futuremodal wrote: 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.
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.
Maybe when you get old enough to drive, you'll figure out this just isn't the way it is.
futuremodal wrote: 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.
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
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.
See any UPS trailers on those barges? What is the average speed of those barges 12 mph, maybe. On Iron Ore from Northern Minnesota to the Indiana mills the ships top speed is about 14 mph, the are a few old steamers with a bit higher speed. The distance they have to travel is about twice that of the railroads, but the railroads can't dent the traffic except for a few trains when the lakes are iced over.
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?
Indirectly its the fuel economy, directly its the cost, more fuel burned means higher cost, fuel is one of the largest expenses of a railroad. Do you see any of the big railroads that aren't choked with too much traffic right now?
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)
Dave, when it suits you you keep carping about how little Intermodal earns, then also when it suits you, you suggest ideas that reduce the productivity of the system. How many trailers can you put in a given length of train versus a doublestack. Even if the rate for a container is only 75 percent that of a trailer, the doublestack will be generating more revenue. A good portal crane operator can load one container per minute consistently if they can bring them fast enough to him, I doubt seriously that a loader can back a trailer down a length of flats and drive back off in one minute, obviously when he is nearly finish he can do better. With your side loading you still have the hitches to connect which takes time, or what ever else you would use to secure the trailer. With the doublestack you can pick a container out of the train at an intermediate terminal fairly easily, with a circus sytem you can't.
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.
A couple questions:
Does the Iron Highway/Ramp Car uncouple or separate to put the ramp down? If so, how do you do the spotting to couple it back together without a crewmember standing dangerously between sections?
I search the ep.espacenet.com worldwide patent database, and Wabtec only has patents back to about 2000. Was New York Air Brake the original applicant/consignee? Does anyone know any names of any inventors working for those companies to help with the patent search? Also, things are sometimes called by funny names in patents, but "articulated train" "guided axle" and other terms are not turning anything up on Iron Highway.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote:A couple questions: Does the Iron Highway/Ramp Car uncouple or separate to put the ramp down? If so, how do you do the spotting to couple it back together without a crewmember standing dangerously between sections? I search the ep.espacenet.com worldwide patent database, and Wabtec only has patents back to about 2000. Was New York Air Brake the original applicant/consignee? Does anyone know any names of any inventors working for those companies to help with the patent search? Also, things are sometimes called by funny names in patents, but "articulated train" "guided axle" and other terms are not turning anything up on Iron Highway.
beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: 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. See any UPS trailers on those barges? What is the average speed of those barges 12 mph, maybe. On Iron Ore from Northern Minnesota to the Indiana mills the ships top speed is about 14 mph, the are a few old steamers with a bit higher speed. The distance they have to travel is about twice that of the railroads, but the railroads can't dent the traffic except for a few trains when the lakes are iced over. 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? Indirectly its the fuel economy, directly its the cost, more fuel burned means higher cost, fuel is one of the largest expenses of a railroad. Do you see any of the big railroads that aren't choked with too much traffic right now? 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) Dave, when it suits you you keep carping about how little Intermodal earns, then also when it suits you, you suggest ideas that reduce the productivity of the system. How many trailers can you put in a given length of train versus a doublestack. Even if the rate for a container is only 75 percent that of a trailer, the doublestack will be generating more revenue. A good portal crane operator can load one container per minute consistently if they can bring them fast enough to him, I doubt seriously that a loader can back a trailer down a length of flats and drive back off in one minute, obviously when he is nearly finish he can do better. With your side loading you still have the hitches to connect which takes time, or what ever else you would use to secure the trailer. With the doublestack you can pick a container out of the train at an intermediate terminal fairly easily, with a circus sytem you can't. 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. It also generates the highest unit volume per acre. Where land is scarce or expensive it is the only way to go. There is no way that a facility like Hobart Yard in LA could handle its current volume with circus style loading. Expansion anywhere close isn't an option either. If it was all trailers the would have to require a time frame in minutes for how long until you pick up your trailer. UPS normally has drivers ready and waiting, but otherwise you need some holding time.
1. No, UPS doesn't ship by barge as far as I know. They do ship by air, which was another of the modes I mentioned that all go at the same relative speed. But haven't you noticed something? Only railroads seem to relate a given speed to a given commodity. It's something to ponder.
2. RE: Intermodal. What I have said is that import intermodal has such small margins. Domestic intermodal can get away with higher margins, because the alternative (trucking) has a higher per mile charge than the average railroad rate. Compare that to landbridge traffic, which in addition to having cutthoat competition from the various container lines and competing US ports, must also compete with the low
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.
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.
What it comes down to is a sort of Catch-22 for new concepts in railroading. Railroads have become obsessed with standardization, yet most new ideas inherently incorporate parts and mechanisms that haven't had time to become standardized. In the end, the vendor of new ideas better be able to stock all the rail shops with the necessary spare parts if he wants his idea to have the time to supply feedback, make the necessary modifications, and eventually gain acceptance.
As I pointed out to Tom, if the railroads (via TTX) could go the length of retrofitting 89' flats into Long Runners and 48' spine cars into 53' spine cars, they would have done well to do the same for the Four Runners rather than scrapping the whole lot. What I mentioned about the drawbar connections of the Four Runners goes right to the heart of the rigidity debate. Articulating those AC and DB connections would reduce the overall rigidity of each platform, and should have mitigated any such derailment tendencies. For what it's worth, I have accomplished such an improvement in scale model with a little kit bashing, so such an improvement in tracking should translate to full scale.
Why bother? Because even with the articulation modification, the neo Four Runners would still have a net tare advantage over the standard 53' spine cars, albeit reduced by half from 5000' per platform to about 2000' per platform.
futuremodal wrote: 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. What it comes down to is a sort of Catch-22 for new concepts in railroading. Railroads have become obsessed with standardization, yet most new ideas inherently incorporate parts and mechanisms that haven't had time to become standardized. In the end, the vendor of new ideas better be able to stock all the rail shops with the necessary spare parts if he wants his idea to have the time to supply feedback, make the necessary modifications, and eventually gain acceptance. As I pointed out to Tom, if the railroads (via TTX) could go the length of retrofitting 89' flats into Long Runners and 48' spine cars into 53' spine cars, they would have done well to do the same for the Four Runners rather than scrapping the whole lot. What I mentioned about the drawbar connections of the Four Runners goes right to the heart of the rigidity debate. Articulating those AC and DB connections would reduce the overall rigidity of each platform, and should have mitigated any such derailment tendencies. For what it's worth, I have accomplished such an improvement in scale model with a little kit bashing, so such an improvement in tracking should translate to full scale. Why bother? Because even with the articulation modification, the neo Four Runners would still have a net tare advantage over the standard 53' spine cars, albeit reduced by half from 5000' per platform to about 2000' per platform.
Let me try to simplify this just a bit more so MAYBE you can understand it.
Any equipment that uses nonstandard parts, especially suspension parts, will be harder to maintain, if for no other reason than getting the parts is harder. Plus, the more specialized the part, the more expensive they are. Plus, being suspension parts, they are more critical and can sideline a car quicker.
There's such a thing as a volume discount. If parts are common (interchangable) to many types of equipment, it not only drives down the price per unit, but simplifies the parts stock necessary to have on hand at the shops. The less money you have to sink into having a huge selection of specialized and expensive parts, the more money will be available for other things, such as infrastructure improvements. Myabe you should check with an accountant to see how this affects the "bottom line" for a company, any company, not just railroads.
The "retrofit" to make the 89 footers into long runners was simply pulling the coupler and draft gear out of one end of each car and putting in a rigid drawbar. Hardly an expensive change. The Front Runners and Four Runners would need the center spine lengthened, a major structural change.
And yes, the vendors need to stock all the railroad shops with the new style parts. A new specialized car sitting on the RIP track waiting for one of these parts is:1. taking up valuable space, and 2. not making any money for the owner.
And where did you ever get the idea that a Four Runner only weighs one ton per platform?
For what it's worth, I doubt my side loading method would take any more time than what it takes to load/unload a double stack train, probably less time with multiple tractor units working. I am of course projecting that the cost of a side loading tractor would be a fraction the cost of an overhead container crane. As for intermediate stops, I can foresee a slide-on/slide-off adjunct working well in those situations, among other options.
John Kneiling was promoting the domestic container in a slide-on slide-off side-transfer system.
The seagoing container is what it is because that is what you can get on ships. I believe there was some kind of "TOFC" for shipping -- were they called RoRo ships, but you could imagine that the payload to tare weight and other cost factors were even more adverse for this kind of truck-trailer ferry than for a container ship. The seagoing container has to be heavy to resist corrosion at sea and to be stacked on the container ship, and it has to be handled at least at the docks with big cranes, so double-stack trains are a natural given loading gauges that can take them.
For the domestic container, you would forgo the stacking because that would make the container heavy -- you would even forgo the lifting, relying on side transfer, making them lighter yet.
With the domestic bimodal container, the other part of the equation is the truck. With TOFC, the truck part is really the truck tractor of the semi-trailer rig, and the truck trailer with wheels, brakes, and lights is the container element. The truck trailer is the thing that gets left at a customer loading dock while the tractor grabs another load (there are of course exceptions, where the whole rig is parked for loading and unloading at the dock), but I see a lot of truck trailers without tractors parked at loading docks, just as I see a lot of boxcars/spine cars without locomotives parked at lumberyard sidings.
So with the side-transfer container, what is the part that gets left at the loading dock.? While the side-transfer gear is somewhat inexpensive, it is part of the truck trailer, but it might not be a part that you leave at a loading dock, unless you are parked with the whole rig to load or unload. What you might want to do is side-transfer the container on to some kind of stationary container cradle with your side-transfer rig -- the tractor and side-transfer trailer is the unit under the control of the driver who picks up and delivers containers between customers and the rail head.
We are all familiar with the Dumpster -- essentially containerized garbage. You order a Dumpster for a construction site or for regular exchange at some business. When the Dumpster is full, a truck rig comes along and picks up the Dumpster and slides it on to a special platform. It is an interesting sight to watch a Dumpster transfer. The Dumpster is not left at the customer site with wheels, lights, and brakes attached -- it is a pure container. The special truck rig that picks up a Dumpster stays together as a functional unit.
So if it works for garbage, why doesn't the domestic container work for bimodal? I guess garbage is purely truck mode because it isn't usually hauled any distance by rail. But garbage is a low-value commodity that 1) doesn't merit leaving a complete truck trailer parked somewhere, and 2) is something you want to containerize so you handle it is little as possible.
If the Dumpster were the domestic shipping container, there would be a means of having a truck rig pick up that container at a customer, transfer it to a railroad container train, another truck rig would pick up that container at the far end and take it to the remote customer. But truck loading docks would have to be set up for these Dumpster-style containers in addition to the traditional truck trailer.
I guess there is a tare weight penalty to the domestic container. Just as a RoadRailer trailer is somewhat heavier than an ordinary trailer, the container/side-transfer flatbed trailer combination is probably heavier as well. But while some technologies are marginal or found wanting for known reasons, I suspect domestic containers and side-transfer are a technology that hasn't been given an adequate trial, or it may be one of those QWERTY vs Dvorak keyboard adoption effects where it just couldn't break in to the intermodal market on account of the way most truck loading docks aren't set up to hold a container.
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: 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. What it comes down to is a sort of Catch-22 for new concepts in railroading. Railroads have become obsessed with standardization, yet most new ideas inherently incorporate parts and mechanisms that haven't had time to become standardized. In the end, the vendor of new ideas better be able to stock all the rail shops with the necessary spare parts if he wants his idea to have the time to supply feedback, make the necessary modifications, and eventually gain acceptance. As I pointed out to Tom, if the railroads (via TTX) could go the length of retrofitting 89' flats into Long Runners and 48' spine cars into 53' spine cars, they would have done well to do the same for the Four Runners rather than scrapping the whole lot. What I mentioned about the drawbar connections of the Four Runners goes right to the heart of the rigidity debate. Articulating those AC and DB connections would reduce the overall rigidity of each platform, and should have mitigated any such derailment tendencies. For what it's worth, I have accomplished such an improvement in scale model with a little kit bashing, so such an improvement in tracking should translate to full scale. Why bother? Because even with the articulation modification, the neo Four Runners would still have a net tare advantage over the standard 53' spine cars, albeit reduced by half from 5000' per platform to about 2000' per platform.
So many fish in a barrel, so little time...........
Again, the pot calling the kettle black......
Any equipment that uses nonstandard parts, especially suspension parts, will be harder to maintain, if for no other reason than getting the parts is harder. Plus, the more specialized the part, the more expensive they are. Plus, being suspension parts, they are more critical and can sideline a car quicker. There's such a thing as a volume discount. If parts are common (interchangable) to many types of equipment, it not only drives down the price per unit, but simplifies the parts stock necessary to have on hand at the shops. The less money you have to sink into having a huge selection of specialized and expensive parts, the more money will be available for other things, such as infrastructure improvements. Myabe you should check with an accountant to see how this affects the "bottom line" for a company, any company, not just railroads.
Please re-read the "Catch-22" analogy.
When TTX retrofitted the 48' spines into 53' spines, that's exactly what they did - lengthened the spine. What did you think I meant when I mentioned this particular retrofit by TTX?
If it works for one set, it'd work for the other.
Which is true for any railcar sitting on any siding anywhere for any length of time, a situation that is all to common these days. Hardly a crisis situation.
Now for the best bite of the day.....
I have no doubt you are the only one on this thread that made this blunder. Where on earth did you get the idea that I said the Four Runner only weighs one ton per platform?
I suppose I might as well jump in...
There are distinctively different domestic vs. overseas containers -- the domestic ones are longer. They are also built very differently. Keep in mind that overseas containers have to take conditions on a container ship, where they may be stacked five (for 9' 6" high) or six containers high, and subject to such jolly conditions as the winter North Atlantic. All overseas containers are standardised at 20 feet or 40 feet long.
The standardization of parts issue is very significant. Another issue sort of mentioned is maintainability: one of the things which a railroad is looking at, all the time, is that. The last thing you want on a freight car is anything which takes extra maintenance or attention -- and Talgo style suspensions surely do come under that heading, as does any mechanism with independently turning wheels on an axle (to answer the question: the axle, just like a car, holds the wheels in alignment, but doesn't turn; the wheels have individual bearings in various arrangements). Railroading succeeds as well as it does by keeping things simple and sturdy.
As to why various types of traffic move at different speeds, why not? It is far more important for most traffic to arrive on time, predictably, reliably, than to move at a given speed. Trucking is very different that way -- most truckers are paid by the mile, not by the hour, and they'd just as soon get there sooner, whether they're carrying post holes or priority merchandise. Provided there is adequate siding capacity or cross over capacity (which is where the problems can come in -- ask any dispatcher) it is no big deal to mix speeds, within reason. And speed, as has been pointed out, costs money. There is a slight tradeoff which should be noted before someone else does: if you can make more turns with a car (or train) you don't need as many cars or trains -- but a car or unit train usuall is a lot less expensive than moving faster, so it is rare for that tradeoff to be in favour of extra speed for most traffic.
On an historical note, some 25 years ago I was involved in a proposal -- which never went anywhere for political reasons -- to take the basic Iron Highway concept, as developed and used by Canadian Pacific, and apply it to New England. Specifically, we looked at the idea of installing a loading facility either at Maybrook (and refurbishing the Poughkeepsie bridge) or on the the Connecticut/New York line west of Danbury, CT, and running a scheduled Iron Highway type service, State subsidised (which is why it never went anywhere!) to another facility either at Palmer or Worcester, MA. The objective being to take some of the truck traffic off I-84. The DOT types would have none of it -- no extra concrete for them to build -- which is why it died -- but the economics worked rather nicely when compared with building more concrete, and a number of truckers we surveyed really liked the idea.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: Let me try to simplify this just a bit more so MAYBE you can understand it. Again, the pot calling the kettle black...... Any equipment that uses nonstandard parts, especially suspension parts, will be harder to maintain, if for no other reason than getting the parts is harder. Plus, the more specialized the part, the more expensive they are. Plus, being suspension parts, they are more critical and can sideline a car quicker. There's such a thing as a volume discount. If parts are common (interchangable) to many types of equipment, it not only drives down the price per unit, but simplifies the parts stock necessary to have on hand at the shops. The less money you have to sink into having a huge selection of specialized and expensive parts, the more money will be available for other things, such as infrastructure improvements. Myabe you should check with an accountant to see how this affects the "bottom line" for a company, any company, not just railroads. Please re-read the "Catch-22" analogy.
TomDiehl wrote: Let me try to simplify this just a bit more so MAYBE you can understand it.
So why is the railroad industry supposed to absorb the cost of this "catch 22" just so you can prove some obscure point?
There is a point where an idea has to go from theory to practical application. The "idea guys" out there are a dime a dozen, it's the ones that can take an idea to a practical level that are in demand. Once you get out into the real world and realize that there's more to it than "theories" and "ideas that sound good," you may no longer be the black kettle.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: The "retrofit" to make the 89 footers into long runners was simply pulling the coupler and draft gear out of one end of each car and putting in a rigid drawbar. Hardly an expensive change. The Front Runners and Four Runners would need the center spine lengthened, a major structural change. When TTX retrofitted the 48' spines into 53' spines, that's exactly what they did - lengthened the spine. What did you think I meant when I mentioned this particular retrofit by TTX? If it works for one set, it'd work for the other.
TomDiehl wrote: The "retrofit" to make the 89 footers into long runners was simply pulling the coupler and draft gear out of one end of each car and putting in a rigid drawbar. Hardly an expensive change. The Front Runners and Four Runners would need the center spine lengthened, a major structural change.
Maybe YOU need to reread the statement on the cost of conversion. "Working" and the cost of conversion bring the question "Is it worth it?"
You're also assuming the spines in both types of car are made the same way.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: Why bother? Because even with the articulation modification, the neo Four Runners would still have a net tare advantage over the standard 53' spine cars, albeit reduced by half from 5000' per platform to about 2000' per platform. Now for the best bite of the day..... And where did you ever get the idea that a Four Runner only weighs one ton per platform? I have no doubt you are the only one on this thread that made this blunder. Where on earth did you get the idea that I said the Four Runner only weighs one ton per platform?
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: Why bother? Because even with the articulation modification, the neo Four Runners would still have a net tare advantage over the standard 53' spine cars, albeit reduced by half from 5000' per platform to about 2000' per platform. Now for the best bite of the day..... And where did you ever get the idea that a Four Runner only weighs one ton per platform?
futuremodal wrote: Why bother? Because even with the articulation modification, the neo Four Runners would still have a net tare advantage over the standard 53' spine cars, albeit reduced by half from 5000' per platform to about 2000' per platform. Now for the best bite of the day.....
Maybe the fact that 2000 pounds equals one ton?
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: And yes, the vendors need to stock all the railroad shops with the new style parts. A new specialized car sitting on the RIP track waiting for one of these parts is:1. taking up valuable space, and 2. not making any money for the owner. Which is true for any railcar sitting on any siding anywhere for any length of time, a situation that is all to common these days. Hardly a crisis situation.
TomDiehl wrote: And yes, the vendors need to stock all the railroad shops with the new style parts. A new specialized car sitting on the RIP track waiting for one of these parts is:1. taking up valuable space, and 2. not making any money for the owner.
But a longer wait for the car that requires specialized and unavailable parts. Remember, the days of the railroad foundry and machine shop are long gone, so making their own isn't an option any more.
As I have said before....the problem with the Front/Four runnings was NOT THE DRAWBARS. The problem was the long rigid wheelbase of EACH INDIVIDUAL PLATFORM. I had more operational problems with the single cars using standard couplers.
Traffic, even on the highway does not move at all the same speed. Dave, you seem perfectly willing to discount passenger cars from your highway arguement. Why? You say we're not talking about passenger traffic. It doesn't matter. Passengers are simply a commodity. Just like gravel, coal, or anything else. You can only put so much traffic in a given space, before speed suffers.
How long is your commute to work? Does it take longer at Rush Hour? I'll be it does. My commute is 45 mintues, at Rush Hour, it's 1 hour 15 minutes or more.
Are your highways dead flat and arrow straight? Mine sure aren't. Grade and curvature greatly effects speeds. Traffic around here always bunches up around hills and curves.
Air travel isn't all its cracked up to be either. I haven't been on a plane in five years that hasn't been delayed taking off, landing, or both (usually both).
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
nbrodar wrote: As I have said before....the problem with the Front/Four runnings was NOT THE DRAWBARS. The problem was the long rigid wheelbase of EACH INDIVIDUAL PLATFORM. I had more operational problems with the single cars using standard couplers.
Yes, the rigid wheelbase was problem #1, but the way the drawbars on the Four Runners (and the couplers on the single cars) were designed may have contributed to tracking problems. The drawbars ran from striker to striker, but there was about 7 feet between the striker and the truck center at the ends, so when negotiating a tight S curve, you'd get the problem of the lead car pulling the trailing car right off the tracks. This problem is less apparent in cars using standard three piece trucks, but for single axle cars with the rigid wheelbase, it became more animated. If the drawbars on the Four Runners (and for that matter the couplers on the single cars) could have been run from truck center to truck center instead of striker to striker, the pull would better follow the longitudinal forces. But you still have the rigid wheelbase, which for 36' is rather long, and for that articulating AC and DB ends together with a standard three piece truck (leaving the CD drawbar connection in place) would alleviate the problem.
The point of the analogy is that there is no implicit speed differential on highways et al based on commodity type, this seems to only happen on railroads. You will always be able to see a UPS truck and a logging truck travel at the same relative speed on highways. Check any posted truck speed limit sign on any US highway, you will not see discrimination based on what that truck is hauling, it is all posted for the same speed.
The reason we discount passengers from the example is that passenger trains are for the most part a non-existent anomoly on US railroads, so they do not provide a counter example to average railroad speeds.
Currently my commute is 15 minutes both ways. A few months ago it was 1 hour 15 minutes both ways. Remember, I live out here in the sticks. It's a choice afforded by quasi self employment.
Not sure what any of this has to do with the topic though.
The UPS truck can't take that curve any faster than the gravel truck or the tanker. Only on the grades is there an apparent difference in commodity types as it relates to speed, and this is due to the relative hp/t ratios.
On railroads, you would think the relatively unstable center of gravity would force the TOFC to slow down through curves more so than the unit train of coal gons. But it seems to work the other way around, soley based on commodity type.
Hmm...
Let's try this example...Stop looking at railroads as cars and trucks on a highway, look at the railroads like UPS or FED EX. And each car as a package to be shipped.
UPS and FED EX charge more for Next Day then they do for 5 Day. So the Next Day package recieves preference over the 5 Day package.
Intermodal customers pay premium prices so thier packages of trailers move faster then the packages of coal.
BTW... In asking about your commuting time, I was trying to illistrate the fact that as traffic increases, overall speed decreases. A point you apparently missed. And I have been on numberous highways that have different speed limits for cars and trucks.
nbrodar wrote: Hmm... Let's try this example...Stop looking at railroads as cars and trucks on a highway, look at the railroads like UPS or FED EX. And each car as a package to be shipped. UPS and FED EX charge more for Next Day then they do for 5 Day. So the Next Day package recieves preference over the 5 Day package. Intermodal customers pay premium prices so thier packages of trailers move faster then the packages of coal. BTW... In asking about your commuting time, I was trying to illistrate the fact that as traffic increases, overall speed decreases. A point you apparently missed. And I have been on numberous highways that have different speed limits for cars and trucks. Nick
Nick,
I'm not missing your point, but you do seem to be missing the points I'm making in regard to the odd way traffic is diseminated on railroads compared to all other modes. Take this statement you made:
"Intermodal customers pay premium prices so thier packages of trailers move faster then the packages of coal."
Again, this speed differential based on premium pricing occurs only on railroads. Those same intermodal customers are paying that same premium on over the road trucks and on barges, but that doesn't translate into a given speed differential for those two modes based on that package premium or lack thereof. That coal truck and coal barge are moving at the same speed respectively as the intermodal truck and the container barge.
Regarding the seeming overall speed decrease associated with an increase in traffic, that is not a function of the traffic increase per se, but rather a function of the statistical likelyhood that anomolies to traffic flow will occur on an increasing basis with an increase in traffic. The most common anomoly is not the stalled car, etc., but rather backup on off ramps. This is one of the inherent flaws in the mindset of highway planners - they design the roads for the expected average traffic flow, not for the expected maximum traffic flow.
futuremodal wrote: Again, this speed differential based on premium pricing occurs only on railroads. Those same intermodal customers are paying that same premium on over the road trucks and on barges, but that doesn't translate into a given speed differential for those two modes based on that package premium or lack thereof. That coal truck and coal barge are moving at the same speed respectively as the intermodal truck and the container barge.
But you don't see Next Day packages moving by trailer or 5 Day packages moving by air. If this isn't speed difference, I don't what is? I'm not talking about the speed difference between the UPS truck and the coal truck. I'm talking about the difference in final delivery time between a Next Day and a 5 Day package.
BTW, out here, those UPS guys move much faster then gravel or coal trucks.
In this example, speed of travel is irrelevent. The only time that counts is the TOTAL time between that package being picked up and that package being delivered delivered.
Do you work for or have ever worked for a railroad? Are you familar with the operational requirements of railroading? Have you ever been on the throttle and taken 13,000 tons of coal up and down a mountain? Have ever had to weave 8, 10 or 12 trains through a space designed for 4?
I have. Sit at my desk and do my job for a day, and you'll probably run screaming to your mommy.
Everything is easy on paper. Thing are little tougher, when it's 0 degrees and snowing, or 100 degrees with 100%humdity, or (what I hate the most) when it's 3am, 36 degrees, and pouring down rain.
FM-
How familiar are you with BN's Trough Train ? I believe arbfbe posted that one of it's main reasons for failure was all of the special parts and fittings it had.
nanaimo73 wrote: FM- How familiar are you with BN's Trough Train ? I believe arbfbe posted that one of it's main reasons for failure was all of the special parts and fittings it had.
Well, I have an artist's rendering of the Trough Train in action, autographed by the inventor himself.
I'm not aware of the possible problems related to specialized parts, but if there is validity to that then it fits in with all the other innovations which inherently have non-standard parts (otherwise it wouldn't be an innovation). What I remember from my conversations with the Trough Train's inventor is two main operational problems that cropped up over time-
(1) there is an inherent problem with long consist type cars, in that if one wheelset needs to be replaced, the whole unit has to be taken off line. Since coal cars are prone to suffer abuse, it's easier to keep them as single cars, so that if one needs a mechanical fix, you only lose that one, not 12 others at the same time. That's why we'll never see spine cars and well cars coming in 10 packs and 20 packs. Whether the Trough Train concept would have as much load factor value if it came in a more operationally flexible 4 pack (like the Southern 100) as opposed to it's originally designed 13 pack I can't say.
(2) there is a preference these days for rotary coupled coal gons as opposed to bottom dump hoppers for use in unit coal trains. The Trough Train concept would be nearly impossible to modify into a rotary dump version.
And no, despite the similiarities the Southern 100 was not the inspiration for the Trough Train, according to the inventor.
futuremodal wrote: (1) there is an inherent problem with long consist type cars, in that if one wheelset needs to be replaced, the whole unit has to be taken off line. Since coal cars are prone to suffer abuse, it's easier to keep them as single cars, so that if one needs a mechanical fix, you only lose that one, not 12 others at the same time. That's why we'll never see spine cars and well cars coming in 10 packs and 20 packs. Whether the Trough Train concept would have as much load factor value if it came in a more operationally flexible 4 pack (like the Southern 100) as opposed to it's originally designed 13 pack I can't say.
Exactly the problem with the Iron Highway car. It was a 20 (or more) platform car.
To be totally accurate about "why we'll never see spine cars coming in 10 packs" you'd have to add the statement "any more." The original Fuel Foilers on the AT&SF were ten packs (ten trailer platforms). They were changed to 5 platform size for this, and operational reasons. If you had 12 trailers to carry, you'd have to run two 10-pack cars with 8 empty platforms. Regular operations like this would throw the railroad's slim advantage right out the window.
And actually, 5 platform cars are losing favor (at least in the I-95 corridor) to 3 platform cars. The number of destinations, and volume of trailers/containers makes the 3 platform sets more effecient.
David in Opelika wrote:Trucks all go at the same speed (not really, but hang with me) because all trucks have to obey federally mandated speed limits AND federally mandated weight limits. Say you have a semi-tractor trailer combo. It's maximum weight is limited to 80,000. For a typical tractor hp rating of 400hp, its ratio between weight to power is 200 lbs/hp.Now take a coal train at 15,000 tons, or 30,000,000 lbs. For a typical set of 4 locomotives rated at 4000 hp, its ratio will be 1875 lbs/hp. In order to match the power ratio of a simple truck, the railroad needs 36 locomotives per coal train!Or they can limit total train weight to 1600 tons.So trucks can travel faster than trains because they are so much overpowered than trains that they hit the mandated speed limit before they run out of power. Heavy trains travel slower than lighter trains because the weight difference between the light train and the heavy train is vastly greater than that between an empty truck and a loaded truck.
Exactly! Empty that coal train may only weigh 5000 tons. That's a big difference. As a result, even the slightest grade greatly effects train speed. And don't forget the added rolling resistence, called Equivilent Grade, curve introduce.
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: (1) there is an inherent problem with long consist type cars, in that if one wheelset needs to be replaced, the whole unit has to be taken off line. Since coal cars are prone to suffer abuse, it's easier to keep them as single cars, so that if one needs a mechanical fix, you only lose that one, not 12 others at the same time. That's why we'll never see spine cars and well cars coming in 10 packs and 20 packs. Whether the Trough Train concept would have as much load factor value if it came in a more operationally flexible 4 pack (like the Southern 100) as opposed to it's originally designed 13 pack I can't say. Exactly the problem with the Iron Highway car. It was a 20 (or more) platform car.
So the original concept was 20 or so platforms per unit. There is an inherent problem with long consist type units. Ergo, we completely ditch all aspects of the innovation.
Isn't that akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
The question to ask is whether the Iron Highway could have been modified into shorter sections and still retain the core advantages of the concept. In this case, it appears the answer would be yes, e.g. shortening the units does not detract from the core concept.
futuremodal wrote: TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: (1) there is an inherent problem with long consist type cars, in that if one wheelset needs to be replaced, the whole unit has to be taken off line. Since coal cars are prone to suffer abuse, it's easier to keep them as single cars, so that if one needs a mechanical fix, you only lose that one, not 12 others at the same time. That's why we'll never see spine cars and well cars coming in 10 packs and 20 packs. Whether the Trough Train concept would have as much load factor value if it came in a more operationally flexible 4 pack (like the Southern 100) as opposed to it's originally designed 13 pack I can't say. Exactly the problem with the Iron Highway car. It was a 20 (or more) platform car. To be totally accurate about "why we'll never see spine cars coming in 10 packs" you'd have to add the statement "any more." The original Fuel Foilers on the AT&SF were ten packs (ten trailer platforms). They were changed to 5 platform size for this, and operational reasons. If you had 12 trailers to carry, you'd have to run two 10-pack cars with 8 empty platforms. Regular operations like this would throw the railroad's slim advantage right out the window. So the original concept was 20 or so platforms per unit. There is an inherent problem with long consist type units. Ergo, we completely ditch all aspects of the innovation. Isn't that akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The question to ask is whether the Iron Highway could have been modified into shorter sections and still retain the core advantages of the concept. In this case, it appears the answer would be yes, e.g. shortening the units does not detract from the core concept.
TomDiehl wrote: futuremodal wrote: (1) there is an inherent problem with long consist type cars, in that if one wheelset needs to be replaced, the whole unit has to be taken off line. Since coal cars are prone to suffer abuse, it's easier to keep them as single cars, so that if one needs a mechanical fix, you only lose that one, not 12 others at the same time. That's why we'll never see spine cars and well cars coming in 10 packs and 20 packs. Whether the Trough Train concept would have as much load factor value if it came in a more operationally flexible 4 pack (like the Southern 100) as opposed to it's originally designed 13 pack I can't say. Exactly the problem with the Iron Highway car. It was a 20 (or more) platform car. To be totally accurate about "why we'll never see spine cars coming in 10 packs" you'd have to add the statement "any more." The original Fuel Foilers on the AT&SF were ten packs (ten trailer platforms). They were changed to 5 platform size for this, and operational reasons. If you had 12 trailers to carry, you'd have to run two 10-pack cars with 8 empty platforms. Regular operations like this would throw the railroad's slim advantage right out the window.
The other aspects of the "innovation" that didn't work added together to shelve the idea. Nick covered them pretty well. When so many aspects of an idea combine to cause problems, what was thought to be just a simple concept can become unworkable as we see here. You're focusing on a few aspects that did work in limited situations. The now-standard spine cars have become the best of both worlds.
nbrodar wrote: And actually, 5 platform cars are losing favor (at least in the I-95 corridor) to 3 platform cars. The number of destinations, and volume of trailers/containers makes the 3 platform sets more effecient.
The 5-pack vs 3-pack arguement isn't about the maintenance issue, rather the 5 pack w/40' wells is the favored configuration for ISO containers, but the 3 pack is favored for 53' domestics. Since spine cars are primarily meant for hauling trailers, and since single unit trailers are mostly 53', we get the 3 pack spine car. UPS trailers are still 28', so it is more efficient to haul them with the older 48' per platform 5 pack spine cars.
But whatever the case, 5 packs will always be more "efficient" than 3 packs.
I never said it was a maintenance issue. It's an equipment utlitization issue. And I'm telling you what my intermodal people tell me.
A five pack is not more efficient when you have 6 or 12 pieces to load to a destination (a common occurance in the I-95 corridor). With 3 packs you have no empty platforms. With 5 packs you have 4 empty platforms. And in my corridor, for UPS trailers it's about 75% 89' flats and 25% spine cars.
You can't say I'm wrong. I can count the cars as they pass my tower.
nbrodar wrote: I never said it was a maintenance issue. It's an equipment utlitization issue. And I'm telling you what my intermodal people tell me. A five pack is not more efficient when you have 6 or 12 pieces to load to a destination (a common occurance in the I-95 corridor). With 3 packs you have no empty platforms. With 5 packs you have 4 empty platforms. And in my corridor, for UPS trailers it's about 75% 89' flats and 25% spine cars. You can't say I'm wrong. I can count the cars as they pass my tower. Nick
No one is saying you're wrong. But you're using anecdotal evidence to support a counterintuitive theory. Things can change over time.
Have you asked yourself why everything seems to move in sets of 6 and 12? Is that a rock solid axiom, not subject to the winds of change? What if sets of 5 and 10 come into favor? And why would anyone only load one UPS trailer on a 5-pack? Since intermodal equipment is mixed and matched, you can still use a 5-pack in conjunction with a singular car to hold the 6 set of trailers.
The problem with the current 5-pack spine cars is that they are a "tweener" with the 48' platforms, too short for 53' trailers and containers, too long for 28' combo trailers. If a railcar manufacturer was to build new spine cars today, they could just as easily build a 6-pack with 53' platforms if the 5-pack is out of kilter with the 6 and 12 *rule*.
Since UPS favors the 28' trailer, it is logical that those would be loaded onto 89's rather than 53' 3 - pack spines or 48' 5-pack spines. Spine cars typically have one hitch per platform, so if you're hauling mostly 28' trailers, you're wasting alot of space with the longer platforms even though there's a trailer on each platform. 89's have three hitchs per car, so it's a nice fit for the 28' trailers.
A while back Trinity offered a 3-pack spine car with 57' platforms, probably in anticipation of wider acceptance of the 57' trailer, before finally throwing in the towell all together on spine car manufacturing. This car, if any even exist today, would be easily convertable to handle 2 x 28' trailers per platform, and would be the "perfect" car for hauling UPS trailers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.