I am replying to bring this thread back into view alongside a more recent inquiry into Iron Highway
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
BaltACDIn view of current operations, it is amazing how labor intensive intermodal was 'back in the day'.
But note also some of the attempts then being made to reduce that cost: the idea of fixed deck hitches and the short 'cut' of the underfloor hydraulic device to engage bogie rims being two good examples. Note also the rather amazing poor ride in some of the on-train shots, something that may have necessitated more than a little of the required tie-down on inherently bouncy pneumatic tires and road suspension. That is one great inherent advantage of articulated lightweight platforms over 86' flats trucked at their effective quarter points, running on modern track under an operating model that stresses time precision at lower peak or even relatively low average road speed.
RMEAs a couple of reminders of the 'state of the art' before the advent of sideloaders and then HPIT, here are a couple of videos with interesting technical details: (skip over the hokey introduction in the first three minutes or so) These are relevant to the present discussion because they are pure 'circus'-type operation, using fixed and reasonably optimized terminal facilities, and I think it is highly interesting to consider (and perhaps discuss) what the Expressway service currently provides in comparison with some of the details from the early 'dedicated' TOFC services. (Note that this is a separate discussion from those involving regulatory restriction on intermodal competitiveness.)
(skip over the hokey introduction in the first three minutes or so)
These are relevant to the present discussion because they are pure 'circus'-type operation, using fixed and reasonably optimized terminal facilities, and I think it is highly interesting to consider (and perhaps discuss) what the Expressway service currently provides in comparison with some of the details from the early 'dedicated' TOFC services. (Note that this is a separate discussion from those involving regulatory restriction on intermodal competitiveness.)
In view of current operations, it is amazing how labor intensive intermodal was 'back in the day'.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Canadian Pacific Railway
Trenton Division
Piggyback Trains
R.L.Kennedy
MLW F1 4001 & 4401 Spanner April-May 1960
The above double cover photograph was likely taken much earlier than the April-May 1960 issue of Spanner since long before this (see below) the newest diesels were being assigned to the Pig trains. 928-929 the "Big Pig" was using four RS-18's to maintain a high speed and overcome the high wind resistance of these trains.
Howard Fogg painting of a similar scene 8742-8743 at Christie Lake 1957 Montreal Locomotive Works Collection
CPR publicity photograph shows piggyback train on scenic Mud Lake bridge, (running here as an "extra" in daylight for the photographer Nick Morant!)with the newest diesels, MLW RS-18's 8746 and 8756.
As a couple of reminders of the 'state of the art' before the advent of sideloaders and then HPIT, here are a couple of videos with interesting technical details:
IslandMan1/ There is only one "A" company (to use my terminology, previous entries), Network Rail. There is therefore no yardstick by which to compare track access charges and no means of effectively challenging this monopoly;
It should be mentioned that Network Rail is non-profit "public sector company" or "government body" in British parlance, quasi-government (like Amtrak) to us. It took over the disastrous private company, Railtrack in 2002.
EWS was taken over by DB's freight division and is now called DB Cargo UK.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm SD70M-2Dude BaltACD Paul_D_North_Jr "+1" to tree68's "open access" point (I was just about to post the same comment). Otherwise, in the last half-dozen or so posts, you guys are 'channeling' John Kneiling's many columns and articles. John would be flattered - and then annoyed that it's been this long and still the problem hasn't been resolved ! - PDN. Nor will it as long as human nature is part of the decision making process. Hasn't Britian tried the separte track and operator model - with a resounding lack of success. Australia's been a bit better with a similar model. But with this type of setup there will always be the problem of operators trying to undercut one another which leads to worn out, fly-by-night outfits that don't maintain their rolling stock or buy new stuff. Look at the antiques that are still running down under. And because the entity which controls the track is not the same one that serves the customers they risk becoming indifferent to real problems, and strategic planning can suffer or become inefficient due to lack of communication and understanding between the track owner and train operators. The model is not necessarily flawed. It seems to work OK in many countries. Even in the UK, it is working ok now, AFAIK.
SD70M-2Dude BaltACD Paul_D_North_Jr "+1" to tree68's "open access" point (I was just about to post the same comment). Otherwise, in the last half-dozen or so posts, you guys are 'channeling' John Kneiling's many columns and articles. John would be flattered - and then annoyed that it's been this long and still the problem hasn't been resolved ! - PDN. Nor will it as long as human nature is part of the decision making process. Hasn't Britian tried the separte track and operator model - with a resounding lack of success. Australia's been a bit better with a similar model. But with this type of setup there will always be the problem of operators trying to undercut one another which leads to worn out, fly-by-night outfits that don't maintain their rolling stock or buy new stuff. Look at the antiques that are still running down under. And because the entity which controls the track is not the same one that serves the customers they risk becoming indifferent to real problems, and strategic planning can suffer or become inefficient due to lack of communication and understanding between the track owner and train operators.
BaltACD Paul_D_North_Jr "+1" to tree68's "open access" point (I was just about to post the same comment). Otherwise, in the last half-dozen or so posts, you guys are 'channeling' John Kneiling's many columns and articles. John would be flattered - and then annoyed that it's been this long and still the problem hasn't been resolved ! - PDN. Nor will it as long as human nature is part of the decision making process. Hasn't Britian tried the separte track and operator model - with a resounding lack of success.
Paul_D_North_Jr "+1" to tree68's "open access" point (I was just about to post the same comment). Otherwise, in the last half-dozen or so posts, you guys are 'channeling' John Kneiling's many columns and articles. John would be flattered - and then annoyed that it's been this long and still the problem hasn't been resolved ! - PDN.
Otherwise, in the last half-dozen or so posts, you guys are 'channeling' John Kneiling's many columns and articles. John would be flattered - and then annoyed that it's been this long and still the problem hasn't been resolved !
- PDN.
Nor will it as long as human nature is part of the decision making process. Hasn't Britian tried the separte track and operator model - with a resounding lack of success.
Australia's been a bit better with a similar model.
But with this type of setup there will always be the problem of operators trying to undercut one another which leads to worn out, fly-by-night outfits that don't maintain their rolling stock or buy new stuff. Look at the antiques that are still running down under.
And because the entity which controls the track is not the same one that serves the customers they risk becoming indifferent to real problems, and strategic planning can suffer or become inefficient due to lack of communication and understanding between the track owner and train operators.
The model is not necessarily flawed. It seems to work OK in many countries. Even in the UK, it is working ok now, AFAIK.
There are a number of things to note about the British situation:
1/ There is only one "A" company (to use my terminology, previous entries), Network Rail. There is therefore no yardstick by which to compare track access charges and no means of effectively challenging this monopoly;
2/ Passenger services are franchised out to operating companies for a fixed period. Franchises are confined to specified areas, which in practice means that there are local monopolies for as long as the franchise is in operation;
3/ Freight however is organised differently. Rail freight companies have access to all of the network. They do not work within the constraints of a franchise period. Rail freight companies can therefore compete freely with each other to win business;
4/ When rail freight was privatised most went to Ed Burkhardt's English Welsh and Scottish Railway. Freightliner (intermodal movement of containers) was bought out by management (both EWS and Freightliner have since changed hands). A small, specialist part of the total, dealing with the movement of nuclear materials, went to Direct Rail Services;
5/ Since privatisation the original three freight companies have grown to seven and of the original three, both Freightliner and Direct Rail Services have moved into new areas of rail freight;
6/ Rail freight in Britain has constraints unknown in North America. First, the country isn't big enough for long-distance freight! Most of Britain's population is contained in a triangle about 500 miles long by 300 miles wide at the base. Secondly, the very restrictive British loading gauge rules out (i) TOFC; (ii) double-stack container trains; (iii) free access of European-sized freight wagons to all of the network. Lastly, that former staple of rail freight traffic, coal, has collapsed to a far greater degree in Britain than it has in North America.
The British model for rail freight is probably successful *in the circumstances*.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Paul_D_North_Jr"+1" to tree68's "open access" point (I was just about to post the same comment). Otherwise, in the last half-dozen or so posts, you guys are 'channeling' John Kneiling's many columns and articles. John would be flattered - and then annoyed that it's been this long and still the problem hasn't been resolved ! - PDN.
"+1" to tree68's "open access" point (I was just about to post the same comment).
IslandManPerhaps the answer is to divide each Class I company into two parts, one part (A) owning the tracks and making its profits by maximising the number of cars operated over its system; the other part (B) making its profits by selling transportation, making up trains and moving them. (A) would have (B) as its customer, charging so much per car-mile (or other suitable measure).
Essentially a first step toward open access.
Excuse me while I go dig out my asbestos underwear....
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...
samfp1943 greyhounds schlimm "UPS is the 2X4!!" That's just what David DeBoer said in his 1992 book: "Piggyback and Containers." He has a chapter on UPS and its influence on intermodal. It's a great chapter in a great book. His premise is that railroads need some form of imposed operating discipline or they will develop what he calls the "railroad operating blahs". He says that in the past this discipline came from the need to keep passenger services on time. The result spilled over to freight services. When the passengers left the trains something else was needed to impose the discipline. That something was UPS. "Everyone on the railroads from the top down knew the 'UPS trains' and the commitments that were attached to them. The fact that in some cases only ten percent of the traffic on a 'UPS train" was actual UPS traffic testifies to the drawing power of running a consistant, properly scheduled service." page 101. He also likens rail intermodal service to the restaurant business where "You're only as good as your last meal". The restaurant has to consistantly produce high quality or it will fail. The railroad is only as good as its last delivery. Like a restaurant, a railroad has to consistantly produce high quality. UPS helps the railroads do that to the extent DeBore calls its influence "unprecedented". A couple of really good, salient points! Seems like something that would be very relevant in the discussions regarding E. Hunter Harrison and his "philosophies" of 'his concepts of 'Railroading 101'. Certainly, watching the streams of BNSF containers and their stacks flow through here, BNSF seems to have learned those 'lessons' well.
greyhounds schlimm "UPS is the 2X4!!" That's just what David DeBoer said in his 1992 book: "Piggyback and Containers." He has a chapter on UPS and its influence on intermodal. It's a great chapter in a great book. His premise is that railroads need some form of imposed operating discipline or they will develop what he calls the "railroad operating blahs". He says that in the past this discipline came from the need to keep passenger services on time. The result spilled over to freight services. When the passengers left the trains something else was needed to impose the discipline. That something was UPS. "Everyone on the railroads from the top down knew the 'UPS trains' and the commitments that were attached to them. The fact that in some cases only ten percent of the traffic on a 'UPS train" was actual UPS traffic testifies to the drawing power of running a consistant, properly scheduled service." page 101. He also likens rail intermodal service to the restaurant business where "You're only as good as your last meal". The restaurant has to consistantly produce high quality or it will fail. The railroad is only as good as its last delivery. Like a restaurant, a railroad has to consistantly produce high quality. UPS helps the railroads do that to the extent DeBore calls its influence "unprecedented".
schlimm "UPS is the 2X4!!"
That's just what David DeBoer said in his 1992 book: "Piggyback and Containers." He has a chapter on UPS and its influence on intermodal.
It's a great chapter in a great book. His premise is that railroads need some form of imposed operating discipline or they will develop what he calls the "railroad operating blahs". He says that in the past this discipline came from the need to keep passenger services on time. The result spilled over to freight services.
When the passengers left the trains something else was needed to impose the discipline. That something was UPS.
"Everyone on the railroads from the top down knew the 'UPS trains' and the commitments that were attached to them. The fact that in some cases only ten percent of the traffic on a 'UPS train" was actual UPS traffic testifies to the drawing power of running a consistant, properly scheduled service." page 101.
He also likens rail intermodal service to the restaurant business where "You're only as good as your last meal". The restaurant has to consistantly produce high quality or it will fail. The railroad is only as good as its last delivery. Like a restaurant, a railroad has to consistantly produce high quality. UPS helps the railroads do that to the extent DeBore calls its influence "unprecedented".
A couple of really good, salient points! Seems like something that would be very relevant in the discussions regarding E. Hunter Harrison and his "philosophies" of 'his concepts of 'Railroading 101'. Certainly, watching the streams of BNSF containers and their stacks flow through here, BNSF seems to have learned those 'lessons' well.
Perhaps the answer is to divide each Class I company into two parts, one part (A) owning the tracks and making its profits by maximising the number of cars operated over its system; the other part (B) making its profits by selling transportation, making up trains and moving them. (A) would have (B) as its customer, charging so much per car-mile (or other suitable measure).
(A) and (B) would be separate companies, with their own managements and separate listings on the stock market. There would be no reason for (A) to be loyal to (B) and vice-versa. (A)'s interests would be in having the best "B" possible; (B)'s interests would be best served by having an "A" with suitably-maintained track and resonable rates for allowing trains over their system. It is entirely possibly that some former departments of Class I's, as separate "B" companies, would go out of business whilst others expand beyond their former physical territory, and for new startups to establish themselves.
It should be possible nowadays to install sensors on the track at strategic points to measure the numbers of axles and the dynamic forces exerted by each axle as the train moves along. This should give an indication of the track wear generated, and hence track cost, of each train. This would be the basis for an (A) company to invoice a (B) one. Operators of badly-maintained trains (e.g. those not dealing with bad wheel geometry) would be charged a premium or in extreme cases, barred from the track owner's lines. Train operators investing in track-friendly technologies could be given a discount.
Dakguy201If I were Tyson and considering this alternative from, say, Dakota City, I'd take a close look at subcontracting the actual responsibility for the shipments and their ontime arrival to UPS. You would need their people with extensive experience in negotiating the terms of shipment as well as the daily monitoring of actual movement and immediate follow up of problems.
That is a great idea!
schlimmUPS is the 2X4!!
"Everyone on the railroads from the top down knew the 'UPS trains' and the commitments that were attached to them. The fact that in some cases only ten percent of the traffic on a 'UPS train' was actual UPS traffic testifies to the drawing power of running a consistant, properly scheduled service." page 101.
greyhoundsThe railroads can well do truck competitive transit times. They can't beat a truck time, but they can be competitive. They keep UPS on board don't they. They just seem to need someone to hit them over the head with a 2 by 4 to get their attention.
Your posts concerning institutional inertia are so informative. I gather the rails prefer to outsource a portion of the haul (and the profits) to others with more competence. UPS is the 2X4!!
I have the feeling that security at several locations would enjoy a massive upgrade after the railroad had to purchase a few trailers of nearly worthless steaks. Of course, over any length of time that cost would get baked into the transportation charge.
If I were Tyson and considering this alternative from, say, Dakota City, I'd take a close look at subcontracting the actual responsibility for the shipments and their ontime arrival to UPS. You would need their people with extensive experience in negotiating the terms of shipment as well as the daily monitoring of actual movement and immediate follow up of problems.
Security would be much less of a problem if the train is kept moving at a speed >20 MPH - which also provides better service (as John Kneiling used to point out).
Perishables like this used to be handled reliably by the railroads, even back in the days of steam locomotives and ice-cooled refrigerator cars. Traffic like this could and should be given a priority over 'dead freight' like coal, grain, oil, etc. You know, like the railroads are supposed to do with Amtrak . . .
Dakguy201Sioux City already has the monster beef plant at Dakota City with a capacity of 3000 head per shift. That meat is shipped as boxed beef on highway trailers. Now under construction is a pork plant that was planned for 11,000 head a shift but during construction a capacity expansion was added. That's a lot of trailers. In addition to the CN route to the east mentioned, if it is railed 90 miles to the south it can go east or west on UP's Overland Route or go further south to join the BNSF Transcon at Kansas City. Perhaps there is not enough to a single destination for a unit train, but long cuts of cars are feasible. However, the operational requirements point to areas in which the railroads suffer by comparison to trucking -- quick and reliable service. Were I the shippers I'd find it hard to believe any of the major railroads could/would deliver that service over any length of time. As an example, I'd consider what happened to the Salad Shooter when crude boomed in North Dakota. There is also the security problem. Unless the Feds have changed the rules, once the seal is broken on a trailer, the load is dog food. That has negative implications for some routes through the major cities.
Yes.
The BNSF has had, and is having, service problems on its Great Northern corriodor. When things such as adverse weather (harsh winter, mud slides, avalanches, etc.) mix with a traffic boom (oil then, grain now) the service does go to Hell.
But we're not talking about service on that corriodor. A challenge would be to differentiate the proposed UP or CN service from the BNSF problems. Different companies and different routes. Both railroads have underutilized capacity. And they can both profitably put that capacity to work by hauling the huge volume of protein produced in or near Iowa and Nebraska (pork, beef, eggs) on long hauls to equally huge population centers in the coastal areas of the US. (Also in to Canada and Mexico, along with significant other exports.)
The railroads can well do truck competitive transit times. They can't beat a truck time, but they can be competitive. They keep UPS on board don't they. They just seem to need someone to hit them over the head with a 2 by 4 to get their attention.
Security is always a problem. With any freight. That's why railroads have police departments. It's the same with I-phones, pharmaceuticals, TV's, guns, beer, anything. Hell, your own employees will steal. We had employees throwing sides of beef over the fence. We had one ramp guy shake down a breakfast cereal manufacturer for a case of cereal a month to get TOFC trailers. It's just another issue that needs to be managed.
I see an Expressway type operation as a good development tool for this large market. It limits the risk of getting in and it can be replaced or expanded as necessary.
greyhounds I am not advocating a return to loose car TOFC. But places such as Storm Lake, IA (en route Sioux City - Chicago) could support a low cost TOFC terminal and put money making freight on the railroad. There might be a reason for the rail equipment to be able to run at 80 MPH. But, in general, if you are running freight above 60/70 MPH you're again wasting money. Note: Storm Lake, IA produces a whole lot of pork and turkey for our tables.
I am not advocating a return to loose car TOFC. But places such as Storm Lake, IA (en route Sioux City - Chicago) could support a low cost TOFC terminal and put money making freight on the railroad. There might be a reason for the rail equipment to be able to run at 80 MPH. But, in general, if you are running freight above 60/70 MPH you're again wasting money.
Note: Storm Lake, IA produces a whole lot of pork and turkey for our tables.
Sioux City already has the monster beef plant at Dakota City with a capacity of 3000 head per shift. That meat is shipped as boxed beef on highway trailers. Now under construction is a pork plant that was planned for 11,000 head a shift but during construction a capacity expansion was added.
That's a lot of trailers. In addition to the CN route to the east mentioned, if it is railed 90 miles to the south it can go east or west on UP's Overland Route or go further south to join the BNSF Transcon at Kansas City. Perhaps there is not enough to a single destination for a unit train, but long cuts of cars are feasible.
However, the operational requirements point to areas in which the railroads suffer by comparison to trucking -- quick and reliable service. Were I the shippers I'd find it hard to believe any of the major railroads could/would deliver that service over any length of time. As an example, I'd consider what happened to the Salad Shooter when crude boomed in North Dakota.
There is also the security problem. Unless the Feds have changed the rules, once the seal is broken on a trailer, the load is dog food. That has negative implications for some routes through the major cities.
greyhoundsBut I'll opine that Canadian Pacific has got it about right with their current equipment. All that is needed is: 1) some flatcars with trailer hitches, 2) a ramp and, 3) a second hand highway tractor with a hydraulic 5th wheel to load and unload the trailers. Anything more would be a frill and a waste of money.
Haven't we already said this in more emphatic terms?
The only 'discussions' going on for the last few posts concern the older HPIT 'Iron Highway' equipment, its history, and its foibles. I would not suggest operating this equipment in new service, whatever the advantages claimed for it; the only substitute for special lightweight trailer flats (as seen for Expressway) which I propose would be 'conversions' of existing (and costed-down) articulated well equipment to do exactly what the Expressway flats are capable of doing (perhaps while retaining the ability to convert any given set 'back' to handling containers if that should become desirable in service).
I appreciate the idea of a secondhand highway tractor instead of a more 'dedicated' unit, especially for shoestring startups or demonstrations-of-concept. But there may be some situations, or services, or lanes, in which a tractor equipped with special sensors, or built for four-wheel-steer or low cab, might be more useful than the kind of yard tractor CP is currently using for its dedicated lanes, a design probably much better optimized for the 90-minute loading and unloading than even a 'customizing job' on a normal Class 8 single-screw tractor would provide. I also suspect that the ability to move the hydraulic hitch laterally, and perhaps longitudinally, as well as raising and lowering it would be beneficial in this service, particularly if using some version of machine vision to locate the trailer precisely where the on-car hitch will raise to engage the trailer kingpin. There are a couple of ingenious (perhaps over-ingenious) methods of doing the fifth-wheel lift that do not require lowering the trailer landing gear when hitching the nose to the flatcar -- I don't know whether that is a functional advantage in Expressway-style service or not, and I look forward to hearing about it in PDN's report...
If I remember correctly, most of the 'monocoque-frame' articulated cars are easily capable of running at high speed with no more than X-bracing on the truck sideframes and some care with the side bearings. I doubt the articulated flatcars are any different. So Z train speed is easily available if any business model wants to test it; I never saw the results of the UPS testing with Genesis units, other than to note that UPS evidently thought it wouldn't pay, but there might be some niche, somewhere, for the idea considering how little additional capital would be needed to implement it; outside my custom high-speed container trains this appears to be one of the best solutions in engineering terms, in addition to being highly cost-effective for 70mph and below.
While we're talking about TOFC schemes tried and died.
http://www.iaisrailfans.org/gallery/ABPhotos/AIOtmp?full=1
Jeff
All this talk of integral trains and exotic equipment of tomorrow reminded me of the experimental "EcoRail" system CN took part in testing back in the 1990s. It seems almost like a scaled-down version of Kneiling's concept, with only one power unit and a few cars/roadrailers/trailers:
http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.ca/2012/04/cns-ecorail.html
http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.ca/2012/04/cns-montreal-toronto-roadrailers.html
It did not work out, as noted in the links it seems the power unit was unreliable and rough-riding, and the set was regularly rescued or hauled by a conventional locomotive. Later CN tried NS-style locomotive-hauled roadrailers in the Toronto-Montreal market, which did not attract enough business and were also withdrawn.
I think Greyhounds is right about CP and their Expressway setup being the right equipment for this corridor (time has proven that and the K.I.S.S. saying comes to mind), and I would also like to see it tried elsewhere.
Paul MilenkovicThere is a grainy drawing of the single-axle truck that somehow survived being scanned from the paper publication into the IEEE Online service, but it does show 1) independently rotating wheels with no solid axle connection, and 2) "Watt's link" axle steering. So the axle steering is the same principle as both the current generation Talgo as well as the United Aircraft TurboTrain.
I realize that you engineer types are mainly just having a good time enjoying "what ifs" thinking about a possible quite exotic "Freight Train of Tomorrow".
But I'll opine that Canadian Pacific has got it about right with their current equipment. All that is needed is: 1) some flatcars with trailer hitches, 2) a ramp and, 3) a second hand highway tractor with a hydraulic 5th wheel to load and unload the trailers. Anything more would be a frill and a waste of money.
Page six (top) of this PDF shows the type of ramp that can be used.
http://www.nprha.org/Publications/Marketing/NP_Piggy_Back_Pamphlet_M.pdf
Design for the market needs, not for engineering innovation.
WM7471Has anyone taken a look at a system being used in Germany, called Cargobeamer?
Interesting concept - would work well to take trucks off certain lanes (ie, I-81). Would not be as attractive for trucks not running on established lanes. That old switch lag bugaboo then raises it's head.
Downside is that it would require a substantial investment at any given location. And a corresponding tractor at the receiving location. Yard tractors could handle the loading unloading, but a trucking company would have to ensure enough appropriate crews were available.
A potentially useful variation would load an entire tractor trailer, possibly with accomodations for the drivers. That would be a whole 'nother discussion.
Has anyone taken a look at a system being used in Germany, called Cargobeamer?
It uses a palletized system. Trailers drive onto special pallets and are tied down, the pallets with the trailers can then slide sideways onto a railcar (on electrified lines with catenary) or the pallet and trailer if needed can be moved by overhead crane. The pallet allows trailers that cannot normally be moved by crane (soft sides, tankers or trailers built without re-enforcement to be picked up)
www.cargobeamer.eu Take a look I found it very interesting.
And, no I don't work for them or have any connection.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.