderfully efficient, but when they cannot be used it's time to find another way. Don't just give up and let the truckers have the business.
And how can anyone object to that? What a refreshing change from the usual excuses one hears. Too bad you cannot go back a shake up IC's workings.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.