Article on Monday 3/26 Trains News talks about high speed freight rail being investigated in Europe. How about here in the USA? Is the railroad industry welded to long trains of heavy comodities attempting to achieve a car speed of more than 25 miles a day? How about a five or ten or 20 car trains of high value, light weight products which need quick delivery? ACELA Freight? Is it feasable? Is it desireable? Could it coexist with HSR passenger traffic therefore each would help pay for the infrastructure and traffic control? Or is it that we should operate trains and traffic just like they’ve always done it since the 1800’s?
What commodity is there that rail serves dock to dock that is so time sensitive that the shipper would pay for more speed? The products that are that time sensitive probably have dock-to-dock service by truck. If rail were to become a component of that truck-to-rail-to-truck cycle by offering greater speed overall, that rail component would have to run fast enough to make the whole cycle faster than just straight trucking from origin to destination.
We’ve had the capability since the Super-C and before. Don’t have the market.
Uncle Sam already subsidizes the truckers and won’t want to mimic this stunt.
Consider what the railroads are doing more and more of these days–monster trains with DP units in multiple locations throughout the train. I would say the idea of fast freight is either gone for quite a while, or it has yet to be wanted (as Bucyrus and Mudchicked pointed out).
The best service out there now is the hot IM and UPS trains.
Of course, as fuel prices continue to rise, it may someday soon become economically feasible to switch more of the somewhat time-sensitive freight to trains for the majority of the haul.
What’s the market need? You start with that. Then you plan a service that will meet the market need. It’s backwards to come up with an service concept and then try to find a market for it.
In addition to the Super C, the IC tried to sell overnight Chicago - New Orleans Flexi Van freight service on the Panama Limited. They tried charging a premium for the fast transit. They never sold one load.
Any freight that really has to move (i.e. repair parts to get a factory back up and running) is either going to fly or go in a team driven truck.
The problem is not the absolute top speed of the trains. It’s that they spend so much time sitting still. A 45 MPH average terminal to terminal will be more than truck competitive for the vast majority of freight. Just keep the containers moving.
FedEx is one of the partners in the European test Demonstration. The European market is a bit different than in the US. Short-haul air is just too expensive, and the potential of HSR-F in the high-value parcels market is promising.
All the other answers so far have allegiance to “this is the way we’ve always done it” and “this is the way we do it”. This answer shows the “different” thinking that is needed in this country, too, and to railroading in particular. Why not regional high speed freight…and maybe FedEx or UPS, even USPS for that matter, will be a catylist. The term “dock to dock” was used…well, throw it away. The concept of heavy, long, ponderous trains was used; well, get rid of it. So maybe there is no coast to coast need of HSR-F, but what about regionally or between high density industrial or population areas. It could be a stand alone service or coupled with another provider. We keep burying ourselves in the pondorous past and don’t look at what can be done now and in the future. We don’t do a lot of things because we don’t think or don’t want to think “new”. It could be a very marketable product in some market pairs or groups…but it has to be thought of, studied, and a marketing plan devised, and not just thrown away out of hand.
Dwell time is the largest fly in the ointment of HSR, whether it be passenger or freight.
Someone who needs an item ASAP cannot wait while his item hangs out at a station or a yard being sorted. Speeding up that process is more important that higher speed on the rails.
Perhaps the limited HSR-F market would be better served by a freight car on the Acela which is already in service. It would be very difficult to compete with air freight in that market. Single point to single point is what air does best, and it does it very well.
Did you ever see a 747 sorted or a TGV, no. This HSR-F would be handled just like any other FedEx Express shipment. When the TGV-F stopped at Paris Charles de Gaulle, the aircraft style containers were pulled out of the cars through side doors and tripped to the same depot as containers from FedEx MD11 and 747Fs. Fresh containers from Paris bound for London were slid in to replace the removed Lyon to Paris containers, all this took less than half an hour. Obviously on the test run no revenue packages were handled. This isn’t carload freight. One big advantage of this TGV-F over the aircraft is that you have direct access to any container through the side doors, while on the aircraft they have to be loaded serially though a single hatch for each level (belly and main deck).
Just because you can visualize some unused concept does not mean that it has been rejected out of hand or that people are too attached to the past to try new things. The private market continually reaches out in all directions with tentacles that explore every conceivable need and every option to fulfill them both now and in the future as far as the future can be probed. It is as proactive as it can possibly be. And this quest is also highly motivated because it offers unlimited reward potential for every advancement.
But there is a forest of limitations out there based on the laws of physics.&nbs
Bucyrus,
Eloquently stated!!! Thank you.
Sounds like it’s a good idea. If it were DB Schenker on the lead, then I’d give it a second glance. It’s the French. This might not pan out very well.
As for parcel business on the NEC? Amtrak is buying a bunch of baggage cars…why not move some first class mail containers like Amtrak did back in the 1980s?
Beaulieu:
You missed my point. That 747 can get from the Tennessee Sorting center in a small fraction of the time that it would take even a 250 mile per hour train. It is flying point to point. The less travel time, the later it can leave going to and from the sorting center. Even the fastest train would only be useful on short runs.
Certainly it is worth exploring, but it would probably be a very limited market.
We are not talking Railway Express or anything tied to passenger services but rather a freight service, a different thing entirely. I am not saying it can or should be done just that it is an idea that might be worth looking at. But most of all we’ve got to forget the way things are and the way things were. Run a high speed…100,125, 150, 200+ mph?..train that competes with trucks and air. No yarding no side trips, just run and deliver. Not anything like we’ve seen here or anywhere before.
The one HSR project in the US that I know is considering freight service is the proposed California system. I have seen some online references to both Parcel/air freight container service and possible trailer/intermodal container service(the latter would be a slower speed operation running at off peak hours).
I recall reading that the services would target time sensitive,high value shipments such as electronic components
Good start…acknowledging high speed and possible targets and need to market. Not on the same tracks as UP and BNSF…
Hi Henry6,
Years ago Amtrak was running freight in some high speed boxcars and Roadrailer trailers but it ended up delaying their passenger business and was shelved. For High Speed Service (exceeding 79 MPH) you would need dedicated right of ways without interference from slower freight trains. Maybe Amtrak could have a dedicated ACELA train to handle mail and LCL freight on the Northeast Corridor running at night. The Europeans have such a train. Also, BNSF and CSX tried to run a high speed intermodal train between LA and New York but it ended up delaying all of the other trains that had to get out of the way and proved to be more costly than it was worth.
On another note Triple Crown Roadrailer trains were initially intended to compete in short haul (less than 500 miles) time sensitive service. If I was the CEO of NS I would have four classes of service and market them as the following:
1st class - 75 MPH Roadrailer Trains (in short haul specific double track lanes linking major metropolitan areas)
2nd class - 65 MPH Priority Intermodal Trains
3rd class - 55 MPH Priority Merchandise Trains
4th class - 45 MPH General Freight and Bulk Commodity Trains
I would also switch from the current tonnage rating system for determining train power assignments to a HP/Ton & Length system:
1st class - 3 HP/Ton, not exceeding 5,000 ft
2nd class - 2.5 HP/Ton, not exceeding 7,500 ft
3rd class - 2 HP/Ton, not exceeding 9,000 ft
4th class - 1.5 HP/Ton, not exceeding 10,000 ft
TBG
NS Locomotive Engineer
Just a question
What would the effects of either unmanned or single man crew with an automated train be combined with PTC? I can remember a lot of bridge routes existing off of thru traffic by just running a lot of fast short trains(Rio Grande, D&H , Wabash, Nickel Plate Etc)
PTC, from what I read has the ability to reduce headways.
You would be more in a position to have a lot of short fast trains, ie one locomotive per train.
Thx IGN
That is probably the best idea so far. With the computer power that is available today, a system could be built in which very short, very fast, autonomous trains could run with very short headways
It would be like a giant automatic transportation vending machine.