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 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
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.
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.?...
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.
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.
I think the concept would work fine. There is no question about it. I am just curious as to how it will be applied.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
charlie hebdoReminiscent of John Kneeling. https://www.fastcompany.com/90713785/former-spacex-engineers-raised-50-million-to-build-a-tesla-for-freight-trains Overmod?
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.
Reminiscent of John Kneeling.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.