SD60MAC9500Let'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 power unit is... well, just the same autonomous/remote low-profile unit used for gang unloading of TOFC, complete with self-aligning lift and road-capable fifth wheel. It binds on to the trailer, proceeds to the ramp where it converts to rail mode after self-aligning, and off it goes. (Note that for not that much extra money you can put lights and cameras on the trailer and run it in reverse; the original tag-axle RoadRailers were stable in reverse at over 100mph at Pueblo and type 3s are inherently better guiding than those were...)
The Parallel Systems modules I have seen use ISO containers as stressed members, and appear to be relying on cheap overhead lift a la Mi-Jack-lite to get the containers mated to the lightweight equipment. This is a generally commendable idea, but has problems in the quoted example; for example the loading and unloading of appliances has to be done with the container on load cells, the appliance load has to be carefully dunned in to avoid shifting including any unoccupied space in a LTL, and you need attention to automatic twistlock engagement if the combo is traversing rough or uneven surface on its way to the rail entrance point. You then proceed to the point that 'trains' will be assembled into blocks that can share an expensive autonomous power unit... again involving lift or jacking to allow the autonomous bogies to self-drive into place. Platooning with this equipment is a relative waste of very expensive stranded capital with highly limited OTR use; this is not showstopping but is going to involve very, very deep pockets to become as pervasive as it will have to be, for 'big savings' that I think will be difficult to monetize vs. other modes 'doing the same thing' -- some with much more direct service at higher effective QoS.
Then there is the converted boxcar thing. What you wind up with is interesting, because it is difficult to motor a three-piece truck. You get a possum belly for the battery system (and guidance, and communications, and electrically-controlled brakes with compressor and electric parking brake, etc.) and some sort of symmetrical bolster with the motors hinged off it, with some free-running Weller tensioned drive to the axles, probably with the same Gates belt arrangement for the Lewty booster... perhaps needing torque struts to keep the sideframes level. It would be feasible to rig the direct track brake we discussed a few years ago if a safe enough (or mandated enough) way to keep it accident-free could be devised.
In theory, a few of these could do fun things in a nominally locomotive-hauled consist, including an improved mesh network for various purposes. What they will have problems with is secure coupling and uncoupling on the fly if operated, as here, in autonomous ad hoc rakes with no assigned crew or power.
You'd need automatic power coupling and uncoupling, perhaps interlocked to both brake systems, with manual controls for 'regular' use but no likelihood at all of being manipulated or accidentally triggered enroute. I would not like to have to design such a thing, but I think I would like even less having to insure it in a world devoid of prosecutions for violent theft. Instead you would run just as I suggested, with open but firmly touching couplers (probably using some defined range of buff force as the 'servo' range for the platoon following) so the cars have (and need) zero headway and the effect CBTC track capacity is maximized.
YoHo1975I'm confused on if you're suggesting convert the existing rail line to rail platooning or suggesting it be converted to road.
The issue with converting rail to road (to provide autonomous truck platooning on a dedicated paved ROW) is principally the issue of working clearance. There is not really the room to run trucks on the equivalent of a narrow double-lane road with no divider, no matter how good the autonomics, especially if there are crosswinds or poor weather to be expected along the route. The road equivalent of 'sidings' could of course be adopted for platoons, as to an extent can be the idea of fleeting, and where there is the possibility of directional road conversion, a single lane becomes less of an impediment.
Very quickly, though, some of the issues with heavy embankments or narrow bridges crop up unpleasantly.
If you do the Parallel Systems approach, which is using lightweight autonomous modules on standard-gauge rails, there are two ways (assuming suitable waivers in place) that 'rail' traffic can be accommodated -- one is the usual time separation often found where light rail and local freight have to coexist; the other is to implement CBTC so that trains are definitively separated from platoons. Presumably on a 'converted' line, the platooning would have the line and scheduling priority, with a sort of tacit assumption that traditional standards of track class don't exactly apply strictly any more. (Note that this would have been nearly ideal for a 'conversion' of the old Milwaukee PCE if the 90# track could be properly lined and surfaced with something like a TLM or the European heavy-refurbishment equipment...) You'd have the long-opposing-siding method of running trains by each other, and the ability to use CTC-like control of platooned trains longer than nominal siding length -- it would be an interesting thing to try, if 'normal' separated control of last-mile railroad access to hubs or crossdock locations were properly implemented.
SD60MAC9500 Big Cat Didn't Whirlpool in Marion have on-site rail service back in the day. I'm sure it did like many factories had at one time. Also like the vast majority of factories they ripped up their spurs years ago.
Big Cat Didn't Whirlpool in Marion have on-site rail service back in the day.
Didn't Whirlpool in Marion have on-site rail service back in the day.
I'm sure it did like many factories had at one time. Also like the vast majority of factories they ripped up their spurs years ago.
Gramp Some roads are built brand new. What if a rail line were selected and converted to platooning? Say...the coastline from LA to SF. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWv1kRSSPA2FaucZGEp2lxQ No need for couplers.
Some roads are built brand new. What if a rail line were selected and converted to platooning? Say...the coastline from LA to SF.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWv1kRSSPA2FaucZGEp2lxQ
No need for couplers.
I'm confused on if you're suggesting convert the existing rail line to rail platooning or suggesting it be converted to road.
I think that it would be interesting to try. Obviously existing passenger traffic would be a thorn in it's side as would the congestion at either end. What might make more sense would be if something like this were put on to the HSR line during off hours like overnight...Or, even just while the Central valley section exists without the end connections. That way it wouldn't impact UP or BNSF. I think the only challenge is they'd need to operate as a "normal" train outside the HSR segment.
BaltACD What will be the cost of a new built road for the operation of these things?
What will be the cost of a new built road for the operation of these things?
Possibly quite a bit less than current RR practice as the grades can be steeper, curves could be sharper and if the intent is single stacks of containers, the loading gauge can be smaller (espcially important with tunnels).
I see a lot of unanswered questions about getting this to work in the real world.
The first video shows trucks platooning on a test track in Canada.
I got the same, weird Youtube page.
Im not sure why, but when I click on your link, this is what I see:
Is there a certain video that should be displayed? I don't want to check each one.
Maybe my computer is at fault?
York1 John
GrampSome roads are built brand new. What if a rail line were selected and converted to platooning? Say...the coastline from LA to SF. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWv1kRSSPA2FaucZGEp2lxQ No need for couplers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Great rebuttal video on this dream like concept..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BaltACDChaos is rarely an efficient means of operation.
"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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Chaos is rarely an efficient means of operation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.?...
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.