Trains.com

Road Railers vs. Containers/trailers on flat car

5496 views
36 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Road Railers vs. Containers/trailers on flat car
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:53 AM
I would be interested in knowing what the advantages and disadvantages there are between roadrailer trailers unit trains versus containers and trailers shipped on intermodal railcars? What are the pro's and con's of each mode?
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:16 AM
Roadrailer pros include:

Low rail tare weight
Low profile, close coupled, aerodynamic shape
High net ton miles per gallon
Low theft - end doors can't swing open in train
Slackless train - low longitudinal train forces
Low capital cost for terminals
No chassis fleet to manage (compared to COFC)

cons include:

Hard to manage bogie fleet
regional network
high highway tare wt.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:29 AM
Due to the weight of the rail wheels/axles + highway wheels/axles Roadrailer's cannot carry the weight that a 40' container can due to the allowable weights allowed on the highways. FYI the tare weight of 40' container averages about 6,700 LBs. I would guess the tare weight of a R/railer is at least over 10,000 LBs or higher[:o)][:p][:)]

Originally posted by Gordon James

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Back home on the Chi to KC racetrack
  • 2,011 posts
Posted by edbenton on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:13 PM
Actually a 53 ft roadrailer ways in at around 15000-17000 lbs figure on a max load of 45-46000 lbs. A 40 ft container 6-7000 lbs chassis is a around 9-10000 lbs. max load is around 42-45000 one advantage for the container is the fact that it is designed to be shipped in from overseas. Plus how heavy is a dvd player 10+ so yoo normally cube out before maxing out.
Always at war with those that think OTR trucking is EASY.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Austin TX
  • 4,941 posts
Posted by spbed on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 12:27 PM
It has been a while since I did this but I think the chassis for the container only came in about 4,400 LBs for the 40' size. [:p][:)][:o)]

Originally posted by edbenton

Living nearby to MP 186 of the UPRR  Austin TX Sub

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • 910 posts
Posted by arbfbe on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:05 PM
The biggest disadvantage to the railroad operating people is they cannot fill the roadrailer train to tonnage. All that expensive horsepower wasted on a short fast train. Here are all those cars waiting in the yard for power to move them and this roadrailer goes out with one unit and no drawbar on the rear to add several thousand tons of cement or rock or lumber or intermodal. It just grates on all these old operating guys when a train leaves light.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:09 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

The biggest disadvantage to the railroad operating people is they cannot fill the roadrailer train to tonnage. All that expensive horsepower wasted on a short fast train. Here are all those cars waiting in the yard for power to move them and this roadrailer goes out with one unit and no drawbar on the rear to add several thousand tons of cement or rock or lumber or intermodal. It just grates on all these old operating guys when a train leaves light.


That was true in the early days, but not any more. RR trains can go 150 units these days, and many on NS these days are regularly >100 units. Some require two locomotives most days.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • 910 posts
Posted by arbfbe on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 2:52 PM
That was true in the early days, but not any more. RR trains can go 150 units these days, and many on NS these days are regularly >100 units. Some require two locomotives most days.


Sure, you can now add more roadrailers but there are not usually any of those laying around the yard looking for a train out of town. There are, however, generally more that a few car loads of general freight languishing in the yard which cannot be moved account there is not enough power to get them moving. Now here is this train of 1 - 150 roadrailers and there is no way to get the junk cars added to the head end (no air connection on the hoppers for the roadrailer suspension, incompatible brake system) nor to the rear end (no drawbar). So all those operating officers who have worked their way up the ladder see the roadrailer concept as too inflexible for the (their) railroad's needs. So they want to nip it in the bud before the concept spreads and the customers start to dictate how the trains are run.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:00 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by arbfbe

That was true in the early days, but not any more. RR trains can go 150 units these days, and many on NS these days are regularly >100 units. Some require two locomotives most days.


Sure, you can now add more roadrailers but there are not usually any of those laying around the yard looking for a train out of town. There are, however, generally more that a few car loads of general freight languishing in the yard which cannot be moved account there is not enough power to get them moving. Now here is this train of 1 - 150 roadrailers and there is no way to get the junk cars added to the head end (no air connection on the hoppers for the roadrailer suspension, incompatible brake system) nor to the rear end (no drawbar). So all those operating officers who have worked their way up the ladder see the roadrailer concept as too inflexible for the (their) railroad's needs. So they want to nip it in the bud before the concept spreads and the customers start to dictate how the trains are run.


Triple Crown trains are scheduled, unit trains.

Your points are irrelevant to NS's operations.

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    March 2004
  • 587 posts
Posted by garr on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:32 PM

arbfbe,

NS has locos ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 hp to choose from, so the wasted horsepower on a roadrailer train shouldn't be an issue if the proper hp is used.

The old-way thinkers should accept Roadrailer trains the same as coal, grain, molten sulpher, autos, or any other unit train that is today's norm.

I am only surprised that this concept has not spread faster. Roadrailers have been around for nearly 20+ years in the current reincarnation, but have not thrived in a widespread manner. Maybe the old-way of thinking is the major blame.

Jay
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 5:04 PM
As stated above, Triple Crown is a dedicated type {unit train}, and is not short by any means anymore....See it pass through here {Muncie}, and not uncommon to count 140 trailers in make up of train being pulled by 2 6-axle engines. Imagine the main thought is making money and with the less tare and in general good value cargo it most likely does do just that....

Quentin

  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 5:09 PM
....On the down side: It appears {no expert, just relating what happened}, to require good careful train handling as it has pulled off the rails twice here as it negotiates a big long sweeping cruve on a slight up grade....

Quentin

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Wisconsin, USA
  • 175 posts
Posted by Jordan6 on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 5:18 PM
Having never worked with roadrailer cars I'm not quite sure how they work but, imagine if you had a roadrailer train and one of the trucks had a hot box or some other mechanical error. I guess you'd have to set the WHOLE train out instead of one car, right?
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 5:51 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Jordan6

Having never worked with roadrailer cars I'm not quite sure how they work but, imagine if you had a roadrailer train and one of the trucks had a hot box or some other mechanical error. I guess you'd have to set the WHOLE train out instead of one car, right?


No, they can be set out like any other bad order car. The "legs" that support the front of any trailer when it's not hooked to a tractor are designed on RoadRailers to lower down on the tops of the rails.

If there is a bad order what the crew has to do is:

1) Lower the "dolly" legs on the trailer immediately behind the malfunction.
2) Uncouple that trailer from the bad order.
3) Set the B/O off, lowering its "dolly" legs on to the siding rails
4) Put the train back together
5) Raise the "dolly" legs on the trailer that was formerly behind the B/O
6) Proceed with their transportation mission

Basically, I've got some experience with RoadRailers. I was with ICG intermodal marketing when we set up the first commerical RoadRailer operation 25 years ago. I also worked directly for RoadRailer after that. (I was fired.)

The problem with RoadRailers is that they are not marketed as an adjunct to the intermodal sytstem, filling an important niche, This is contrary to the "RoadRailer Philosphy" which states that they are the Alpha and Omega of intermodal transportation. This philosphy was promulgated by Bob Reebie, the modern "father" of RoadRailer. His "deciples" (and that's an accurate word) continue with the philosophy and RoadRailer hangs on by its teeth.

Until the emphasis is shifted to using RoadRailers as an adjunct, riding on the rear of existing intermodal trains, serving smaller terminal locations, they are going to continue to languish. There are few, if any, origin - destination pairs in North America that can support RoadRailer only daily trains.
"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 6:58 PM
Using DPU's behind the RR consist would easily allow for loose car fill in. The problem is RR's don't usully need more than one unit, so if you put a second unit on the end as a DPU you better have enough tonnage in those added loose cars to justify the second power unit. And then you might run into train length limitations!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:01 PM
Two more items to consider:
1. A lot of RR Intermodal freight is international, ie. it already moves in containers.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:09 PM
Sorry, I pressed the wrong key - I am new at this.
AS I was saying, some more items to consider: (1) A high percentage of railway intermodal freight is international and already moves in containers for trans-oceanic journies, and (2) you can't double stack RoadRailers, so a RR train for the same freight is much longer than a DS container train. This is no minor item when using passing tracks or building intermodal facility loading tracks. The two are somehwat related since domestic containers can be stacked with international containers on DS cars.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:25 PM
...The suggestion of using DPU with a RR train would make me wonder if that proceedure would be permitted....Having the "light" rail cars {tailers}, making up the consist....I simply don't know if that's done....and yes as I've mentioned above, the RR train through here does us 2 engines when it has a long consist of cars...{trailers}....

Quentin

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:34 PM
Are RoadRailer cars durable enough to handle the potential slack action that could happen at the end of a freight train? Amtrak did it but passenger trains have less slack then freight trains.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 9:48 PM
...I believe the type of connection {couplers}, between trailers is minimum slack on RR type trains.

Quentin

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:14 PM
Yes but if the RRs are coupled at the end of a regular train and the slack should run in or out hard that would surely affect the RRs.
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:27 PM
.........I've never seen Triple Crown operated in the manner you propose.....

Quentin

  • Member since
    December 2004
  • From: Cab
  • 162 posts
Posted by BNSFGP38 on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:30 PM
Just remember the biggest con............trailers dont go on ships!!!!!!!! So when a company orders them, they already come with a 1/3 handicap.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018
  • 4,422 posts
Posted by DSchmitt on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:36 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFGP38

Just remember the biggest con............trailers dont go on ships!!!!!!!! So when a company orders them, they already come with a 1/3 handicap.


Not true. When I was at Cam Rahn Bay Vietnam (69/70), there was almost always a RoRo (roll on/ roll off) ship in port unloading trailers.

I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.

I don't have a leg to stand on.

  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:58 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by goat

Yes but if the RRs are coupled at the end of a regular train and the slack should run in or out hard that would surely affect the RRs.


Yes, that could be a problem. There would certainly have to be some limits set in order to make sure you didn't buckle the RR trailers in the even of slack running in.

I think NS actually looked into doing it an decided not to. It would have been a good way to get back into the Atlanta - NE market again, since 265/266 were pulled just after the CR merger.

There are two other issues related to roadrailers.

One is equipment control. It is very hard to manage a fleet of dedicated equipment. If you are an over the road trucking outfit and you figrured that you could convert 20% of you business to roadrailers, you'd have a heck of a problem making sure you got the roadrailer trailer to the roadrailer customer. Similarly, you couldn't afford to standardize your trailer fleet on road railer equipment, paying the premium for a road railer trailer when 80% of the time you don't need one.

The other is commercial. Triple Crown is a "retail" door to door trucking outfit. Railroad intermodal is a "wholesale" product. The "big guys" like Hunt and Scheider have some leaverage with the RRs to keep competitve products out. I think that is part of the reason why Triple Crown hasn't grown as much as it might have. (and why it is a separate corporate entity withing NS rather than being part of the Intermodal Dept.)

-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/

  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Wisconsin, USA
  • 175 posts
Posted by Jordan6 on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:51 AM
In the rule book it says something about all Roadrailer equipment must be located on the rear end of trains.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 8:53 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...The suggestion of using DPU with a RR train would make me wonder if that proceedure would be permitted....Having the "light" rail cars {tailers}, making up the consist....I simply don't know if that's done....and yes as I've mentioned above, the RR train through here does us 2 engines when it has a long consist of cars...{trailers}....


I also question whether the FRA would have to study the concept of distributed power at the end of the RR consist, with or without added loose car tonnage behind the DPU. I can't see any problem, but the people who study such dynamics might find a possible situation where problems might arise.

On those RR consists with the two units you've witnessed, can you discern if the train is maxed out in length, or if more could be added behind the RR's?
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Wednesday, August 24, 2005 9:25 PM
Futuremodel: That I really don't know.....I simply have counted up to 140 trailers at times when I've watched the train headed south. 2 6-axle engines up front running the show....I don't know what their limit may be in length of consist.....

Quentin

  • Member since
    January 2004
  • From: NY
  • 913 posts
Posted by dwil89 on Thursday, August 25, 2005 12:48 PM
I believe that the limit is 150 trailers....There are around 4 regularly scheduled Roadrailer trains through the Altoona area.....242 and 262 are Eastbounds and 261 is one of the Westbounds...When they have an extra section, they will replace the '2' with an i... so an extra section would be symboled an I62 (eye-sixty-two) for example. I have seen anywhere from 1 to three road units on the head end of these trains. Sometimes, they will tack a set of SD40-2 helpers onto the head end to get the train over the Horseshoe Curve grade if needed. Dave Williams @ nsaltoonajohnstown@yahoogroups.com
David J. Williams http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nsaltoonajohnstown
  • Member since
    February 2002
  • From: Muncie, Indiana...Orig. from Pennsylvania
  • 13,456 posts
Posted by Modelcar on Thursday, August 25, 2005 3:10 PM
....But then I assume from your conversation Dave, never pushing....up around the Curve.

Quentin

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy