For the most part, a bunch of P-42s could handle the high-speed freight as they do 4400 hp. The only problem I can see is that the 8 axles wouldn’t work as well as locomotives with 6 in the traction aspect. Maybe GE could experiment with the possibility of a 6 axle P unit or a really-really fast version of the dash 9-44W. If the U.S and Canada wasn’t so damn big, electrification would be an answer but it would be way too expensive to electrify the continent (not to mention be an eye-sore). If you decided to put a third rail down, you most definately couldn’t have any railroad crossings.
As far as speeds are concerned, I am not too concerned with speeds over 70mph (all though would be nice) as much an almost continuous and uninterupted 70mph; with few terminal waits and little need for crew changes. For example, I would like to see CSX’s UPS train (Q100), to only have to do a crew change from Chicago at Cleveland and Selkirk instead of Willard, Cleveland, Frontier Buffalo and Selkirk Albany plus there might be a crew change before Worchester Ma.
err, isn’t the stopping distance proportional to the square of the speed (double the spped = 4 times the braking distance)?? So does it also follow that if you raise the train speed the next following train has to keep farther back, and doesn’t this actually reduce railroad capacity in terms of trains per hour?? So for a fixed braking rate (say 3.3 feet/secondsquared) wouldn’t maximum capacity in trains per hour be achieved at about 27 mph (given that the signalling system and block lengths are optimized for that speed??
So in terma of maximum tonnage wouldn’t you be better off running longer and slower trains??
A lot of the UK network in the South of England is electrified by 3rd rail at 750VDC, and they have plenty of railroad crossings, junctions, road & footpath crossings etc…
If you are going to invest in any significant infrastructure improvements beyond “just in time” maintenance, you gotta do like the utilities are doing when planning for new coal fired power generation facilities: Start charging your customers now for a plant to be built 10 years from now. I think it’s called “pre-pay as you go” as opposed to “pay as you go” e.g. social security or “build now, pay later” e.g. construction bonds.
If the railroads or the FRA are dictated by Congress to implement some of the suggestions here, they need to start charging for it now, and it would have to be comprehesive accross all the Class I’s as well as the trucking companies. That’s why it is more likely to have to come from the feds in the form of a new tax, something like a per container/truckload per mile tax. Then a few years down the road, they can start either building a new high speed freight rail network, improve the current rail infrastructure to handle dual speed trains, or build/rebuild/improve the condition of secondary mainlines to handle separate low speed and high speed consists.
If projections regarding an explosion of intermodal demand in the near future ring true, then the feds have got to start planning now. Can the Interstate system handle the increase if the railroads are loathe to invest in the capacity improvements themselves? Probably not. That’s why it is only a matter of time before the feds get involved in the nation’s rail infrastructure the same way they’ve involved themselves in the highway and waterway corridors. The pressures of Wall Street to induce higher ROI in capital heavy industries compared to other Dow Darlings makes it imperative that the feds reduce some of the cost burdens of the railroads.
Moving such projects to federal direction allows for the “build for the future” mentality once inherent in the early days of railroading but lacking today due to understandable risk aversion.
The Genesis III (P32DM)in service w/Metro-North RR and Amtrak Empire Service already has AC traction. The traction motors they use aren’t as big as the ones used in the freight locos but they but do put more of their horsepower to the rails than their DC motored counterparts even with a 1200 HP disadvantage. So much so that Amtrak was toying with idea of ordering them instead of the P42’s. So maybe w/o the Third Rail equipment you can fit a 16 cylinder FDL engine at 4400 HP. and have a light aerodynamic high HP AC traction B-B unit for high speed intermodal or bimodal service
BTW I totally agree w/you regarding the super long crew districts for CSX’s hot Q100 and other hot UPS trains. If only can guarrantee those crews wont die on the main due to normal operational delays that take up alot of crews 12 hours of service.
Particularly at Fostoria and Deshler it is conjested because of the diamonds from CSX’s north south movements and Norfolk Southern’s added 40 trains. Fostoria operates more trains in a junction than anywhere in North America. Deshler isn’t much better. A lot of south west movements to bong up the flow of west east movements. At Lima, there is also a diamond for a Genesee and Wyoming owned shortline I believe.
Speed isn’t always the answer. I have left UP Yard Center at Thornton Jct for Battle Creek, MI on the CN with a train that could run the 60 MPH track speed in 4 hrs 45 min. I have aslo left the same location with a train that would only do 45 MPH. Time to Battle Creek? A little over 5 Hrs. The 15 MPH difference did not hurt the schedule of the train. Most schedules are padded anyway. At 45 MPH, I matched most of the permament speed restrictions on the subdivision. (40 MPH at Griffith, 40 MPH Wayne, 40 MPH at Wellsboro, 30 at Stillwell, 30 at South Bend and 30MPH at Schoolcraft ) I once read that to keep a line people moving at a steady pace, put the slowest person up front. The same applies to railroading. Put the slowest train out first .
One approach that I am seeing is to speed up a line by rebuilding rail/highway crossings and removing other low speed restrictions. In the last year UP has been able to raise the speed limit through some small texas towns from 25mph to 45mph. Do the numbers – eliminating two a three speed restrictions in a 100 mile run really improves average train speed. Now if they could only get them through the yards and juctions faster.
So how much extra motive power would you need to guarantee that if one unit goes down that you wouldn’t slow a train down as to slow the rest of the schedule? UP runs 2 and sometimes 3 units, usually SD70s on a JB Hunt hotshot over Donner summit, this is only with usually about 15 or so cars, 30 trailers/containers.
The other question is aren’t containers still tracked by paperwork and not by computer, so even though you may speed up the transit time, wouldn’t the paperwork time still be the limiting factor?
Just wondering.
Paper work to support the business is all electronic these days. Paper work handled by the conductor is not processed or forwarded by him - except to hand off to the next crew.