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.
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.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
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 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/
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.
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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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
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.
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/)
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.
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?
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.