Great rebuttal video on this dream like concept..........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJNvpG5gktM
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.
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.
What will be the cost of a new built road for the operation of these things?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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
Didn't Whirlpool in Marion have on-site rail service back in the day.
I got the same, weird Youtube page.
The first video shows trucks platooning on a test track in Canada.
BaltACD 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.