Awhile ago, the 700 mile minimum limit on TOFC appeared to be breached by something called Iron Highway. It appeared to be a low-profile TOFC platform without tiedowns that could be loaded circus-style(without hoists).
I have heard nothing about this in some time. Anyone know what became of it?
compdawg wrote: Awhile ago, the 700 mile minimum limit on TOFC appeared to be breached by something called Iron Highway. It appeared to be a low-profile TOFC platform without tiedowns that could be loaded circus-style(without hoists). I have heard nothing about this in some time. Anyone know what became of it?
Like all new ideas that go through the requisite growing pains upon startup, the railroads quit on the Iron Highway concept as per the usual rather than making the necessary adjustments. The graveyard of abandoned and aborted railroad innovations, along with the infirmiry of tepid tryouts and singular acceptence, is an expansive plot of real estate:
The Iron Highway, Expressway, RoadRailer, RailRunner, ReeferRailer, transcon electrification, TTOX, FlexiVan, AutoMax, electric/diesel-electric hybrids, RailWhales, Southern 100,..........the list is quite extensive.
As pointed out, the Iron Highway is being utilized, but there aren't enough customers. RoadRailer and ReeferRailer are non-standard and aren't what the customer wants. Electrification has long been the next big thing, but the initial expense scared off a lot of people and dieselization provided many of the same benefits at less expense. Dual-powers like the FL9 sound good on paper but have long been considered oddballs and are still tied to the electrification, the leash is just a little longer. NYC pushed FlexiVan but the customers wanted TOFC.
The ideas are good, the applications where they are useful are limited.
beaulieu wrote:Iron Highway, now called Expressway is running twice daily each way between Toronto and Montreal on the CP. I think one train per day on weekends. CP tried running the train to Windsor(Detroit) but loadings never came up to profitable and the service from there was dropped. There were intentions of service between Montreal and Chicago, and Montreal to New York, but marketing could never develop enough interested potential customers. Running times between Detroit and Chicago over CSX were not fast enough to interest the truckers. The same problem for Montreal to New York.
There is/was a physical difference between the original Iron Highway concept and CP's modern Expressway. The Iron Highway originated with New York Air Brake and CSX as a 1200 foot segmented platform car with hydraulic ramps at both ends. The platform sections were short (28') with two wheel bogies attatched at one end (wheels attatched directly to the platform, no axles, so they turned independently) and the other end of the car resting on the next platfrom, semi-articulated at the two wheel bogie end.
http://members.aol.com/jsundin357/ironhwy.html
http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:10730996&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao=
CP's Expressway cars are more normal 50+' platforms articulated together with standard two axle bogies. I think CP uses normal circus style ramps at it's terminals, so there is no on-car ramp.
http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Media/Photo+Gallery/Intermodal/default.htm?Show=Truck%20trailers
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote:Iron Highway, now called Expressway is running twice daily each way between Toronto and Montreal on the CP. I think one train per day on weekends. CP tried running the train to Windsor(Detroit) but loadings never came up to profitable and the service from there was dropped. There were intentions of service between Montreal and Chicago, and Montreal to New York, but marketing could never develop enough interested potential customers. Running times between Detroit and Chicago over CSX were not fast enough to interest the truckers. The same problem for Montreal to New York. There is/was a physical difference between the original Iron Highway concept and CP's modern Expressway. The Iron Highway originated with New York Air Brake and CSX as a 1200 foot segmented platform car with hydraulic ramps at both ends. The platform sections were short (28') with two wheel bogies attatched at one end (wheels attatched directly to the platform, no axles, so they turned independently) and the other end of the car resting on the next platfrom, semi-articulated at the two wheel bogie end. http://members.aol.com/jsundin357/ironhwy.html http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:10730996&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= CP's Expressway cars are more normal 50+' platforms articulated together with standard two axle bogies. I think CP uses normal circus style ramps at it's terminals, so there is no on-car ramp. http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Media/Photo+Gallery/Intermodal/default.htm?Show=Truck%20trailers
So the "physical difference" between the Iron Highway and Expressway sounds like the railroads DID update the idea. By ratio, how many 28 foot trailers do you see on the highway these days?
And I still see Roadrailers on the Interstate. It would be hard to believe that they're using them strictly as road trailers with the extra tare weight they carry.
Ideas were tried, they didn't work in every situation, but found their niche.
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote:Iron Highway, now called Expressway is running twice daily each way between Toronto and Montreal on the CP. I think one train per day on weekends. CP tried running the train to Windsor(Detroit) but loadings never came up to profitable and the service from there was dropped. There were intentions of service between Montreal and Chicago, and Montreal to New York, but marketing could never develop enough interested potential customers. Running times between Detroit and Chicago over CSX were not fast enough to interest the truckers. The same problem for Montreal to New York. There is/was a physical difference between the original Iron Highway concept and CP's modern Expressway. The Iron Highway originated with New York Air Brake and CSX as a 1200 foot segmented platform car with hydraulic ramps at both ends. The platform sections were short (28') with two wheel bogies attatched at one end (wheels attatched directly to the platform, no axles, so they turned independently) and the other end of the car resting on the next platfrom, semi-articulated at the two wheel bogie end. http://members.aol.com/jsundin357/ironhwy.html http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:10730996&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= CP's Expressway cars are more normal 50+' platforms articulated together with standard two axle bogies. I think CP uses normal circus style ramps at it's terminals, so there is no on-car ramp. http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Media/Photo+Gallery/Intermodal/default.htm?Show=Truck%20trailers So the "physical difference" between the Iron Highway and Expressway sounds like the railroads DID update the idea. By ratio, how many 28 foot trailers do you see on the highway these days? And I still see Roadrailers on the Interstate. It would be hard to believe that they're using them strictly as road trailers with the extra tare weight they carry. Ideas were tried, they didn't work in every situation, but found their niche.
I don't think the original "Iron Highway" is all that related to CP's Expressway nee Iron Highway, other than in general principle and name. The use of 28' platforms and free turning twin wheelsets was for reducing the tare and lowering the center of gravity of the consist. That is the part of the concept the railroads gave up on, and the subsequent Expressway version of the general concept goes back to the heavier and higher center of gravity.
And the use of articulated 28' platforms did not mean only 28' trailers could be hauled, they actually focussed on 48' and the later 53' trailers which would straddle the articulated section. This is yet another area which the railroads have failed to take advantage of relatively simply engineering to reduce tare and fuel consumption. Using single axles (or twin independent wheelsets), short platforms, and articulation helps to reduce the car body weight per a given length of consist, and works well for trucks which can straddle the area between the car bodies. And single axles and smaller diameter wheels allow lower center of gravity.
NS's Triple Crown subsidiary sells door to door truckload service using a network of Roadrailer trains in a service area roughly NY and Jacksonville to Dallas and Minneapolis. You can read about it here http://www.triplecrownsvc.com/
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote:Iron Highway, now called Expressway is running twice daily each way between Toronto and Montreal on the CP. I think one train per day on weekends. CP tried running the train to Windsor(Detroit) but loadings never came up to profitable and the service from there was dropped. There were intentions of service between Montreal and Chicago, and Montreal to New York, but marketing could never develop enough interested potential customers. Running times between Detroit and Chicago over CSX were not fast enough to interest the truckers. The same problem for Montreal to New York. There is/was a physical difference between the original Iron Highway concept and CP's modern Expressway. The Iron Highway originated with New York Air Brake and CSX as a 1200 foot segmented platform car with hydraulic ramps at both ends. The platform sections were short (28') with two wheel bogies attatched at one end (wheels attatched directly to the platform, no axles, so they turned independently) and the other end of the car resting on the next platfrom, semi-articulated at the two wheel bogie end. http://members.aol.com/jsundin357/ironhwy.html http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:10730996&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19b%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= CP's Expressway cars are more normal 50+' platforms articulated together with standard two axle bogies. I think CP uses normal circus style ramps at it's terminals, so there is no on-car ramp. http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Media/Photo+Gallery/Intermodal/default.htm?Show=Truck%20trailers So the "physical difference" between the Iron Highway and Expressway sounds like the railroads DID update the idea. By ratio, how many 28 foot trailers do you see on the highway these days? And I still see Roadrailers on the Interstate. It would be hard to believe that they're using them strictly as road trailers with the extra tare weight they carry. Ideas were tried, they didn't work in every situation, but found their niche. I don't think the original "Iron Highway" is all that related to CP's Expressway nee Iron Highway, other than in general principle and name. The use of 28' platforms and free turning twin wheelsets was for reducing the tare and lowering the center of gravity of the consist. That is the part of the concept the railroads gave up on, and the subsequent Expressway version of the general concept goes back to the heavier and higher center of gravity. And the use of articulated 28' platforms did not mean only 28' trailers could be hauled, they actually focussed on 48' and the later 53' trailers which would straddle the articulated section. This is yet another area which the railroads have failed to take advantage of relatively simply engineering to reduce tare and fuel consumption. Using single axles (or twin independent wheelsets), short platforms, and articulation helps to reduce the car body weight per a given length of consist, and works well for trucks which can straddle the area between the car bodies. And single axles and smaller diameter wheels allow lower center of gravity.
Your first link is an article dated 1996. Ten years ago. According to the article, the program had just entered the prototype stage and was to be tested at Pueblo.
So what happened with the tests?
All ideas and prototypes don't work, in any industry. Those that do don't necessarily work at a profit for the company. It's an article that leaves the story hanging right after the start.
At the very least, before you can say that the railroads "failed to take advantage of relatively simple engineering," the results of the tests need to be known. You're assuming the tests were a success. Since I work in nondestructive testing, I can tell you not all tests are successes.
So intermodal with different names isn't related. Trailer Train 86 foot TOFC flatcars aren't related to Thrall Industries 5 unit articulated cars. One is an earlier experiment with hauling truck trailers on the rails, the latter a refinement of the concept. All steps between the two weren't a success. The Front Runner cars come to mind.
TomDiehl wrote: So intermodal with different names isn't related. Trailer Train 86 foot TOFC flatcars aren't related to Thrall Industries 5 unit articulated cars. One is an earlier experiment with hauling truck trailers on the rails, the latter a refinement of the concept. All steps between the two weren't a success. The Front Runner cars come to mind.
It is interesting that you bring up the Front Runners. Basically taking outdated TOFC cars (too short to host two 48+' trailers, too long to carry just one without wasting space) and combining them via drawbar to allow three long trailers to ride on the two platforms with no wasted space. A good way to utilize otherwise obsolete equipment. But in no way an innovative forward thinking plunge into technological superiority. The Front Runners were still overly heavy on the tare compared to spine cars and the TTOX/Four Runners. What was saved in using available equipment was lost in the extra fuel costs. The TTOX/Four Runners were much better potential adaptation of using existing equipment and modifying it to conform to the evolution of the highway trailer, but alas such was an opportunity lost due to undocumented speculation regarding the single axle bogies and the subsequent spacing on the units themselves.
According to my source at Gunderson, the TTOX/Front Runners were perfectly good TOFC cars, no more prone to problems than any other intermodal flat car, yet they saved 5000 lbs per platform over regular spine cars, or about 300 tons per train. 300 tons may not seem like much to an industry that regularly hosts 16,000 ton unit trains of coal, but for the high hp/t ratios of TOFC's such a weight savings adds up.
The TTOX ran up against increased trailer lengths from 48' to 53', but when in the Four Runner "four pack" configuration, all it would have taken to permit the longer trailers would have been an adjustment to the drawbar length to permit overhang of the trailers (most 53's have the same kingpin to rear wheel length as a 48' trailer, excepting the heavy haul 53's which would have required extending the wheelset platforms). Running the drawbar all the way into each unit's center sill above the single axle would have improved the curving characteristics of the lengthened units, while still maintaining the lighter tare weight advantage of the concept. Instead, the railroads junked the concept completely.
Now, before you say "perhaps it wasn't worth the effort to modify the cars, easier to just buy newer spine cars", keep in mind TTX has had an ongoing program of equipment modification. They recently commenced a program of lengthening the standard 48' per platform 5-pack spine cars into 53' per platfrom configuration, which requires adding a major amount of material to the "spine" itself. Alot more complicated than just extending the drawbar configuration of the Four Runners.
The other option would have been to adjust the length of the spine on the Four Runners themselves, and add a standard two axle articulation between the "A" and "C" units and the "D" and "B" units, keeping the drawbar between the "C" and "D" units. This would have produced a hybrid of single axle bogies on one end of each platfrom and articulated two axle bogies on the other end of said platform. This would have added some tare to the consist, but such would still have been lighter than the standard 53' articulated spine cars, and should have aleviated any concerns about the curving characteristics of the units.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: So intermodal with different names isn't related. Trailer Train 86 foot TOFC flatcars aren't related to Thrall Industries 5 unit articulated cars. One is an earlier experiment with hauling truck trailers on the rails, the latter a refinement of the concept. All steps between the two weren't a success. The Front Runner cars come to mind. It is interesting that you bring up the Front Runners. Basically taking outdated TOFC cars (too short to host two 48+' trailers, too long to carry just one without wasting space) and combining them via drawbar to allow three long trailers to ride on the two platforms with no wasted space. A good way to utilize otherwise obsolete equipment. But in no way an innovative forward thinking plunge into technological superiority. The Front Runners were still overly heavy on the tare compared to spine cars and the TTOX/Four Runners. What was saved in using available equipment was lost in the extra fuel costs. The TTOX/Four Runners were much better potential adaptation of using existing equipment and modifying it to conform to the evolution of the highway trailer, but alas such was an opportunity lost due to undocumented speculation regarding the single axle bogies and the subsequent spacing on the units themselves.
Wrong again. The Front Runner was a single unit spine car, the name owned by TTX. These were discussed back in February:
http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1/717192/ShowPost.aspx#717192
Not to be confused with Utah Transit's new trains, using the name by permission from TTX.
If you actually talk about the Front Runner, it was an inovation in intermodal, that led to the development of the articulated spine car.
The drawbar connected 89 foot flats you're talking about were a utilization of obsolete and underused equipment to help gain income from these cars until the value of the car was depreciated.
And the criticism of the two axle per platform Four Runners was well documented. They just didn't track well in longer trains like the railroads in this country run.
And nothing about the obviously failed tests of the Iron Highway cars.
If we're talking about the same car, Four Runners were 40 foot skeleton type cars, with one fixed axle at each end. Their very light tare weight, and long rigid wheel base caused numerous tracking problems. I had one simply distintigrate one time. Both wheelsets came apart, and the only thing holding the car up were the shelf couplers of the cars on either end.
The drawbar connected flat cars are called Long Runners. The only problem with these, is that you can't load only the center position over the drawbar. The trailers have a tendency to swing off in curves. But when the two outboard positions are also loaded, this doesn't seem to be a problem
Everyone is focused on the equipement and neglected the operational aspects. All the best, most innovate equipment in the world isn't going to do any good, without Operations being able to move it effectively.
The main issue with the 700 mile limit is speed. High speed intermodal trains are the bane of smooth traffic flow. Especially on single track. When that hot intermodal guy comes on your sub, everything, and I mean everything stops for it. I often have trains sit in the siding for an hour or more waiting for the UPS train to pass. So you get the idea of how fouled up this is, it takes between 2 and 3 hours to cover my subdivision at track speed.
To compete, you have to be as fast or faster then the truckers. This includes, not only the point to point running time, but also time need to pick up and drop cars, place the cars for loading/unloading and the time needed to lift and drop the trailer. And don't forget the time required to get the trailer to and from the drop site.
The capital return on intermodal is slim. You need to be priced competitvely with the truckers, which holds revenue down. Intermodal is also a capital intensive game. You need lots of people and equipement avalable around the clock to make it work.
It's one of those things. Everyone wants the business, but no-one wants the traffic.
Nick
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
One issue is the intermodal market and whether Iron Highway satisfies that market. The other issue, from a railfan perspective, is documenting through photos, interviews, writings, etc. the exotic as well as the mundane aspects of railroading. Think of how many PRR direct-drive steam turbine locomotives were in actual service over what length of time, and think of how many more Lionel models of that locomotive are in collections and exhibited at shows. Even if Iron Highway was a design failure that never made it past the Pueblo DOT test facility, some of us will be interested in it.
So people are saying 28' platforms, independent-rotating wheels, guided axle? Sounds like a freight version of Talgo, although the Talgo people say they have their design on some auto-rack cars in Finland. Talgo, by the way, started out as one of those "exotic, experimental, but failed" concepts, but the Talgo people haven't given up on it, there are modern versions of Talgo, and the final chapter hasn't been written on it.
Are there any photos of the Iron Highway prototype? Photos that show the guided axle system? Are there some names to the engineers involved -- a patent search on CSX may turn up all kinds of entries, but a patent search with the name of the inventor may turn up drawings of how the thing is supposed to work.
By the way, why the interest in independent-turning wheels? That may suppress wheel hunting, but then how do you steer the wheels at all without flange contact? Even with axle guiding, you still need some force to center the wheel over the rail. Do they use one of those gradual instead of abrupt flange contact wheel tapers?
TurboTrain was guided axle but conventional solid axle wheelsets; Talgo is famously independent-turning wheels. Don't know if the independent-turning wheels really give Talgo a lower profile than Turbo Train. Since truck trailers are 8' wide or more, how do independent-turning wheels help with Iron Highway?
While we are on the subject of guided axles, there is some system called KERF produced by Alsthom or someone else in France, and it is used in Denmark on their S-tog (surface trains or what we call commuter trains). Anyone have links to photos or any other info on that? I haven't found anything in the patent databases but maybe I am using the wrong search words.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I guess I am answering my own question with this link:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp
Apparently, a truck trailer got loose from the hitch mooring on an Iron Highway trainset in service in Canada, and that trailer then smashed into a highway overpass, damaging it. The accident report gives photos, diagrams, and text explanations of the Iron Highway trainset by way of background of how this rather exotic piece of train equipment contributed to the wreck. They ascribe the accident to misuse of the hitch owing to its unorthodox design and lack of training of crews, but they also point to the Iron Highway trainset being operated with many broken or inoperative hardware appliances.
It seems that no one properly knew either how to operate or how to maintain this piece of equipment. A number of shock absorbers (dampers) for vertical motion of the single-axle trucks were disconnected -- perhaps when these dampers failed, it was easier to unhook them then find replacements.
I sure wish I could learn how the guided-axle mechanism works as I am a Talgo/TurboTrain enthusiast. But the accident report and related photos gives a flavor for what Iron Highway is or was and perhaps why it failed in the marketplace.
It seems that Iron Highway was Yet Another Piece of TOFC Rolling Stock of which there are many others of various advantages and disadvantages to chose from. One idea was that there would be those short platforms supported by guided axles and with frequent spacing of hitches -- the notion is that instead of discrete trailer parking spaces, there would be the effect of a continuous platform, and you could mix and match 28', 40' and 53' trailers as desired without wasting a lot of space. The other idea was to revert to circus loading. Each trainset could separate in the middle into two parts, each part fed by a ramp. I guess the idea was that if the load points were interspersed throughout a train made up of multiple train sets, circus loading would be OK. The other part to this is that you only had ramps at this trainset midsections -- there were no Clejan car bridgeplates between articulated sections, only small gaps in the platform where the platforms articulated over a guided-axle wheelset.
How the mid-section ramps worked is not clear from the report -- did the trainset uncouple and separate to let down the ramps, or did the train stay coupled but the ramps swung to the sides?
Inasmuch as Iron Highway is TOFC, and there are many competing designs for low-profile light-weight TOFC trainsets, Iron Highway does not seem like that big of a deal. The sense that Iron Highway was an improvement was that it was supposed to do away with expensive hoist equipment -- a terminal could be simply a grade crossing where you parked the ramp car in the middle of a trainset. Also, reverting to circus loading meant that the trailers didn't have to be beefed up to take hoisting, and a long train had multiple load points, one in the middle of each trainset, supposedly making circus loading go faster. Also, you did not have to lower and raise between-car ramps because the guided axle arrangement made the trainset appear as one continous surface.
As to why Iron Highway went away, the accident report hints that it was too mechanically complex for freight service, given the money the railroad wanted to spend on maintenance and crew training on some specialty equipment. The Iron Highway trainset didn't need to be left in such a state of disrepair, but it ended up that way. I am wondering of Talgo has similar problems, say in Cascade Service, but the Talgo Company may have their own people in Washington State to play nursemaid to this equipment until such time that Talgo becomes more commonplace.
And I guess Paul's link answers Dave's misdirected (as usual) tirade against the railroads. No "missed opportunity" here, just a failed experiment of equipment more complicated than was worth the effort.
Still nothing from him on the results of the testing at Pueblo.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: While we are on the subject of guided axles, there is some system called KERF produced by Alsthom or someone else in France, and it is used in Denmark on their S-tog (surface trains or what we call commuter trains). Anyone have links to photos or any other info on that? I haven't found anything in the patent databases but maybe I am using the wrong search words.
This stramge train with a leading single axle with integrated articulated cars derailed a few years ago near Valby station (split the switch it seems). It took all week to rerail the complex integrated train and shut down the main S tog rail line for many days. I though it was very unfair to the traveling public in Copenhagen to have their main comuter line with 24trains an hour each way all day shut down for so long because of "unique experimental wheel design", the passengers don't care weather it's on conventional wheel sets or not unless this kind of things happen.
The main problem was crews could bot figure out how to rerail the thing !!! Whatever cost savings in design there are for the railroad was passed on to the public in such a major inconvenience.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:I guess I am answering my own question with this link: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp Apparently, a truck trailer got loose from the hitch mooring on an Iron Highway trainset in service in Canada, and that trailer then smashed into a highway overpass, damaging it. The accident report gives photos, diagrams, and text explanations of the Iron Highway trainset by way of background of how this rather exotic piece of train equipment contributed to the wreck. They ascribe the accident to misuse of the hitch owing to its unorthodox design and lack of training of crews, but they also point to the Iron Highway trainset being operated with many broken or inoperative hardware appliances. It seems that no one properly knew either how to operate or how to maintain this piece of equipment. A number of shock absorbers (dampers) for vertical motion of the single-axle trucks were disconnected -- perhaps when these dampers failed, it was easier to unhook them then find replacements. I sure wish I could learn how the guided-axle mechanism works as I am a Talgo/TurboTrain enthusiast. But the accident report and related photos gives a flavor for what Iron Highway is or was and perhaps why it failed in the marketplace. It seems that Iron Highway was Yet Another Piece of TOFC Rolling Stock of which there are many others of various advantages and disadvantages to chose from. One idea was that there would be those short platforms supported by guided axles and with frequent spacing of hitches -- the notion is that instead of discrete trailer parking spaces, there would be the effect of a continuous platform, and you could mix and match 28', 40' and 53' trailers as desired without wasting a lot of space. The other idea was to revert to circus loading. Each trainset could separate in the middle into two parts, each part fed by a ramp. I guess the idea was that if the load points were interspersed throughout a train made up of multiple train sets, circus loading would be OK. The other part to this is that you only had ramps at this trainset midsections -- there were no Clejan car bridgeplates between articulated sections, only small gaps in the platform where the platforms articulated over a guided-axle wheelset. How the mid-section ramps worked is not clear from the report -- did the trainset uncouple and separate to let down the ramps, or did the train stay coupled but the ramps swung to the sides? Inasmuch as Iron Highway is TOFC, and there are many competing designs for low-profile light-weight TOFC trainsets, Iron Highway does not seem like that big of a deal. The sense that Iron Highway was an improvement was that it was supposed to do away with expensive hoist equipment -- a terminal could be simply a grade crossing where you parked the ramp car in the middle of a trainset. Also, reverting to circus loading meant that the trailers didn't have to be beefed up to take hoisting, and a long train had multiple load points, one in the middle of each trainset, supposedly making circus loading go faster. Also, you did not have to lower and raise between-car ramps because the guided axle arrangement made the trainset appear as one continous surface. As to why Iron Highway went away, the accident report hints that it was too mechanically complex for freight service, given the money the railroad wanted to spend on maintenance and crew training on some specialty equipment. The Iron Highway trainset didn't need to be left in such a state of disrepair, but it ended up that way. I am wondering of Talgo has similar problems, say in Cascade Service, but the Talgo Company may have their own people in Washington State to play nursemaid to this equipment until such time that Talgo becomes more commonplace.
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: So intermodal with different names isn't related. Trailer Train 86 foot TOFC flatcars aren't related to Thrall Industries 5 unit articulated cars. One is an earlier experiment with hauling truck trailers on the rails, the latter a refinement of the concept. All steps between the two weren't a success. The Front Runner cars come to mind. It is interesting that you bring up the Front Runners. Basically taking outdated TOFC cars (too short to host two 48+' trailers, too long to carry just one without wasting space) and combining them via drawbar to allow three long trailers to ride on the two platforms with no wasted space. A good way to utilize otherwise obsolete equipment. But in no way an innovative forward thinking plunge into technological superiority. The Front Runners were still overly heavy on the tare compared to spine cars and the TTOX/Four Runners. What was saved in using available equipment was lost in the extra fuel costs. The TTOX/Four Runners were much better potential adaptation of using existing equipment and modifying it to conform to the evolution of the highway trailer, but alas such was an opportunity lost due to undocumented speculation regarding the single axle bogies and the subsequent spacing on the units themselves. Wrong again. The Front Runner was a single unit spine car, the name owned by TTX. These were discussed back in February: http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/1/717192/ShowPost.aspx#717192 Not to be confused with Utah Transit's new trains, using the name by permission from TTX. If you actually talk about the Front Runner, it was an inovation in intermodal, that led to the development of the articulated spine car. The drawbar connected 89 foot flats you're talking about were a utilization of obsolete and underused equipment to help gain income from these cars until the value of the car was depreciated. And the criticism of the two axle per platform Four Runners was well documented. They just didn't track well in longer trains like the railroads in this country run. And nothing about the obviously failed tests of the Iron Highway cars.
You're right. The Front Runner was the single unit single axle TOFC car. The Four Runners were four such TTOX Front Runners connected by drawbar to form one car with four platforms. The Long Runners are the two 89' flats connected by drawbar. My apologies to the forum.
BTW - do you have any of those "well documented" documents regarding the performance of the Front Runners and Four Runners? Some of the earlier versions did not have a later modification that helped the wheels "give" a little into a curve. Could it be that the whole lot was tossed based on the performance of the earlier versions? If the wheelbase of the Four Runners were deemed to long for curve negotiability with single axles, why not try and "hybridize" the concept with my aforementioned articulation with a standard two axle bogy at the "A-C" and "D-B" connections? That in and of itself would have solved the curve negotiability issues, if such was the case.
As for the Iron Highway carsets, Paul gives a good explanation for why the railroad industry would rather bail on an idea rather than making the necessary adjustments. So the independent wheels caused problems when dampers were not replaced - doesn't this beg the question as to why the dampers were not replaced in the first place? Wouldn't just about any piece of railroad equipment be subject to probable failure if a key piece of equipment is removed and not replaced? What's gonna happen to a coal gon if a failed journal is not replaced?
The second question that is begged is this - if the independent wheelsets were just too much of a problem, why not go with regular solid single axle bogies?
Apparently, such simplified solutions were not even contemplated.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: I guess I am answering my own question with this link: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp Apparently, a truck trailer got loose from the hitch mooring on an Iron Highway trainset in service in Canada, and that trailer then smashed into a highway overpass, damaging it. The accident report gives photos, diagrams, and text explanations of the Iron Highway trainset by way of background of how this rather exotic piece of train equipment contributed to the wreck. They ascribe the accident to misuse of the hitch owing to its unorthodox design and lack of training of crews, but they also point to the Iron Highway trainset being operated with many broken or inoperative hardware appliances. It seems that no one properly knew either how to operate or how to maintain this piece of equipment. A number of shock absorbers (dampers) for vertical motion of the single-axle trucks were disconnected -- perhaps when these dampers failed, it was easier to unhook them then find replacements. I sure wish I could learn how the guided-axle mechanism works as I am a Talgo/TurboTrain enthusiast. But the accident report and related photos gives a flavor for what Iron Highway is or was and perhaps why it failed in the marketplace. It seems that Iron Highway was Yet Another Piece of TOFC Rolling Stock of which there are many others of various advantages and disadvantages to chose from. One idea was that there would be those short platforms supported by guided axles and with frequent spacing of hitches -- the notion is that instead of discrete trailer parking spaces, there would be the effect of a continuous platform, and you could mix and match 28', 40' and 53' trailers as desired without wasting a lot of space. The other idea was to revert to circus loading. Each trainset could separate in the middle into two parts, each part fed by a ramp. I guess the idea was that if the load points were interspersed throughout a train made up of multiple train sets, circus loading would be OK. The other part to this is that you only had ramps at this trainset midsections -- there were no Clejan car bridgeplates between articulated sections, only small gaps in the platform where the platforms articulated over a guided-axle wheelset. How the mid-section ramps worked is not clear from the report -- did the trainset uncouple and separate to let down the ramps, or did the train stay coupled but the ramps swung to the sides? Inasmuch as Iron Highway is TOFC, and there are many competing designs for low-profile light-weight TOFC trainsets, Iron Highway does not seem like that big of a deal. The sense that Iron Highway was an improvement was that it was supposed to do away with expensive hoist equipment -- a terminal could be simply a grade crossing where you parked the ramp car in the middle of a trainset. Also, reverting to circus loading meant that the trailers didn't have to be beefed up to take hoisting, and a long train had multiple load points, one in the middle of each trainset, supposedly making circus loading go faster. Also, you did not have to lower and raise between-car ramps because the guided axle arrangement made the trainset appear as one continous surface. As to why Iron Highway went away, the accident report hints that it was too mechanically complex for freight service, given the money the railroad wanted to spend on maintenance and crew training on some specialty equipment. The Iron Highway trainset didn't need to be left in such a state of disrepair, but it ended up that way. I am wondering of Talgo has similar problems, say in Cascade Service, but the Talgo Company may have their own people in Washington State to play nursemaid to this equipment until such time that Talgo becomes more commonplace.
I'll present this as I presented the question to Tom - if the independent wheelsets were too much of a maintenance hassle for inexperienced crews, why not just go with standard single axle bogies? I don't believe that the short wheelbase of 28' and the opposite end articulation would have required any further modification for curve negotiability, e.g. no need for radial steering arms, etc. And I can't see where using standard single axle bogies would detract from the low profile or any other advantageous aspect of the concept.
There were other railcar innovations that utilized single axle bogies - the Southern 100 four bay hopper, and the Trough Train. The Southern 100 was basically four 25' single hoppers with single axle bogies on both ends of the hopper units, and were connected by a primitive link pin connection. Had probably the best load factor of any coal hopper or gondola, better than most current equipment. The basic problem that caused the cessation of the idea wasn't the single axle bogies (although they could have used beefier suspension), but with the link pin connections between the individual units.
The Trough Train used single axle bogies at the coupler ends, and standard two axle articulated bogies between units. Again, no problem with the single axle bogies was reported, rather the problems lay in the relative inflexibility of the total unit when it came to replacing a bad wheelset, etc. You had to take out the entire unit, or about 13 hopper bays.
Both these examples show that single axle bogies (and the inherent tare savings of using single axle bogies over regular two axle bogies) are useful evolutions of rail equipment, but have been relegated to the dust bin of history because of a lack of patience in working out the usual kinks of new equipment. Whether the 36' wheelbase of the TTOX/Four Runner cars was just too long, even with radial steering, has not been answered or documented by the detractors. Given the relative success of the single axle type with the Southern 100 and the Trough Train, it could be that keeping the wheelbase to about 25' or using standard two axle articulated trucks on the opposite end of the single axles would have been the simpler solution.
All the Southern 100 probably needed was a better method of interconnecting the units and more modern suspension of the single axles, and it might still be around in some form.
All the Trough Train needed was to be broken down into smaller unit numbers per car, and it would probably still be running the rails today.
And all the Four Runner needed was to employ a hybrid of single axles with standard two axle articulation, and it would still be running out there today.
And the Iron Highway probaby could have been saved by using standard single axle bogies rather than indepedent wheelsets, and it would be out there working for us.
And all four examples would have provided the prime benefits of saving fuel, et al, as all four provided improved load factor and simplified modal transfer options over currently used equipment.
After spine cars came into wide spread use, there was no need to convert the Front Runners. The problem wasn't the drawbar connections. It was the long rigid wheelbase of the single car. Personal experiance is all I need to know about these cars. More then once, they have derailed on me. And like I said before, one had a catastophic failure of both wheelsets, because of in-train forces.
It's becoming clear, that the Iron Highway cars were maintaince nightmares, possibly due to design, improper training, or the cost for specialty parts. The answer is probably a combination of the three. It seem CP had no spare parts. Why? Cost? Avalablility? Parts were requested and never delivered. Did no -one order them? Did the company not support it's product? You can't replace what you don't have.
As for the absurd comment about replacing coal gon journals. Every car shop has parts in stock for that coal gon, so it's a quick, easy fix. The Iron Highway parts were very speciallized and not widely avalable, or evidently avalable at all.
Again it comes down to money. Did Iron Highway make dollars then it cost to operate. And the answer is apparently no.
nbrodar wrote: The main issue with the 700 mile limit is speed. High speed intermodal trains are the bane of smooth traffic flow. Especially on single track. When that hot intermodal guy comes on your sub, everything, and I mean everything stops for it. I often have trains sit in the siding for an hour or more waiting for the UPS train to pass. So you get the idea of how fouled up this is, it takes between 2 and 3 hours to cover my subdivision at track speed. To compete, you have to be as fast or faster then the truckers. This includes, not only the point to point running time, but also time need to pick up and drop cars, place the cars for loading/unloading and the time needed to lift and drop the trailer. And don't forget the time required to get the trailer to and from the drop site. The capital return on intermodal is slim. You need to be priced competitvely with the truckers, which holds revenue down. Intermodal is also a capital intensive game. You need lots of people and equipement avalable around the clock to make it work. It's one of those things. Everyone wants the business, but no-one wants the traffic. Nick
I'll ask the same question I've asked over and over again: Why can't it all move at the same high speed? The only reason those hot intermodals foul up the system is that everything else is moving too slow. I mean, the railroads have been dragging their arses at about 25 mph average speed for decades now. Will we ever see a significant improvement in this key performance indicator in our lifetimes?
Every other transport mode has it's "hot" players and it's not so hot players moving at the same relative speed - Gravel trucks move at the same 65 mph as those UPS trucks down most Interstates. Grain barges and container barges move at the same speed up and down the Columbia-Snake River Waterway (in fact, they move in the same barge tow). Container ships and break bulk ships move at the same speed (although if Fast Ship ever gets going, it will bust that axiom!). Air freight and passenger jets move at the same speed.
Why can't (or why doesn't) rail do the same? Is it this obsession with fuel economy? If so, is optimizing fuel use worth the lost business?
And as this thread has implicity stated, intermodal doesn't have to be capital intensive, the railroads just seem to prefer it that way, for any number of misplaced reasons. If a trailer can't be lifted onto a spine car by a big expensive crane, forget it! (insert comic voiceover here) We don't need no stinkin' roll-on/roll-off trailers with their Frenchie circus ramps and one tractor at a time on the consist waiting games (nevermind that Iron Highway cut the circus style loading time in half, and my parallel side loader idea would cut loading time to minutes). We don't need no stinkin' bi-modal trailers with their lack of actual railcars and subsequent prime load factor. If we can't hump it, dump it! And for that matter, we don't particularly like having to deal with your trailers anyhow. Put it all in a container so we can double stack it. (end comic voiceover here)
Nevermind that double stacking domestic containers is the most capital intensive form of intermodal, and the one that is least preferable to the trucking companies.
SCOOP! SCOOP! SCOOP!
I have found the original CSX Iron Highway prototype!
Are you all sitting comfortably?
It was purchased by an AUSTRALIAN Road Transport company CRT which had an interest in expanding into rail operation. The train is currently dismantled and sitting at the CRT intermodal centre at Altona, a western suburb of Melbourne Victoria. The train was purchased more than three years ago but has not been operated.
Since that time, CRT has been purchased by QRN, the second largest Australian Rail operator owned by the Queensland state government.
Two units from the train were sent to the Seymour Rail Heritage Centre in central Victoria, where it appears the cars were assembled and generally inspected for conformance to regulations and ability to operate on the national rail system.
One obvious problem is that clearances in Australia are much less than in the USA, and this train could only be used in TOFC service on lines west of Adelaide, South Australia. There are very few TOFC services in Australia, although Shell Oil use TOFC for road tankers between Adelaide and Darwin (largely because since the rail service is very recent and there are no connections to existing oil terminals in Darwin).
Some publicity was given to the Iron Highway in seminars about energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gases, particularly in Western Australia. CRT purchased a German "Cargo Sprinter" (with a federal government grant for greenhouse gas reduction) an underfloor engine diesel railcar for container service. This did not go to QRN and it is stored out of service in Junee in southern New South Wales.
The CSX prototype included the dummy "power cars" that were to represent the riding qualities of a self powered "Iron Highway". It isn't clear what would be done with these, but they might be converted to normal flat cars to allow over the end loading. The train only has intermediate ramps which act like a car when running, but split to provide loading ramps.
One point I should make to Futuremodal: although the cars were clearly built with individual wheels with full roller bearings each side, at some stage Boise (or someone) fitted light hollow shafts connecting the two wheels so that they would act like a normal pair of wheels on an axle. This shaft was about one inch diameter and was bolted to the wheels using three of the bolts used to attach the bearing cap to the stub axle.
The articulation joint sat between the wheels, and prevented the use of a standard wheelset, because this would have fouled on the articulation. Even the one inch pipe just fitted clear of the articulation! I know Talgo trains run successfully with separate wheels, so I am interested in this modification. I can only assume that it was intended to improve tracking, but it made the expense of providing four roller bearings per "axle" seem a bit superfluous. I have worked in track dynamics testing, and I think I know what they were trying to do.
One good point about the train being dismantled was that the single axle trucks were stored inverted near the fence at the CRT compound, and I was able to check them out in some detail without having to clim under any cars. There was a problem tha
nbrodar wrote: After spine cars came into wide spread use, there was no need to convert the Front Runners. The problem wasn't the drawbar connections. It was the long rigid wheelbase of the single car. Personal experiance is all I need to know about these cars. More then once, they have derailed on me. And like I said before, one had a catastophic failure of both wheelsets, because of in-train forces. It's becoming clear, that the Iron Highway cars were maintaince nightmares, possibly due to design, improper training, or the cost for specialty parts. The answer is probably a combination of the three. It seem CP had no spare parts. Why? Cost? Avalablility? Parts were requested and never delivered. Did no -one order them? Did the company not support it's product? You can't replace what you don't have. As for the absurd comment about replacing coal gon journals. Every car shop has parts in stock for that coal gon, so it's a quick, easy fix. The Iron Highway parts were very speciallized and not widely avalable, or evidently avalable at all. Again it comes down to money. Did Iron Highway make dollars then it cost to operate. And the answer is apparently no. Nick
Well Dave, it looks like Nick beat me to the answer.
futuremodal wrote: BTW - do you have any of those "well documented" documents regarding the performance of the Front Runners and Four Runners? Some of the earlier versions did not have a later modification that helped the wheels "give" a little into a curve. Could it be that the whole lot was tossed based on the performance of the earlier versions? If the wheelbase of the Four Runners were deemed to long for curve negotiability with single axles, why not try and "hybridize" the concept with my aforementioned articulation with a standard two axle bogy at the "A-C" and "D-B" connections? That in and of itself would have solved the curve negotiability issues, if such was the case. Apparently, such simplified solutions were not even contemplated.
I think Nick essentially answered the first part of this.
Even though you think it "wasn't even contemplated" what you've described here is essentially the articulated spine car, a somewhat common intermodal car these days. By doing away with the single axle bogie and going to the two axle bogies (what the rest of us call a standard freight truck), they used an item that was easily supportable by maintenance personnel and parts are readily available, not to mention the long time they've been used successfully in this country. This attempt to "reinvent the wheel" didn't work too well.
One good point about the train being dismantled was that the single axle trucks were stored inverted near the fence at the CRT compound, and I was able to check them out in some detail without having to clim under any cars. There was a problem that I had to stop my jaw hitting the ground as I realised what I was looking at!
Any insights into how the axles were steered? Did they use the same kind of "bell crank" (actually a Watt's Link) arrangement as Talgo?
It is interesting that the independent rotating wheels were to accomodate the articulation hinge, and that they decided to couple the wheels with a light axle, perhaps for tracking reasons. I still wonder how Talgo manages with independent rotating wheels -- yes, they guide the axles, but something still has to center the wheels over the rails between flanges.
As to use of somewhat European-style single axle trucks to produce 4-wheel freight cars, that sounds like shades of Aerotrain. If you have single axle trucks on long wheelbases without guided axle, radial steering, or what have you, you have to place some give in the journal boxes to allow the wheelset to steer without being up on the flanges all the time, and if there is too much give, you have a hunting problem.
futuremodal wrote: I'll ask the same question I've asked over and over again: Why can't it all move at the same high speed? The only reason those hot intermodals foul up the system is that everything else is moving too slow. I mean, the railroads have been dragging their arses at about 25 mph average speed for decades now. Will we ever see a significant improvement in this key performance indicator in our lifetimes?
Because the answer is the same as every other time you've asked the question: your analogy is flawed. All trucks do NOT move at the same speed. Even on the interstates.
And the second part, it has to do with horsepower to tonnage ratio of each train. Premium trains get better ratios. You seem to like spending the railroad's money to get an insignificant return by speeding up lower class trains. On a single or double track mainline, it's like moving trucks over a 2 lane highway. Or are you going to come up with more money so the railroads can build triple or quad tracks?
Speed costs money. You need a.) more engines for longer trains, b.) shorter more frequent trains, or c.) more capacity. This adds up to more fuel, locomotives, and crews, all of which is expensive, adding capacity - the best solution - the outragously expensive.
It's not a matter of everything moving at the same speed. You forget, that traffic moves in BOTH directions on the single track. Sometime, someone has to pull over to pass. Moving in the same direction, (which all your examples are) it's easeir to move everything at the same speed. Which even on the highways rarely happens. (How many times do YOU pass someone or get passed?)
Definition of frustration.
I've got three good pictures of the lastest version of the "Iron Highway", now called the "Ramp Car". They were emailed to me by the car's patentholder, Wabtec.
They show the articulated car complete with the ramp up and stowed for movement, the ramp down for trailer loading, and the ramp halfway between "down" and "up". They were sent to me by Wabtec for use in a presentation I put together.
I got them into the presentation, but I have absolutely no idea how to post them here.
Let's see if I can descriibe it --- imagine one of those armored bridging contraptions the Army uses. You know, where they modify a tank to carry a folding bridge on top. Then the modified tank roles up to a river, ravine, whatever and unfolds the bridge so the battle tanks can cross -- you know, that kind of thing only smaller and tucked on the end of a flatcar. OK, I know, I'll keep trying to post the photographs.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: One good point about the train being dismantled was that the single axle trucks were stored inverted near the fence at the CRT compound, and I was able to check them out in some detail without having to climb under any cars. There was a problem that I had to stop my jaw hitting the ground as I realised what I was looking at! Any insights into how the axles were steered? Did they use the same kind of "bell crank" (actually a Watt's Link) arrangement as Talgo? It is interesting that the independent rotating wheels were to accomodate the articulation hinge, and that they decided to couple the wheels with a light axle, perhaps for tracking reasons. I still wonder how Talgo manages with independent rotating wheels -- yes, they guide the axles, but something still has to center the wheels over the rails between flanges. As to use of somewhat European-style single axle trucks to produce 4-wheel freight cars, that sounds like shades of Aerotrain. If you have single axle trucks on long wheelbases without guided axle, radial steering, or what have you, you have to place some give in the journal boxes to allow the wheelset to steer without being up on the flanges all the time, and if there is too much give, you have a hunting problem.
One good point about the train being dismantled was that the single axle trucks were stored inverted near the fence at the CRT compound, and I was able to check them out in some detail without having to climb under any cars. There was a problem that I had to stop my jaw hitting the ground as I realised what I was looking at!
Paul,
I didn't see any indication of a Watt's Link arrangement, but I did take some photos and it might be worth checking them. There was a good article on "Iron Highway" in a contemporary issue of "Diesel Era", which shows how the ramps worked, but because of the low height of the car structure, gave few clues as to the suspension details.
I've ridden in the classic "Talgo III", the "Catalan Talgo" both on broad gauge in Spain and on standard gauge in France. It ran at 90 MPH in France and was reasonably acceptable from a comfort point of view, but you wouldn't mistake it for a passenger car with four wheel trucks. I also rode on the early TGV at the same time and it was better, but not as good as a "real" passenger car. Bring back the 1969 "Mistral" cars which glided over the excellent track at up to 200 km/h isolated from most aspects of the real world except as viewed through the large windows and glass corridor partitions!
M636C
nbrodar wrote: futuremodal wrote: I'll ask the same question I've asked over and over again: Why can't it all move at the same high speed? The only reason those hot intermodals foul up the system is that everything else is moving too slow. I mean, the railroads have been dragging their arses at about 25 mph average speed for decades now. Will we ever see a significant improvement in this key performance indicator in our lifetimes? Speed costs money. You need a.) more engines for longer trains, b.) shorter more frequent trains, or c.) more capacity. This adds up to more fuel, locomotives, and crews, all of which is expensive, adding capacity - the best solution - the outragously expensive. It's not a matter of everything moving at the same speed. You forget, that traffic moves in BOTH directions on the single track. Sometime, someone has to pull over to pass. Moving in the same direction, (which all your examples are) it's easeir to move everything at the same speed. Which even on the highways rarely happens. (How many times do YOU pass someone or get passed?) Nick
You forget, the Wall Street rail analysts use the average velocity measure as an indicator of profitability potential. Speed costs money, but more importantly time costs money. And it is the time sensitive traffic that usually pays the highest margins - this is true across all modes that incorporate the speed variable. This all goes back to the railroads' tendency to focus on reduced costs rather than increased business. Again, you can move stuff that is not time critical at the same speed as the time critical stuff and keep all the business, but not the other way around.
You're original post on the subject makes it appear that the hot TOFC business isn't worth it, as it's demand for sustained speed is out of kilter with the rest of the 25 mph average velocity system. Yet the biggest potential growth market for railroads is intermodal, and since a majority of cross country freight still moves by over the road truck, there's a big chunk of business going to waste.
Since we're talking freight, how passenger traffic interacts with trucks is not relevent to the railroad comparison (Amtrak aside). Most trucks, regardless of what they are hauling, will move at the same speed. Ocassionally, you'll get some trucking company that uses speed governors on it's trucks which do not allow that rig to move at the speed of traffic, and of course heavier trucks will be slower on grades than lighter trucks. But other than that, truck speed is not related to commodity type.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.