Awhile ago, the 700 mile minimum limit on TOFC appeared to be breached by something called Iron Highway. It appeared to be a low-profile TOFC platform without tiedowns that could be loaded circus-style(without hoists).
I have heard nothing about this in some time. Anyone know what became of it?
Like all new ideas that go through the requisite growing pains upon startup, the railroads quit on the Iron Highway concept as per the usual rather than making the necessary adjustments. The graveyard of abandoned and aborted railroad innovations, along with the infirmiry of tepid tryouts and singular acceptence, is an expansive plot of real estate:
The Iron Highway, Expressway, RoadRailer, RailRunner, ReeferRailer, transcon electrification, TTOX, FlexiVan, AutoMax, electric/diesel-electric hybrids, RailWhales, Southern 100,…the list is quite extensive.
Iron Highway, now called Expressway is running twice daily each way between Toronto and Montreal on the CP. I think one train per day on weekends. CP tried running the train to Windsor(Detroit) but loadings never came up to profitable and the service from there was dropped. There were intentions of service between Montreal and Chicago, and Montreal to New York, but marketing could never develop enough interested potential customers. Running times between Detroit and Chicago over CSX were not fast enough to interest the truckers. The same problem for Montreal to New York.
As pointed out, the Iron Highway is being utilized, but there aren’t enough customers. RoadRailer and ReeferRailer are non-standard and aren’t what the customer wants. Electrification has long been the next big thing, but the initial expense scared off a lot of people and dieselization provided many of the same benefits at less expense. Dual-powers like the FL9 sound good on paper but have long been considered oddballs and are still tied to the electrification, the leash is just a little longer. NYC pushed FlexiVan but the customers wanted TOFC.
The ideas are good, the applications where they are useful are limited.
There is/was a physical difference between the original Iron Highway concept and CP’s modern Expressway. The Iron Highway originated with New York Air Brake and CSX as a 1200 foot segmented platform car with hydraulic ramps at both ends. The platform sections were short (28’) with two wheel bogies attatched at one end (wheels attatched directly to the platform, no axles, so they turned independently) and the other end of the car resting on the next platfrom, semi-articulated at the two wheel bogie end.
http://members.aol.com/jsundin357/ironhwy.html
CP’s Expressway cars are more normal 50+’ platforms articulated together with standard two axle bogies. I think CP uses normal circus style ramps at it’s terminals, so there is no on-car ramp.
http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Media/Photo+Gallery/Intermodal/default.htm?Show=Truck%20trailers
So the “physical difference” be
[quote user=“TomDiehl”]
So the
[quote user=“TomDiehl”]
So the
[quote user=“futuremodal”]
[quote user=“TomDiehl”]
[quote user=“futuremodal”]
There is/was a physical difference between the original Iron Highway concept and CP’s modern Expressway. The Iron Highway originated with New York Air Brake and CSX as a 1200 foot segmented platform car with hydraulic ramps at both ends. The platform sections were short (28’) with two wheel bogies attatched at one end (wheels attatched directly to the platform, no axles, so they turned independently) and the other end of the car resting on the next platfrom, semi-articulated at the two wheel bogie end.
http://members.aol.com/jsundin357/ironhwy.html
CP’s Expressway cars are more normal 50+’ platforms articulated together with standard two axle bogies. I think CP uses normal circus style ramps at it’s terminals, so there is no on-car ramp.
http://www8.cpr.ca/cms/English/Media/Photo+Gallery/Intermodal/default.htm?Show=Truck%20trailers
<
It is interesting that you bring up the Front Runners. Basically taking outdated TOFC cars (too short to host two 48+’ trailers, too long to carry just one without wasting space) and combining them via drawbar to allow three long trailers to ride on the two platforms with no wasted space. A good way to utilize otherwise obsolete equipment. But in no way an innovative forward thinking plunge into technological superiority. The Front Runners were still overly heavy on the tare compared to spine cars and the TTOX/Four Runners. What was saved in using available equipment was lost in the extra fuel costs. The TTOX/Four Runners were much better potential adaptation of using existing equipment and modifying it to conform to the evolution of the highway trailer, but alas such was an opportunity lost due to undocumented speculation regarding the single axle bogies and the subsequent spacing on the units themselves.
According to my source at Gunderson, the TTOX/Front Runners were perfectly good TOFC cars, no more prone to problems than any other intermodal flat car, yet they saved 5000 lbs per platform over regular spine cars, or about 300 tons per train. 300 tons may not seem like much to an industry that regularly hosts 16,000 ton unit trains of coal, but for the high hp/t ratios of TOFC’s such a weight savings adds up.
The TTOX ran up against increased trailer lengths from 48’ to 53’, but when in the Four Runner “four pack” configuration, all it would have taken to permit the longer trailers would have been an adjustment to the drawbar length to permit overhang of the tra
Wrong again. The Front Runner was a single unit spine car, the name owned by TTX. These were discussed back in February:
http://www.trains.com/TRC/CS/forums/1/717192/ShowPost.aspx#717192
Not to be confused with Utah Transit’s new trains, using the name by permission from TTX.
If you actually talk about the Front Runner, it was an inovation in intermodal, that led to the development of the articulated spine car.
The drawbar connected 89 foot flats you’re talking about were a utilization of obsolete and underused equipment to help gain income from
If we’re talking about the same car, Four Runners were 40 foot skeleton type cars, with one fixed axle at each end. Their very light tare weight, and long rigid wheel base caused numerous tracking problems. I had one simply distintigrate one time. Both wheelsets came apart, and the only thing holding the car up were the shelf couplers of the cars on either end.
The drawbar connected flat cars are called Long Runners. The only problem with these, is that you can’t load only the center position over the drawbar. The trailers have a tendency to swing off in curves. But when the two outboard positions are also loaded, this doesn’t seem to be a problem
Everyone is focused on the equipement and neglected the operational aspects. All the best, most innovate equipment in the world isn’t going to do any good, without Operations being able to move it effectively.
The main issue with the 700 mile limit is speed. High speed intermodal trains are the bane of smooth traffic flow. Especially on single track. When that hot intermodal guy comes on your sub, everything, and I mean everything stops for it. I often have trains sit in the siding for an hour or more waiting for the UPS train to pass. So you get the idea of how fouled up this is, it takes between 2 and 3 hours to cover my subdivision at track speed.
To compete, you have to be as fast or faster then the truckers. This includes, not only the point to point running time, but also time need to pick up and drop cars, place the cars for loading/unloading and the time needed to lift and drop the trailer. And don’t forget the time required to get the trailer to and from the drop site.
The capital return on intermodal is slim. You need to be priced competitvely with the truckers, which holds reven
One issue is the intermodal market and whether Iron Highway satisfies that market. The other issue, from a railfan perspective, is documenting through photos, interviews, writings, etc. the exotic as well as the mundane aspects of railroading. Think of how many PRR direct-drive steam turbine locomotives were in actual service over what length of time, and think of how many more Lionel models of that locomotive are in collections and exhibited at shows. Even if Iron Highway was a design failure that never made it past the Pueblo DOT test facility, some of us will be interested in it.
So people are saying 28’ platforms, independent-rotating wheels, guided axle? Sounds like a freight version of Talgo, although the Talgo people say they have their design on some auto-rack cars in Finland. Talgo, by the way, started out as one of those “exotic, experimental, but failed” concepts, but the Talgo people haven’t given up on it, there are modern versions of Talgo, and the final chapter hasn’t been written on it.
Are there any photos of the Iron Highway prototype? Photos that show the guided axle system? Are there some names to the engineers involved – a patent search on CSX may turn up all kinds of entries, but a patent search with the name of the inventor may turn up drawings of how the thing is supposed to work.
By the way, why the interest in independent-turning wheels? That may suppress wheel hunting, but then how do you steer the wheels at all without flange contact? Even with axle guiding, you still need some force to center the wheel over the rail. Do they use one of those gradual instead of abrupt flange contact wheel tapers?
TurboTrain was guided axle but conventional solid axle wheelsets; Talgo is famously independent-turning wheels. Don’t know if the independent-turning wheels really give Talgo a lower profile than Turbo Train. Since truck trailers are 8’ wide or more, how do independent-turning wheels hel
I guess I am answering my own question with this link:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp
Apparently, a truck trailer got loose from the hitch mooring on an Iron Highway trainset in service in Canada, and that trailer then smashed into a highway overpass, damaging it. The accident report gives photos, diagrams, and text explanations of the Iron Highway trainset by way of background of how this rather exotic piece of train equipment contributed to the wreck. They ascribe the accident to misuse of the hitch owing to its unorthodox design and lack of training of crews, but they also point to the Iron Highway trainset being operated with many broken or inoperative hardware appliances.
It seems that no one properly knew either how to operate or how to maintain this piece of equipment. A number of shock absorbers (dampers) for vertical motion of the single-axle trucks were disconnected – perhaps when these dampers failed, it was easier to unhook them then find replacements.
I sure wish I could learn how the guided-axle mechanism works as I am a Talgo/TurboTrain enthusiast. But the accident report and related photos gives a flavor for what Iron Highway is or was and perhaps why it failed in the marketplace.
It seems that Iron Highway was Yet Another Piece of TOFC Rolling Stock of which there are many others of various advantages and disadvantages to chose from. One idea was that there would be those short platforms supported by guided axles and with frequent spacing of hitches – the notion is that instead of discrete trailer parking spaces, there would be the effect of a continuous platform, and you could mix and match 28’, 40’ and 53’ trailers as desired without wasting a lot of space. The other idea was to revert to circus loading. Each trainset could separate in the middle into two parts, each part fed by a ramp. I guess
And I guess Paul’s link answers Dave’s misdirected (as usual) tirade against the railroads. No “missed opportunity” here, just a failed experiment of equipment more complicated than was worth the effort.
Still nothing from him on the results of the testing at Pueblo. [?]
This stramge train with a leading single axle with integrated articulated cars derailed a few years ago near Valby station (split the switch it seems). It took all week to rerail the complex integrated train and shut down the main S tog rail line for many days. I though it was very unfair to the traveling public in Copenhagen to have their main comuter line with 24trains an hour each way all day shut down for so long because of “unique experimental wheel design”, the passengers don’t care weather it’s on conventional wheel sets or not unless this kind of things happen.
The main problem was crews could bot figure out how to rerail the thing !!! Whatever cost savings in design there are for the railroad was passed on to the public in such a major inconvenience.
[quote user=“Paul Milenkovic”]
I guess I am answering my own question with this link:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp
Apparently, a truck trailer got loose from the hitch mooring on an Iron Highway trainset in service in Canada, and that trailer then smashed into a highway overpass, damaging it. The accident report gives photos, diagrams, and text explanations of the Iron Highway trainset by way of background of how this rather exotic piece of train equipment contributed to the wreck. They ascribe the accident to misuse of the hitch owing to its unorthodox design and lack of training of crews, but they also point to the Iron Highway trainset being operated with many broken or inoperative hardware appliances.
It seems that no one properly knew either how to operate or how to maintain this piece of equipment. A number of shock absorbers (dampers) for vertical motion of the single-axle trucks were disconnected – perhaps when these dampers failed, it was easier to unhook them then find replacements.
I sure wish I could learn how the guided-axle mechanism works as I am a Talgo/TurboTrain enthusiast. But the accident report and related photos gives a flavor for what Iron Highway is or was and perhaps why it failed in the marketplace.
It seems that Iron Highway was Yet Another Piece of TOFC Rolling Stock of which there are many others of various advantages and disadvantages to chose from. One idea was that there would be those short platforms supported by guided axles and with frequent spacing of hitches – the notion is that instead of discrete trailer parking spaces, there would be the effect of a continuous platform, and you could mix and match 28’, 40’ and 53’ trailers as desired without wasting a lot of space. The other idea was to revert to circus loading. Each trainset could separate in the middle into two parts, each par
[quote user=“TomDiehl”]
Wrong again. The Front Runner was a single unit spine car, the name owned by TTX. These were discussed back in February:
http://www.trains.com/TRC/CS/forums/1/717192/ShowPost.aspx#717192
Not to be confused with Utah Transit’s new trains, using the name by permission from TTX.
If you actually talk about the Front Runner, it was an inovation in intermodal, that led to the development of the articulated spine car.
The drawbar connected 89 foot flats you’re talking about were a utilization of obsolete and underused equipment t
[quote user=“Paul Milenkovic”]
I guess I am answering my own question with this link:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/rail/1997/r97h0008/r97h0008.asp
Apparently, a truck trailer got loose from the hitch mooring on an Iron Highway trainset in service in Canada, and that trailer then smashed into a highway overpass, damaging it. The accident report gives photos, diagrams, and text explanations of the Iron Highway trainset by way of background of how this rather exotic piece of train equipment contributed to the wreck. They ascribe the accident to misuse of the hitch owing to its unorthodox design and lack of training of crews, but they also point to the Iron Highway trainset being operated with many broken or inoperative hardware appliances.
It seems that no one properly knew either how to operate or how to maintain this piece of equipment. A number of shock absorbers (dampers) for vertical motion of the single-axle trucks were disconnected – perhaps when these dampers failed, it was easier to unhook them then find replacements.
I sure wish I could learn how the guided-axle mechanism works as I am a Talgo/TurboTrain enthusiast. But the accident report and related photos gives a flavor for what Iron Highway is or was and perhaps why it failed in the marketplace.
It seems that Iron Highway was Yet Another Piece of TOFC Rolling Stock of which there are many others of various advantages and disadvantages to chose from. One idea was that there would be those short platforms supported by guided axles and with frequent spacing of hitches – the notion is that instead of discrete trailer parking spaces, there would be the effect of a continuous platform, and you could mix and match 28’, 40’ and 53’ trailers as desired without wasting a lot of space. The other idea was to revert to circus loading. Each trainset could separate in the middle into two parts, each p
After spine cars came into wide spread use, there was no need to convert the Front Runners. The problem wasn’t the drawbar connections. It was the long rigid wheelbase of the single car. Personal experiance is all I need to know about these cars. More then once, they have derailed on me. And like I said before, one had a catastophic failure of both wheelsets, because of in-train forces.
It’s becoming clear, that the Iron Highway cars were maintaince nightmares, possibly due to design, improper training, or the cost for specialty parts. The answer is probably a combination of the three. It seem CP had no spare parts. Why? Cost? Avalablility? Parts were requested and never delivered. Did no -one order them? Did the company not support it’s product? You can’t replace what you don’t have.
As for the absurd comment about replacing coal gon journals. Every car shop has parts in stock for that coal gon, so it’s a quick, easy fix. The Iron Highway parts were very speciallized and not widely avalable, or evidently avalable at all.
Again it comes down to money. Did Iron Highway make dollars then it cost to operate. And the answer is apparently no.
Nick