A lot of notes on this forum compare trucks to trains, the more you haul, the cheaper you haul, seems to be the criterion. Has or is anyone doing research into the design of the boxcar?? longer? wider? lighter? new shape? new design? maybe this is the end of the boxcar, is there something out there in a new concept that will increase capacity, loading/unloading?The concept of a boxcar has been around for a long–long–time. Is someone working on a new idea to change this method of shipping??? We cannot redevelop the whole method of existing train networks(or can we??) Railbeds now exist, how about widening the track( the reason the existing track is that width goes back a long way) Widen the track, make larger cars and locomotives–move more “stuff” ----Is this too far advanced for our way of thinking??? Has railroading really changed that much in 100 years??? engine, cars, track. Sure, bridges and tunnels create a bottleneck, lets think outside the box, maybe someone is, look at ships and planes (build a bigger ship-widen the canal) food for thought or ravings of a looney???
Trains ran an article on broad gauge as proposed by Adolph Hitler. As I recall, Der Furher was adamant about it.
This proposal died in the dream stage. No small Kriegsmarine craft were carted from the Black Sea to the Baltic by rail as envisioned.
Not to compare any who contemplate broad gauge as an evil looney. It was simply megalomania in the extreme. In the end, the cost was was far in excess of any economic gain.
As in many situations, when your boss has lost his senses, you keep those reports and illustrated studies coming. The fact your doing so is wasting valuable resources as you loose the war matters not.
I say build 5 pack hi-cube box cars to the same lenth as double stack wells and width and hieght of hi-cubes, all within the loading gage.
Hitler hated trains. That broad gage plan was just to inspire the public. It would have been too costly and illogical, they were gonna build autobahns anyways and tear down the great train stations, that was the real plan.
I do remember the trains artical, 2- 3 meter gage (10+ feet or so) to run 10,000 tonne trains, unheard of in Germany at the time. Heavier trains are now run on standard gage. it was a joke, big and clumsy, designed to inspire the mind and promise the future with little technical understanding of railways.
Interesting but crazy.
So, with new track gauge, new cars, etc., you’re basically suggesting that the entire railroad system be rebuilt from scratch. It wouldn’t be as easy as moving one rail out on the tie a little further.
And for what? Cars with a gross rail load of 315000 pounds were tried a few decades back, and found to be more expensive (in terms of roadbed wear, wheel wear, etc.) than the increased loads could justify. Even if there have been metallurgical advances since then (and I’m sure there have been), you’d find more of a hesitancy to add cars of this size to the system because even more of it would need rebuilding.
Lighter cars have been tried–apparently not successful. A super-hi-cube was introduced years ago on the NS–had the advantage of being able to haul the same pallets that they put into trucks, but stacking them–but so far only the one was built, and I understand it’s a failure. TH&B, you want five-pack hi-cubes. What about the spurs that couldn’t accommodate them, or the shipper/consignee pair that only has enough of a load for one box at a time?
Yes, the more you carry, the cheaper it becomes–why do you think truckers want bigger trailers and the ability to pull triples or double-53s? Trains already have the advantage of being able to pull a relatively limitless number of boxes with one crew.
I’ve seen some pretty drastic evolutionary changes in box cars already during my career (and even more in my lifetime). Volumes have increased, end design has improved, cushioning has evolved from what it was, doors have changed, and economies have been made. I, for one, would be happy to just see the evolutionary process continue, and don’t attempt to fix a system (gauge, clearance diagrams) that really isn’t broken.
Would there be any practicality to having a boxcar with ends that opened (something like an autorack)? I suppose that would basically depend on a specific load.
B&O had 'em long before auto racks (museum pieces now). Very few end ramps/ docks around anymore.
If you were to build a box car with doors at both ends, you’d have to relocate the hand brake to the side of the car, much like that on an auto rack. Small consideration, perhaps, but might interfere with the clearance diagram or an interior dimension. Structural strength of the ends wouldn’t just be compromised–it would most likely be eliminated.
And for what? Doors on the sides of the cars are (without exception these days) wider than the inside width of the cars.
As MC says, you’d need some nearly-extinct end-loading docks. And if you were considering the capability of loading more than one car on the same track, you’d have to come up with bridge plates (or provisions for accommodating them) from car to car–varying in “gauge” according to the loading vehicles used. And again, for what? What could be loaded more easily through the ends than through the sides? You’ll come up with answers, perhaps, but then I’ll probably come up with a type of car that would be more suitable for the load to begin with.
(B&O was far from the only railroad that had box cars with doors on one end–just about all of the northeastern and Midwestern railroads did.)
Hmmmmm…
I thought that we already had “modern” boxcars
They’re called…containers! [(-D][(-D]
I can tell you that truckers do NOT want bigger trailers ,triples or double 53’s. The ltl carriers are
Remember the Thrall Car All-Door Boxcars from the 1960’s and 1970’s. Many are still around.
When will Trinity RailCar reinvestigate that concept?
Andrew Falconer
When they see a demand for such a car.
No, but it is too expensive. Imagine the cost just to move the rails. Then add to that the restricted interchange between the old and new guages while the change over is happening, retiring and/or modifying vast quantities of cars and locomotives, widening restrictive clearances, and probably more.
I guess I just asked because I didn’t know they existed then…and thought of an idea. Thanks for the reply.
They won’t. And I’ll bet you couldn’t find even a hundred of them left, unless you count the ones that were cut back to flat cars and used in welded-rail service!
Those cars were great for handling bundled lumber. But so are Center-beam cars, without the expense and weight of doors and roofs. You may notice that these were built before most of the Center-beam cars, and when those became popular these disappeared in a hurry. They practically never co-existed in the lumber business.
There is no advantage to wider rail gage. Most wide gage lines were reduced to standard gage, not the other way around. The places in the world that use wide gage like Russia and Spain it’s often considered a disadvantage.
In some countrys like Sweden rail cars are up to 12’ wide on standard gage and can run at hi speeds.
Thinking outside the box…
Anyone remember the ‘Vert-a-pac’ auto carriers of the early 70’s that were built to transport the Chevrolet Vega’s from the Lordstown Assembly plant…
http://www.railgoat.railfan.net/spcars/bytype/flat/vert-a-pac.htm
Well, they may have went away in North America, but they didn’t in Europe - in fact, I believe Sliding Door Wagons are the most common ‘van’ (boxcar) types in Europe, and it seems Greenbrier Europe (in addition to a number of other Eastern European & Mid-East companies) is still manufacturing them:
There are still some with FURX marks being regularly loaded with particle board (or some similar product) in Eugene, OR.
They are a good design, faster loading and more flexible combination of pallets.