The pictures below are from a test run of a group called EURO CAREX that is trying to roll out a pallet based cargo network on the LGV/HSR lines in Europe with a target date of 2017 from this site.
This particular service is mostly aimed at short haul air freight and package motorfreight between terminals. An early study called Rolling Shelf explored a design similar to a centerbeam lumber car with a “Batcar/Delorean” door and an automated external forklift that would transfer the pallets rapidly during a station stop.
Of course conventional rail freight is already loaded in Europe into curtainside containers/swap bodies on pallets for rail intermodal line haul, but not sorted in route as both of the proposals above anticipate.
I just have to wonder, given the limited station facilities still in existence here, if an enclosed pallet car that used some of the existing warehouse automated pallet moving systemswould be suitable for North American use. The goal would be for the series of cars to be able to load and unload during regular stations stops, mov
It’s an interesting thought, but the logistics advantages for the only logical players (FedEx and the other express package services) aren’t really there.
The chief advantage of having the automated ‘pick and place’ loader in the center of the car is that the infrastructure (compared to Rolling Shelf at al.) is truly bidirectional. The automated ‘deloader’ on a platform need only access the cars from the loaded side.
On the other hand, a three-wide system accessed from outside need only engage in a couple of ‘blind’ transfers to get to a container location on the far side; this only represents a few seconds, and the framing integrity of a stationary loader can be far more robust (and hence capable of high speeds) as anything that has to be built on the centersill of a revenue car. So I have to wonder where the ‘big savings’ is supposed to be, as opposed to smaller caster-borne ‘pallet’ subcontainers.
Meanwhile, where is the proposal to adapt the cellular ‘frames’ to standard containers, so that the equivalent of subcontainerized LCL can be applied easily – and just as tellingly – even to stack freight? That’s certainly something I’d look into rather than throwing a great deal of capital at re-creating REA on a probably very limited ‘network’ of high-speed trains… at least in the foreseeable near future.
I don’t think it’s likely that a service like this will throw enough profit to justify re-establishment of very many passenger trains. One or two per day, perhaps, but that isn’t going to get the numbers up to where the European examples (with higher, subsidized density per hour, and off-hours service) can operate.
Not that I don’t like the idea, or wish it all the success it can garner!
Since Amtrak is buying all new baggage cars they may be built for some kind of containerization in the future. ? That might really speed up loading and unloading bags at larger passenger count stations ? definitely would probably need a baggage man if train lengths are increased 3 - 4 revenue cars ?
A few years back, Amtrak tried to get more heavily into the express business, but then got out. IIRC there was much resistance from the freight railroads.
Not to hijack this thread for more than a moment, but I had forgotten what a TRIP the site which provides that report can be. Go to this section if you want a few hours of fascinating reading… not all of it railroad-associated, of course, but much of the technology discussed has potential railroad uses or implications.
While there was resistance from freight carriers, the bigger problem was explaining to passengers why their train was stopping, shortly after it left the origin station, to pick up the express cars and why it was stopping shortly prior to it’s destination terminal to set off the express cars. These actions delayed through trains 40 minutes to a hour over the full route.
There is a lot of ‘coulda’, ‘woulda’, ‘shoulda’ - that could be applied to Amtrak’s express business. Amtrak deamd their core business was moving people, not boxes.
“Actions To Increase Revenues.— Amtrak shall take necessary action to increase its revenues from the transportation of mail and express.”
This most definitely would not be aimed at trailer/car load market. Instead it would actually be priced above what it costs to move a pallet in a full trailer by intermodal. But the value proposition is it is not just transportation but the cross-dock destination sorting operation as well (all in the same railcar).
Can you illustrate with a specific Amtrak example where there is (sufficient) revenue in ‘cross-dock destination sorting’ to justify the complicated automatic loading system?
I’d at least wonder whether the system you describe would be better put into that ‘full trailer [handled] by intermodal’, with any cross-docking handled from it rather than a passenger train, and any break-bulk or LCL handling facilitated greatly by the rubber-tired chassis. Same for container mode if a sufficiently capable road chassis is available…
I just don’t see enough advantage, in the United States, for a complex handling system that merely facilitates exchange of ‘palleted’ express between Amtrak station platforms (or facilities built immediately adjacent to them). Any other locations would re-create some of the operational disaster of the MHCs, some of which has been alluded to in this thread. So enlighten me further on where the revenue from this arrangement will come from, and how it will pay off the doubtless Government investment in providing the system and its adjunct handling, advertising, etc. costs?
In addition to the various issues mentioned above, it turned out that the express business paid its own way but not by much. The additional expenses ate up almost all of the additional revenue. The whole exercise was more bother than it was worth.
Any idea that contributes to the bottom line is worth exploring. Whether its pallets, auto carriers, express refrigerators, pullmans, roadrailers, railroad express etc it can help. The passenger train is occupying track space whether it is 4 cars long or 20 The railroad is stuck with the passenger train but the government is covering the lost they were responsible for prior to 1971. I would offer the railroads the first chance to invent or sponsor services coupled to an Amtrak train. If they don’t want to get involved let private enterprise have a shot. Amtrak charge a flat rate ($2.00 per mile for a private passenger car as an example) and stay out of it. A private venture could lease locomotives to Amtrak to pull these additional services with the lease money coming from the per mile per car revenue charged.
Balt’s observation seems to be a critical factor. Given the fixed length of platforms at stations, many trains would require double stops to accommodate the express service. The accumulated time delays would be unacceptable on many routes. Lengthening platforms would be very expensive. The primary mission of Amtrak is the transportation of people.
The concept enables the minimization of needed buildings, and their associated crews and rents, such that practically none would be needed to provide the service. The sorting of pallets by destination would be done on the railcar, not at a terminal, a yard, or a drop-lot. I spend a good amount of time on the Interstates inspecting facilities, and there is a massive amount of over the road freight traveling in double, both package express and LTL. Why are they using doubles? To minimize sorting, as you can just rearrange the two trailers in a drop yard and keep on going without unloading.
In order to load a container of packages you have to have enough volume between the two endpoints to fill a container, as you don’t have time to cross-dock a load mid way in most cases. Trucks can make multiple stops and do such, but in order to do that they also must have cross-docks. This concept would build volume by eliminating those cross-docks and charging a higher rate with part of the savings while moving faster.
I think the objections were time length of stops and platform length? The automated pallet systems move quick, with multiple pallets moving at the same time, so the stop could be no longer than current. The pallets would pass through the express car consist through the full width end doors to the car right before the passenger consist, so the existing platform might very well suffice if you already have room for a baggage cart.
One of the points made in the original post: a major point for the automated ‘pallet’ handling was that it delivered everything ‘sequentially’ to just the last door on the ‘baggage car’ – so any additional platform would be on the order of three or four feet at most, scarcely a hellish capital showstopper, although there would certainly need to be some extra handling onto the adjacent existing platform end once the train had departed.
There may be things to criticize about the logistics… but this problem was anticipated, and at least systematically addressed. Presumably if you had multiple baggage cars, you could ‘hand off’ pallets between them, and still only need that ‘last door’ for the platform.
Tou do that by having some ‘interchange’ between the pallet handlers running up the center ‘aisle space’ of the cars, through what would be the vestibule end doors.
If the handlers are self-powered, you might even arrange to run them ‘past’ each other, so that any handler in any car could move back to that one door. I’d be more inclined to design the system so that a handler in one car can pivot and ‘hand off’ the pallet to the loader in the adjacent car, instead of just being able to sideload it off its own car. (I confess I would also design that system so it would work while the train was in motion, so I could ‘stage’ the pallets for the next stop in the last car, as close to that rear platform door as possible, and minimize the actual, critical, handling time for a given stop).
Dwell time can be minimal. I’m sure some of the case being made involves very high speed, and precise action, by the handler equipment, perhaps starting to move the pallet up to the door opening before the train has reached a stop, and beginning acceleration with the door still open and perhaps with the handler not fully stowed…
I am tempted to extend this discussion to the ‘pallet’ equivalent of mail cranes. We’ve had fun with the general idea before – giant inflated Mars-lander technology and all. But all kidding aside – an automated sideloading handler could probably arrange to ‘handshake’ a pallet with lineside facilities from a moving train, if there were an economically-justifiable reason to do so.
I confess that what concerned me was the fun you would have accessing the pallets when the loader jams. Better bone up on your sightreading skills for Codabar or whatever! And lots of fun getting multiple pallets through the one door and then ‘clear’ when you only have the one person who was going to run the automated loader and push the little carts as they came off…
