Trailing tonnage behind a tow truck.

[greyhounds]

BaltACD

Switching is not in the PSR Operating plans.

Oh, this predates PSR. By a long time.

 

I remember R. L. Rushing, VP of Sales for the ICG, complaining about a division superintendent who didn’t want some offered business because it would create more paperwork.

 

I took to calling them the non-operating department because it seemed like their goal was to not operate.

 

I personally like the concept of PSR.

 

[Electroliner 1935]

BaltACD

greyhounds

...

 As an aside:  In response to your original objection, Heaven Forbid that a railroad would actually have to switch a customer to develop new business. 

Switching is not in the PSR Operating plans.

And what Railroad would let a customer on THEIR railroad get switched by a foreign entity to be delivered to a DIFFERENT railroad? NEVER going to happen. TOO logical. Or guess how much they want to charge for "reciprocal" switching? 

[BaltACD]

greyhounds

...

 As an aside:  In response to your original objection, Heaven Forbid that a railroad would actually have to switch a customer to develop new business.

Switching is not in the PSR Operating plans.

[greyhounds]

Backshop

So now you have BNSF having to send a switcher to pick up a few cars to interchange with another railroad just a few miles away.  Are they going to use a truck, too?  Does BNSF have a switcher on duty at the needed times?

No, that’s not the concept. You need to understand the concept. The concept may well need adjustments and improvements. But to do that you must understand it first.

 

THE CONCEPT is to originate a small unit train at the Tyson facility and run it directly to a CSX (or NS) intermodal terminal in Chicago. This will minimize drayage and switching costs. At the Chicago terminal the containers of beef will be transferred to trains going to various destinations. Boston, New York City, Atlanta, Tampa, etc.

 

It is long haul freight that is not on the railroad. A major factor limiting rail competitiveness is the high cost of the drayage from Joslin to Chicago.  A small unit train operation should mitigate those cost.

 

The fact that the Tyson beef facility is on the BNSF is of little or no consequence. BNSF can easily grant the Iowa Interstate rights to operate these proposed trains over the few miles between the Tyson facility and the Iowa Interstate.  No need for BNSF switching. The Iowa Interstate is greatly underutilized so these trains should have low incremental costs.

 

As an aside:  In response to your original objection, Heaven Forbid that a railroad would actually have to switch a customer to develop new business.

 

[dpeltier]

greyhounds

You got it all right here!

 

If you come up with some concept to put freight and revenue on the railroad instead of the Interstate Highway you’ll be met with “NO, IT WON’T WORK” from people in the operating department who view more freight and revenue as a problem instead of an opportunity.

 

 

If you keep repeating variations on the same dumb ideas over and over again, of course you'll get the same response.

 

I'm sorry I got sucked into it this time. I try to only participate when I think I have something non-obvious to add. I thought some people might be interested to know a little more about how the Brandt Roadrailer does and doesn't operate like a locomotive. I should have stopped there.

 

You've shown over and over again that you are the one who doesn't want to listen to what anyone else has to say. I will not respond to any more of your posts, just like I don't respond to Euclid.

 

Dan

 

[Backshop]

greyhounds

As far as the Tyson plant being in the BNSF instead of the Iowa Interstate, so what? There certainly is a track that connects the railroads. The trains can start on the BNSF and move to Chicago on the Iowa Interstate. He’s just looking for another reason to say “NO.”

So now you have BNSF having to send a switcher to pick up a few cars to interchange with another railroad just a few miles away.  Are they going to use a truck, too?  Does BNSF have a switcher on duty at the needed times?

[greyhounds]

You got it all right here!

 

If you come up with some concept to put freight and revenue on the railroad instead of the Interstate Highway you’ll be met with “NO, IT WON’T WORK” from people in the operating department who view more freight and revenue as a problem instead of an opportunity.

 

There is not one word, or one thought, in dpeltier’s post about how to make it work. There are only reasons for “NO, IT WON’T WORK.”  That attitude is all too common. Growth opportunities should be developed, not refused.

 

It goes almost without saying that my initial concept can and should be improved. But improvement is not where he’s going. He’s Hell Bent for “NO.”

 

And then he takes us on a tour of things he does not like or that he wants. He apparently participated in operating a train to Montana that had too few containers for his liking. Well, it’s not the number of containers that really counts. What counts is the incremental revenue vs the incremental costs. dpeltier doesn’t mention that.

 

There are certainly ways to deal with smaller markets. I was part of a start up that wanted to move meat in reefer boxcars on the BNSF. We wanted those cars handled on BNSF intermodal trains. The railroad’s reply: “Our operating department doesn’t like to mix intermodal and carload.”  So, market development and growth were controlled by what the operating department “Liked.”  This was stupid. It’s now been changed. But someone probably had to retire first.

 

There’s a whole lot of freight available in the Quad Cities area. The railroads should have more of it than they do. But they must fight their own people to get it.

 

As far as the Tyson plant being in the BNSF instead of the Iowa Interstate, so what? There certainly is a track that connects the railroads. The trains can start on the BNSF and move to Chicago on the Iowa Interstate. He’s just looking for another reason to say “NO.”

 

 

[dpeltier]

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.

 

 

I've encountered several intermodal trains that regularly ran less than 2,000' long, over some pretty long distances - for a while. I remember having several windows busted for the *#@$#* Z-CHCLAU, which would then come trundling through with 30 damn containers. It's gone now, as are the others, although one, the BNSF's relatively new Q-SSEALT from the PNW to the DFW area via the way-underutilized PRB coal route, was saved by adding a bigger block of manifest traffic onto it. A short intermodal train just doesn't bring in enough revenue to justify the resources that it requires

 

12 containers of TOFC (or rather Container-Plus-Chassis On Flat Car) over 180 miles is much less efficient than 30 double stack cobtainers over 1,000 miles. I think it's safe to say that the motive power need is not the deciding factor. A smaller crew size would affect the viability point somewhat, but the unions didn't offer 1-man crews to save the Z-CHCLAU, don't know why they would do so for your train.

 

greyhounds

 

Railroads can be competitive with trucks at short distances using unit trains. They do it all the time.

 

 

12 IM platforms is not a unit train. It is a small block of cars to be spotted at a customer. To qualify for unit train pricing on BNSF requires 100+ cars. There is a reason for that.

 

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.

 

 

The factor you're missing is that railroads only have the advantage on the line-haul portion because of the economies of scale you get by running whole trains. Yes, if you can reduce terminal costs somewhat, then you can theoretically reduce train length somewhat and still earn your keep. If you increase terminal costs by running smaller, less-efficient terminals, but reduce drayage distances sufficiently, then you can theoretically come out ahead in some cases. But the idea that you can have a tiny terminal spitting out tiny trains over a short distance and have it be competitive with trucking costs is totally unsupported by any examples.

 

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.

 

 

The truck can deliver the container right to wherever CSX needs it to be. If that container arrives by rail, CSX has to unload it and a hostler has to move it away from the production track to wherever it's going to be held until they're ready to load it on the outbound. In other words, the move from Joslin to Chicago is still an intermodal move, with terminal costs at both ends, in addition to the terminal costs at both ends of the Chicago->NYC movement. So you have to subtract those costs away from what you have available for the rail movement.

 

You also have to account for the costs of ownership of a certain number of dedicated flat cars (including extras to protect against disruptions), dedicated locomotives or Brandt trucks (ditto), and chassis. Because the pool of IAIS locomotive engineers (or Brandt operators) is so much smaller than the pool of CDL drivers, you'll sometimes need to deadhead drivers /engineers around, and turns will sometimes get missed. When a turn does get missed, you will get behind by an entire shift's worth of shipments rather than only a single truckload's worth. If a bridge plate fails and shuts down the circus loading, your 2-3 dedicated trucks cycling between Joslin and Geneseo will be shut down completely, as will you train engineer / driver, until you can get someone on site to fix it.

 

All of these things (except the bridge plates) happen in large terminals too, but the volume tends to smooth things out somewhat. The cost of the spare, "just-in-case" resources needed for resliency can be spread out over more volume.

 

Furthermore: part of the way the railroads keep that line-haul cost low is by running lean. Sometimes - believe it or not - they don't have the resources to handle the traffic they've got. If the CSX terminal gets badly backlogged, or if IAIS experiences a crew shortage or a derailment, the 12-car trains will be the first to get annulled and the last to get restored. Your new terminal will sit unused for weeks at a time until the folks at Tyson - who will still be shipping the bulk of their output by truck, to all the places that don't have competitive rail lanes - pull the plug on the whole thing.

 

There is room for improvement and growth in the industry, both for carload and intermodal traffic. But it should come by building and improving on existing strengths, capturing and holding traffic at the margins, not by going after movements where rail's natural advantages are minimized.

 

An example for what I think is a radical but reasonable place to look for new growth: 1.) Get the long-discussed intermodal hub built somewhere in northwest Indiana; 2.) find a way to provide direct intermodal service from southern California to northern Indiana, and 3.) find a way to provide direct intermodal service from NY / NJ to Joliet. That's a potential savings of up to 80 miles of drayage on congested roads (many tolled) for certain customers. I would think that, between new business generated and existing customers who would pay more for a more convenient location, the volumes would be there. The operation would be hard, but if you could make it work, the economics would be there.

 

Or maybe not. I'm not a marketing guy.

 

Dan

[greyhounds]

dpeltier

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.

Yes, I am. I want the revenue to go to the railroad, not the trucker.

 

Think about what we’ve got here.

 

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.)

 

This is a unit train opportunity. Granted, it’s a mini unit train, but it’s still a unit train. Railroads can be competitive with trucks at short distances using unit trains. They do it all the time.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Establish an on-site intermodal low cost terminal at the Tyson facility.  The rail line is right there. Run one mini unit train per shift to CSX in Chicago. As I said, it’s worth a good look and analysis.

 

The unions would have to agree to a one-person crew operating through from Joslin to Chicago.

 

I’m retired. But I’d work up the numbers if they paid me enough as a consultant to cover three years of Illinois property taxes. Along with a nice Hawaiian vacation that included a stopover in Las Vegas.

 

 

 

 

[zugmann]

greyhounds

Of course, the unions would have to cooperate.

How would the DOT HOS work with trucking/RRing combined?

[dpeltier]

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?

 

 

Oops. Auto-correct at work. I fixed it to say Joslin.

Dan

[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]

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.

 

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.

Dan

[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. If the railroads cannot be truck competitive at that distance they’re done. (I’m assuming a Harrisburg, PA area distribution center.)

 

I worked up more than enough intermodal freight rates to know that the “Killer” in rail competitiveness is the drayage costs. Use of a Brandt, or a small locomotive, in lieu of highway trucking from Joslin to Chicago would reduce the rail system costs and increase the competitiveness of rail transport.

 

The railroads do not now have the needed intermodal terminals in many production areas, such as the Quad Cities or Cedar Rapids, to be competitive for this freight. Using small locomotive power on small trains could help with this.

 

Of course, the unions would have to cooperate.

[tree68]

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]

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

[zugmann]

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.   

 

[jeffhergert]

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.

Jeff 

[SD70Dude]

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.  

[zugmann]

adkrr64

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

C'mon, if you can't just blame the gov't boogeyman - what fun is it?

 

[adkrr64]

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.

[BaltACD]

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.

Doubt they will make 70+ years in service like many SW-1's have, both North and South of the border.

[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.

[greyhounds]

SD70Dude

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. 

My source is a former editor of Trains who once posted on this site as “Railwayman.”  His name is Mark Hemphill. (I am unsure of that spelling.)  He’s very knowledge about railroading and is now heading up the project to build a railroad into an oil field in Utah.

 

In a previous discussion of this concept, he explained that the US FRA had different standards for locomotives and MofW equipment. In the US, the Brandt equipment meets the standards for MofW use but does not meet the standards for use as a locomotive on revenue freight trains.

 

The Brandt equipment does seem to work OK as freight train power in Canada.

 

In answer to your other questions, I said there should be an analysis. It’s an idea, a concept, a possibility. It’s not a proposal to move heavy trains anywhere. It’s a concept to move a few loads from one origin to an intermodal terminal in the Chicago area.

 

Drayage costs to and from rail intermodal terminals are very significant factors in limiting the competitiveness of rail vs over the road trucking.  This could be a method to reduce those dray costs and make rail more competitive. 

 

But, once again, the government is in the way.

[BaltACD]

zugmann

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. 

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.

[zugmann]

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. 

[SD70Dude]

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?

[greyhounds]

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.

An imaginative railroad marketing person could do some clever work with this power. IF the stupid US Government bureaucrats weren’t in the way again. But then, their job is to delay progress and screw things up.

 

This Brandt power unit certainly does not belong on a high density, high speed main line. But that’s not where it’s useful. The video shows it being used in freight service. In Canada. Can’t do that in the US. Not allowed. It would take ten or so years of lawyer time to get it approved for freight service in the US. Why not allow it to be tried? It can be used for maintenance of way in the US, but not in freight service.

 

So, here’s an idea..

 

Tyson has a significant beef production facility at Joslin, IL. That’s near the Quad Cities and is about 180 miles on the Iowa Interstate to Chicago. The Iowa Interstate is not a high density, high speed railroad.

 

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 3^rd 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.’

 

It’s worth a good look and analysis. Such an operation should produce better efficiency than over the road trucking to the final destination. And, it should produce better efficiency than trucking each container from Joslin to Chicago.

 

But our government won’t allow it.

 

 

[Murphy Siding]

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

 

Thanks. That was interesting. I'm now convinced this work train was picking up the ties that got swapped out 3 or 4 years ago.

[BaltACD]

Murphy Siding

 

BaltACD

Brandt on track rail vehicles. 

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.