A new way to load a trailer on a car without the need of a conventional terminal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIwXPvGXnho
and
http://www.kockumsindustrier.se/Products/Freight/Intermodal/Megaswing.htm
As they say in baseball - “Swing and a miss.” Too many moving parts to fail / need maintenance. Not faster than loading via crane. Does not require less labor than a crane. Can only be used for TOFC (Roll-on.) There are lots of cars available for TOFC currently, so people won’t invest in new cars.
Not more effective than the roll-on cars already in existinence such as the CP RR Iron Highway platforms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zM-i43MGpk
I vote - “unlikely to succeed.”
It’s a TRANSFORMER!!!
Transformers - railcars in disguise!
That is quite ingenious, but, as others have said, lot of moving part. Wouldn’t be cheap for the railcar. Wonder what it’s advantage over RoadRailers would be? Can’t think of any offhand.
Does each come with a mechanical carknocker to inspect it before it moves and where is the locking kingpin? Oh sure, every industry between the terminals is going to invest in serious concrete and slab track? The idea is DOA from what I can see.[%-)]
If I can see an advantage, it’s that aside from a large pad and a source of power, it requires no outside support. No cranes, ramps, etc. I’m reminded of the goose-neck break-apart flatbeds used to haul heavy construction equipment. The car can be loaded or unloaded virtually anywhere.
Of course, the reservations already expressed about its complexity (who fixes it when it breaks?) are all valid.
At present, I don’t see a model for its operation - ie, orginations and destinations. Given the railroad’s disdain for single car operations, I’m not sure I see this as an ideal way to either originate or terminate the movement of trailers. I didn’t see any indication that such a car could be loaded or unloaded by conventional lifting devices.
The cars themselves notwithstanding, the question becomes when it becomes more economical to have a suitable lift device instead of using the self-loading operation.
It’s an international car, my guess is UK - you can tell by the couplers and truck trailer as well as British terminology in the video description… Their market is a lot different because they have comparatively little freight traffic and few large intermodal terminals unlike the many here in the US. As stated, there’s little chance for it in the US, but there may just be a market for it in the UK.
Wow! Almost the same comments as those on the recent Cargobeamer thread!! Predictable reasons to immediately dismiss (won’t work, foreign, too complicated, no market).
OK. Why would it work better than what’s already being used? Why wouldn’t the complicated machinery be an issue? Where would the potential market be?
My guess it that it’s powered by air motors so that the power comes from a trainline. Don’t know and no sound on the video…Anybody?
Advantages:
• Can carry non-cranable trailers (gain 95% of the market). |
|---|
Complicated machinery is not necessarily a showstopper. Railroad systems are complicated machinery. It seems to me that the advantage is the flexibility from a wider choice of loading and unloading sites. I do not know if there is a need for that advantage in the U.S. market.
An airmotor would be a logical choice for power except that it requires a locomotive, and the whole point of this system seems to be that it is as independent as possible from rail operations. I am guessing that it may be powered by batteries in that silver box on the end. But they would need charging. It could charge from a wheel generator.
Murphy Siding: In re: advantages, see Bucyrus’ informative response.
What? another innovation to SAVE THE AMERICAN RAILROAD INDUSTRY! (kiddin’)
Interesting, It’s not really that different in concept then the old New York Central Flexivan system…
Regarding power source: was that an electrical cable or an air hose at the far end of the car in the video?
And once again you beat the same dead horse and try to make this an argument about origin of the technology. Did you watch the video? The whole railcar is like a giant erector set. Just HOW is that quicker than lifting a trailer and plopping onto a simple car that isn’t overloaded with moving parts?
I have an idea about tying a few thousand large helium balloons to a trailer to lift it to a flatcar. I just need some European company to back me up - then it’ll be a great idea!
The question that needs to be asked is: How is this system an improvement over existing procedures?
Just a layman’s viewpoint in red (possible disadvantage), blue (no advantage) and green (advantage).
I am sure some could point out the falicy of my viewpoints.
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
Advantages:
• Can carry non-cranable trailers (gain 95% of the market). Fascinating statistic… around here I see at least 30 to 50% (my estimate) of the trucks on the highway are intermodal trailer |
|---|
If you had one man per trailer, you could unload the whole train rather quickly. A two man team would do two adjacent cars one at a time. But, this raises a whole lot of other questions and issues…
I looked thru the August 1971 Official Guide. Many of the railroads listed their TOFC ramp locations.
I just counted the Iowa locations.
The Illinois Central listed 10. The Burlington Northern listed 12. The Rock Island listed 14. The Milwaukee Road listed 10. The CNW listed 16. The Norfolk & Western listed 2. I didn’t see an ATSF listing, but think there was probably 1. A couple of the short lines in Iowa at the time don’t mention ramps, but I think they also may have had at least one ramp each. There could also be a few locations where the ramp was shared so the total of all TOFC locations in Iowa was around 60, give or take. Some were of course at the larger cities. Some were at small towns with a large industry, especially those that had a meat packer.
Currently, the only TOFC/COFC terminal location I know of is in Council Bluffs on the IAIS. BNSF and CN may still have one or two also, but most are gone. For the ones listed by the CNW (16), only 3 locations have been completely abandoned (no rail service) by the CNW/UP. Of the remaining 13 locations, all are gone. The IAIS does the TOFC/COFC terminal work for the UP, so in a way you could say one of the CNW locations remain.
The point is, the Megaswing and some other technologies previously discussed, try to show that being able to load at or near the customer (shipper/receiver) is an asset. That this will bring more freight to the rails. The reality is that the current way freight moves this is a detriment. The railroads want to consolidate the terminal work in a few locations. They’ld rather have a trailer/container moved by road to a central location for loading on a rail platform. Then that platform moved to a terminal where it again is taken by road to it’s receiver. They don’t want to load a platform down the street from the shipper, have