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?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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?
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?
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.
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...)
TurboTrain never had independently rotating wheels -- it had single guided axle, but there was always a solid connection between the two wheels.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
Design for the market needs, not for engineering innovation.
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.
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
While we're talking about TOFC schemes tried and died.
http://www.iaisrailfans.org/gallery/ABPhotos/AIOtmp?full=1
Jeff
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimmUPS 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".
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!
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!!"
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
"+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 !
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.