Back in 1980 or so Robert Reebie’s Bi-Modal Corporation built an actual prototype Roadrailer chassis for carrying a 40 foot container. The vehicle was the version that used a single rail wheelset that was permanent to the end of the Roadrailer vehicle.
Why hasn’t such a vehicle been used in freight services using Roadrailer vans? It seems like it was a freight vehicle that had the potential to have grown both van service and container freight service. Perhaps it still has unrealized potential for freight service sales?
The wheel set adds too much weight to make it viable. Adding hundreds of pounds to the trailer weight reduces the amount of freight the trailer can carry.
It was my understanding that, for many years now, RoadRailers were using the ‘later’ system of bogies (“trucks” not used here to avoid confusion) supporting the van trailers. This still requires more structure in the van chassis than required for support only via the trailer suspension and kingpin (both of which are closer to the quarter points than articulated trucks could be) and of course the trailer has to be capable of bearing the entire draft and buff load of the following train, which is a requirement in any RoadRailer.
These structural requirements are a bit less onerous for a container spine chassis (where a continuous beam ‘centersill’ is already appropriate, and enough strength needs to be built in to accommodate racked containers). The containers themselves also represent a considerable increase in tare weight for a given cubic capacity. Complicating this, it has to be assumed that empties have enough weight to preclude stringlining…
I suspect a great many of the loads in these containers ‘cube out’ before they come up to max weight for combinations on the highway system.
Video makes the system look rather labor intensive; additionally nothing was shown of whatever unit is coupled to the rail motive power and how braking is applied to all the rail wheel sections.
Images that were shown on that site make it appear that only the boogies with railroad couplers have hand brakes. It appears that all the intermediate boogies are stencilled ‘no safety appliances’. Tough to secure a train of these with only 2 hand brakes (each end with a coupler).
Images that were shown on that site make it appear that only the boogies with railroad couplers have hand brakes. It appears that all the intermediate boogies are stencilled ‘no safety appliances’. Tough to secure a train of these with only 2 hand brakes (each end with a coupler).
If you look at 1:16 to 1:22 in the video, I think you see the hand brake being applied. (That would also answer a question about how long it takes to apply the hand brake on one of these bogies… about six seconds)
I’ve signed up for the next demonstration of this system, and will report back on what I find if anyone expresses interest.
Note that if you go to their ‘patents’ page, they’re for some reason coy about providing the actual patent information. But if you take the patent title and put it into Google, you can readily find copies of the patents (and the later ones, in Google Patents, have live links to the earlier ones in the patent references).
Noted in the description section of the ‘improved’ version of the system (patent 6393996) is this:
The original patent (5601030) references as one of its claims
So I think there would be brakes on all the sections, and there is a ‘parking brake’ on each unit. It will be interesting to see whether there is some automatic ‘one-step’ device that can apply all the parking brakes from a single location (want to bet that in the afterm
All you’d have to do would be to provide decking plates on a RailRunner underframe. In a pinch, those could be modular (with lifting rings, etc. if desired}.
This system is called “Rail Deck” and Boyd Bros (Trucking Co) has teamed up to use these. I have only observed less than a half dozen out here on the BNSF in Central Kansas ( on Transcon). I am sure that our Poster “**Ulrich”**can add some thoughts and ideas on these as well.
The major complaint in the trucking community with the Triple Crown Trailers ( original with rail wheel sets) and somewhat with the follow-on equipment, has be pretty much related to trailer weights (Tare wts.) When the rail wheel set was eliminated on the trailer, and left at
The principal reason I remember was that when using marine containers (which have a heavy tare weight for their size) on top of the extra weight of the rail-axle system, and the need to put extra mass into the underframe to prevent stringlining of consists, there was little advantage for the OTR parts of the run vs.conventional or spine TOFC. (And of course TOFC could happily run in the middle of normal freight consists, and can be yarded, which can’t really be said about RoadRailers)
The advent of the stack train, and the yard equipment that was required to make that trick work, was really the kiss of death for any ISO-container RoadRailer. Now a RoadRailer container ‘solution’ involved too much money, too much weight, half the capacity in long-haul port-to-intermodal-facility moves, and then a proprietary chassis requiring special knowledge to deploy, in a world of light skeleton container chassis (often provided, owned in large numbers, and maintained/licensed by the container shipping companies). Icing on the cake was the empty-container glut in many regions (where there is little effective container-scale loadings that are also ‘containerizable’ goods available for backhaul, vs. large amounts of inbound, inexpensively-built foreign boxes coming in from Asia…
Why would you want to bother with RoadRailers dependent upon containers, in the numbers and on the scale that would be required for meaningful market penetration, and then finding or developing suitable lanes for them to run in?
Many of these arguments apply to RailRunner trailers (or the modern system of RoadRailers), but you will note how little actual structure needs to be added to the trailer design for compatibility with the rail system, compared to the older C&O-originated system. The principal remaining diffi
Another thing that Overmod didn’t mention is that it takes about the same amount of time to load a container in a well car that has twice the capacity.
I looked at several ways of doing this, some of which rely on the “16,000 lb forklift” sort of device that the RailRunner Terminal Anywhere uses to move the bogies around.
These presume you are not shipping the bogies on a railcar of some kind, but need them to move on their own wheels. A simple approach is to put them in racks on a more-or-less standard long flat (they can be designed to fit transversely if necessary) with the simplest arrangement being to fork them on and off. I think this is the approach the RailRunner people are using with their “adjustable flat racks”.
As you note, they can be connected with drawbars, and these don’t have to be particularly heavy as they are only expected to tow ‘their own weight’ and run behind the last car of a consist (which can be assumed to be a conventional RailRunner or a forward transition bogie). Simple to make an extension of the ‘fifth wheel’ lift on each side that can be folded out to make a double drawbar connection, then use a safety chain or similar connection. Should be simple to arrange the air connections. You would want some sort of proportioning valve so the braking effort is correct for the light load.
An alternative is to ‘piggyback’ them, in the way you sometimes see truck tractors delivered, with the front wheel of the trailing bogie hoisted up on the rear frame of the preceding one. This would involve some form of integrated support, and some arrangement on the fork that allowed lifting the end while moving the bogie along the track. You might be able to facilitate ‘self-lifting’ with a variant of the aligning ramp that puts the trailer underframe in position relative to the bogie during loading. This puts only one wheel of each truck ‘on the ground’ (to decrease wear) and no modification of the brake gear should be necessary. On the other hand, you’ll need some kind of keeper to retain the bearings i
Several separate items. I have said elsewhere numerous times that Road Railer should be adapted for short haul of containers. More specifically I think that for movement of multiple containers from intermodal yards to distribution warehouses or distribution centres (DC) rail should be considered. One of the nice things about Road Railers and Road Runners is the economy of facilities. Literally a level area to assemble and breakdown sets. CN many years ago set up a road railer yard in Montreal by the simple expedient of putting down gravel to bring a driveable surface up to the rail height. If you are close to your shipper / receiver, say a mile or two, the place you make up for the heavier chassis is a lighter tractor. Most OTR sleeper tractors are in the 18000-20000lb range. Most yard tractors are considerably lighter 12000-14000lbs. If you use a lighter tractor you can more than compensate for the heavier weight of the container /chassis. Even if you use a day cab a short frame day cab is still lighter than a sleeper. As for stacking for a deadhead move. You will need a crane or heavy forklift to stack and unstack. Thx IGN
Comment about Boyd Bros flatbed pallet. The biggest disadvantage I have seen is loading outsize cargo that hangs over the side of the platform. Oversize cargoes are a part of most flatbed operations. The frame for stacking would interfere with say loading a 60’ foot manufactured beams. On of the loopholes of trailer size restrictions is one is allowed to overhang 5 ft off either end. So one could load a 60 ft long piece on a 50ft deck and still be legal. Your also allowed to overhang 6 inches off the side. All without a permit. Thx IGN
Interestingly enough, unless I am badly mistaken, only nominal increase in capacity for the fork they propose using for the bogie management would enable lifting and positioning of containers for stacking. I suspect that if twistlocks for corner anchoring were used (as is appropriate for road chassis) they could easily be installed at the bottom corners of the empty ‘upper’ box when it is first lifted, slightly, and full engagement made after the container has been positioned, thereby eliminating the need to lift the twistlocks to the top of the standing container as a separate (and perhaps hazardous) step. (The twistlocks, or at least castings keeping the containers fully aligned laterally, would be desirable in cases where ‘deadheaded’ stacks must be unloaded from an arrival track without destacking, even though they will not be driven far, or in cases where the fork at the arrival location is ‘down’ or inaccessible for any reason at the time destacking would be performed.) Whether the trailer’s road wheels would support the overload of the deadheaded container’s tare weight for the short time such a move would involve, without tire damage, is another matter.