My prescription for railroad operated and profitable long-distance passenger trains. Requires cooperation and interest from FedEX and/or UPS. Compact unloading facilties are in the passenger stations themselves. Passenger platform on one side of the tracks, truck driveway on the other side. While the train is unloading and loading passengers at an intermediate stop, one or more mobile overhead cranes move the containers from well cars at the rear of the train to the truck chasises and reverse. With catenary, a new design of crane is necessary, that fits under catenary, picks up a container and moves it just two feet about the platform level of the well car and truck chassis.
Right now a lot of air freight travels double of even triple the distance between origin and end points because of the hub-and-spoke nature of both UPS and FedEx operations. A network of long-distance trains providing the service I have outlined could reduce shipping costs and make possiblel a long-distance passenger service that does not require subsidy. It should be railroad operated to coordinate with the regular freight business of that railroads have with these two customers. A place to try it out might be All-Abord Flordia. The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)?
Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and oeprating restrictions that may come from hauling said frieght equipment.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
ATK is not authorized to haul freight by its authorizing legislation IIRC. The railroads did not make an issue of it when ATK tried their "express" gambit because it was small potatoes AND express historically travelled by passenger train.
Count on it, the freight carriers will not go along with subsidizing ATK any further than they already are by diverting premium intermodal to passenger trains.
Mac
What the original poster may be thinking of is a small container similar to the cargo containers for the baggage hold of wide body passeng airliners, though something made for a passenger train could be rectangular rather part semicircle. This would require a slightly modified baggage car, possibly with floor roller to facilitate the moving of containers inside the car.
I'm wondering if this would be the killer app for HSR, being able to schedule same-day delivery from LA to SF could be worth something.
- Erik
zugmann I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)? Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and operating restrictions that may come from hauling said freight equipment.
Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and operating restrictions that may come from hauling said freight equipment.
I'm with Zugmann. David Gunn realized mail and express compromised the already-shaky reliability of the passenger service that is Amtrak's mission -- and ditched them. They weren't worth it for what they brought to the bottom line.
It's true that, in the final pre-Amtrak days, some premier trains carried a lot of mail and express, but only because they were the only schedules left. Their running times suffered accordingly. Especially on its once-a-day LD routes, Amtrak doesn't need this.
zugmann I don't think the freight railroads are going to stand by as Amtrak (or whomever) takes away some of their premium customers (UPS and FedEx)? Plus you have a lot of hurdles: it takes time to load, unload, and inspect freight cars, you have to modify station areas to get the packers in there (those things are big), movement and managing of the intermodal cars, and not to mention speed and oeprating restrictions that may come from hauling said frieght equipment.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
1. i THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THIS WAS TO BE A RAILROAD OWNED OPERATION. THAT IF IT WAS AMTRAK, IT WOULD BE AFTER THE SIX OR SEVEN BIGGIES TOOK OVER AMTRAK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
2. I THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE FREIGHT OPERATION WOULD BE COORDINATED WITH EXISTING INTERMODAL OPERATIONS AND NOT IN COMPETITION WITH THEM.
3. SINCE THIS IS A NEW CONCEPT ALL PAST METHODS CAN BE DISCARDED, AND THE CONTAINERS AND TRANSFER MECHANCISMS CAN BE DESIGNED FOR RAPID TRANSFER TRUCK TO TRAIN AND TRAIN TO TRUCK.
4. IT IS A CONCEPT, AND THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF IMPLEMENTING IT. BUT THE WELL FLATCARS USED FOR THE CONTAINERS WOULD EITHER BE NEW OR REBUILT FOR HIGH-SPEED OPERATION.
daveklepper1. i THOUGHT I MADE IT CLEAR THIS WAS TO BE A RAILROAD OWNED OPERATION. THAT IF IT WAS AMTRAK, IT WOULD BE AFTER THE SIX OR SEVEN BIGGIES TOOK OVER AMTRAK FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
If the freight railroads wanted to operate passenger trains - there would be no amtrak already. But they don't, so there is.
And how much friehgt would you have to haul to offset new freight cars and a completely new service/system? Not to mention making enough profit to actually assist in passenger operations?
I remember reading that Amtrak's mail and express operation during the Warrington presidency covered its additional costs but made only a minimal positive contribution to the bottom line. When you factor in the delays and slower schedules on the passenger operation, it became more bother than it was worth.
For a while, Amtrak did move containerized mail in baggage cars. It was a roll on/roll off system, direct to truck.
Amtrak also offered their own package express business for a while.
The old NYC Flexi-van system would work pretty well with passenger trains. You could probably spin a few boxes on and off in the time it takes for Amtrak to get up and into the train through the single door they open at most stops.
There probably exist niche markets for moving some freight on passenger trains, but they are pretty small. The lanes where passenger trains run, the frt RRs have pretty competitive products. (e.g. Amtrak isn't that much faster than NS from Chicago to NJ or CSX from NJ to Orlando)
Most of the barriers to doing are institutional rather than structural. (e.g. Amtrak doesn't really care. Frt RRs would object.)
The great risk that the passengers will wind up being the secondary part of the business. There were a couple cases of the tail wagging the dog during Amtrak's forray into freight service.
Perhaps the way to go about LD train in general is for Amtrak to become the middle man between the frt RRs and some contract operators. Amtrak provides the route, schedule slot, and maybe has locomotives and some equipment available. Operators bid on the rest. Bids might "negative", that is, smallest subsidy wins.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
daveklepper The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
The final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
There is nothing that is going to turn off a passenger more than seeing containers at the end of their train. In Europe passenger trains have increased ridership. The last time I visited England; there wasn't a passenger train I rode that wasn't crowded. Just before I visited the Severn Valley Railway Museum, I watched a freight come through Kidderminster. The consist was all containers and the train was short and fast.
I once saw the Rock Island's Plainsman enter St Paul hauling more TOFC than passenger coaches in 1968; it even had a caboose. Passenger Trains and containers should be run in separate consists. It is about image as much as anything else.
daveklepperThe final solution to the Amtrak subsidy problem would be for Amtrak to be owned by all seven or six out of the seven majors, similar to the ownership of Pullman.
Sounds like someone wants to step back in time about 45 years (or more). Nostalgia makes for nice coffee table books, but it is far removed from reality.
The TOFC Rocket.
In the waning days of its passenger service to Omaha, the Rock Island would run trailers on flat cars ahead of passenger cars. This probably had more to do with stemming the loss incurred running passenger trains than a service inovation.
The IC included Flexi-vans tacked on the rear of the Hawkeye.
I do not think passengers will in any way resent seeing containers behind or before the passenger equipment, if the technology available is employed so that transfer of the containers is speedy enough, and the passenger service is excellent. Indeed, a fair proportion of LD passengers also own cars and drive. Thus the P:R benefit of how railroads remove trucks from the highways.
I've stated many times why I believe LDs are important for NA's civilization, both USA and Canada, and I don't need to review that once more.
I don't like seeing anything other than the track behind the train I'm on.
Johnny
Victrola1 The TOFC Rocket. In the waning days of its passenger service to Omaha, the Rock Island would run trailers on flat cars ahead of passenger cars. This probably had more to do with stemming the loss incurred running passenger trains than a service inovation.
I had left Iowa by the time the Rock Island started doing this, and wonder if the railroad actually mitigated passenger losses with this service or was simply getting a good TOFC customer on his way, since it had a train going that way anyway, instead of waiting for the next freight train to fill out?
In the late 1990's 42% of the Southwest Chief operating revenue came from mail and express (per Senate testimony during the changeover to GOP control - will post link in another thread I am composing). However, the main difference was that it was in HEP cable supplied MHC's at the front end that caused essentially no delay either to the yard operations or the over the road schedule.
This could be replicated by operating non-HEP container cars between a pair of engines, with GE Locotrol (a reduced wire count MU control), at the front end. However, may I submitt that the loading of the container is going to take some time, so for mail and express you might be better off just having a MHC-II, with either automated pallet loading (friction drive) or plain old forklifts.
Not to say containers are a no go for any reason, but the main issue is economy of scale for any transloading operation.
V.PayneThis could be replicated by operating non-HEP container cars between a pair of engines, with GE Locotrol (a reduced wire count MU control), at the front end.
Have to be careful putting light-weight intermodal cars between 2 engines, though. There's a risk of popping them off the rail.
But if you had a dome seat you would not mind containers behind. Anyway, the well cars have to be rebuilt for high-speed operation anyway, so addition of HEP cable and passenger car braking and couplers is a natural complement.
The way I envision it, FedEx and UPS would be able to give same-day delivary in areas where they cannot today. With the correct specialized mobile crane equipment, transfers should not require any more time than the typical hand unloading and loading of mail, baggage, and express took for a streamliner with RPO and baggage cars.
I agree the railroads are not going to give Amtrak any of thier high dollar freight business and why should they. When Amtrak did run those mail cars it created logistics and on time performence issue at major terminals. It did not enhance its primary mission of serving its customers.
Certainly seems that lots of people comment without reading the thread through. Again, my proposal is that the freight railroads run this service, and if it is Amtrak, then it is Amtrak owned by the six or seven major railroads.
Dave,
The freight carriers absorbed huge oerating losses for many years but the government would not let them pull the trains off.
Now they are subsidizing congress's trains to the tune of a few hundred million per year due to noncompensatory rates for "hosting" ATK. ATK admits to losses of about $1B per year, even after the freight subsidy.
The freight carriers want ATK gone. Period. Why ever would they want to get back into to obviously loosing business of passenger service? That is a less reasonable idea than your proposal to return to mixed train service.
Mac McCulloch
daveklepper Certainly seems that lots of people comment without reading the thread through. Again, my proposal is that the freight railroads run this service, and if it is Amtrak, then it is Amtrak owned by the six or seven major railroads.
Freight railroads running passenger has been a non-starter since the formation of Amtrak. Bad premise to start with.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Well, I have read your proposal. You are basically calling for the repeal of the legislation (NRPA) and substituting a plan in which freight railroads would own an Amtrak v 2.0 (how? coercion? mandated by fiat?) and then would happily run an expanded passenger rail network. Sounds like Fantasyland to me, but if you think it could happen, I suggest you hire a lobbyist.
There is money to be made in the express business. Whole trains of mail and express with a few passenger cars tacked on the rear used to be common. These trains were not given illustration and glowing commentary in the passenger timetables.
Many of these were numerous stops locals. It took more time to work the packages than passengers. Some mail trains with a coach as an afterthought ran faster end to end than the promoted luxury limiteds.
Different trains were geared to cover express and passengers.
True high speed rail may help cover its cost carrying time sensitive shipments at a high fare. If that happens, look for separate trains providing the service at night when passenger traffic is light. Those trains would likely run between major end points. If such trains stop to work freight at all,those stops will be fewer than stops for passengers.
#1 I doubt if many of the daily mail and express trains ran end to end faster then the named limiteds, especially making many stops.
#2 The is nothing legally that prevents the freight rails from running night express trains right now, except small matters like interfering with profitable freight services (which do run at night), higher costs and making a profit.
"Have to be careful putting light-weight intermodal cars between 2 engines, though. There's a risk of popping them off the rail." I went back and did some resisting moment calculations. For a 1000' radius curve, the lateral force is less than 6% of the buff/draft force. With one unit on the point pulling, the starting tractive force would be about 120kips, 7.2 kips lateral. With a standard draft/buff height of 34.5" and a lightweight articulated container only car, I figured the overturning moment would only be 33% of the restraining moment, so safe.
One of the design differences that forced the Roadrailer trailers to the rear (and prevented shoving from the rear or excessive backing speed) was the relatively high buff/draft height of 42-45" or so above TOR (exact figure would be great), so it's tendency to overturn was about 30% higher relative to a standard buff/draft height. I could see custon built container cars being a relatively efficient means to move a domestic container a long distance.
-In the marketplace, the question still is how are overhead costs for the transloading operation covered?
The container car could be configured so that it was in essence something like a self-container MiJack Thruport/Pathfinder Flipping Station portal, where the drayage truck pulls up alongside the container car, then the load is lifted similar to the portal idea, with a twist that it is shifted over to the railcar. Plenty of examples of this side transfer scheme occure in the patent records, but recent gains in automation have made it possible.
But a side track would have to be dedicated for this work and ultimately there would have to be a switcher involved or the road crew/origination hostler would have to pick up the cuts from a remote location. At the way points (intermediate stations) the road crew could set out the cuts from the front end into a side track, as many stations are on embankment or generally innacessible to trucks immediately adjacent to the rails. However, as long as the cut is between engines you have the ability for the power (now double ended) and intermodal freight to be worked separately, then come to the station to attach to the passenger cars at the origination terminal as was done in the old days when head end freight was so handled.
May I suggest that all might be better served if containers are to be used if the loading was done by crane at the existing dedicated intermodal terminals and a switcher brought a cut of cars, pre-blocked for various way point cut-off locations that are not served in the Origin-Destination matrix of conventional intermodal offerings from the Class-1 railroads as there is not enough volume. In this way the service would augment the existing book of business by offering missed cutoff makeup service and additional way points to get around driver shortages, for the utility of the existing base intermodal customers, with mail and express serving as the backbone of the volume.
Obviously, at most this arrangement might be able to set out cuts of cars at the quarter-points and mid-point of the route, or maybe every 300 miles or so. If you are talking about every station work (back to true express that will never be offered, without major market condition changes, by Class-1's), then some type of pallet system is needed. May I suggest that cutting out the transloading time for a container by using pallet systems is the way to make the product move faster, however, there could be a market for container (truck size) movements as long as they are longer hauls, that serve some midpoints the Class-1's don't catch as Amtrak is stopping there anyway.
I am not about to hire a lobyist. It is an alternative. There were ways of getting of getting extremely fast package delivery service in the days of RPO cars, such as handing the 1st-class stamped package directly to the car's mail clerk, that cannot be duplicated today, even with the best the FedEx and UPS offer. It is an idea, an alternative, and might best be tried out on All Aboard Florida. If it helps their for-profit passenger service really work, then possibly the freight railroads might want to consider it.
And the last paragraph of the previous post is possibly the best technology, with the FedEx and/or UPS office at the railroad station, and the truck delivering directly from train-side to the receivers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.