The "Iron Highway": A pointer to future methods of handling TOFC?

[Miningman]

That was the service proposed by a group who darn near got the Canada Southern. They went one step further adding sleeping cars and a diner for the truckers who went along. The line was perfectly engineered for this kind of thing, long tangents, level to near 0 grade with cut and fill when it was built and long easy curves, all the way from Detroit to Buffalo...a high speed line through rural agricultural landscapes. Overnight service both ways with morning arrivals. 

Unfortunately the "fix"was in ...at around the fifth "town hall" style public meeting, all hell broke loose and fisticuffs broke out. 

The proposal was sound but they never had a chance. CN and CP saw to it. 

[traisessive1]

CP's Expressway service is indeed the only regular MAINLINE piggyback service in Canada. You will sometimes see a few chassis being moved from west to east on CN and they will attach them to containers to do so. 

The ONR and HBR both do piggyback in their Northern Ontario and Northern Manitoba operations. 

[CShaveRR]

When CP was first involved with the Iron Highway, there was also a Toronto-Chicago operation (west of the border it used the former C&O to get into the Chicago area).  Initially it used some specially-modified TTX flat cars, but I saw the specialized Iron Highway cars (IHXX) on at least one occasion.  The Chicago-area terminal for this was in a small former B&O yard in East Chicago, Indiana (just east of the Hammond city limits), along Indiana Highway 312.  This leg didn't seem to last as long...perhaps the circuitous CSX route (via Grand Rapids, initially) did it in.  I wasn't following it that closely, but all of a sudden it was gone.

[Ulrich]

Expressway works because it caters primarily to truckers and a few large shippers who own their own equipment. I don't think the average shipper with loads to move in this corridor would consider Expressway as truck rates in both directions have always been rock bottom cheap. Truckers on the other hand can effectively move several of these cheap loads with one tractor and driver.. i.e. they take two loads to the railhead to ship via Expressway to Montreal and take load number 3 down the road to Montreal. Once in Montreal the driver delivers load 3 and then goes to the Expressway terminal to pickup and deliver the other two loads. The trucker thereby maximizes use of driver and equipment. Shippers generally can't do that unless they too run their own trucks..I think its a great idea and could probably work in other densely travelled corridors. 

[IslandMan]

greyhounds

Expressway is a TOFC system that uses circus type loading and unloading.  There's nothing wrong with this.  Circus type TOFC (including containers on chassis) intermodal terminals are a good, economical, low capital investment, and efficient fit for smaller volume markets.  The Expressway operation improves over the conventional circus terminal operations by allowing multiple loading/unloading ramps one one track.  This improves the speed of loading/unloading.

Expressway does not suffer from the problems the RoadRailer concept does.  Expressway is entirely compatible with the existing IM network and can readily be used within the network.  It could also be well used to expand the network.  CP is apparently satisfied with the results of its operation on the 340 mile Montreal-Toronto lane.  But I do not see them as having another market suitable for its use.  

I'd like to see an analysis of its potential on a route such as Green Bay-Chicago.  Not so much as a local service, but as a "Feeder" route connecting the manufacturing of the Fox River cities with the IM network in Chicago.

 

 

Yes, circus loading does avoid the need for cranes and because trucks are not lifted, anything that is fit to run on a highway can be loaded onto a train.  This straight away makes the concept more attractive to the trucking industry.

Iron Highway/Expressway avoids the time penalty of circus loading of a long train by splitting the train into modules which can be loaded independently. The loading time for the complete train is the same whether there are 1, 10 or 20 modules. For Iron Highway the loading time per module was 45 minutes.  If it were possible to design a modular train in which each car had a ramp which could be swung out at a loading terminal the loading time would be even less (go on inventors, take up this challenge!).

At the time the Iron Highway concept was being developed, the US rail industry (i) had a backlog of maintenance and capital investment, following near-bankruptcy pre-Staggers; (ii) was involved in merger programs and network reshaping post Staggers; (iii) had plenty of potential traditional rail business such as coal and steel, and (iv) for intermodal, was investing in container trains (including double-stack after the mid 1980s).  In other words, US railroads were too busy reinventing themselves to handle existing traffics more efficiently to bother investing in completely new methods of winning traffic in unfamiliar markets.

The situation now is rather different.  Rail cannot rely on just handling bulk traffics in unit trains.  Something like Expressway, or Iron Highway, that could capture short-haul traffic could be the future.

 

[RME]

greyhounds

As originally proposed the Iron Highway consisted of one or more self propelled multiple platform articulated flatcars. Propulsion came from heavy duty diesel truck engines with the drive train including heavy duty truck automatic transmissions.

In other words, a sensible evolution of Kneiling's integral train.  With the added spice that the operating model involves an advantage of the train not being an "integrated unit" at loading and unloading points.  (Presumably there would be competent 'hostling' controls that would allow the separable units to be switched to the tracks used for parallel loading/unloading without need for switch engines, and 'today' this would be done with separate -- and unconfusable! -- remote packs...)

There are potential markets - I think central New Jersey is one - where the idea of a train that can be quickly and easily split into self-propelled sections for relatively easy ground ramp loading of trailers makes sense.  I don't think there are enough of these to recoup the considerable capital cost of building and maintaining the Kneiling-style train, even if the gas turbine issue has been removed from the 'equation'.

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?

[greyhounds]

The Iron Highway evolved into the equipment used by the CP on their Montreal-Toronto Expressway TOFC service.  This is reportedly the only piggyback train in Canada.  

As originally proposed the Iron Highway consisted of one or more self propelled multiple platform articulated flatcars.  Propulsion came from heavy duty diesel truck engines with the drive train including heavy duty truck automatic transmissions.  This power system has been discarded and replaced by conventional locomotives.

Expressway is a TOFC system that uses circus type loading and unloading.  There's nothing wrong with this.  Circus type TOFC (including containers on chassis) intermodal terminals are a good, economical, low capital investment, and efficient fit for smaller volume markets.  The Expressway operation improves over the conventional circus terminal operations by allowing multiple loading/unloading ramps one one track.  This improves the speed of loading/unloading.

Expressway does not suffer from the problems the RoadRailer concept does.  Expressway is entirely compatible with the existing IM network and can readily be used within the network.  It could also be well used to expand the network.  CP is apparently satisfied with the results of its operation on the 340 mile Montreal-Toronto lane.  But I do not see them as having another market suitable for its use.  

I'd like to see an analysis of its potential on a route such as Green Bay-Chicago.  Not so much as a local service, but as a "Feeder" route connecting the manufacturing of the Fox River cities with the IM network in Chicago.

[samfp1943]

I seem to recall that we had a thread here, at one time, the subject was a similar piece of equipment (a small locomotive, and several platform style cars); An engineer,only was assigned to this train.  It was a point to point operaion, from a shipping location to destination, operator was the single engineer.  IIRC, it was being builled as a sort of railroad' truck' operation? and that was the thrust of it use, to be a compeditor for OTR trucking in Europe.  I do not believe it went much frather than a protype, and because it was a specialized piece of equipment, and did not fit the current 'model'. I went away after a short period. 

The closest that is similar is the Herzog MPM ( although,) it is adapted to ROW Maintenance)  the locomotive they use resembles the photos I remember of the European 'railroad truck' power unit(?)

See @        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui2-sLRbJIA

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Still running - even after E. Hunter Harrison !  But now as the "Expressway" brand:

http://www.cpr.ca/en/our-markets/truck-trailers 

http://www.cpr.ca/en/customer-resources/shipping-guides/expressway-operating-guidelines 

More later.

- PDN. 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I believe that the Iron Highway was tried out by CP in the Toronto-Montreal corridor.  Like Roadrailers, it's a non-standard arrangement and will probably suffer the same fate, if it hasn't already.

[IslandMan]

The Iron Highway was a concept developed by New York Air Brake in the late 80s/early 90s.  If railroads need to gain traffic by catering for smaller loads and shorter hauls, as suggested in "Finding a New Winning Formula", March issue, it might be worth re-examining the Iron Highway and similar ideas.

The Iron Highway was essentially a fixed-formation freight multiple unit, consisting of a rake of articulated platforms powered by a small loco at each end. The middle of the rake could be split into two ramps, allowing circus loading of trailers.  The time to load each multiple unit would be about 45 minutes.  The multiple units could be linked together to form long trains, but the loading time would remain the same. 

The link below gives more info:

www.railmotive.net/23theironhighwayinter.html