Through a collegue I heard of this concept that apperently is quite new.
It´s called RoRo rail and allows load and unload of wagons by the truck itself.
Flop or success?
http://www.kockumsindustrier.se/Products/Freight/Intermodal/Sgnss041.htm
//Onestone
From the website*:* “The need of heavy reachstackers or cranes are eliminated.”
But the need to have a whole new fleet of railcars with maintenance-intensive self loading apparatus is added!
(I’ll now patiently wait to be accused of being anti-European, or anti-new technology*…)
*see previous threads http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/179784.aspx?PageIndex=1 and http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/t/179662.aspx?PageIndex=1
The system has seen a modicum of success in Switzerland for transporting ACTS containers of waste and demolition debris.
Far more successful is the “Rolling Highway” system used in Switzerland and Austria. Here is a page from the Swiss operator of the trains RAlpin;
http://www.ralpin.ch/itool3/frontend/en/Start/Rola__6/
It must be noted that these services must be subsidized, but the countries are willing to do this to get a portion of heavy truck traffic off the highways through the Alps.
The service operated by the Austrian company Ökombi reported that for the first 9 months of 2010 traffic was up 11 % over the same period in 2009. The figure for 2009 was up 16% over 2008 totals.
Copied to activate link
EDIT NOTE:
To add to what Beaulieu has provided… A name applied in the German speaking regions of Europe is ROLA a contraction of the German for “Rolling Highway”
This is a link to s photo and story of that system:
http://www.robl.w1.com/obb/I-000922.htm
As to the Cargo Beamer System mentioned in one of the links provided as well: It was an experiment by German Railways that attempted to operate a container train much as a over the road truck, only on rail. It was operated by one engineer and ran from point a
And that is the way I see it. New cars and much additional maintenance required on them. I just can’t picture them being successful. OTOH, I had an aunt who was born in the late 1890’s (Yes that is correct) who said “man will never walk on the moon”. And, we all remember the Star Trek days and the ‘communicator’. Whoever thought back then they would now be our most important line of communication? Most folks wouldn’t be caught without one, but they have become an essential in life.
Perhaps we all should take the proverbial wait and see attitude. Things do evolve, and future railcars may be much different than we envision a hundred years from now. Even the railroads themselves may become something those of us today wouldn’t recognize. I’m not speculating, just offering food for thought.
I thought the question as asked was about the “Iron Highway” technology developed 10-15 years ago by, I think New York Air Brake, and placed in revenue service in Eastern Canada. It is basically a continuous railcar deck that truckers drive onto and off of. I do not recall if tractors go on the train or not. To the best of my knowledge the system is still in service so I would count it a limited success. Limited because no one else has successfully applied it elsewhere
To my mind this is about as good as it gets in terms of eliminating complexity at a rail intermodal terminal. It is aimed at trucks, which is where the big money is. It is aimed at short haul, which is where the vast majority of the moves are made. By eliminating terminal complexity you eliminate costs, which may make you competitive in short haul moves.
To be truck competitive in a short haul market, you need frequency of departures. If you are not leaving frequently enough, the trucker can drive direct before the intermodal load gets out of the terminal. That means there has to be a sufficient volume of truck traffic succeptable to diversion, which means a lot of traffic in a market economy. That lack of volume may be why it has not been duplicated in North America.
Another issue is revenue per train mile. Any single stack train does not have the revenue potentail that a double stack or carload train has. Unless the route is blessed/cursed with excess capacity, it may not make sense to create congestion by adding fast, frequent, low revenue trains. This is another good reason that the Canadian example is unique.
Mac McCulloch
well it probably won’t be in America, because we like to double the capacity by doubling the height.
Sounds like the NYC’s Flexi-Van service of the 50’s & 60’s.
!(http://www.kahndog.com/Photogallery/Jan 2008/PLE Flexi-Van profile014.jpg)
Yes the NYC, Western Pacific and a few other railroads tried Flexi-Vans The WP’s cars were built in 1963 . They were not successful.
The WP had eight cars. One was fitted with steam lines and run on the California Zephyr.
[#offtopic] Very funny - and true ! Congrats - I haven’t seen or heard that analogy anyplace before (but I don’t get out much, either . . . ).
There is nothing new under the sun.[sigh] The European system does indeed have a resemblance to Flexi-Van and GM’s Portager.