I was wondering if there has ever been a derailment involving a RoadRailer train. If so, does anyone have a link to an article about it or have any pictures?
When they first came out there ws a problem with the road wheels falling off. Apparently the designers forgot to take into account that fact that the road wheels are suspended and apply a greater downward load on the mountings than just their weight due to the dynamic forces. There were some derailments because of this.
Seems like RoadRailers should derail more often since they’re so light (especially when empty) that they could almost ‘bouce’ around the track. But RoadRailers seem to be secure in very long trains also.
Here are a couple of links to pics of RoadRailers.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=64153
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=59277
Road-railers are awful trains. Talk about soul-less technology. Besides, is it really that hard to just operate a crane for a TOFC? Ugly and boring - who needs 'em?
I like Roadrailers, infact NS Roadrailers 261 and 262 are my favorite trains of the day, even with a solid set of C40-9W’s and THEY ARE NOT UGLY!!! If Roadrailers didn’t do well NS wouldn’t still be operating them.
All the people that want trucks off crowded highways.
Adrianspeeder
CN and NS should jointly operate roadrailer service between Toronto and the eastern U.S coast. The highways hear get pretty conjected with trucks taking those routes.
okay, okay, i retract my bias against roadrailers. They do good for the railroad so they do good for me. But I still think they’re ugly.
Thats a better post [:)]
RoadRailers use to confuse me so much when i was 5 years old. Then I started geting Trains magazine
They don’t run those trains “backwards” (trailer door to front of trailer) right? At a model train meet, we had a rather large derailment involving a long road-railer train. It closed all three main lines, and took several 0-5-0s to get it back and running in 30 minutes…
I’m get a pick in one later.
I believe on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, whenever we have one of our trains with road-railers on the rear, that train is restricted to a maximum speed of 90mph (down from the typical 125mph we run at).
NS has a gender-bender bogie that lets them run the front half of the train forward and the back half backwards, saving them a run around on a wye track with a long string to get them all facing the same way. I’ve only seen it used a few times and not lately. Amtrak’s roadrailers are set up so they can run either way, but I’m not sure how they do it.
…Ugly…it would seem to me is not the railroads concern. Making money certainly is. The less weight to carry from one place to another, the better for the bottom line. And for sure we all want that kind of traffic off the highways…At least since it is now excessive…!! Less railroad cars to mess with and maintain another factor for the railroads.
Just as a note, the original RoadRailer test train was run forward up to over 100mph on the test track in Colorado (and some respectable speed in reverse). This was the older technology with the single retractable trailing axle; the newer ones with two-axle trucks between the frames should be good for higher speeds.
The critical point (as with freight cars in ‘ancient history’ in the 19th Century) is when you have unloaded vans toward the front or in the middle of a train, and see heavy braking applied from the front of the train forward (or have some other cause of what would be ‘slack run-in’ on a conventional train. This would tend to lift the light trailers, or slew them sideways to the extent of unloading the wheel treads or lifting a flange. I don’t think that rebound in the trailer suspension or tires due to low rails or track geometry can induce sufficient force to cause a derailment, but certainly a foreign object (something colliding with the side of a train, or thrown under it, for example) could cause the rubber-tired wheels to jump enough to cause problems, particularly under braking.
I think that the ‘modern’ RoadRailers with separate intermediate trucks are perfectly happy running in ‘either direction’ – just as if they were ‘conventionally’ articulated railroad cars…
This is the first time I have ever heard of a freight car refered to as ugly. Roadrailers are meant to be functional but really are nothing more than a reinforced and modified highway trailer that can travel on the rails, not exactly what could be refered to as ugly. I guess everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. By the way, there are Roadrailer Reefers that travel as conventional TOFC east of Chicago on NS, at least into Pittsburgh. Also, operating a piggyback “straddle-crane” or “sideloader” is not that difficult but does require a little training. The Pittsburgh Intermadal Terminal has two Catepillar sideloaders that can leg-lift trailers, top-lift 20 to 53 foot contaners as well as wide-pick 53’ & JBHunt boxes. In the last 5 years, at least 3 people have failed to become operators even after 3 weeks of training. Four other operators in the same time had only about 4 hours of training before becoming regular operators. The youngest was 19,(now the third shift packerman), to 52 years old. It’s just like anything else in life, some folks get it & some don’t.Good luck and stay safe.
Now you’re making me feel old! I was already an adult when roadrailers were introduced![:0]
The best way roadrailer service can increase is run mixed roadname roadrailers-Swift, Schneider, Triple Crown, etc combinations. Also it would be benificial if trucking companies that have started replacing their 45 and 48 foot trailers with 53 foot tandem trailers instead of the other kinds of 53 foot ones. This way they at least have the option.
[#oops] Let me rephase that… RoadRailers use to confuse me so much untill I started geting Trains magazine.