Double stack verses conventional COFC...

[carnej1]

From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4’8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with.

Al - in - Stockton

Starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing a completely new super broad gauge (your idea reminds me of the old 1970’s TV show “Supertrain”) system would be a great way to ensure that nothing ever gets built (sorry,that’s real world economics rearing it’s ugly head)…

IIRC, the California HSR system is supposed to include some freight transport, at least airline shipping containers/pallets and possibly full size co

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

[snip] . . . why remain at 4’8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. . . .

Al - in - Stockton

First, for 2 boxes side-by-side or a 16 ft. wide vehicle, you would not need a 16 ft. track gage. Presently, standard gage rail vehicles are around 10.0 to 10.5 ft. wide on a 4.71 ft. - call it 5.0 ft. between rail head centers, or about a 2-to-1 ratio of vehicle width-to-gage, and some of the narrow gages pushed that ratio to about 2.5, or even a little higher. Similarly, around 8 ft. would work - maybe down as close as a 6 or 6.5 ft. gage. So I. K. Brunel may have been onto something when he used the 7 ft. gage for his Great Western Railway in England way back when.

Second - That said, it still probably wouldn’t work because at anything approaching the potential weight-carrying capacity of such a train and track system, 1 of 2 things would have to happen - either:

1. The load on that small contact area between the wheel and rail would be so high as to be destructive - or least fatally non-economic, in terms of rail wear/ damage, and probably to the wheels as well; or,

2. The trucks and suspensions would have to be redesigned to distribute those loads among many additional wheels, which would introduce a lot of complexity and result in higher construction costs and maintenance expenses, etc.

It’s not generally or widely appreciated or understood that for the current North American ‘loading gauge’ of approx. 10 ft. wide x 16 ft. high for general freight cars and minerals [unit coal trains] - or x 20.5 ft. high for

[greyhounds]

The next question is what to do about it. Go talk to a CN marketing guy ? The shippers ? One of the '3PL’s = 3rd Party Logistics provider or contractor, or a sharp trucking/ intermodal outfit like Pacer, J.B. Hunt, Schneider, etc. ? I don’t know, but for sure that doesn’t mean that no one else does, either.

• Paul North.

Paul,

If you contact me at rabbiteer@sbcglobal.net I’ll send you what I pitched to CN Intermodal Marketing last year.

[TH_B]

why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level

What is the advantage of running containers side by side ? Greater wind resistance? heavier axle load ? High speed trains have to be light to go fast, with low axle loads and streamlined. Single decker close coupled containers should work at high speeds. As for wide coaches, this may increase passenger comfort if they don’t miss use the new found space by jamming more seats in, wich they probably would. Now I don’t realy see why they couldn’t build the line with wider loading gage to permit 12’ wide passenger cars on 4’8" track. Railway cars wider then 10’ on standard gage track does exist around the world.

[passengerfan]

[quote user=“carnej1”]

From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4’8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with.

Al - in - Stockton

Starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing a completely new super broad gauge (your idea reminds me of the old 1970’s TV show “Supertrain”) system would be a great way to ensure that nothing ever gets built (sorry,that’s real world economics rearing it’s ugly head)…

IIRC, the California HSR system is supposed to include some freight transport, at least airline shipping containers/palle

[CShaveRR]

As I may or may not have pointed out in threads somewhat related to this in the past, the trend in double-stack car purchases has been toward cars with the 40-foot tubs in recent (pre-recession) years, to accommodate the volume of trans-ocean boxes being handled, as opposed to the longer domestic boxes. In fact, the vast majority of five-pack stack cars that had been built with 48-foot wells (at least those owned by TTX) have had these wells actually shortened to the 40-foot length.

Although the main impetus for this is probably to allow more payload to fit on sidings of a set length (or between control points a set distance apart), it’s possible that some aerodynamic advantage might also be obtained.

[blue_streak_1]

Then move under conventional diesel power aross North Jersey to arrive at the Hudson River tunnels in the early evening - after the outbound commuter rush in the opposite direction is mostly done, but before the M-O-W people need to claim the tunnels for their activities during the overnight low-traffic/ shutdown hours. Attach an Amtrak E-60 electric or two - if there are any still in service - to tow the idling diesels thru the tunnels and Penn Station to the vicinity of Sunnyside Yard, at about 30 MPH max. to minimize track wear and damage, from whence the diesels can move under their own power again to the new IM terminal for unloading before midnight. That way the boxes can hit the street in the early morning hours, and be drayed and delivered both into the City and onto the Island before the start of the next business day

I had often thought about this proposal but had rejected it because of the conditions of the North River Tunnels and their need for continuing maintenance. Then when the ARC NJ Transit tunnel was proposed it seemed to be a great opportunity since those tunnels will be not used at PDN’s times. Now the new tunnel set-up will not allow connecting to the East River tunnels for the forseable future because of the ancient old NYC water tunnel problems. This is just one more reason to connect the new tunnel to the present NYP.

PDN’s proposal will work using the new 5 well container cars if there are no platform clearance problems. With them having a short wheelbase going through turnouts and puzzel switches since the present passenger cars have a longer wheel base. These well cars could be required to pass over a WILD impact detector eliminating any bad wheels to prevent premature rail wear and the 30 MPH limit is also good for the same reason. As pointed out in this thread; the wheel weight loads will be much les

[Ulrich]

[quote user=“Paul_D_North_Jr”]

Original Post -

Intuitively doublestack makes alot of sense… by stacking containers you shorten the train and you improve the loaded verses tare weight ratio. But when I look at a double stack train I see alot of empty space between well cars… so each set of stack containers catches the wind and the space savings gained in stacking containers appears to be negated to some extent by the huge gaps between well cars. Compare to a standard COFC…you’ve got what looks like an unbroken string of containers with a relatively low center of gravity. So one has to wonder…taking into account the specialized equipment for doublestack… the greater clearances… the specialized equipment and facilities needed to on and off load…just how much more efficient is double stack over COFC?

Ulrich, since you’re from Canada, I meant to ask this before:

What’s the ‘word’ or consensus on CPR’s ‘‘Expressway’’ [formerly ‘‘Iron Highway’’] operation, which now has a network from Montreal [1 terminal] to and through Toronto [2 terminals - Milton and Agincourt], to Detroit [1 terminal] / or Windsor [1 terminal] ? For the CPR website for it, see:

http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Customers/New+Customers/What+We+Ship/Expressway/default.htm

In particular, see the seemingly unimportant-looking links in the right-hand margin f

[greyhounds]

2. Expressway, unlike tradional TOFC, is a relatively shorthaul operation…Toronto and Montreal are only 350 miles apart…and Toronto and Windsor/Detroit are only about 240 miles apart. This is a disadvantage as most studies have shown that TOFC only becomes economical at distances of 900 miles or more.

Could you please cite 2 or 3 of those studies that show TOFC only becomes economical at distances of 900 miles or more?

I don’t buy that and I really would like to know if and why I’m wrong. Heck, maybe I am. What studies should I read?

[Ulrich]

I don’t recall off hand but I will try to find where I read that…I’m sure I read it but it probably has been 20 years.

[Ulrich]

Attached is an interesting article in reference to the cost of various intermodal options relative to truck…note that trucking is more economical at shorter distances…

http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/operatingcost2000/7cost2000.htm

This study compares costs…it does not state that trucking services in the Toronto -Montreal lane can usually be had for less than cost. This is because the lane is a “reposition” lane for truckers…i.e. there are always Quebec based trucks in Toronto who want to get home and vice versa. To give you an idea of what people are charging in these lanes…$400.00 - $600.00 is ballpark…for a 53’ box truck… For Toronto-Detroit…a 53’ box can be had for $350.00 to $550.00.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

Some excerpts from the 2000 Transport Canada study referenced by Ulrich above - which for TOFC and COFC intermodal, appears to be just an ‘update’ of a 1985 study:

7.2 Intermodal T.O.F.C.

In 1985, Trimac Consulting Services was retained by Transport Canada to investigate and evaluate the energy and economic implications of TOFC (Trailer on Flat Car) services in Canada. A key finding of this study was that for hauls under 350 miles (565 km), direct truck was generally more economical than TOFC under various assumed conditions of utilization and “lane balance”. [emphasis added - PDN]

Looking at the several tables of ‘worked examples’, ‘Direct Trucking’ is said to have about a $100 [14 %] cost advantage over TOFC and a $30 [4 %] cost advantage over COFC for the 334-mile Toronto - Montreal corridor - which is almost a break-even or equivalent to me. Further, in the other 2 corridors studied - Toronto - Winnnipeg at 1,297 miles and Toronto - Vancouver at 2,774 miles - both TOFC and COFC had a conclusive cost advantage.

Thanks to Ulrich for providing this. [tup]

I also recall from the late 1960s-early 1970s a couple of DOT and/ or FRA studies that concluded, and subsequent demonstration programs that attempted to prove, that TOFC could be truck-competitive down to the 400-mile range. My admittedly hazy memory is saying those demonstrations involved the ICG from like Chicago - Memphis, and/ or the MILW from

[greyhounds]

Attached is an interesting article in reference to the cost of various intermodal options relative to truck…note that trucking is more economical at shorter distances…

http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/operatingcost2000/7cost2000.htm

This study compares costs…it does not state that trucking services in the Toronto -Montreal lane can usually be had for less than cost. This is because the lane is a “reposition” lane for truckers…i.e. there are always Quebec based trucks in Toronto who want to get home and vice versa. To give you an idea of what people are charging in these lanes…$400.00 - $600.00 is ballpark…for a 53’ box truck… For Toronto-Detroit…a 53’ box can be had for $350.00 to $550.00.

I fully agree, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for rail intermodal to compete with over the road trucking at 340 miles. That’s what makes CP’s Expressway operation so interesting. They’re doing just that.

What I objected to was the statement that the shipment had to go 900 miles before intermodal became competitive with trucking. That’s what I’m “certain” is not true.

[Ulrich]

Yes…looking a those numbers one would think the rails would focus their TOFC efforts on those long hauls. Santa Fe had the right idea with their Super C service back in the 60s. And TOFC has some real advantages over other intermodal options…ie. terminal costs can be significantly less. I remember that in my home town (Sherbrooke, QC) CN had a ramp they used to load and off load trailers. One simple ramp was all they needed to make it work.

Although TOFC has been in delcine in recent years I don’t think that this is due to any inherent problem with TOFC. I believe that with some good targeted marketing TOFC could make a serious comeback, especially in the United States where your population is more evenly distributed and where TOFC could be the tool to reach those smaller and midsized towns.

[Ulrich]

Attached is an interesting article in reference to the cost of various intermodal options relative to truck…note that trucking is more economical at shorter distances…

http://www.tc.gc.ca/pol/en/report/operatingcost2000/7cost2000.htm

This study compares costs…it does not state that trucking services in the Toronto -Montreal lane can usually be had for less than cost. This is because the lane is a “reposition” lane for truckers…i.e. there are always Quebec based trucks in Toronto who want to get home and vice versa. To give you an idea of what people are charging in these lanes…$400.00 - $600.00 is ballpark…for a 53’ box truck… For Toronto-Detroit…a 53’ box can be had for $350.00 to $550.00.

I fully agree, it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for rail intermodal to compete with over the road trucking at 340 miles. That’s what makes CP’s Expressway operation so interesting. They’re doing just that.

What I objected to was the statement that the shipment had to go 900 miles before intermodal became competitive with trucking. That’s what I’m “certain” is not true.

You may be correct…I read 900 miles somewhere…but I’ve also seen other numbers like 600 miles (Brttanica) and even 500 miles… I’m not sure what the magic number is although the salient point is that there is a lower cutoff length of haul at which TOFC is nolonger competitve.

[greyhounds]

I also recall from the late 1960s-early 1970s a couple of DOT and/ or FRA studies that concluded, and subsequent demonstration programs that attempted to prove, that TOFC could be truck-competitive down to the 400-mile range. My admittedly hazy memory is saying those demonstrations involved the ICG from like Chicago - Memphis, and/ or the MILW from Chicago to Minneapolis/ St. Paul, but I’m not at all certain of those details and could well be mistaken, and so would wlecome additions/ corrections, etc.

More to come later, as I can find time away from this ‘day job’ commitment . . .

• Paul North.

The ICG “Slingshot” lane was Chicago-St. Louis (275 miles) not Chicago-Memphis. Chicago-Memphis was a foundation of IC/ICG intermodal service from its beginning. For ICG Intermodal 500 miles was “Long Haul”

The “Slingshot” operation started on the initiative of the UTU chairman. He was in a unique position in that the engineers on the old Alton Route were in the UTU and not the BLE. He was aparently aware of the FRA work on short haul intermodal. There was very little freight on the Alton and he was looking for some work for his members. The chairman came to the ICG with a proposal to run frequent short, fast intermodal service on the Chicago-St. Louis lane. These trains would operate with two person crews.

At that time George Stern was head of the ICG’s intermodal department. He was skeptical of making a buck on such a service. But back then the unions were absolutely intransigent on crew districts and size. For a union person to suggest using two person crews was an offer to be accepted Normal crew consists would have required eight man days to move a train between the terminals. He was

[TH_B]

Even if we stick to standard rails I see know reason we cannot build HSR that carried one level of freight containers or trailers and passengers and package freight on the upper level.

Why not be even more simple, and tack the container cars on the tail end of the HS passenger train ? That way they can cut away and load/unload at seperate terminals. For that matter, with safety technoligy and high tech why not make it so that the freight carreing portion of the train can cut away “on the fly” while moving, not neccessarly at high speed but bellow 100 mph ? Presumably the container cars are self powered and can move on there own power also.

ps; The CPR Expessway trains do not run to Detroit or Winsor anymore. Only from Milton to Montreal with a breif stop in Scarborough. I am not an expert, but I have heard it is only a mediocre success according to CPRail, I hope they keep it running. Hiway traffic density from Milton to Montreal can be very heavy with unpredictable delays lasting hours of holdup in traffic.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

[quote user=“Ulrich”]
[snip] . . .

1. Expressway is a partnership between trucking companies and the railway…many/most of Expressway’s customers are trucking companies. among them are the large fleets that belong to Canadian Tire and Hudson Bay company and of course the large for hire fleets like Robert. In a nutshell, Expressway allows these fleets to leverage the efficiency of their driver workforce. For example…a driver may take a couple of trailers to the railhead in Toronto for furtherance to Montreal via Expressway. That driver will then take a third trailer over the road to Montreal himself…deliver it…and then head over to the rail in Montreal to get the other two trailers for delivery in Montreal…So in essence the the carrier moves three trailers door to door with just one driver. Traditional TOFC has been marketed much differently than Expressway…as the railroads’ door to door answer to over the road trucking and in direct competition with trucking ( and not in partnership as with Expressway).

[snip]

Furthermore, I stay away from the Toronto-Montreal-Detroit corridor due to the rates being so dirt cheap.

The strengths of Expressway: It is a useful tool for high volume truckload carriers and shippers. If you ship 300 + trailers a week in that corridor then you can realize some potential savings by oursourcing the linehaul to CP as opposed to maintaining a a fleet of over -the-road tractors.

Weaknesses: The lane itself is a dog…No trucker can survive for long running back and forth between Toronto and Montreal although many have tried…and Windsor/Detroit isn’t much better if at all. I can’t see how CP can make money with Expressway with prices so low. And I’m sure that the big shippers like Canadian Tire aren’t paying a premium for Expressway…if anything…they are getting volume discounts. But who knows…I’m not on the “inside”…and quite possibly I’m miss

[carnej1]

[quote user=“passengerfan”]

[quote user=“carnej1”]

From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4’8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with.

Al - in - Stockton

Starting with a clean sheet of paper and designing a completely new super broad gauge (your idea reminds me of the old 1970’s TV show “Supertrain”) system would be a great way to ensure that nothing ever gets built (sorry,that’s real world economics rearing it’s ugly head)…

IIRC, the California HSR system is supposed to include some freight transport, at least

[beaulieu]

From the beginning I looked at Californias HSR system as a means to move priority freight either in Containers or as trailers. My idea since the system would be totally independant of the freight lines why remain at 4’8" why not sixteen foot rail width. In that way the HSR could carry two wide containers or trailers on a lower level and passengers and packages on the upper level. I originally thought of the Boeing 727 QC madel that operated as passenger planes during the day, at the end of the day the passenger interiors were rolled out and freight was hauled all night. The next morning the passenger interiors were once again rolled in and the plane was ready for passengers. With passengers and package express on the upper level this would certainly maximize the use of the trains. I also felt it would be great to extend the HSR corridor north from Sacramento to Redding in order to take traffic off I-5 coming from Washington and Oregon. In this way there would be no need to widen I-5. Trucks and containers would be whisked to LA and San Diego or the Bay area in less than a day. A truck coming from Washington could be delivering in those places the same day it arrives in Redding something impossible to do today. My original idea was also to make the system with Mag-Lev so 300 mph speeds could be attained. It is time to begin thinking outside the box. and we in California have a unique opportunity to show the world what good old yankee enginnuity can come up with.

Al - in - Stockton

Al, just so your question doesn’t get ignored, it is also a function of aerodynamic cross-section, to push a train that wide through the air at 200 mph speeds would take so much energy even a passenger service could not afford the price.