http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,716654,00.html
I would like to see this technology implemented here in the United States.
I totally support this because:
Parking, Hours of Service, Weather situations at mountain passes, reductions in driver time on the road, more home time and so on so forth.
If drivers had these things in every little city and mountain passes or interstate choked gridlock prone areas, these trains can bypass all of that and save the headache.
I can see myself taking a trailer out of Jonesboro Arkansas with a load of Tools for California and when reaching say… The Oklahoma Line, I can drop off said trailer and see it go away, pick up a empty or loaded trailer bound for somewhere in Arkansas or even bridge it to Memphis or something, and drop that trailer off and grab an empty and take it home for the night.
If everything works out well. I can probably still turn in 400+ miles per day in state and be pretty close to home. I still need that sleeper in case something came up.
I can see the North East Cities or Chicago using this. If a driver is new out of school, they are not yet… ready for such loads and can haul it to say… McLean Illinois and put it on rail there somewhat close to Chicago and grab a load going somewhere else.
Then it would be up to a native of Chicago with his day cab or sleeper cab to grab this load and deliver it and pick up another.
Any way you can by pass or totally remove alot of things that stop wheels from turning on the choked highways means you are more mobile, free to run and consume less hours and have more time to take care of yourself and make nearly as much or more than you did before.
This is not to say that the days of 2000 mile hauls are over, Teams still do that very well. My wife and I can be in LA monday AM, in Jersey wed PM and back to LA by saturday morning legally and we have for weeks.
With this system we can probably just stick a LA load bound for jersey somewhere in Tennessee an
This looks like a variation of Iron Highway and other systems designed to allow un-reinforced trailers to be used in TOFC service. One disadvantage that I see immediately is that the system loads the trailers onto pallets which would in turn be loaded on spine cars, a lot of capital would be tied up in making sure that there are enough pallets available. Nothing seems to be mentioned about tiedowns for the trailer onto the pallet.
Apipe dream.
-
The investment in the palletts would be enormous. If a pallet is not available when the truck is, the whole system has failed. A pallet would cost very near what a dry van would.
-
We already have an intermodal system that is working well. UPS,YRT, Schneider, J.B. Hunt and many others use it every day. Introducing a different system makes about as much sense as a different track gauge.
3.European hauls are short. Switzerland has a similar drive on system to avoid 1 tunnel. Our system is oriented to longer hauls.
- The fact that there trailers are not intermodal compatible is moot the like of the trailer is short enough that 10 years would effect the majority of the changover. If a trailer is not compatible then it will sustain damage to equipment and contents.
Interesting, but really there’s nothing new under the Sun with this. There have been a number of similar systems proposed (and in some cases tested) both in the U.S and Europe. The fact that a dedecitated facility needs to be built for this is a drawback, at least for North American applications.
There are several competing Roll on, Roll off systems that don’t require the special infrastructure that this does…
Of course, without almost any consideration, the idea is rejected. Maybe it’s not good, but I doubt if DB Schenker would be considering it if it were so poor. Someone rejected the idea b/c European hauls are short, but I noticed that the first route planned, Rotterdam to Riga, is about 1200 miles, hardly a short haul.
And of course you complain yet again that an idea is rejected simply because some point out its flaws.
My first concern has been posed already (about getting the empty racks where needed). In an intermodal yard you have a large concentration of cars and trucks, so the empties are (usually) avaliable.
But my second question: intermodal yards don’t just put trailers on cars, but they also block the trains. How would you handle blocking in a system like this? Unless you use this as a feeder for a large intermodal yard, but then what would be the point?
Roadrailers didn’t need cranes (or racks) either. Just rail bogies and some forklifts. And we have seen how far that has come. As far as speed, it does not take long to load up an intermodal train at all. Maybe this is a solution searching for a problem? Maybe good for Europe, but I don’t think American RRs are interested in anything that adds MORE fixed infrastructure.
no no no no no.
Forget existing railroads. Forget it.
Forget the 430 or so drop lots to intermodal and vice versa such as what JB Hunt runs. Forget all of that. I used to run for them prior to 911 and the drop procedere plus papers and booklets are thick.
Collect ALL of the trucking companies together. Pool capital. Raise the remainder from Uncle Sam etc.
Start pouring concrete to a new rail track that runs off the mainline of any major railroad and attach a Beamer facility to it. Hell, in my town there is about 4 miles worth of double track mainline that has space for such a facility. We only get a few dozen trains a day. Usually from Little Rock to St Louis and back. There are hours and hours of empty track time in the day time.
Slap beamer facilities down and set out rail cars to take whatever REGULAR 40, 45, 48 and 53 foot trailers and slide them things onto the rail cars built specifically for the beamers. Dont worry about the cargo already loaded into the trailers.
Next set of train that has the time, tonnage capacity etc picks up the beamer cut of 30 or so cars with thier trailers and take it on down the road.
To cover all 48 states with beamer facilities no more than two hours from any state capital will take a certain number and slap down beamer facitlies designed to bypass major cities like Baltimore and DC or Memphis, nashville, LA or whatever. Anything that gets jammed in traffic. Chicago too.
Slap those beamer pads down in country side within two hours drive from chicago area, surround the area with them off each major interstate and major us highways.
Eventually we will take alot of heavy trucks OFF the roads for good periods of time and remove the need to horsewhip a tired single driver to deliver 2000 miles of it…
Slap the things down at donner pass so that when it all snows and closes teh interstate, the trucks load at the top and bottom and forget it. Those trailers will get through.
If Switzerland can do it to bypass thier famous Gottard tunnel and they are not as big as Texas even.
Why cannot we, the greatest power in the western world not do the same.
Last Chance: Sounds like you see some potential in this. Perhaps a new company or a trucking company with some imagination and an open mind will implement something like this.
What do you mean by that?
I’m going to assume he means that for innovations like or similar to this to happen, it won’t be initiated by the railroads, but brought to them as a proposal/package by some intermodal firm. Too much old, rigid thinking.
That’s a LOT of setting out and picking up (don’t forget the empty racks that will have to be set out). Then you will have to block them somewhere. Lots more property for someone to buy. Lots more track and switches to maintain (not to mention the whole rack system). Lots more special railcars to buy. At least you want the gov’t to pay for it,.
Hmmmm. I wonder why the RRs aren’t jumping at this?
It may not be feasible, but reasonable people at least pause to consider possibilities. And what’s with the snide comment about government? Nobody mentioned that. And perhaps the reason the railroads aren’t jumping on this could be: 1. it is new, 2. they may be looking at it but you aren’t aware of it yet, and/or, 3. the RR’s aren’t exactly known for “jumping at” much of anything.
Look, contrary to your first snide remark, I have no problem with disagreement. I have admitted that I really don’t know if this concept is worthwhile, but I am not so arrogant that I need to immediately dismiss ideas.
Last Chance alluded to the gov’t. (the uncle Sam remark).
Of course the RR looks at new systems The trade magaizines cover this stuff all the time (and there’s always a new system proposed). I don’t own a RR, I’m just kicking the idea around and bringing up some challenges/issues like anybody else would. I didn’t dismiss this system, just that I don’t see it happening, but like I said, I don’t make the decisions.
I asked a few simple questions that go unanswered. That’s ok, no one here probably has those answers. But the questions remain. The snide was in response to your initial snide.
Let’s say you have one of these Beamer hubs set up to transfer fifty trailers to fifty railcars. The hub is completely empty of trucks and railcars. There are fifty pallets positioned for the arriving trucks.
One by one, the trucks roll in and drop their trailers onto the pallets and secure the trailers to the pallets. When the fifty pallets all have trailers, a fifty-car train is brought in. All fifty railcars in the train are lacking pallets.
Then, in one simultaneous motion, all fifty pallets with trailers on them are moved onto the railcars. And one big actuator simultaneously shifts the locks on the railcars to secure the pallets to the railcars.
Then the train stops here and there along the route at other hubs and drops off trailers on their pallets. So when the train is finally empty, it will be entirely free of pallets. All of the hubs will therefore have pallets arriving and depar
i. Last Chance actually said the “raise the remainder from the government, etc.” Hardly the same meaning as your comment: “at least you want the gov’t to pay for it,” in which you indicated he wanted it to be government funded. Different words, different meaning.
- “And of course you complain yet again that an idea is rejected simply because some point out its flaws.” Exactly. Why reject ideas out of hand or do nothing but point out what you see as flaws? In most creative circles where the “brainstorming” technique is used, an idea is thrown out and refinements and additions are thrown out rapidly. There is no critiquing at that stage or running through a long list of objections of why it can’t work, been tried, nothing new, etc. The point is to try to flesh out the idea before finding all the negatives. Plenty of time for that later.
It really is a difference in perspective. You are far more knowledgeable about the rails than I ever would be. Yet this is presumed to be an open discussion. Additionally, it strikes me as rather amazing to say that because the RR’s aren’t jumping at an idea (which originates in Europe) it must be flawed. I am not aware of any notion that German engineering is generally impractical or flawed. They tend to be highly pragmatic.
“The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask ‘why not?’.” - JFK
Look at the infrastructure. What woudl be cheaper and easier in the long run? Having 2 or 3 packers/lifts, or 30 rack loaders? And with the whole trailers, you are now limited to single-stacked trains. With the heartland and Crescent Corridor projects, the goal seems to be adding doublestacks, not taking them away.
Sure you can respot the empties, but the one poster spoke about having these beamers all over the place. Sure it sounds good, but ti takes time to swap empties with loads. the intermodal yards I served had about 3000’ of pad track. As you pull into the pads, the empty chasis are already staged, the packers are waiting, and as soonas you cut away, the guy is there to toss up the blue flags/derails. By the time you shuffle your power, the train is already pretty much unloaded, and the new containers are being placed into position. Amazingly efficient, but then multiple tasks are being performed on one track. You are not limited to the fixed placement and number of racks. This system is adding mer pieces to the puzzle. You lose the packers/loaders, yet gain the rack. So you have railcar, rack and trailer.
Would it work? With lots of investment, I’m sure. Is it worth the investment? The current system isn’t really flawed that I have seen (except for maybe too few terminals, but that can be addressed as easily as switching over to a Beamer system).
C’mon Schlimm. We both have more sense than to believe that.
And at least don’t take teh quote out of context. From last chance:
“Collect ALL of the trucking companies together. Pool capital. Raise the remainder from Uncle Sam etc.”
My wallet is already hurting!
PS. I never mentioned anything about the engineering (or european engineering) being flawed, so let’s stick to what I do say. They run their trains differently over there, I’m sure. Maybe it will work great for them. Maybe it could work here, but my opinion is that I’d be surprised to see the RRs jump on it.