Trains.com

Time Magazine's Article: "All Aboard?"

12063 views
61 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: Atlanta
  • 11,971 posts
Posted by oltmannd on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:27 AM

intermodal128

Yes government involvement in highway does provide more freedom to pursue docking, but too many varibles and cars get in the way.  The tracks are there and one dimensional where cars are 3 dimensional. 

The SF Unit's ability to easily enter and exit tracks lessens need for siding.

Last night watched a CSX coal train lumber back from Norfolk empty heading to western mines.  Only train that passed during 1.5 hours while I was there.  How often do these things travel in the North East coridor?  I imagine coal train fequency is a clear function of power plants operating near their electric market.  National energy policy to transport electricity by transmission line instead of in coal cars plays into things.

   

 How often do they is not quite the same is how would they if allowed 24/7 access to the tracks.  There is quite a bit of freight that would run more efficiently on the North East Corridor if it was allowed 24/7 access at typical freight trackage rights rates.

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

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • 19 posts
Posted by intermodal128 on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:21 PM

Merging as cars do, more likely merge and couple as the last vehicle.  Not familiar with actual mechanics of current technology for switching or coupling, but sounds like what is out there is archaic.  Part of Toyota’s recent problems involved braking systems that were electronically connected to brake pedal instead of hydraulics.  Each SF Units is already equipped, and aggregate braking of coupled Units is electronically synchronized.  How many times will a train be switched between say Baltimore and NY?  At what speed can a train switch?

So Don, is the Northeast corridor freight capacity yielding to passage service?  From you statement, sounds like more freight would choose rail instead of asphalt, but it is restricted due to higher rates set by passenger service?  If that is the case, then clearly shortage of rail capacity.  Overall the SFU will achieve more capacity on existing rails because station stop times are eliminated and additional entry/exits point are easily added due to intermodal quality of SF Unit.  Units can carry passengers or freight as function of track rationing rates.  Heavy coal trains and other heavy freight that is not profitable on SFU would also need consideration as hindrance to SF Unit free flow. 

Intermodal128

Join our Community!

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

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

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