MarknLisaAnybody else remember loose-car TOFC? I recall watching CNW mixed freights picking their way through the weeds between Wahoo NE & Lincoln. There'd be one or a few TOFC's mixed in between the boxes, hoppers and gons. They'd flat switch at a little yard between the Journal-Star office and the downtown USPS sorting facility. They'd bump the TOFC flats against an old wood plank ramp and unload circus style with a worn out POS day-cab tractor. Must have been about 1978-'79ish..
The Rock Island Lines did TOFC 60 years ago.
A little town in Iowa. A grain elevator. One farmer Bar in a two block Main Street business district. A depot.
Down by the depot, a pile of dirt and planks made an inclined plane at the end of a stub track. Towering above it all the grain elevator. An old flat car butted up to the top of the ramp. Weeds growing around and under the flat car.
The flat car waited for TOFC business that never came.
In the pre-Staggers era, my carrier did a lot of short haul TOFC. Cities like Cincinnati, Akron, Pittsburgh had service to/from Baltimore & Philadelphia. Once Staggers was enacted and understood - these services were costed against their revenues and were found to be money losing operations and these location were abandoned.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
At one point CN made an effort at bringing TOFC to small and intermediate sized towns back in the 70s and early 80s by building simple ramps all over the place. For some reason loose car TOFC never really caught on here.. likely due to lack of proper marketing.
RMEDo you actually think that people in the industry have forgotten the advantages of TOFC over COFC and that some magic day they will 'come to their senses' and embrace widespread circus-type loading of switched-out rakes of an 'iron highway' consist? Both 'the market' for equipment and the folks in the industry who pay for its operation have consistently rejected these drive-on, drive-off facilities in most lanes, even where local initiative provided suitable physical facilities such as ramps adjacent to suitable yard space. I have looked forward to adoption of a number of these continuous-roadway systems over the years, including some that lowered the deck under the road wheels to get the effect of 'fuel foiler' spine-car pockets while preserving RoRo operation. I even waited for drop-in or raise-up decking for well cars that would convert them to through-drive use. To date, we have Expressway in its lane, and it appears that no one else (yet) thinks that building more of the specialized cars, or operating them in existing intermodal consists or operations, makes enough financial sense.
I'm going to say that they've more than fogotten, the people today have not been really exposed to much TOFC at all. They simply don't give it serious consideration becuase they really don't know much about it.
But first I want to deal with the hitch reliability issue brought up by RME. Here's the report on the incident from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp
As may be seen, the incident happened almost 20 years ago. A new type of hitch was in use, a type not approved by the AAR. The AAR requires a double lock on a hitch which would have prevented this incident. Since the incident the rail equipment used in the service has been replaced. Trailers no longer stradle two platforms. All in all, this incident happened almost 20 years ago on equipment no longer in use. It has no relevance to the current operation or to consideration given to use of such equipment in other operations.
The hitch failure is something simply thrown out to shut down further consideration of Expressway type operations.
As to the effects of the Staggers Act on TOFC/COFC, the effects were tremendous. And for the good. Staggers in 1950 would certainly have been better than Staggers in 1980. But Staggers should never have been necessary. The government never should have taken on the powers and role that it did. As well stated in the book "American Railroads: Decline and Renaisance in the Twentieth Century":
"A central theme of this book is that railroads, throughout their history, were so important to the US economy that politicians could not leave them alone, and when governments did intervene in transportation markets, they usually made a mess of things. Government regulation distorted consumer choices, found awkward and costly ways of subsidizing competing modes of transportation, taxed or regulated away profits needed for reinvestment and capacity expansion, and— while generally contributing to greater safety— typically fell far short of stimulating optimal safety performance for all transport modes."
Gallamore, Robert E.. American Railroads (Kindle Locations 470-474). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.
I worked in intermodal marketing and pricing both before and after Staggers. Things were a whole lot better in the "after time". Examples include, but are not limited to:
1) We were freed to establish though rates from the shipper's freight dock to the receiver's dock. This dock to dock pricing is critical for intermodal profitability. We could do dock to dock only on a very restricted basis prior to Staggers. With Staggers we could greatly expand our service area and compete, with TOFC, for much more freight.
2) The inane "Two Trailer Rate" went away. A main reason TOFC cars were built to carry two trailers was that the ossified regulators pretended to determine rail costs by the carload. They would not allow a railroad to charge less than the average (read "Includes Overhead Allocation") cost per carload. So, to get the pretend cost down to a truck competitive level we had to charge two trailers to a flatcar. Now few customers shipped in two trailer groups so middlemen developed to "mate" trailers from one terminal to another. These middlemen did little but took a fee. Please know that the two "mated" trailers did not have to physically move on the same car, or even actually go to the same destination. But the paperwork had to show a two trailer shipment. Dumber than All Hell.
As to RME's false claim that early TOFC trains didn't run very fast, he's wrong. Where the government rules allowed TOFC to work fast transit times were produced. Pennsylvania Railroad Truc-Trains did New Jersey-Chicago in 24 hours. And that was truck competitive. My favorites were Santa Fe 188 and the C&NW/UP Falcon Service. Both were Chicago to Los Angeles in 50 hours with TOFC. When allowed by the government, TOFC could be, and was, truck competitive.
I'll wrap this long winded post up with some thoughts on why the Expressway concept hasn't expanded. Basically, market research and development are glaring weak spots for our railroads. They simply don't do those things well. Some do it better than others, but generally it's a pronounced weak point. If someone shows up with shiploads of containers, or an oilfield, or a large grain terminal, the railroads can deal with it.
What they have great trouble with is a market consisting of numerous smaller shippers. The total volume may be there in aggregate but the railroads don't have the marketing chops needed to put things together.
Finally, guys such as RME will come out of the woodwork with reasons that any new development just won't work. Some of the objections will be real problems that need to be worked through. And some, such as the nonexistent hitch issue, will be red herrings used simply to knock a new idea down.
I for one would like to have the 'word' from the CP people in operations as to how they decided on the 90-minute 'processing time' between last trailer drop and train time, and if this determines how many segments the train is divided into, how the switching is done and costed, and how many yard tractors are required to optimize the time to 'turn' the train.
It might be interesting to see if they load the train in "modules" of 5, 10 or whatever, to keep trailers for certain destinations or zones 'first off' regardless of the time they were dropped off differentially, or if they have considered 'dropping' modules of 5 flats at intermediate points to extend the benefits of Expressway service to relatively small ramp locations. I suspect they have considered the latter, but concluded that the costs do not justify the advantages (as, I think, is the case for almost all small-ramp TOFC operation in the United States so far). Here an interview with the 'sales guy' nominally in charge of Expressway might be particularly enlightening...
One of my "Someday I'll get around to it" projects is to contact CP and see if I can get access (escorted and with all the releases and waivers &etc. signed, of course) to the Expressway operation to photo and video the loading/ unloading operation/ process, and perhaps write an article about it.
Especially the 'break' and 'make' of the segments and disassembly/ lowering of the ramps, and then raising and attaching them and reassembling the segment. As far as I know, that process - shown in any detail - is not in the easily-accessible public domain anyplace. It'd make a good YouTube video, don't you think ?
- PDN.
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.
tree68 How did RBBB do it?
How did RBBB do it?
RBB is drive on - drive off. Train is swtiched at destination to facilitate the drive off.
RMEIf you're detaching the tractors, after you've parked and hitched the first 'through' trailer on an Iron Highway/Expressway, the following tractor(s) can't drive through it to escape,
Of course. I should have realized but my old brain must have had a $@#$ moment. Thanks for the catch. It was amemorable fun trip to ride in the motorhome on the train.
When the military loads their flats (granted, they are usually loading vehicles, not just trailers), they drive on. When they reach their destination, they turn the entire train so they can drive off - no backing involved. (While I'm sure they have some accomplished drivers - not all, though.) Some of the vehicles may be towing trailers, as well.
That's just background info...
Of course, that won't work with trailers, which leads me to a question - are most trailers capable of being lifted? That would seem to be the answer, rather than having to back over several cars.
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...
Electroliner 1935What I'm wondering is whether that would be easier than the backing on type of circus train loading for putting trailers onto shuttle trains.
It is, of course... but most TOFC operations hinge on transporting only the trailers, not tractor-trailers nose to tail. (This is very different from operations like the Swiss truck 'ferries' I mentioned earlier, or their automotive equivalents; see for example myswissalps.com on 'Car trains in Switzerland'.)
If you're detaching the tractors, after you've parked and hitched the first 'through' trailer on an Iron Highway/Expressway, the following tractor(s) can't drive through it to escape, and even when there is a side "escape route" it would be difficult to try to move the trailer forward on its landing gear to stage it to the next platform hitch. Some of the 'special yard tractor' designs I mentioned address this situation.
The other end of a circus-loaded trip also involves backing down sequentially to reach the next trailer, now with the added fillip of getting the fifth wheel and kingpin aligned and locked and hooking up the brake hoses. As noted this is not difficult for skilled drivers, but any problem here also affects all the others 'behind'. Meanwhile, how long does it take to flat-switch the cuts to their ramps, extend the apron plates, etc. to realize the benefits of the parallel loading or unloading, or to allow access to trailers other than in reverse order of loading?
I note that Expressway uses only yard tractors to load and unload the equipment, and 90 minutes is allowed from 'last drop off' to train time, and then from train arrival/hostling to customer hookup, to facilitate this. No commercial driver has to engage in any roadeo circus backing activity. It occurs to me that special parking for programmed 'dwell ' time (hours to days) to facilitate true JIT delivery with minimal on-hook or driver hours might easily be added to the service as CP now provides it.
When I traveled to Alaska in the 1990's, our trip took us on the Alaska RR's shuttle train to Whittier from Portage. This is no longer operated as vehicles can now drive through the former rail only tunnel. The train had a loading ramp that mated with a modified flat car that you drove onto and then up to the car you were to ride on. This was the "Circus style" (there were plates between cars) loading but without backing up. At Whittier, we drove forward to the front car which was the same as the back end car and drove off onto a ramp. The train carried trucks, tour buses, and autos. We were driving a class C motorhome and were taking the Alaska Marine Highway to Valdez. From googlemaps, it appears the ramp and parking area has been removed.
What I'm wondering is whether that would be easier than the backing on type of circus train loading for putting trailers onto shuttle trains.
BaltACD ericsp It looks like they are XPWX now, http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsPicture.aspx?road=XPWX&cid=3. What is with the unusual design? Bigger question to me is why do seemingly 'normal' 53 foot trailers have 3 and 4 axles under the box instead of two. Are they carrying loads exceeding the nominal 80K that are the USA norm?
ericsp It looks like they are XPWX now, http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsPicture.aspx?road=XPWX&cid=3. What is with the unusual design?
Bigger question to me is why do seemingly 'normal' 53 foot trailers have 3 and 4 axles under the box instead of two. Are they carrying loads exceeding the nominal 80K that are the USA norm?
Johnny
I think the issue of concern isn't quite so much "Staggers" deregulation (which would be highly unlikely in the '50s or even the early '60s) as it is a change in the contemporary ICC policies 'protecting' the relatively-recently-regulated 'motor carrier' industry from railroad-owned or -managed competition.
My initial question, though, would be whether ANY railroad ownership of actual trucking entities, or 'favored status' in tariffs for joint-venture truck or tractor providers, was really needed to obtain the economies you see for TOFC operations, both in the pre-defense-highway era AND in the brief first age of freight-carrier-optimized toll parkways (e.g. the NYS Thruway double-freighter experiments, which had at least some of the one-tractor logistics advantages mentioned for 'triples' via Expressway a few posts ago.)
i think that as soon as the practical costs of switch moves, brake-law requirements, and other things came up in price, the economics of widespread adoption of ramps and circus loading as a replacement for loose-car railroading through automated yards died faster than any perceived advantage of handling trailers that way. If I recall correctly the effective end-to-end TIME provided by even very hot pig trains was still vastly slower than most comparable on-road moves, so the perceived 'profitable advantage' was a relatively thin slice between fast and convenient one-tractor road moves and low-overhead, cheaper, but slower loose-car operations.
I also note that one of the big places TOFC currently succeeds is in 'railbridge' service for large established independent truck lines, a service that could just as easily exist for a through-lined version of TrucTrain (or one of its successor entities) as for the Alphabet Route equivalent (wasn't Apollo Service one of these) that needed bidirectional assured traffic volume to work effectively?
BaltACD ATLANTIC CENTRAL One early 60's circus loading TOFC yard in Baltimore had more than a dozen tracks, eack only held 3 85'/89' cars for faster loading. Sheldon B&O's Wicomoco Street trailer ramp had 6 tracks that were all circus loaded. They had 4 'normal' tracks that held 7 89 foot TTX cars each, there were 2 'reverse' tracks, one held 4 cars the other held 3. A total of 35 cars for a full spotting. Kept a T&E Yard crew as well as Car Dept. crew and Yard drivers busy unloading and reloading the cars. During my tenure as ATTM (1972-1977) over the operation, the maximum of cars dispatched was 110 in one day for pickup by two trailer trains - One for Chicago and one for St. Louis. Subsequent to my tenure (1979) Wicomoco Street was closed and the operation was moved to Port Covington, where it remained for several years until the Port Covington property was sold (I don't know what kind of operation PC had as I was then working in another department). Sea Girt terminal at Dundalk is the present CSX trailer/container facility with most traffic being handled in containers for both import and export.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL One early 60's circus loading TOFC yard in Baltimore had more than a dozen tracks, eack only held 3 85'/89' cars for faster loading. Sheldon
One early 60's circus loading TOFC yard in Baltimore had more than a dozen tracks, eack only held 3 85'/89' cars for faster loading.
Sheldon
B&O's Wicomoco Street trailer ramp had 6 tracks that were all circus loaded. They had 4 'normal' tracks that held 7 89 foot TTX cars each, there were 2 'reverse' tracks, one held 4 cars the other held 3. A total of 35 cars for a full spotting. Kept a T&E Yard crew as well as Car Dept. crew and Yard drivers busy unloading and reloading the cars. During my tenure as ATTM (1972-1977) over the operation, the maximum of cars dispatched was 110 in one day for pickup by two trailer trains - One for Chicago and one for St. Louis. Subsequent to my tenure (1979) Wicomoco Street was closed and the operation was moved to Port Covington, where it remained for several years until the Port Covington property was sold (I don't know what kind of operation PC had as I was then working in another department). Sea Girt terminal at Dundalk is the present CSX trailer/container facility with most traffic being handled in containers for both import and export.
Thanks for the details, I knew I was just "winging" that from memory as well. But the point remains, it was common for circus loaded pig yards to have realtively short tracks.
I don't claim to have any of the detailed answers to these issues, but common sense and reasonable working knowledge of trains and trucks suggests the answers can be found and made to work.
Trucks have become too large and heavy for our highways, and the real problem is the car drivers.....but we can't fix that.....we can however use less truck miles in favor of more fuel effective rail miles, and we should, for safety and fuel savings, each with their obvious benifits.
Those who would compel us to "save the planet" have no issue with higher costs, I suspect the goals I am suggesting can be had for much lower increases in costs and possibly at no increased cost?
How much is a life worth? How much is the planet worth if indeed we are damaging it?
I would suggest my approach to be much more cost effective and less self serving than magnetic highways or robot truck caravans......
I will shut up now, I have model trains to build. Need to add to the TOFC fleet, almost 100 now.
Atlantic Central- Good post, cuts thru the nonsense and is perfectly sensible. Well we can't go back to 1950 and Stagger's unfortunately took another 30 years but we should be able to look back, learn and implement what we know. Why we are so fascinated by gadgets and gizmos as well as displacing thousands of jobs with sheer suicidal nonsense is beyond comprehension when we know what will work and extremely well at that.
Folks need a life, employment, a good wage, dignity. Also common sense, stability, safety. Ya sure, everyone trying to be a star these days, tripping over themselves with so much noise. We are all smart so lets get over that part and get on with doing whats good for the folks.
RME ATLANTIC CENTRAL The Staggers Act should have been passed in 1950 in stead of 1980. If so trailers might still be 35' long and not clogging up intersections making turns, TOFC would be carrying almost all loads more than 200-300 miles, The air would be cleaner, more oil would still be in the ground, and the trucking industry and the railroads would all be better off today....... But what do I know, I only learned what I know from my father who was a career trucking industry manager from the 50's to the 80's, much of which was with CAROLINA, once the GIANT of east coast trucking. So you are saying that your father would prefer a world of 35' trailers that can't economically be transported further than 300 miles or so? Or that he did not fully understand the logistical implications behind even limited reliance on point-to-point TOFC operations on the general REA delivery model, in both time and cost? It could just as easily be said that reform of Missouri law in the 1940s permitting larger Nite Coaches and longer/heavier 'combinations' or road trains would have given many of the nominal cost and fuel advantages realizable with conventional TOFC to even small OTR operators. Why do you think Staggers in the '50s would materially improve the profitability of, say, PRR's TrucTrains, or the use as IC did of a rake of circus-loading flats at the end of passenger trains to add a little more productivity to a then-still-viable REA? It might also be possible that 'the good would be the enemy of the great' in precluding widespread use of true stack COFC as quickly or pervasively as it has come about; I'd bet that the benefits of COFC to railroads at least in this century so far have far outweighed even the most efficient possible pig equivalents...
ATLANTIC CENTRAL The Staggers Act should have been passed in 1950 in stead of 1980. If so trailers might still be 35' long and not clogging up intersections making turns, TOFC would be carrying almost all loads more than 200-300 miles, The air would be cleaner, more oil would still be in the ground, and the trucking industry and the railroads would all be better off today....... But what do I know, I only learned what I know from my father who was a career trucking industry manager from the 50's to the 80's, much of which was with CAROLINA, once the GIANT of east coast trucking.
So you are saying that your father would prefer a world of 35' trailers that can't economically be transported further than 300 miles or so? Or that he did not fully understand the logistical implications behind even limited reliance on point-to-point TOFC operations on the general REA delivery model, in both time and cost?
It could just as easily be said that reform of Missouri law in the 1940s permitting larger Nite Coaches and longer/heavier 'combinations' or road trains would have given many of the nominal cost and fuel advantages realizable with conventional TOFC to even small OTR operators. Why do you think Staggers in the '50s would materially improve the profitability of, say, PRR's TrucTrains, or the use as IC did of a rake of circus-loading flats at the end of passenger trains to add a little more productivity to a then-still-viable REA?
It might also be possible that 'the good would be the enemy of the great' in precluding widespread use of true stack COFC as quickly or pervasively as it has come about; I'd bet that the benefits of COFC to railroads at least in this century so far have far outweighed even the most efficient possible pig equivalents...
My points were intended to be a little overly dramatic, like a few other regulars on here........
Basic point is that deregulation took too long, regardless of exactly how equipment development might or might not have progressed.
And my fathers career also included a stretch with the SOUTHERN in pig operations.
greyhoundsThe kingpin hitch has been in use for 60 years or so. It holds on in train wrecks, TOFC cars sent over humps, and overspeed impacts. If all rail components were nearly as reliable as a hitch there would be far fewer problems. Failure of a flatcar trailer hitch is the last thing we need to worry about.
The fact, however, remains that the hitch HAS failed in Iron Highway service and this HAS resulted in damage which could easily involve more than just trailers in the following consist.
Sure, the basic design is safe and well evolved. When new, and properly maintained, and properly operated and checked. If I remember correctly, the bent locking pin was not a unique failure, and the lack of supervision that would have caught either the problem or the subsequent release of the trailer nose was evidently present. Does anyone here know the specific remedies that were implemented after the incident... or if they are still being followed with their original good intentions and stringency?
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe Staggers Act should have been passed in 1950 in stead of 1980. If so trailers might still be 35' long and not clogging up intersections making turns, TOFC would be carrying almost all loads more than 200-300 miles, The air would be cleaner, more oil would still be in the ground, and the trucking industry and the railroads would all be better off today....... But what do I know, I only learned what I know from my father who was a career trucking industry manager from the 50's to the 80's, much of which was with CAROLINA, once the GIANT of east coast trucking.
Do you actually think that people in the industry have forgotten the advantages of TOFC over COFC and that some magic day they will 'come to their senses' and embrace widespread circus-type loading of switched-out rakes of an 'iron highway' consist?
Both 'the market' for equipment and the folks in the industry who pay for its operation have consistently rejected these drive-on, drive-off facilities in most lanes, even where local initiative provided suitable physical facilities such as ramps adjacent to suitable yard space. I have looked forward to adoption of a number of these continuous-roadway systems over the years, including some that lowered the deck under the road wheels to get the effect of 'fuel foiler' spine-car pockets while preserving RoRo operation. I even waited for drop-in or raise-up decking for well cars that would convert them to through-drive use. To date, we have Expressway in its lane, and it appears that no one else (yet) thinks that building more of the specialized cars, or operating them in existing intermodal consists or operations, makes enough financial sense.
Personally I think better methods of side or angle loading conventional unreinforced vans, or design of better yard tractors for loading and unloading RoRo trains more expediently, are important before any great use of articulated through-deck equipment catches on. At least that's where most of my research on that kind of operation has been directed.
greyhounds RME One demonstrated issue with Iron Highway is that it requires kingpin-hitch securement at the trailer noses. At least one of these has come unlocked in the all-too-familiar-with-wear-on-the-equipment way and caused the usual problems. The aftermath of such an event may eat up a great deal of the presumable profit from using Iron Highway instead of, say, expanded conventional containerized intermodal in lieu of van trailers. In my opinion there is also the added question of the skills needed by drivers for circus-type loading and unloading when there is a considerable narrow distance to back up between presumably substantial sill rails. This is not a 'kangarou' system with bearing surface between the trailer duals, so presumably scuffing the trailer outer sidewalls is the 'default' guidance backup. With the current 'driver shortage' are there enough skilled or trainable drivers to make an expansion of Expressway safe and practical? Oh pshaw! The kingpin hitch has been in use for 60 years or so. It holds on in train wrecks, TOFC cars sent over humps, and overspeed impacts. If all rail components were nearly as reliable as a hitch there would be far fewer problems. Failure of a flatcar trailer hitch is the last thing we need to worry about. As far as finding workers capable of backing trailers onto flatcars, don't underestimate the abilities of the average worker. With proper equipment, some training, and respect they can do great things. And they'll take great pride in their work. If they're allowed to. The truck driver "shortage" is caused by: 1) not paying enough and, 2) miserable working conditions that can cause a driver to be away from home for weeks on end while living in his/her truck. Pay more and get the driver home and there will be enough drivers. My girlfriend's son is a driver in Chicago. He doesn't mind starting early and working late six days per week. But he has a 15 month old son at home with his wife. He wants to bring in a good paycheck to care for them and be with them at night. He won't go out over the road (driver shortage?) but he'll work his tail off for his paycheck and his family time. Don't ever underestimate the workers' abilities. They can do a whole lot of good things, under the right conditions.
RME One demonstrated issue with Iron Highway is that it requires kingpin-hitch securement at the trailer noses. At least one of these has come unlocked in the all-too-familiar-with-wear-on-the-equipment way and caused the usual problems. The aftermath of such an event may eat up a great deal of the presumable profit from using Iron Highway instead of, say, expanded conventional containerized intermodal in lieu of van trailers. In my opinion there is also the added question of the skills needed by drivers for circus-type loading and unloading when there is a considerable narrow distance to back up between presumably substantial sill rails. This is not a 'kangarou' system with bearing surface between the trailer duals, so presumably scuffing the trailer outer sidewalls is the 'default' guidance backup. With the current 'driver shortage' are there enough skilled or trainable drivers to make an expansion of Expressway safe and practical?
Oh pshaw!
The kingpin hitch has been in use for 60 years or so. It holds on in train wrecks, TOFC cars sent over humps, and overspeed impacts. If all rail components were nearly as reliable as a hitch there would be far fewer problems. Failure of a flatcar trailer hitch is the last thing we need to worry about.
As far as finding workers capable of backing trailers onto flatcars, don't underestimate the abilities of the average worker. With proper equipment, some training, and respect they can do great things. And they'll take great pride in their work. If they're allowed to.
The truck driver "shortage" is caused by: 1) not paying enough and, 2) miserable working conditions that can cause a driver to be away from home for weeks on end while living in his/her truck. Pay more and get the driver home and there will be enough drivers.
My girlfriend's son is a driver in Chicago. He doesn't mind starting early and working late six days per week. But he has a 15 month old son at home with his wife. He wants to bring in a good paycheck to care for them and be with them at night. He won't go out over the road (driver shortage?) but he'll work his tail off for his paycheck and his family time.
Don't ever underestimate the workers' abilities. They can do a whole lot of good things, under the right conditions.
Agreed, the proper expansion of TOFC would improve working conditions for truck drivers, making a much great percentage of such jobs "9-5" and thereby making them more attractive to higher skilled, higher motivated workers.
TOFC really is the answer to reduced fuel consumption, safer, less crowded highways, higher quality jobs, and list of other smaller side benifits.
The railroads simply need to develope this or other methods and equipment to improve portal to portal time at costs that are similar to over the road trucking.
Circus loading of small groups of trailers is not difficuilt and reduces terminal costs considerablely. Self contained ramp cars or portable ramps make it more practical to serve smaller markets with just a paved unloading track area.
Containers are great for ships, but are extra heavy and not needed for domestic shipments. Faster, better TOFC is the answer, not robot trucks or silly arodynamic junk on trailers, or even these miserable 53' trailers.
The Staggers Act should have been passed in 1950 in stead of 1980. If so trailers might still be 35' long and not clogging up intersections making turns, TOFC would be carrying almost all loads more than 200-300 miles, The air would be cleaner, more oil would still be in the ground, and the trucking industry and the railroads would all be better off today.......
But what do I know, I only learned what I know from my father who was a career trucking industry manager from the 50's to the 80's, much of which was with CAROLINA, once the GIANT of east coast trucking.
Adjustments, could be made within the 'truck-trailer', by movements to the sliding tandem on the trailer, also with a 'sliding fifth wheel' . The latter movement could 'load' weight to the tractor steering axle. The trailer 'slider tandem' could adjust weight onto the trailer axle assembly, or move it to the tractor, as needed to be able 'to scale' the load on the unit.
The tandem axle, is pretty much the norm country-wide in US. Some states have mase provisions (regulatory changes?) with in their enforcement enviornment to allow certain combinations of multiple-trailers ( as in 'Turnpike specific' rules in some states). Some states will allow additional axles to be used on some equipment ( combinations using air-lifting axles, or fixed axles, as well as provisions for additions to size of tires used.)
Obviously, as shown in the photos of Canadian equipment,[ I have no clue as to their mandated gross vehicle weights, or how weights on axles are apportioned.] Obviously, multilpe axles can be advantaged to add more weight to the vehicle loads. Canada also allows the combinations of multiple trailers;[ regulated over their National Highway system] ( 'Trains') that utilize as part of their load carrying capacity multiple axle arrrangements with in the individual, truck-trailer(s) vehicle combinations.
Ulrich could probably quote chapter, and verse on this information?
So in neither country, there is 'no easy answer'.Trucks and their make-up, boil down to the regulatory enforcement of the rules as legislated within their systems.
ericsp What is with the unusual design?
I think of them as applying the advantages of 5-unit articulated lightweight well-car construction to relatively low-floor through-flat-deck construction. Since they will not carry double stack loads they can use normal-wheeled trucks.
the Europeans have a version of this running on very small wheels (about 16" if I remember correctly) that is loaded by drive-on end-to-end as a ferry operation through tunnels. Everyone stays in their vehicles and drives off at the 'other end'.
BaltACDBigger question to me is why do seemingly 'normal' 53 foot trailers have 3 and 4 axles under the box instead of two. Are they carrying loads exceeding the nominal 80K that are the USA norm?
Yes, the loads can weigh more. The laws are different in Canada.
ericspIt looks like they are XPWX now, http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsPicture.aspx?road=XPWX&cid=3. What is with the unusual design?
It looks like they are XPWX now, http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsPicture.aspx?road=XPWX&cid=3. What is with the unusual design?
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
RMEOne demonstrated issue with Iron Highway is that it requires kingpin-hitch securement at the trailer noses. At least one of these has come unlocked in the all-too-familiar-with-wear-on-the-equipment way and caused the usual problems. The aftermath of such an event may eat up a great deal of the presumable profit from using Iron Highway instead of, say, expanded conventional containerized intermodal in lieu of van trailers. In my opinion there is also the added question of the skills needed by drivers for circus-type loading and unloading when there is a considerable narrow distance to back up between presumably substantial sill rails. This is not a 'kangarou' system with bearing surface between the trailer duals, so presumably scuffing the trailer outer sidewalls is the 'default' guidance backup. With the current 'driver shortage' are there enough skilled or trainable drivers to make an expansion of Expressway safe and practical?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.