Murphy Siding wrote: OK, so roadrailers sound kind of wimpily built compared to a regular freight car. Has anybody ever crinkled any of them, through mis-handling?
Oh yes it happens all the time. Hi-way trailers just arnt suited to railroad use
P
greyhounds wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: greyhounds wrote: If you can put a full train of RoadRailers together on the shorter routes, they beat conventional TOFC costwise hands down. And they will also beat double stack costwise. RoadRailer against the ramp car? I'll go with the ramp car.I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. Ramp car? Conjures up images of the Dukes of Hazard.The ramp car is an articulated flatcar desinged to carry trailers or containers on their chassis. It has an integral ramp system for rapid loading and unloading.The CP uses it between Montreal and Toronto. The CN also used it in that market on their RoadRailer trains to carry non RoadRailer equipment. But then they shut down the RoadRailer trains.It's a good compliment to RoadRailers because it allows containers and highway trailers to get on the trains. It will complicate terminal operations however.
Murphy Siding wrote: greyhounds wrote: If you can put a full train of RoadRailers together on the shorter routes, they beat conventional TOFC costwise hands down. And they will also beat double stack costwise. RoadRailer against the ramp car? I'll go with the ramp car.I'm not quite sure I understand this statement. Ramp car? Conjures up images of the Dukes of Hazard.
greyhounds wrote: If you can put a full train of RoadRailers together on the shorter routes, they beat conventional TOFC costwise hands down. And they will also beat double stack costwise. RoadRailer against the ramp car? I'll go with the ramp car.
If you can put a full train of RoadRailers together on the shorter routes, they beat conventional TOFC costwise hands down. And they will also beat double stack costwise. RoadRailer against the ramp car? I'll go with the ramp car.
The ramp car is an articulated flatcar desinged to carry trailers or containers on their chassis. It has an integral ramp system for rapid loading and unloading.
The CP uses it between Montreal and Toronto. The CN also used it in that market on their RoadRailer trains to carry non RoadRailer equipment. But then they shut down the RoadRailer trains.
It's a good compliment to RoadRailers because it allows containers and highway trailers to get on the trains. It will complicate terminal operations however.
This sounds like the Iron Highway.
"No soup for you!" - Yev Kassem (from Seinfeld)
greyhounds wrote: The ramp car is an articulated flatcar desinged to carry trailers or containers on their chassis. It has an integral ramp system for rapid loading and unloading.The CP uses it between Montreal and Toronto. The CN also used it in that market on their RoadRailer trains to carry non RoadRailer equipment. But then they shut down the RoadRailer trains.It's a good compliment to RoadRailers because it allows containers and highway trailers to get on the trains. It will complicate terminal operations however.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
futuremodal wrote: nbrodar wrote: Here's an update on handling TOW equipment...TOWs must not operate with other freight cars, except intermodal. When handled in intermodal trains, the TOW equipment must be on the rear, and the total train tonnage may not exceed 5000 tons. You cannot shove against TOWs (as in helper service). Which I take to mean you can't use DPUs. However, we don't use DPUs so I don't have any rules governing thier use and can't be absolutely sure. Your not suppose to make reverse movements with TOWs at all, unless absolutely necessary. If you must shove TOW equipment, you may only have one unit online, and make the move at no more then 10 MPH.NickI take it then that TOW rules were developed specifically for the RoadRailer technology, and have been subsequently applied to the superior RailRunner technology as well, even though the RailRunner system has operational advantages that would seemingly allow for reverse moves, distributed power, et al.If you recall, RoadRailers are assembled in "elephant-style" configuration - the front of a RoadRailer trailer is connected to the rear of the preceding trailer, which itself is resting on top of the bogie. That in and of itself is probably why push moves might dislodge the rear of the trailer from the bogie.RailRunners are directly connected to the bogie front and back - there is no contact with the other trailers/chassis. This double bayonette configuration of the bogie allows for bi-directional moves.I had an old RailRunner VHS tape that showed the product being tested at Pueblo, and I seem to remember a mention of this buff/draft strength and flexibility. I wonder if RailRunner tried to get an exemption from the current antiquated rules for TOW's and was turned down?
nbrodar wrote: Here's an update on handling TOW equipment...TOWs must not operate with other freight cars, except intermodal. When handled in intermodal trains, the TOW equipment must be on the rear, and the total train tonnage may not exceed 5000 tons. You cannot shove against TOWs (as in helper service). Which I take to mean you can't use DPUs. However, we don't use DPUs so I don't have any rules governing thier use and can't be absolutely sure. Your not suppose to make reverse movements with TOWs at all, unless absolutely necessary. If you must shove TOW equipment, you may only have one unit online, and make the move at no more then 10 MPH.Nick
Here's an update on handling TOW equipment...
TOWs must not operate with other freight cars, except intermodal. When handled in intermodal trains, the TOW equipment must be on the rear, and the total train tonnage may not exceed 5000 tons.
You cannot shove against TOWs (as in helper service). Which I take to mean you can't use DPUs. However, we don't use DPUs so I don't have any rules governing thier use and can't be absolutely sure.
Your not suppose to make reverse movements with TOWs at all, unless absolutely necessary. If you must shove TOW equipment, you may only have one unit online, and make the move at no more then 10 MPH.
Nick
I take it then that TOW rules were developed specifically for the RoadRailer technology, and have been subsequently applied to the superior RailRunner technology as well, even though the RailRunner system has operational advantages that would seemingly allow for reverse moves, distributed power, et al.
If you recall, RoadRailers are assembled in "elephant-style" configuration - the front of a RoadRailer trailer is connected to the rear of the preceding trailer, which itself is resting on top of the bogie. That in and of itself is probably why push moves might dislodge the rear of the trailer from the bogie.
RailRunners are directly connected to the bogie front and back - there is no contact with the other trailers/chassis. This double bayonette configuration of the bogie allows for bi-directional moves.
I had an old RailRunner VHS tape that showed the product being tested at Pueblo, and I seem to remember a mention of this buff/draft strength and flexibility. I wonder if RailRunner tried to get an exemption from the current antiquated rules for TOW's and was turned down?
I think it has more to do with the lighter weight of the units not resisting side forces during movement through curves (and switches) and climbing the rail, not the fact that they are connected above the bogie. Are you inferring that Triple Crown must place a locomotive at both ends of a string during switching movements? IIRC the only non-contact incidents involving roadrailers were 2 "stringlining" a curve and 1 wind-caused. There was one where the engineer did not follow the rule cited by Nick. These incidents would seem to support the light-weight theory.
futuremodal wrote: I take it then that TOW rules were developed specifically for the RoadRailer technology, and have been subsequently applied to the superior RailRunner technology as well, even though the RailRunner system has operational advantages that would seemingly allow for reverse moves, distributed power, et al....I had an old RailRunner VHS tape that showed the product being tested at Pueblo, and I seem to remember a mention of this buff/draft strength and flexibility. I wonder if RailRunner tried to get an exemption from the current antiquated rules for TOW's and was turned down?
...
The TOW rules deal specifically with RoadRailer type equipement. There's actually a list of banned and allowed trailer numbers in the rule book.
Not being something we run, I haven't seen any rules dealling specifically with RailRunner. Looking at the RailRunner, I image they could fall under the rules for the old TTOX Front Runner cars.
Take a Ride on the Reading with the: Reading Company Technical & Historical Society http://www.readingrailroad.org/
futuremodal wrote: Safety Valve wrote: futuremodal wrote: nbrodar wrote: Here's an update on handling TOW equipment...TOWs must not operate with other freight cars, except intermodal. When handled in intermodal trains, the TOW equipment must be on the rear, and the total train tonnage may not exceed 5000 tons. You cannot shove against TOWs (as in helper service). Which I take to mean you can't use DPUs. However, we don't use DPUs so I don't have any rules governing thier use and can't be absolutely sure. Your not suppose to make reverse movements with TOWs at all, unless absolutely necessary. If you must shove TOW equipment, you may only have one unit online, and make the move at no more then 10 MPH.NickI take it then that TOW rules were developed specifically for the RoadRailer technology, and have been subsequently applied to the superior RailRunner technology as well, even though the RailRunner system has operational advantages that would seemingly allow for reverse moves, distributed power, et al.If you recall, RoadRailers are assembled in "elephant-style" configuration - the front of a RoadRailer trailer is connected to the rear of the preceding trailer, which itself is resting on top of the bogie. That in and of itself is probably why push moves might dislodge the rear of the trailer from the bogie.RailRunners are directly connected to the bogie front and back - there is no contact with the other trailers/chassis. This double bayonette configuration of the bogie allows for bi-directional moves.I had an old RailRunner VHS tape that showed the product being tested at Pueblo, and I seem to remember a mention of this buff/draft strength and flexibility. I wonder if RailRunner tried to get an exemption from the current antiquated rules for TOW's and was turned down?They can exempt all they want to. But the bottom fact is that trailers will fail. All you got is a aluminum skeleton much like open grid benchwork, two load rails, trailer wheel and frame assembly and planks all the way to the 5th wheel king pin plate. That plate is the strongest item on the entire rig. Everything else will fail if you applied the pressures found in regular trains to it.If you installed a DF underframe to it to make it work, the weight gain will make it so obese that it's no good for hauling cargo anymore; all you can put in there is toilet paper or pre-made popcorn in boxes.The walls are crappy, you can gut them with a good circular saw and the roof is nothing more than a thin sheet of something plastic to keep the rain off.maybe one of those fancy european coupler cars on 4 wheels with a 5th wheel on one end and a standard coupler on the other with a tandem well... you would have constant shortages of them similar to chassis.You are speaking of RoadRailer vans. I'm speaking of RailRunner chassis. According to the RailRunner website, the 40' chassis is rated for 400,000 lbs of rail draft and buff forces, which means that one could place.....well, maybe 10 units in front of a pusher. As for balanced power via DPU's, unless there's a risk of one engine konking out............
Safety Valve wrote: futuremodal wrote: nbrodar wrote: Here's an update on handling TOW equipment...TOWs must not operate with other freight cars, except intermodal. When handled in intermodal trains, the TOW equipment must be on the rear, and the total train tonnage may not exceed 5000 tons. You cannot shove against TOWs (as in helper service). Which I take to mean you can't use DPUs. However, we don't use DPUs so I don't have any rules governing thier use and can't be absolutely sure. Your not suppose to make reverse movements with TOWs at all, unless absolutely necessary. If you must shove TOW equipment, you may only have one unit online, and make the move at no more then 10 MPH.NickI take it then that TOW rules were developed specifically for the RoadRailer technology, and have been subsequently applied to the superior RailRunner technology as well, even though the RailRunner system has operational advantages that would seemingly allow for reverse moves, distributed power, et al.If you recall, RoadRailers are assembled in "elephant-style" configuration - the front of a RoadRailer trailer is connected to the rear of the preceding trailer, which itself is resting on top of the bogie. That in and of itself is probably why push moves might dislodge the rear of the trailer from the bogie.RailRunners are directly connected to the bogie front and back - there is no contact with the other trailers/chassis. This double bayonette configuration of the bogie allows for bi-directional moves.I had an old RailRunner VHS tape that showed the product being tested at Pueblo, and I seem to remember a mention of this buff/draft strength and flexibility. I wonder if RailRunner tried to get an exemption from the current antiquated rules for TOW's and was turned down?They can exempt all they want to. But the bottom fact is that trailers will fail. All you got is a aluminum skeleton much like open grid benchwork, two load rails, trailer wheel and frame assembly and planks all the way to the 5th wheel king pin plate. That plate is the strongest item on the entire rig. Everything else will fail if you applied the pressures found in regular trains to it.If you installed a DF underframe to it to make it work, the weight gain will make it so obese that it's no good for hauling cargo anymore; all you can put in there is toilet paper or pre-made popcorn in boxes.The walls are crappy, you can gut them with a good circular saw and the roof is nothing more than a thin sheet of something plastic to keep the rain off.maybe one of those fancy european coupler cars on 4 wheels with a 5th wheel on one end and a standard coupler on the other with a tandem well... you would have constant shortages of them similar to chassis.
They can exempt all they want to. But the bottom fact is that trailers will fail. All you got is a aluminum skeleton much like open grid benchwork, two load rails, trailer wheel and frame assembly and planks all the way to the 5th wheel king pin plate. That plate is the strongest item on the entire rig. Everything else will fail if you applied the pressures found in regular trains to it.
If you installed a DF underframe to it to make it work, the weight gain will make it so obese that it's no good for hauling cargo anymore; all you can put in there is toilet paper or pre-made popcorn in boxes.
The walls are crappy, you can gut them with a good circular saw and the roof is nothing more than a thin sheet of something plastic to keep the rain off.
maybe one of those fancy european coupler cars on 4 wheels with a 5th wheel on one end and a standard coupler on the other with a tandem well... you would have constant shortages of them similar to chassis.
You are speaking of RoadRailer vans. I'm speaking of RailRunner chassis. According to the RailRunner website, the 40' chassis is rated for 400,000 lbs of rail draft and buff forces, which means that one could place.....well, maybe 10 units in front of a pusher. As for balanced power via DPU's, unless there's a risk of one engine konking out............
My bad. Ive had too much road this and road that for one day.
jclass wrote: Can Railrunner play a roll in this? Maritime and domestic containers?http://www.railrunner.com/
Can Railrunner play a roll in this? Maritime and domestic containers?
http://www.railrunner.com/
Absolutely. The RailRunner system is light years ahead of the RoadRailer technology, and though it is currently predicated on container-on-chassis, it can and should move on to dry vans, reefer vans, flatbeds, ect basically any type of trailer.
jclass wrote:Interesting. The box that changed the world still has some distance to travel. Compatibility, oh compatibility.
I believe the chassis are all physically compatible, but it's the commercial agreements on who gets to store how much equipment where that cause the tizzy. RRs try to push the steamship companies into chassis pools, but I guess each is leary that the other will take some unfair advantage....
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
snagletooth wrote: jclass wrote: Can Railrunner play a roll in this? Maritime and domestic containers?http://www.railrunner.com/Uumm, NO. sorry to say, but chassies are the bite in the rear in intermodal. it's difficult to explain to anyone who hasn't driven boxes. containers and chassies are a bit difficult, and most container lines and their contract rail and port lines will not allow you to interchange(ei, haul someone elses box on their wheels). And finding chassies in any givin yard can be difficult. I spent many an hour at Corwith finding an NYK, when , in the end, I had to go to Forest park, then later, Bedford to get a chassie. On and on. To many stories. Lift offs at Cicero or Corwith, even Bedford just hold the chassie. APL, HAHAHAHA. NEVER INTERCHANGED with ANYONE. Gator boxes (Motsui, to everyone else) MUST be on a Mutsui, period, but only two rail yards and one container yard in Chi stored them, even though several rails hauled them. But you had to have a Booking No. just to get a chassie. Great idea, really, but, NO, it would work for boxes, only for road trailers.
You think that's bad, try getting a light repaired after a failed gate inspection. Makes one feel like Oliver Twist holding the soup bowl asking for "More?" while going around the dozens of others also trying to get out of the yard.
The entire "investors day" slide show was interesting. It is worth taking a look at, not only the automotive/intermodal, but the marketing, customer service, etc.
ed
jclass wrote:Can Railrunner play a roll in this? Maritime and domestic containers?http://www.railrunner.com/
Murphy Siding wrote: Hey greyhounds: NS seems to be doing alright with their Triple Crown, and seems poised to expand it's use. From your perspective, how is NS seeming to make this work, and not the other railroads?
That is a very good question. Everybody else who has tried has failed. The UP, BNSF, CSX, CN, they all tried it and shut it down. CSX even gave it a couple tries. Here's what I think:
1) NS had, and has, the market that fits the equipment. They've got several auto plants that need parts delivery by a service that the RoadRailer excells at. It can be used to provide truck competitive service on relatively short haul lanes such as Detroit-St. Louis. This auto parts business allowed them to have a "base load" for the trains that provided a "foundation" on which to build other business.
2) The NS had, and probably still has, what can be called "The Will of the Commander." That's a military term that references the determination of the guy in charge. If he's determined enough, and good enough, he can win. And he can win against long odds. The NS had Thomas Finkbiner and Matt Rose in charge of their RoadRailer operation. Those are two guys who will find a way to win.
3) Double stack doesn't apply in this situation. When I worked for RoadRailer I did cost analysis vis a vis double stack and TOFC.
Los Angeles-Chicago, there was no question. Double stack was the most economical solution.
But NS isn't running LA-Chicago. They're running Detroit-Atlanta. And then it flips, because on a shorter haul it makes sense to keep the highway wheels with the box. Otherwise you gotta' have a chassis stored on each end. And go through more terminal handling which can not be traded off against more line haul efficiency on NS's shorter routes.
4) The NS had enough sense to set up a "network". They did a "hub and spoke" system with the hub in Ft. Wayne. This helped them do #3. They could get a full train together out of Chicago because it was going to the "hub" in Ft. Wayne and handle trailers to destinations all over their network.
5) The NS had "deep pockets" and could invest in developing a market. A RoadRailer service train didn't have to make money from day one. They've taken over 20 years to get to this point. That's commitment to developing a market.
6) This goes back to "The Will of the Commander". The NS and its predicessors (Southern and N&W) have always been Railroad Companys. It wasn't just the "commanders". It was the whole orgainization. The corporate culture was commited to being a successful railroad. And they were going to do whatever it took to do that.
I give them great credit. They didn't just "give up" on the shorter hauls (which is where most of the freight business is), they sent their "Commanders" out to fight for it and they seem to have been successful.
nbrodar wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: A roadrailer car can't ride along in a train with other freight cars?Equipment Handling Rules generally state that TOWs (Trailer on Wheels, the generic term for RoadRailer type equipement) must either move in dedicated trains, or on the rear conventional trains. You cannot place conventional equipement behind or shove against TOWs.Nick
Murphy Siding wrote: A roadrailer car can't ride along in a train with other freight cars?
Equipment Handling Rules generally state that TOWs (Trailer on Wheels, the generic term for RoadRailer type equipement) must either move in dedicated trains, or on the rear conventional trains. You cannot place conventional equipement behind or shove against TOWs.
Nick,
Is there an exemption to current rules that would allow TOW's to be on the front of a conventional train if separated by a DPU? Or is that classified as "shoving" even though there is a pulling unit in front?
If rules don't even allow for use of DPU's in dedicated TOW's, that takes away much of the flexibility advantage, e.g. two or three separate bi-modal consists being formed into one solid consist without engine change.
oltmannd wrote: Some interesting stuff from NS's "Investor Day" http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/speech07/investorday/mrm060607.pdfTalks about outlook for autoparts, Triple Crown (which is only about 1/3 autoparts, at present) and all other forms of intermodal. Also has some info on "Crescent Corridor".
Some interesting stuff from NS's "Investor Day" http://www.nscorp.com/nscorphtml/speech07/investorday/mrm060607.pdf
Talks about outlook for autoparts, Triple Crown (which is only about 1/3 autoparts, at present) and all other forms of intermodal. Also has some info on "Crescent Corridor".
Any idea what kind of freight makes up the other 2/3 of Triple Crown loadings?
MP173 wrote: Are they currently running to Texas? They are planning to expand there.ed
Are they currently running to Texas? They are planning to expand there.
Yes, they have a run-through agreement with UP for the Minneapolis TC train. I don't remember if UP takes the Ft Worth train also.
...Many times I've seen Triple Crown units passing thru Muncie here and totaling at least 140 trailers. When there is that many total units the power is 2 6-axle engines.
I'm not any expert on the subject, but from my observation of the operation, and especially the couplers, there appears to be min. or no slack. In general, they roll thru here very smoothly, with the exception of the occasional flat wheel on a bogey.
Quentin
MP173 wrote:I have seen TC's with close to 150 trailers. Do these trains require special handling by engineers? ed
I have seen TC's with close to 150 trailers.
Do these trains require special handling by engineers?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.