Over the last few decades diesel-mechanical transmission has been developed to handle the output of really big engines, notably for use in mining dump trucks. These vehicles make ordinary highway-going trucks look like kids' toys. The largest ones, such as the Caterpillar 797F, have engines up to 4,000 hp, a 7 speed gearbox and are designed for loads of 400 short tons or more. The environment in which these machines operate is rather harsh, to put it mildly, so the trucks and their components have to be very rugged.
Diesel-electric locomotives, especially those using AC transmission, provide optimum tractive effort to get big trains rolling. For a freight multiple unit like the Iron Highway, a high tractive effort for each module's power unit would not be so important. It might be possible to design a freight multiple unit around a diesel-mechanical propulsion system based on components used in mining dump trucks.
I already told Prof. Milosevic about the '821 patent, which I think is the 'right' one for the ratcheting sideloader that the Professional Iconoclast did not spell. If I remember correctly the '218 patent covers the basic ratcheting mechanism and the '533 is an expansion of the concept with a few more years' experience. Thanks!
It is sure more fun to review this stuff with a Google Patent search on Albert Hand than it was 'back in the day' at the old New York public-library annex over by what is now the Empire Connection, getting long strips of yellow paper out of the printer and then going through copies of the Registers...
A useful short reference for this stuff is the Wroxenius thesis and its 'annex' describing many of the intermodal systems then available. That is easier for normal people to download than things like IEEE papers on the Iron Highway (or more than a HPITtance of information on '70s and '80s approaches to lightweight trains before the age of articulated stack equipment)
From a recent post by RME:
It has been a long time since I looked at the SteAdman patents, but I do remember them as being trailer-capable (since that was NOT what I wanted sideloading equipment to do in the mid-Seventies!) Somewhere ... somewhere not at all accessible ... I have some of the relevant material printed off and in notes, and I will look to see if I can find it.
Yes, I learned about this from Kneiling, and he didn't as I recall spell it right (he fouled me up for years with Letra-Porter, too; I trusted PEs a bit too much for orthographic correctness in those days!)
With about a minute's research (so perhaps not very thorough or reliable), I found the following references to patents assigned to Steadman Containers Ltd. (in no particular order):
"Mobile load handling apparatus" (apparently similar to a "Swinglift", "Steelbro", or "Hammarlift" type): http://documents.allpatents.com/l/20612970/GB1486350A
and http://documents.allpatents.com/l/69756085/US3958702A
https://www.google.com/patents/US3780877 - click on images for enlargements.
http://documents.allpatents.com/l/40100662/US3219218A
http://documents.allpatents.com/l/16050667/US3204796A
http://documents.allpatents.com/l/70826989/US3173562A
"Freight Container Transfer System" - this appears to be the one - click on the image to enlarge it:
http://www.google.ms/patents/US3664533
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3439821.html then click on the "Download PDF 3439821" link to get to:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3439821.pdf (includes 23 figures).
See also:
http://www.trainweb.org/oldtimetrains/photos/cpr_diesel/containers_number_42.htm
http://archive.commercialmotor.com/article/9th-august-1968/83/3-container-transfer-systems
It's also shown in a photo or two in David J. DeBoer's book "Piggyback and Containers" (not sure of precise title).
- PDN.
Paul MilenkovicTurboTrain never had independently rotating wheels -- it had single guided axle, but there was always a solid connection between the two wheels.
I was thinking of the original lightweight C&O train designs, from the late Forties on, that ultimately turned into Train X. I believe many of those had the independent stub axles to get the floor or 'aisle' height down, much as the ACF American Talgo prototype did.
The "G" (Mr. Goicoechea) was the inventor-engineer in TALGO whereas the "O" (Mr. Oriol) was the financial partner who was said to be well-connected in knowing Franciso Franco, the long-time Spanish dictator. So it was the "G" who believed in independently rotating wheels for whatever reason.
I was being cute. But just as there would have been no Phantoms or Shadows without Mr. Rolls, there would have been no independently rotating wheels without Mr. Oriol...
TurboTrain never had independently rotating wheels -- it had single guided axle, but there was always a solid connection between the two wheels.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
There is a much better discussion of the detail design of the 'inter-platform' trucks on the Web, with good clear drawings. I am on a phone but will post the link and pictures in a bit.
This was described in some references as Talgo-style (where the nose of the following car rests directly on the rear of the leading one, without a separate intermediate truck frame) and in some as similar to the steered truck in the Cripe TurboTrain (which it is not, either).
The two deck 'panels' are hinge-articulated together and I believe all buff and draft go through that joint. The single axle has a perimeter frame equipped with a fixed bolster pin, which passes up through the hinge joint (where braking and lateral force is applied) and there is an arrangement of steering levers between this frame and the platform sections. There are 'ears' low down and outboard on the frame on which rest coil springs and snubbers for the suspension support.
There was a recent redesign of the suspension to fit a two-axle (!!) truck with 28" wheels (!!) in place of the single-axle version, to reduce some effective axle-load concerns. Some design features of that truck were similar to the proposed three-axle truck for reducing wheel imposed load in nominally HAL service.
(As an aside, the 'independently rotating' wheels that many people from the early Cripe and the G and O of Talgo on through Tom Blasingame thought were valuable in improving guiding dynamics turn out to have no such effect; this was mathematically demonstrated by Wickens in the '60s but it took a while for the message to get through. I think the current drawing of the single-axle Iron Highway suspension quietly shows a conventional solid-axle wheelset with a pair of end roller bearings, which would be the most correct setup...)
Paul MilenkovicThat photo and that diagram leave me as not understating what the junk pile on the "adapter" platform does. Is it ballast to keep this lighweight train on the tracks?
It may help to recapitulate some of the development history. This train had its origins in the HPIT project in the early '80s (which got some interesting coverage in contemporary Trains Magazine) and this is a development of a C&O/CSX project - some of the details like the Talgo-style articulation will be familiar to those who are interested in the lightweight trains of the '50s.
By the time Engle and NYAB had the train spec'd for detail design, each 'element' was to have 5 of its axles AC-motored, and cab 'pods' provided each with a pair of what we would now call genset engines that would produce "three-phase" electricity (remember this was the '80s when synthesized-AC drives were still in the range of science fiction for robust and cost-effective railroad traction applications). There were going to be up to 5 20-flat elements in a consist; presumably there would be 'power pods' distributed in the train that would be separately crewed or remoter to pull the elements apart at their middles for loading.
There was an ingenious split ramp in the center, which a recent post illustrates but doesn't fully explain. The ramps ride on little rail wheels and when pushed together the ends self-align, make all the needed electrical and pneumatic contacts, and lock. The idea was for a special yard tractor to ANGLE the trailers onto these ramps and then turn straight and back down the half-elements -- Engel & Co. at NYAB said this could be done 'every three minutes' per element. Some of you may agree with this; I think in the anticipated loading circumstance, with random private trailers not uniformly loaded, it might be *considerably* more involved much of the time.
Note that the only ground preparation needs to be a bit of gravel or asphalt suitable to store the parked trailers and move them, plus some way to keep the special tractor (s) - about which more in a moment. No ramps, no special terminal, and nominally a very quick way to spot even a 100-unit train at a small facility to "process" any number of drops (or, if needed, loads).
Now, as with the LRC, only purpose-built power was to be used with these lightweight trains, and this was to be attached with what at the time was described as 'transit-type' coupling to the end 'trailer carrying flat' unit... I do not recall now specifically what the detail design of that connection was, but I think it connected the articulated axle yoke as in Talgo steering, at low level.
To make this train work with conventional locomotives, an adapter car that would provide standard 'car ends' to an articulated set would be needed. i think one of the least expensive ways to do that was to put a regular truck under the last platform end with high drawface and coupler... this could have been 'optimized' to allow unit loading from a high-level ramp or dock as well as ground/apron level, but that evidently was not a long-term priority (for some reasons probably occurring to some of you already) and so instead you see the equipment made 'safe' to run in-train as what is essentially a long articulated platform flatcar.
Now, an ideal place to put the specialized tractor-loader for a consist of this kind is on one of the platforms, ideally one that can't be ideally used for trailers loaded via the ground ramps. Think of this as the analogue to the portable forklifts on Home Depot trucks. If a converted Iron Highway element has ballasting for better tracking or lower stringlining potential... the tractor and its 'launch and recovery' its variable counterweighting can be part of that mass. However, if you need buff and draft reinforcement, semipermanent ballast weight in a particular orientation, etc. then I would expect a central truss cross-braced by welded weights, perhaps exactly as seen.
We had a Trains Forum thread on Iron Highway back in 2006.
Apparently the junk piles at the adapter cars are indeed ballast, and they are meant to simulate the tracking characteristics of a future Iron Highway that had power cars integrated into the consist instead of being hauled with a conventional locomotive.
I found the article F.D. Irani, S.E. Mace (1991) High productivity integral train-Phase I testing of New York Air Brake Company 'Iron Highway', Proceedings of the IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad Conference. I can't share it because it requires a subscription to the IEEE Journals, but you may be able to ask for "guest" access at your local university.
There 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.
Was it here or was it on the 2006 Forum thread that someone mentioned that in service, the independently rotating wheels were connected with a slender shaft so as to clear the low-profile articulated kingpin of this single-axle truck?
Another thing brought up on the 2006 thread was whether the Iron Highway articulated consist was too long. It was suggested that the articulated intermodal spine cars and well cars with conventional two-axle trucks started out at ten trailer units, subsequent ones were five, and more recent ones were three trailer units.
The Talgo-like Iron Highway goes back to the old argument of whether an articulated consist that can only be shortened or lengthened in the shop is too long for a variety of operational reasons -- hauling a lot of empty trailer slots (hauling empty slots on conventional intermodal trains doesn't seem to bother people), other operational inflexibilities.
The argument, that I think was missed in the 2006 discussion, is that if the Iron Highway trainset is too short, you are wasting space in the central loading region that may have to skip a trailer or two?
That photo and that diagram leave me as not understating what the junk pile on the "adapter" platform does. Is it ballast to keep this lighweight train on the tracks?
I gather by now that Expressway involves more conventional articulated flats or spine cars than the now defunct Iron Highway. But the Iron Highway is in ways more interesting to me because it is more exotic, which the railroad maintenance manager thinking, "Exotic -- my foot!"
What did those end cars do on the Iron Highway trainsets? It looks like they are flatcars with a conventional truck at one end, articulated to the single-axle intermediate cars in the style of the Power Dome Cars on the United Aircraft TurboTrain? It also looks like they are loaded with a bunch of scrap metal plates -- are those just weights to stabilize this ultra-lightweight articulated train?
I guess I am asking many questions, but given my fascination with Talgo and TurboTrain, are the single axle trucks on Iron Highway guided or steered? Or are they just fixed to the frames as in that 2-axle piggyback car in the style of European 2-axle freight cars?
And whatever became of the Santa Fe "coaxial train" proposal?
greyhoundsBut some folks at CP had the tenacity (and courage) to get this started. They were literally putting their careers on the line. When the original equipment had problems, I'm sure the long knives came out for the back stabbings. "I told him/her this wouldn't work, but he/she wouldn't listen to me." But people at CP just fixed the equipment problem and did not abandon the market. They deserve recognition for that. So, whoever you are, or were, at Canadian Pacific; You did a good job.
Amazing, give the low opinion on here of EHH's management at CP. Institutional inertia is powerful.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Toplift is being a little cagy about the strengthening and framing in their 'game-changing' trailers. Important points to remember are: strengthened hardpoints at or reasonably near the 'quarter points' for a loaded trailer; stronger sidewalls where the straddle arms of a Mi-Jack or PC-90 might strike or skip during access; appropriate twistlocks and improved internal framing or cabling to distribute the lift appropriately for minimum tare weight (I suspect this takes advantage of the framed structure of a container-lifting spreader for a substantial part of the framing 'integrity' at the top, as the spreader essentially locates the twistlocks when it engages them).
I have to wonder how many of the customers represented by the Expressway loads we have seen would invest in top-loadable trailers to replace or supplant the ones they now have or use.
Something I have never quite understood (and having seen the various bangs and skreeks in that first video!) is how these things routinely handle loaded trailers that come apart like wet tissue paper if stressed wrong. Judging by the FUD in the Toplift promotional material -- they really don't; there's cumulative damage, twist and racking, etc. that (usually) shortens the life or quality of an intermodal van compared to one that is only circus-loaded.
In my opinion, the "older" style of PiggyPacker (with the massive parallel lifting fingers that hydraulically lifted over the trailer from the side) was a bit better in terms of distributing load forces and avoiding various potential failures of the trailer where those arms on the Mi-Jack spreader engage the sill.
Here's a picture of the thing I remember; Paul in particular will appreciate how the articulation of the hydraulic lift works to go over the top; I always assumed the person operating the lift either knew where the loaded longitudinal center of mass was (perhaps from slide-rail position?) or else was willing to make a couple of test lifts with repositioning in between to 'bind on' effectively.
One of the major, major points about Expressway is that any trailer that hooks to a yard tractor can and will be loaded correctly in the 90-minute window ... there is no need for special hardening to make the trick work. There are both straddle and underlift designs that engage the trailers correctly in ways that will not rack or stress them even if they are badly loaded or the load was improperly dunned and has shifted; it's a comparatively easy thing to modify the weighbridge or whatever with the four little sets of load cells that measure for the trailer distribution, and then to 'mark' the trailer appropriately for where the lift is to be applied...
I continue to think that modified well cars (with either drop-down or modular deck racking, and all the brake gear and rails removed or relocated above run-through deck plating) represent an attractive alternative for a TOFC startup in a container-intermodal world. Trailers, yarding, and even packers are really 'run whatcha brung' and to me that's almost a good thing for a startup.
As I said, I think David Clyne and his staff have a very good idea of the details necessary to make a service like this work right. Something I thought interesting was the 'common' sailing times for both trains -- impossible to confuse. Seems to me that this would have the effect of somewhat 'quantizing' the most effective run lengths to get best utilization out of the original 'fixed quantity' of flats (or determining the best over-the-road segment speeds or timings of the trains containing the TOFC section(s) to achieve best yarding and switching efficiency).
I know a number of ways to automate the switching (in principle) given the small fixed number of ramps for a service with various over-the-road lengths.
http://nscalevehicles.org/images/intermodal/piggypacker_yel_ls_up_lg.jpg
[/url
Paul MilenkovicHow does a PiggyPacker grab ahold of a highway trailer?
Here's a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiiMNEA6Lr4
And this might be a better concept.
http://www.toplifttrailers.com/the-game-changer.html
RME in addition to circus loading, as far as I can tell sideloading the Expressway flats ought to be reasonably easy, either with Stedman-style equipment or newer types of equipment, even if the visible stressed-skin-beam flatcar rails stick up above the deck by some number of inches that would interfere with forking chassisless containers through their bottom slots. If I recall correctly, the 'Iron Highway' has guide plates inside the line of the decks that complicates side loading.
in addition to circus loading, as far as I can tell sideloading the Expressway flats ought to be reasonably easy, either with Stedman-style equipment or newer types of equipment, even if the visible stressed-skin-beam flatcar rails stick up above the deck by some number of inches that would interfere with forking chassisless containers through their bottom slots. If I recall correctly, the 'Iron Highway' has guide plates inside the line of the decks that complicates side loading.
Is Stedman side-transfer gear still a "thing"? It is almost impossible to find any information on it on the Web. Has it been superseded by "lifting" instead of "sliding" side transfer of the original Stedman system?
And isn't Stedman containers only? There should be some way to perform "lifting" side transfer of highway trailers, although reach of the mechanical arms along with balance of the rig, even with outriggers, is a serious design problem? And then there is my earlier question in response to your even earlier remarks as to where you "grab" a highway trailer without damaging it?
RME It's possible to design trailers so they can be sidelifted or forked, but a very substantial number of vans can't be so handled -- there is no structure to back up hardpoints for lifting even if you had a consistent way to load and dun for longitudinal and lateral balance. You need to lift a trailer as it is supported on the road - via the bogie at the back, and the kingpin or landing-gear supports at the front - and this involves some interesting purpose-built equipment both for 'overhead' intermodal-style loading or sideloading. I spent considerable time in the '70s designing a portable version of a Letroporter-like vehicle that could be carried on a train and deployed at any point where a van might need to be side loaded away from a ramp or other specialized loading or transfer point. There are some interesting ways to accommodate vans on angle-loading trains like the British CargoSpeed (not the Adtranz system that used that name, which incidentally I think is the system Sam was thinking of earlier) or extreme spine flats with low kangaroo pockets.
It's possible to design trailers so they can be sidelifted or forked, but a very substantial number of vans can't be so handled -- there is no structure to back up hardpoints for lifting even if you had a consistent way to load and dun for longitudinal and lateral balance. You need to lift a trailer as it is supported on the road - via the bogie at the back, and the kingpin or landing-gear supports at the front - and this involves some interesting purpose-built equipment both for 'overhead' intermodal-style loading or sideloading. I spent considerable time in the '70s designing a portable version of a Letroporter-like vehicle that could be carried on a train and deployed at any point where a van might need to be side loaded away from a ramp or other specialized loading or transfer point. There are some interesting ways to accommodate vans on angle-loading trains like the British CargoSpeed (not the Adtranz system that used that name, which incidentally I think is the system Sam was thinking of earlier) or extreme spine flats with low kangaroo pockets.
How does a PiggyPacker grab ahold of a highway trailer?
Potatoes from Idaho and Expressway
These are the USDA numbers for potato shipments from Idaho expressed in truckload equivalents. The numbers are for the seven day period ending March 22, 2017. And yes, the numbers are typical of other weeks. These are in "Truckload Equivalents". The USDA reports the numbers as 1,000s of hundred weights. I've converted to truckload equivalents at 44,000 pounds of potatoes per truck. (1,000 x 100 / 44,000)
https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/fvdidnop.pdf
As you may plainly see, these long haul movements of potatoes are dominated by trucking. (They aren't shipping many loads next door to Montana.)
It seems to be that the Union Pacific isn't even trying. 7 out of 8 potatoes leave Idaho by truck. But I think it's worse than that. I don't believe the Union Pacific even knows how to try to get an increased share of this business. For Uncle Pete's sake! These are loads of POTATOES. If you can't haul POTATOES you can't haul much of anything.
The UP does not have one intermodal terminal in the state of Idaho. So, this is where Expressway comes in. Establish a low cost Expressway terminal somewhere near Boise. (The business potential is clearly present.) If you have to, short term lease, but don't buy, some over the road reefer trailers. Add and remove the Expressway type cars from existing IM trains at Boise.
You're in the market with a viable plan and you're in cheap. If your marketing people can't profitably increase your share of the business, fire them. And fire anyone else who doesn't cooperate.
You have to at least try. Expressway is one way to "try".
If the business grows substantially you can then justify upgrading to a larger container terminal. If the try fails, the loss will be small.
Greyhounds - this is a thoughtful remark and is generous in spirit. I think all of us have experienced the wet blanket of dull, unimaginative and defensive management at some point in our working lives.
As for TOFC, the potential value for rail is in shortening the distance over which rail is competitive and also gaining (or regaining) high-value time-sensitive traffic.
The total transport market, plotted as number of consignments versus distance each consignment travels, shows a pattern where the shorter the distance, the greater the number of consignments. The implication for rail is that an ability to grab short-distance traffic would significantly increase rail market share.
Double-stack container trains are an efficient complement to ocean-going shipping. Could TOFC with new technology and similar-to-passenger-train speeds be the complement to air freight? In the U.S., as elsewhere in the world, population is tending to gravitate to megalopolises. Within these areas roads often face congestion. Commuting by rail is normally seen as a necessary facility, hence a network of tracks of suitable quality for fast trains exists in the large conurbations. Airports for passengers, which often also handle air freight, are often connected to the rail network. High-speed TOFC from airport over passenger train routes might provide an attractive alternative to all-road trucking for the sort of high-value, time-sensitive goods transported for most of their journey by plane.
Nice tribute and a classy thing to do - good to see !
Before this thread goes off into oblivion, I'd like to express my admiration for the people at Canadian Pacific who made this happen.
I'm sure they faced a virtual wall of naysayers. People who wouldn't even consider an intermodal operation on a lane of only 340 miles. People who produced bogus cost numbers (it happens) "proving" that the trains would never cover their cost. People who were just flat out uncomfortable with, and therefore against, change and innovation.
It's easier (and safer) in the face of such naysayers to just go back to your desk and forget about it. But some folks at CP had the tenacity (and courage) to get this started. They were literally putting their careers on the line.
When the original equipment had problems, I'm sure the long knives came out for the back stabbings. "I told him/her this wouldn't work, but he/she wouldn't listen to me."
But people at CP just fixed the equipment problem and did not abandon the market. They deserve recognition for that.
So, whoever you are, or were, at Canadian Pacific; You did a good job.
RMEAlso noted is the wide range of trailer types evident in the tight consist we saw in the posted 105-trailer video, showing I think that the 'take rate' is much larger than for historical Iron Highway operations. That again says to me that someone very astute is in charge of the marketing and promotions, and of the ways that good 'execution' fulfils the expectations of customers who responded to the marketing. I like it a lot, perhaps even more than greyhounds does!
If the technology and marketing hold up, this could be just what the rails need to gain new business to replace declining bulk and unit trains.
Here is the thing -- and to me it is a very important thing -- Expressway is operating with different equipment from "Iron Highway", and with a much more carefully evolved operational model.
My original comments on Iron Highway (and, evidently, PDN's current view) involved this equipment:
This is extreme-low-floor equipment articulated over multiple single steered axles, with only partial road decking to give extreme reduction of tare weight, with no intermediate loading plates between cars or units required. In my opinion you can see a pronounced width reduction giving equipment width only very slightly wider than the track of the van trailer bogies. You can also see the very long backing length required to load these units 'circus-style' and the special end-unit equipment -- does this make it difficult or impossible to load or unload from that end of a unit?
Expressway, on the other hand, uses five-unit articulated flats, presumably easily 'separable' between the 5-car 'rake' units just as stack-trains can be. In the video provided you can readily see that different five- or ten-car sets were loaded in opposite circus directions to give the consist we see. You can also see that, similar to container experience, the apportionment of 'one trailer to a unit' makes much of the loading and securement easier for the yard crews; in my opinion there is much less visible 'wasted space' than between trailers that have been secured to the Iron Highway hitches.
There has been considerable thought given to the expedient operation of the trains in the current lane. Whether this is due primarily to David Clyne is a question I think PDN should ask ASAP, as someone has thought very carefully about a great many things that optimize TOFC operations in very reasonable ways.
Also noted is the wide range of trailer types evident in the tight consist we saw in the posted 105-trailer video, showing I think that the 'take rate' is much larger than for historical Iron Highway operations. That again says to me that someone very astute is in charge of the marketing and promotions, and of the ways that good 'execution' fulfils the expectations of customers who responded to the marketing.
I like it a lot, perhaps even more than greyhounds does!
greyhoundsWell, here's an Expressway train on the CP last year. I counted 105 trailers which is a very good sized TOFC train. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lLNqZLhzeQ I like it. I like it a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lLNqZLhzeQ
I like it. I like it a lot.
Anybody know how many "elements" were in this train ? The link in the Original Post - http://www.railmotive.net/23theironhighwayinter.html - says (3rd and 4th paras) "each capable of carrying 20 full length highway type semi trailers . . . Up to five elements can be coupled to form a high capacity train." Further down (8th para, 2nd from the bottom) it says "A normal piggyback train would move about 100 trailers, and to provide this capacity requires five IH elements."
EDIT: Well, there seem to be 5 "platforms" to each car (where there are 2 trucks at the coupler), each platform with 1 trailer on it.
Where/ which were the "split ramp loading platform"/ cars at the center of each element ? I couldn't pick them out.
EDIT: Now it occurs to me: The ramp cars would be where the trailers change direction, right ? That's at 0:43, 0:56, 1:10, etc. - seems to be about every 15 trailers - 3 cars of 5 platforms. But there doesn't seem to be an empty ramp car between them ? (How are one of those loaded ??)
With the likely increase in automated trucks:
1. The driver shortage will become a surplus;
2. Automation of the loading/unloading process is quite possible.
Insulated joint sounded like it was taking a real pounding.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Well, here's an Expressway train on the CP last year. I counted 105 trailers which is a very good sized TOFC train.
The lack of out of the box thinking kills any new ideas at the railroads---
We have been doing this for a 100 years why change now-Famouse Last Words of any Industry,
You saw those things the same time I was at UNL. I most often saw cars in the small CRI&P yard just east of the university City campus.
Where did I ever say that TOFC trains were "slow" - either in early days or late? The fun with absent back transition on E units in PRR freight service came about when fast power was needed for pig trains. The early designs of high-speed-stable articulated spine cars were all for TOFC. Even Flexi-Van could be thought of as essentially TOFC in the sense we're discussing. I brought up the Apollos not to disparage their speed, but to point out that even high speed and good train dispatching and operation did not give the service a market-recognized advantage.
The issue I was addressing comes when the higher speed on the main is wasted in the handling or other logistics needed for the full shipper-to-destination trip that is competitive with or superior to the economics, or the perceived value of service, of just 'one-seat-ride' driving the load by road. And I do think it is fair to include improvements in OTR efficiency, like computer-assisted multiples, in discussing the potential profitable, or societally beneficial/socially subsidized, uses for good TOFC and its lightweight equivalents.
and I am a strong believer in the use of trailer intermodal for any genuine service niche -- I'm just trying to indicate that its use "to save oil" or "to get trucks off the Interstates" isn't a business model that has worked historically, is unlikely to be adopted as compelling by any for-profit entity any time soon, and is not terribly effective if implemented as a many-point-to-many-destination service using a bunch of local ramps to access some magic low-cost efficiency of steel wheel friction reduction.
Where there are realizable advantages to carrying trailers by rail -- as we have heard given for Expressway in this thread, or as executed by operators like J. B. Hunt and (I hope and have been promoting for years) FedEx Ground, believe me I'm a positive supporter.
Victrola1- Geez what a sad tale..could only happen to The Rock.
Well I may be right
And I may be wrong
But you're gonna miss me
When I'm gone
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.