Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Brandt on track rail vehicles.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Murphy SidingHow would the brakes work in that situation?
The larger hi-rail trucks I have seen have a brake pipe hose and coupler at the back end, so I imagine they can apply and release the car brakes. I don't know if they have a locomotive style brake valve in the cab, but I imagine they can at least do an on/ off sort of application.
We have a Gradall with a coupler and requisite brake hose. It has been used to move cars a fair distance. I haven't run it, so can't comment on the specifics of the brake system.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I've watched a front end loader push a half dozen empty gondolas down an industrial track..no couplers!
BaltACD Brandt on track rail vehicles.
Brandt R4 Power Unit from Brandt Tractor Ltd. on Vimeo
At about 2 mins 25 seconds in the video we have the answer for the train brake for the Brandt truck.
It's a 26L type valve.
Jeff
Murphy Siding BaltACD Brandt on track rail vehicles. Is this moved only by rubber against rails traction?
Is this moved only by rubber against rails traction?
Jeff's video show that a steel wheel is used to put tractive effort to the rail. Brandt claims 50000 pounds of tractive effort - max speed 40 MPH in forward and 25 MPH in reverse.
As info the B&O's President class Pacifics were rated at 50000 pounds of tractive effort.
jeffhergert Brandt R4 Power Unit from Brandt Tractor Ltd. on Vimeo At about 2 mins 25 seconds in the video we have the answer for the train brake for the Brandt truck. It's a 26L type valve. Jeff
jeffhergertBrandt R4 Power Unit from Brandt Tractor Ltd. on Vimeo At about 2 mins 25 seconds in the video we have the answer for the train brake for the Brandt truck. It's a 26L type valve.
1) Circus load containers on chassis near the Joslin facility. (Cheap intermodal terminal.)
2) Move the short trains to a CSX terminal near Chicago using the Brandts. The beef plant will produce two shifts per day. So move a “Train” to a CSX IM terminal in Chicago after each shift. (The 3rd shift in a packing house is reserved for cleaning and sanitation.)
3) CSX can then double stack the containers for movement to eastern and southern cities.’
What's your source for the government prohibiting this style of truck from moving revenue freight in the U.S?
The trucks are obviously certified to move regular old cars in maintenance of way service.
As for using it to move even moderate numbers of containers, what is the truck's top speed on rails with a heavy load? How much fuel does it burn compared to a small locomotive?
CN tried using a much earlier version of the truck-style power unit to haul roadrailers in Ontario and Quebec back in the 1990s. It broke down regularly and had to be rescued by conventional locomotives.
http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2012/04/cns-ecorail.html
It's also worth noting that CN was able to negotiate a separate labour agreement that allowed the Ecorail 'trains' to bypass regular crew change points. Of course this was back before the Hunter Harrison era. Isn't it amazing what can be accomplished when you actually try negotiating with your workforce instead of fighting them at every turn?
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
Those trucks aren't cheap. I wonder if the intial cost + wear and tear on it in daily service would even be comparable in the long run.
That's if they could handle customer work. It's one thing to move a couple fo gons along the main. Another thing to start pulling/placing cars on a siding that's on a 10% grade.
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
zugmannThose trucks aren't cheap. I wonder if the intial cost + wear and tear on it in daily service would even be comparable in the long run. That's if they could handle customer work. It's one thing to move a couple fo gons along the main. Another thing to start pulling/placing cars on a siding that's on a 10% grade.
The wear and tear of using Brandt vehicles in place of locomotives in short haul and switching service would have them structurally battered beyond repair in relatively short order. The frames of highway type vehicles cannot withstand repeated buff and draft forces that are routinely generated in such service.
SD70DudeWhat's your source for the government prohibiting this style of truck from moving revenue freight in the U.S? The trucks are obviously certified to move regular old cars in maintenance of way service. As for using it to move even moderate numbers of containers, what is the truck's top speed on rails with a heavy load? How much fuel does it burn compared to a small locomotive? CN tried using a much earlier version of the truck-style power unit to haul roadrailers in Ontario and Quebec back in the 1990s. It broke down regularly and had to be rescued by conventional locomotives.
BaltACDThe wear and tear of using Brandt vehicles in place of locomotives in short haul and switching service would have them structurally battered beyond repair in relatively short order. The frames of highway type vehicles cannot withstand repeated buff and draft forces that are routinely generated in such service.
It seems to work OK in Canada.
greyhounds BaltACD The wear and tear of using Brandt vehicles in place of locomotives in short haul and switching service would have them structurally battered beyond repair in relatively short order. The frames of highway type vehicles cannot withstand repeated buff and draft forces that are routinely generated in such service. It seems to work OK in Canada.
BaltACD The wear and tear of using Brandt vehicles in place of locomotives in short haul and switching service would have them structurally battered beyond repair in relatively short order. The frames of highway type vehicles cannot withstand repeated buff and draft forces that are routinely generated in such service.
Doubt they will make 70+ years in service like many SW-1's have, both North and South of the border.
MOW equipment differs from locomotives in several important ways, including being designed to avoid tripping track circuits (signal and crossing), and not requiring PTC, and I suspect not requiring other important appliances (like alerters).
I wonder (and don't know) if it would be possible to modify the Brandt truck design to comply with the requirements of a locomotive, at least as far as those requirements I just mentoned. Locomotives also have requirements to provide collision protection to crews that probably would not be possible with a truck, so would require an exemption if it were designed to act more like a locomotive.
Yes, regulations are probably standing in the way, but there are some good reasons we would not want a standard MOW truck making regular revenue runs. I do wonder if Canada has made special provisions for this, or if their operations still fall under track out-of-service rules like any typical MOW activity.
adkrr64Yes, regulations are probably standing in the way, but there are some good reasons we would not want a standard MOW truck making regular revenue runs
C'mon, if you can't just blame the gov't boogeyman - what fun is it?
Under the CROR a train may operate as a track unit when so designated, and if you are operating on non-main track or dark territory (OCS) where you only get a clearance the distinction is also blurred since foremen work under clearances just like trains. I suspect many shortlines fall into this sort of operation.
It is also worth noting that CN and CP have not attempted to use trucks to move revenue freight on rails, aside from the Ecorail example I mentioned earlier.
Futher to what I was getting at about top speed, the Canadian locomotive regulations make a distinction based on speed. If you will never exceed 25 mph a lot of our regulations don't apply, but for higher speeds our locomotives must comply with the AAR S-580 standards, as must yours. I suspect the Brandt truck would also not qualify to be a locomotive up here if you were to operate it at a higher speed.
https://tc.canada.ca/en/rail-transportation/rules/railway-locomotive-inspection-safety-rules/locomotives-design-requirements-part-ii
I skimmed the FRA locomotive regulations and noticed a few things that might become issues for the Brandt truck, some of which have already been mentioned.
- It does not have a toilet.
- Window glass strength.
- Crashworthiness strength, though some of this does not apply if the unit does not have MU connections.
The issues around activating track circuits could be solved relatively easily, and would not be an issue at all if the truck were coupled to cars with regular rail wheelsets.
The initial cost of the truck will also be an issue, if they're anything like trackmobiles they will be priced far higher than a small EMD locomotive, perhaps 2 or 3 times as high. And if you want something small, light, newer and more fuel efficient that also meets FRA standards why not go for something like a Republic switcher or a Railserve LEAF?
The trucks are fairly common on both sides of the border in MOW service, but I've never seen them moving cars at any substantial speed. They have also been involved in several runaway incidents on grades out here, perhaps due to the truck's smaller air compressor and lack of engine or dynamic braking capability compared to a locomotive, but also perhaps due to operator error (peeing away your air), which could be reduced through better training around how railcar air brakes work.
Again, I'm not trying to kill your ideas of moving shorter intermodal trains or perishable traffic over shorter distances or on secondary lines, but maybe the Brandt truck is too square a peg to try and pound into this round hole, and small locomotives are a better fit for your intended operation.
IAIS experimented with a hi-rail tractor pulling trailers. Brian Hanel posted some pictures I took in a thread some years, probably more than I care to think, back. My pictures were taken out on the road. I have links to pictures of the equipment at the Iowa City terminal by another photographer. The caption date says 1985 in the early days of the IAIS.
IAIS Railfans Photo Gallery :: Road number 0001 and TOFC :: 0001_4
IAIS Railfans Photo Gallery :: Road number 0001 and TOFC :: 0001_3
IAIS Railfans Photo Gallery :: Road number 0001 and TOFC :: 0001_1
I recall the tractor was supposed to be able to dray the trailers to where ever they were going on the highways, as well as pull them down the tracks.
It didn't work out. The experimentation didn't last very long. I only saw the outfit once.
Another factor is a Brandt truck is limited. We use a lot of 6-axles on our locals now. 6 axles that are just as comfortable doing yard work or hauling coal trains.
With the Present Status of Railroading we are doing - everything has to be able to do anything else and be in constant use.
SD70Dude I skimmed the FRA locomotive regulations and noticed a few things that might become issues for the Brandt truck, some of which have already been mentioned. - It does not have a toilet. - Window glass strength. - Crashworthiness strength, though some of this does not apply if the unit does not have MU connections. The issues around activating track circuits could be solved relatively easily, and would not be an issue at all if the truck were coupled to cars with regular rail wheelsets.
I think you are correct about the type of thing that would disqualify a Brandt from meeting FRA regs for a locomotive. If anyone were interested, they could apply for a waiver and likely get one if Labor consented.
In the USA, Brandt trucks can move cars under authority types usually used for trains, e.g. by signal indication in CTC territory, without having to be able to stop within 1/2 of the available sight distance. In pre-PTC days, this just required a conductor pilot along with the regular driver. Used to be pretty common whenever, say, the Brandt was being used to move a tie gang's empty flat cars 100 miles from the unload point to the reload point. I don't know what the effect of PTC has been.
Probably the bigger regulatory issue with operating as a revenue train this way is that FRA requires a certified locomotive engineer, and most engineers are not qualified to operate a Brandt. It makes crew management much more complicated if certain movements require the engineer to have both FRA and DOT certifications - not to mention complying with two different hours of service regimes.
I really don't think this is the limiting factor, though. I'm having a hard time seeing how a Brandt truck changes the fundamental economics of short-train, short-distance freight transport.
The only place they change the equation is if you could somehow save a light-power move over a busy segment of track. The examples I can think would mostly occur in rail yards (such as moving a bad-ordered car from a setout track to a shop track), and those probably are not consistent enough to keep the equipment utilized.
Dan
I suspect that Brandt trucks fall into a limbo area. As MOW, they don't require an "engineer," but I've seen them pushing a half dozen gondolas down the Chicago Line from Utica to Herkimer, about ten miles.
As I wasn't listening to the dispatcher channel at the time, I don't recall what they had for authority/permission. But away they went.
Recall that the GE 44 tonner was built at 44 tons as 45 tons required a fireman.
dpeltier'm having a hard time seeing how a Brandt truck changes the fundamental economics of short-train, short-distance freight transport.
greyhounds dpeltier 'm having a hard time seeing how a Brandt truck changes the fundamental economics of short-train, short-distance freight transport. Nobody said it changed the fundamental economics of short-train, short-distance freight transport. This is not, in any way, short-distance freight transport. For example, if the Joslin origin beef is going to the New York City market it’s moving 797 miles.
dpeltier 'm having a hard time seeing how a Brandt truck changes the fundamental economics of short-train, short-distance freight transport.
You are proposing to do the drayage from Joslin to Chicago by rail. That puts this segment of the journey in direct competition with trucks, which can also dray containers to the Chicago.
dpeltierYou are proposing to do the drayage from Boston to Chicago by rail. That puts this segment of the journey in direct competition with trucks, which can also dray containers to the Chicago.
Boston?
greyhounds dpeltier You are proposing to do the drayage from Boston to Chicago by rail. That puts this segment of the journey in direct competition with trucks, which can also dray containers to the Chicago. Boston?
dpeltier You are proposing to do the drayage from Boston to Chicago by rail. That puts this segment of the journey in direct competition with trucks, which can also dray containers to the Chicago.
Oops. Auto-correct at work. I fixed it to say Joslin.
greyhoundsOf course, the unions would have to cooperate.
How would the DOT HOS work with trucking/RRing combined?
dpeltierYou are proposing to do the drayage from Joslin to Chicago by rail. That puts this segment of the journey in direct competition with trucks, which can also dray containers to the Chicago.
1) An underutilized rail line with plenty of excess capacity.
2) A single origin for freight
3) A single destination for freight (The CSX Chicago terminal.)
greyhounds Think about what we’ve got here. 1) An underutilized rail line with plenty of excess capacity.
The rail line that's "right there" is the BNSF Barstow sub, about 5 miles away from the first capacity improvement project I ever worked on. The Barstow sub doesn't go to Chicago. I think you're thinking of the IAIS, which is 15 minutes away in Geneseo.
I don't know how the IAIS is for capacity, but I'm very doubtful you can get from Geneseo to a production track in any CSX intermodal terminal without going through a congested area. For starters, the production tracks and the leads in and out of the CSX intermodal terminal are probably pretty busy.
greyhounds This is a unit train opportunity. Granted, it’s a mini unit train, but it’s still a unit train.
greyhounds Railroads can be competitive with trucks at short distances using unit trains. They do it all the time.
greyhounds What destroys railroad competitiveness at shorter distances is their terminal costs. They do have lower line haul costs, but there must be enough line haul miles to overcome the terminal costs that truckers do not have. Unit trains operating from one origin to one destination greatly reduce rail terminal costs.
greyhounds It’s around 180 miles from Joslin to Chicago. 360 miles round trip. I can’t see a trucker touching this for less than $2.00/mile. (That’s probably low.) So, we’ve got an origin dray cost of $720 per load. YUK! (The Cat Lady may correct me.) If there are but twelve loads out of Joslin each shift to eastern and southern destinations that would be $8,640 per twelve loads. So, that’s what we’ve got to work with. We’ve got to significantly beat that number.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.