Reminiscent of John Kneeling.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90713785/former-spacex-engineers-raised-50-million-to-build-a-tesla-for-freight-trains
Overmod?
charlie hebdoReminiscent of John Kneeling. https://www.fastcompany.com/90713785/former-spacex-engineers-raised-50-million-to-build-a-tesla-for-freight-trains Overmod?
The product of recreational pharmaceuticals in mass quantities.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I don't have $50M of financing tranches, but I know why their idea isn't going to work as the article indicates.
We had a better operating model than that a couple of decades ago for container and LCL service to central New Jersey. And it wasn't long-term stable -- less so in an era of autonomous trucks.
In the 1830s it would be just ducky. Getting it to coexist with existing railroad operations nearly two centuries later -- absent a great deal of unlikely-to-transpire coercion, not so much. A very expensive buy-in with fiddly and critical support, to supply service gains difficult at best to realize, let alone compellingly monetize.
OvermodI don't have $50M of financing tranches, but I know why their idea isn't going to work as the article indicates. We had a better operating model than that a couple of decades ago for container and LCL service to central New Jersey. And it wasn't long-term stable -- less so in an era of autonomous trucks. In the 1830s it would be just ducky. Getting it to coexist with existing railroad operations nearly two centuries later -- absent a great deal of unlikely-to-transpire coercion, not so much. A very expensive buy-in with fiddly and critical support, to supply service gains difficult at best to realize, let alone compellingly monetize.
Only so much traffic can move over any segment of track in any period of time. Individual 'vehicles' decrease the utilization of that track segment - even when they are autonomous.
The premise -- and up to a point it is a 'sensible' one -- is that the equivalent of platooning is very simple for autonomous rail vehicles. Just as with Kneiling's self-propelled integral trainsets, the idea would be to assemble ad hoc blocks of traffic that would then occupy CBTC-compliant track windows.
Where the fun comes in is that while there are plenty of such 'windows' on most main lines, they don't extend all the way to terminal/crossdock or even last-mile 'split-up' and autonomous flat switching to parking locations. Look no further than '70s PRT cuing complexity to see where the disasters start... then posit conventional railroad service over the same plant with the same degree of intermodal last-mile transfer.
BaltACDOnly so much traffic can move over any segment of track in any period of time. Individual 'vehicles' decrease the utilization of that track segment - even when they are autonomous.
The first crucial variable is how far apart the pieces of the 'platoon' are. If they are zero to five feet they could clear the congestion hurdle. If 500 feet apart then a 50 unit platoon is 25,000 feet long, far worse than a 250 slot double stack.
The writer of the article, and perhaps the proponent, do not understand that in terms of congestion, one of these things uses as much track capacity as that stack train.
The reported 500 mile range per battery charge is a huge problem also.
Mac
There are apparently at least three different variations of this proposal circulating. In one of them, they talk about the need for a rail line as though this transporter will not be operating on an existing railroad. If it needs a new rail line, why not just make the connection with trucks? If it must operate on an existing railroad, why would a railroad company be interested?
I'd like to suggest....
It's an idea, a concept.
Please consider how it could work and where it would be useful. Please quit saying why it won't work.
I think it has possible applications.
greyhounds I'd like to suggest.... It's an idea, a concept. Please consider how it could work and where it would be useful. Please quit saying why it won't work. I think it has possible applications.
Correct. And reading some comments suggest the posters didn't bother to read the article. One name mentioned was a successful BNSF guy. The creators were not just some drug-addled fools.
I think the concept would work fine. There is no question about it. I am just curious as to how it will be applied.
If the concept was even remotely sound, they would have applied it to pipelines years and years ago. The main issue I see is it treats the rail network as equal to the interstate highway system in operation and with availability of on and off ramps. I suspect it would clog up the nationwide network in short order not to mention the effects it would have on PTC and train seperation. Not to mention the article maintains that they would need to add rail to the national network to make the concept work.....who is going to pay for that?
I think CP's exploration of Hydrogen Power Cells is more forward thinking.
1) Objective to replace trucks in the drayage component of rail transportation. This is said to require new rail links to replace the trucks and roadways currently used for the drayage. For this need for many relatively short rail links, they are proposed to be created either by reactivating abandoned rail lines, or by building new rail lines. The primary purpose of this objective is to get truck traffic off of the roads and onto the railroads for the environmental benefit.
2) Objective to integrate this new self-powered, electric railcar concept with existing freight railroad network, and convert existing rail traffic to this new concept.
Out of all the autonomous rail concepts. I like this one alot! Not only that they have an actual working prototype. I'm curious as to whether we will even need doublestacked containers, or containers period for domestic IM with this autonomous tech going forward.
Check this scenario out.. Let's use the Whirlpool plant in Marion, OH as an example. Loads are currently moved via container and trailer via a short dray to the Marion Industrial Park a few miles east served by CSX. CSX hypothetically or even Whirlpool build a small loading pad directly at the Whirlpool plant. Let's say 2 loading tracks 2 tracks for temporary storage. Autonomous trailers loaded with appliances drive right up onto an autonomous rail platform. From there the blocks can move to their destinations on the fly.
The nice thing about this. It avoids expensive rail terminals and eliminates or reduces delays in transit. I don't know this is one concept to keep our eyes on!
P.S. What about other autonomous railcars? boxcars? flatcars, etc.?...
PNWRMNM BaltACD Only so much traffic can move over any segment of track in any period of time. Individual 'vehicles' decrease the utilization of that track segment - even when they are autonomous. The first crucial variable is how far apart the pieces of the 'platoon' are. If they are zero to five feet they could clear the congestion hurdle. If 500 feet apart then a 50 unit platoon is 25,000 feet long, far worse than a 250 slot double stack. The writer of the article, and perhaps the proponent, do not understand that in terms of congestion, one of these things uses as much track capacity as that stack train. The reported 500 mile range per battery charge is a huge problem also. Mac
BaltACD Only so much traffic can move over any segment of track in any period of time. Individual 'vehicles' decrease the utilization of that track segment - even when they are autonomous.
The 500 mile range isn't necessarily a problem. More than likely these units will have some sort of DB to recharge the batteries. Maybe those stiff grades we still have on our rail network will come in handy.
Also we can already assume with this tech no more fixed block traffic control. Moving blocks will be the norm and much more efficient. So I don't see a capacity issue there.
SD60MAC9500Out of all the autonomous rail concepts. I like this one alot! Not only that they have an actual working prototype. I'm curious as to whether we will even need doublestacked containers, or containers period for domestic IM with this autonomous tech going forward. Check this scenario out.. Let's use the Whirlpool plant in Marion, OH as an example. Loads are currently moved via container and trailer via a short dray to the Marion Industrial Park a few miles east. CSX hypothetically or even Whirlpool build a small loading pad directly at the Whirlpool plant. Let's say 2 loading tracks 2 tracks for temporary storage. Autonomous trailers loaded with appliances drive right up onto an autonomous rail platform. From there the blocks can move to their destinations on the fly. The nice thing about this. It avoids expensive rail terminals and eliminates or reduces delays in transit. I don't know this is one concept to keep our eyes on! P.S. What about other autonomous railcars? boxcars? flatcars, etc.?...
Check this scenario out.. Let's use the Whirlpool plant in Marion, OH as an example. Loads are currently moved via container and trailer via a short dray to the Marion Industrial Park a few miles east. CSX hypothetically or even Whirlpool build a small loading pad directly at the Whirlpool plant. Let's say 2 loading tracks 2 tracks for temporary storage. Autonomous trailers loaded with appliances drive right up onto an autonomous rail platform. From there the blocks can move to their destinations on the fly.
In single routed shipper/consignee situations railroading is so easy even a First Grader could do it.
When you start dealing with thousands of shippers and thousands of consignees along with varying volumes between each on 'erratic' basis - things tend to get much more involved and complex.
I wonder how they program it to react when it sees an obstruction ahead - does it just stop and wait for a RR employee to come deal with whatever it senses or does it just plow ahead? If it stops, it's a great way for thieves to just put something on the track while laying in wait to steal the cargo, if not imagine the derailments and lawsuits.
Euclid There is more than one presentation of this concept online. Here are two fundamentally different objectives in two of the presentations: 1) Objective to replace trucks in the drayage component of rail transportation. This is said to require new rail links to replace the trucks and roadways currently used for the drayage. For this need for many relatively short rail links, they are proposed to be created either by reactivating abandoned rail lines, or by building new rail lines. The primary purpose of this objective is to get truck traffic off of the roads and onto the railroads for the environmental benefit. 2) Objective to integrate this new self-powered, electric railcar concept with existing freight railroad network, and convert existing rail traffic to this new concept.
Are there more than one concept? Company? Or simply different articles about the same proposal?
For example, I posted an article about this same proposal a couple of hour's before charlie did, but my article is a different source.
YoHo1975 Euclid There is more than one presentation of this concept online. Here are two fundamentally different objectives in two of the presentations: 1) Objective to replace trucks in the drayage component of rail transportation. This is said to require new rail links to replace the trucks and roadways currently used for the drayage. For this need for many relatively short rail links, they are proposed to be created either by reactivating abandoned rail lines, or by building new rail lines. The primary purpose of this objective is to get truck traffic off of the roads and onto the railroads for the environmental benefit. 2) Objective to integrate this new self-powered, electric railcar concept with existing freight railroad network, and convert existing rail traffic to this new concept. Are there more than one concept? Company? Or simply different articles about the same proposal? For example, I posted an article about this same proposal a couple of hour's before charlie did, but my article is a different source.
Chaos is rarely an efficient means of operation.
I can see that this might work where there is a branch line that leaves directly from a yard without having to use any mainline track. Shipments could be dispatched whenever they arrive in the yard instead of waiting for the next scheduled local train.
Track slots would not be as much of a problem. Hand throw switches leading to the receivers' tracks and obstructions in the vehicle's path may be.
There are some shipments that are not likely or cannot be stolen.
mvlandswTrack slots would not be as much of a problem. Hand throw switches leading to the receivers' tracks and obstructions in the vehicle's path may be.
I mean, most places aren't simply just put a car at a spot. You have gates, derails, doors, stuff on tracks, trucks crossing tracks, workers, unloading tower, hoses, chocks, and other stuff.
Then you have the risk of the customer damaging the car before it runs itself back to the yard. I can see it now, flying down the track, plug door flapping in the breeze...
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
All 3 articles refer to the same startup by the same former engineers. The articles themselves focus on different potential use models, but the actual company and it's product are the same.
Anyway, in any of these threads, I'm going to say the same thing. I don't see this as a solution for long haul container traffic in the near to mid term, but for drayage scenarios AND, if there's underutilized secondary routes that could be converted over to this to move containers on what would otherwise be an unprofitable route, I could see it happening.
It would also be interesting to see what the underlying battery electric technology could morph into. railcars that provided a portion (or all) of their own tractive effort with much less head end HP?
"underutilized secondary routes" makes me think this would have been a killer idea in the 1970's.
As far as making good use of track time, the concept as shown in the video embedded in the article should be an efficient use of track time. Oe advantage is with a traction motor (or two) per bogie, the acceleration of the train would be much faster than any locomotie hauled freight train. there also would not be any string-lining forces to deal with. OTOH, these bogies remind of the disconnected trucks used on some logging railroads and the safety record for those was not something to write home about.
Control of a long string of these bogies could be -um- a challenge. One advantage is that since evey bogie would be powered, setting up a mesh network should be relatively straightforward as long as the radios keep working. (N.B. "keep working" is doing an incredible amount of heavy lifting in the previous sentence.)
The electric bogies would probably get more ton miles per charge than an elecric semi, partly because weight isn't as critical and partly due to lower rolling resistance.
BaltACDChaos is rarely an efficient means of operation.
Just a thought that occurrred. When it was mentioned above they would need to put tracks directly to factories and distribution points to connect to the existing rail grid, it seems they would have to acquire land. A hundred years ago if we needed a new track, it ran across the countryside until it got there. Today, that same track would run through neighborhoods of residemtial properties, commercial and industrial complexes, even school campuses. Eminent domain only takes us so far. The expense would be enormous, assuming the land needed would be available at all.
One of the evident premises of the system I see pictured is using ISO marine containers as structural elements of many of these trains.
I don't see any practicality in converting railcars into autonomous units with 'truck/bogie replacement' technology... that makes little better capital-allocation sense than it did many years ago, despite the nominal improvements in electronics, SDRs, and the promise of costed-down autonomous guidance. So what we need to look at is how a system of this type can overcome the fundamental issues with RoadRailers (for converted van trailers) and RailRunners (for container intermodal) with the very obvious assumption that intermodal 'last mile' on-road is how most of this traffic actually originates and terminates.
Many years ago I actually looked at the idea of using containers as the 'only' carbody structure for a CargoSpeed (the Adtranz use) sort of operation. This initially would have used modified three-piece trucks with a platform equipped with pivoting twistlock frames and equalizing levers -- I went to some trouble in automating the twistlock engagement back in the days I thought that was necessary. This had the same obvious lane-balancing issues as the later RoadRailers did, the railroad-bogie equivalent of the Flexi-Van road chassis problem.
Parallel Systems can solve this in principle by making the intermediate bogies powered and autonomous, so they can run light in 'ad hoc' fashion and queue themselves for loading, then maneuver precisely under a descending container to engage its corner castings without fancy Mi-Jack operator skills or camera suites. In theory the same would be possible for fork container lifts. It gets complicated and starts to be weird if you use end-on cable lifting from a ramp or arm-assisted truck a la Dumpster, and perhaps comically prone to temporarily showstopping mishaps if you try Kneiling-style sideloading.
Some interesting things arise if you have low-profile 'intermediate units' that are road-capable as autonomous or 'remote-advised' yard tugs.
Overmod BaltACD Chaos is rarely an efficient means of operation. Yes, but consider how the original Ethernet works, or the original principles behind AlohaNet and the early implementations of the Internet.
BaltACD Chaos is rarely an efficient means of operation.
Yes, but consider how the original Ethernet works, or the original principles behind AlohaNet and the early implementations of the Internet.
Data packets and physical rail car/containers are totally different 'objects' being moved.
A data packet can be accelerated to 'line speed' at the speed of light - physical objects not so much.
You miss my point entirely. Ethernet is not a collisionless protocol; it negotiates throughput dynamically. The original Internet was self-routing in 'anomalous' situations where no advance planning was possible. The issue is not in the speed of the packets; it's in how things get done.
Points overlooked.
1. Rapid recharging is mentioned in the article.
2. Track capacity is increased dramatically by higher sustained speeds and acceleration, more easily obtained in this type of system.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.