The Iron Highway was a concept developed by New York Air Brake in the late 80s/early 90s. If railroads need to gain traffic by catering for smaller loads and shorter hauls, as suggested in “Finding a New Winning Formula”, March issue, it might be worth re-examining the Iron Highway and similar ideas.
The Iron Highway was essentially a fixed-formation freight multiple unit, consisting of a rake of articulated platforms powered by a small loco at each end. The middle of the rake could be split into two ramps, allowing circus loading of trailers. The time to load each multiple unit would be about 45 minutes. The multiple units could be linked together to form long trains, but the loading time would remain the same.
I believe that the Iron Highway was tried out by CP in the Toronto-Montreal corridor. Like Roadrailers, it’s a non-standard arrangement and will probably suffer the same fate, if it hasn’t already.
I seem to recall that we had a thread here, at one time, the subject was a similar piece of equipment (a small locomotive, and several platform style cars); An engineer,only was assigned to this train. It was a point to point operaion, from a shipping location to destination, operator was the single engineer. IIRC, it was being builled as a sort of railroad’ truck’ operation? and that was the thrust of it use, to be a compeditor for OTR trucking in Europe. I do not believe it went much frather than a protype, and because it was a specialized piece of equipment, and did not fit the current ‘model’. I went away after a short period.
The closest that is similar is the Herzog MPM ( although,) it is adapted to ROW Maintenance) the locomotive they use resembles the photos I remember of the European ‘railroad truck’ power unit(?)
The Iron Highway evolved into the equipment used by the CP on their Montreal-Toronto Expressway TOFC service. This is reportedly the only piggyback train in Canada.
As originally proposed the Iron Highway consisted of one or more self propelled multiple platform articulated flatcars. Propulsion came from heavy duty diesel truck engines with the drive train including heavy duty truck automatic transmissions. This power system has been discarded and replaced by conventional locomotives.
Expressway is a TOFC system that uses circus type loading and unloading. There’s nothing wrong with this. Circus type TOFC (including containers on chassis) intermodal terminals are a good, economical, low capital investment, and efficient fit for smaller volume markets. The Expressway operation improves over the conventional circus terminal operations by allowing multiple loading/unloading ramps one one track. This improves the speed of loading/unloading.
Expressway does not suffer from the problems the RoadRailer concept does. Expressway is entirely compatible with the existing IM network and can readily be used within the network. It could also be well used to expand the network. CP is apparently satisfied with the results of its operation on the 340 mile Montreal-Toronto lane. But I do not see them as having another market suitable for its use.
I’d like to see an analysis of its potential on a route such as Green Bay-Chicago. Not so much as a local service, but as a “Feeder” route connecting the manufacturing of the Fox River cities with the IM network in Chicago.
In other words, a sensible evolution of Kneiling’s integral train. With the added spice that the operating model involves an advantage of the train not being an “integrated unit” at loading and unloading points. (Presumably there would be competent ‘hostling’ controls that would allow the separable units to be switched to the tracks used for parallel loading/unloading without need for switch engines, and ‘today’ this would be done with separate – and unconfusable! – remote packs…)
There are potential markets - I think central New Jersey is one - where the idea of a train that can be quickly and easily split into self-propelled sections for relatively easy ground ramp loading of trailers makes sense. I don’t think there are enough of these to recoup the considerable capital cost of building and maintaining the Kneiling-style train, even if the gas turbine issue has been removed from the ‘equation’.
One demonstrated issue with Iron Highway is that it requires kingpin-hitch securement at the trailer noses. At least one of these has come unlocked in the all-too-familiar-with-wear-on-the-equipment way and caused the usual problems. The aftermath of such an event may eat up a great deal of the presumable profit from using Iron Highway instead of, say, expanded conventional containerized intermodal in lieu of van trailers.
In my opinion there is also the added question of the skills needed by drivers for circus-type loading and unloading when there is a considerable narrow distance to back up between presumably substantial sill rails. This is not a ‘kangarou’ system with bearing surface between the
Yes, circus loading does avoid the need for cranes and because trucks are not lifted, anything that is fit to run on a highway can be loaded onto a train. This straight away makes the concept more attractive to the trucking industry.
Iron Highway/Expressway avoids the time penalty of circus loading of a long train by splitting the train into modules which can be loaded independently. The loading time for the complete train is the same whether there are 1, 10 or 20 modules. For Iron Highway the loading time per module was 45 minutes. If it were possible to design a modular train in which each car had a ramp which could be swung out at a loading terminal the loading time would be even less (go on inventors, take up
Expressway works because it caters primarily to truckers and a few large shippers who own their own equipment. I don’t think the average shipper with loads to move in this corridor would consider Expressway as truck rates in both directions have always been rock bottom cheap. Truckers on the other hand can effectively move several of these cheap loads with one tractor and driver… i.e. they take two loads to the railhead to ship via Expressway to Montreal and take load number 3 down the road to Montreal. Once in Montreal the driver delivers load 3 and then goes to the Expressway terminal to pickup and deliver the other two loads. The trucker thereby maximizes use of driver and equipment. Shippers generally can’t do that unless they too run their own trucks…I think its a great idea and could probably work in other densely travelled corridors.
When CP was first involved with the Iron Highway, there was also a Toronto-Chicago operation (west of the border it used the former C&O to get into the Chicago area). Initially it used some specially-modified TTX flat cars, but I saw the specialized Iron Highway cars (IHXX) on at least one occasion. The Chicago-area terminal for this was in a small former B&O yard in East Chicago, Indiana (just east of the Hammond city limits), along Indiana Highway 312. This leg didn’t seem to last as long…perhaps the circuitous CSX route (via Grand Rapids, initially) did it in. I wasn’t following it that closely, but all of a sudden it was gone.
CP’s Expressway service is indeed the only regular MAINLINE piggyback service in Canada. You will sometimes see a few chassis being moved from west to east on CN and they will attach them to containers to do so.
The ONR and HBR both do piggyback in their Northern Ontario and Northern Manitoba operations.
That was the service proposed by a group who darn near got the Canada Southern. They went one step further adding sleeping cars and a diner for the truckers who went along. The line was perfectly engineered for this kind of thing, long tangents, level to near 0 grade with cut and fill when it was built and long easy curves, all the way from Detroit to Buffalo…a high speed line through rural agricultural landscapes. Overnight service both ways with morning arrivals.
Unfortunately the "fix"was in …at around the fifth “town hall” style public meeting, all hell broke loose and fisticuffs broke out.
The proposal was sound but they never had a chance. CN and CP saw to it.
The kingpin hitch has been in use for 60 years or so. It holds on in train wrecks, TOFC cars sent over humps, and overspeed impacts. If all rail components were nearly as reliable as a hitch there would be far fewer problems. Failure of a flatcar trailer hitch is the last thing we need to worry about.
As far as finding workers capable of backing trailers onto flatcars, don’t underestimate the abilities of the average worker. With proper equipment, some training, and respect they can do great things. And they’ll take great pride in their work. If they’re allowed to.
The truck driver “shortage” is caused by: 1) not paying enough and, 2) miserable working conditions that can cause a driver to be away from home for weeks on end while living in his/her truck. Pay more and get the driver home and there will be enough drivers.
Bigger question to me is why do seemingly ‘normal’ 53 foot trailers have 3 and 4 axles under the box instead of two. Are they carrying loads exceeding the nominal 80K that are the USA norm?
I think of them as applying the advantages of 5-unit articulated lightweight well-car construction to relatively low-floor through-flat-deck construction. Since they will not carry double stack loads they can use normal-wheeled trucks.
the Europeans have a version of this running on very small wheels (about 16" if I remember correctly) that is loaded by drive-on end-to-end as a ferry operation through tunnels. Everyone stays in their vehicles and drives off at the ‘other end’.
When the 53’ semi-trailer became the 'norm in the US [ie: the 80,000#regulations], one of the enforcement factors became “The Bridge Formula”.
Adjustments, could be made within the ‘truck-trailer’, by movements to the sliding tandem on the trailer, also with a ‘sliding fifth wheel’ . The latter movement could ‘load’ weight to the tractor steering axle. The trailer ‘slider tandem’ could adjust weight onto the trailer axle assembly, or move it to the tractor, as needed to be able ‘to scale’ the load on the unit.
The tandem axle, is pretty much the norm country-wide in US. Some states have mase provisions (regulatory changes?) with in their enforcement enviornment to allow certain combinations of multiple-trailers ( as in ‘Turnpike specific’ rules in some states). Some states will allow additional axles to be used on some equipment ( combinations using air-lifting axles, or fixed axles, as well as provisions for additions to size of tires used.)
Obviously, as shown in the photos of Canadian equipment,[ I have no clue as to their mandated gross vehicle weights, or how wei
RME
One demonstrated issue with Iron Highway is that it requires kingpin-hitch securement at the trailer noses. At least one of these has come unlocked in the all-too-familiar-with-wear-on-the-equipment way and caused the usual problems. The aftermath of such an event may eat up a great deal of the presumable profit from using Iron Highway instead of, say, expanded conventional containerized intermodal in lieu of van trailers. In my opinion there is also the added question of the skills needed by drivers for circus-type loading and unloading when there is a considerable narrow distance to back up between presumably substantial sill rails. This is not a ‘kangarou’ system with bearing surface between the trailer duals, so presumably scuffing the trailer outer sidewalls is the ‘default’ guidance backup. With the current ‘driver shortage’ are there enough skilled or trainable drivers to make an expansion of Expressway safe and practical?
Oh pshaw!
The kingpin hitch has been in use for 60 years or so. It holds on in train wrecks, TOFC cars sent over humps, and overspeed impacts. If all rail components were nearly as reliable as a hitch there would be far fewer problems. Failure of a flatcar trailer hitch is the last thing we need to worry about.
As far as finding workers capable of backing trailers onto flatcars, don’t underestimate the abilities of the average worker. With proper equipment, some training, and respect they can do great things. And they’ll take great pride in their work. If they’re allowed to.
The truck driver “shortage” is caused by: 1) not paying enough and, 2) miserable working conditions that can ca
Do you actually think that people in the industry have forgotten the advantages of TOFC over COFC and that some magic day they will ‘come to their senses’ and embrace widespread circus-type loading of switched-out rakes of an ‘iron highway’ consist?
Both ‘the market’ for equipment and the folks in the industry who pay for its operation have consistently rejected these drive-on, drive-off facilities in most lanes, even where local initiative provided suitable physical facilities such as ramps adjacent to suitable yard space. I have looked forward to adoption of a number of these continuous-roadway systems over the years, including some that lowered the deck under the road wheels to get the effect of ‘fuel foiler’ spine-car pockets while preserving RoRo operation. I even waited for drop-in or raise-up decking for well cars that would convert them to through-drive use. To date, we have Expressway in its lane, and it appears that no one else (yet) thinks that building more of the specialized cars, or operating them in existing intermodal consists or operations, makes enough financial sense.
Personally I think better methods of side or angle loading conventional unreinforced vans, or design of better yard tractors for loading and unloading RoRo trains more expediently, are important before any great use of articulated through-deck equipment catches on. At least that’s where most of my research on that kind of operation has been directed.
So you are saying that your father would prefer a world of 35’ trailers that can’t economically be transported further than 300 miles or so? Or that he did not fully understand the logistical implications behind even limited reliance on point-to-point TOFC operations on the general REA delivery model, in both time and cost?
It could just as easily be said that reform of Missouri law in the 1940s permitting larger Nite Coaches and longer/heavier ‘combinations’ or road trains would have given many of the nominal cost and fuel advantages realizable with conventional TOFC to even small OTR operators. Why do you think Staggers in the '50s would materially improve the profitability of, say, PRR’s TrucTrains, or the use as IC did of a rake of circus-loading flats at the end of passenger trains to add a little more productivity to a then-still-viable REA?
It might also be possible that ‘the good would be the enemy of the great’ in precluding widespread use of true stack COFC as quickly or pervasively as it has come about; I’d bet that the benefits of COFC to railroads at least in this century so far have far outweighed even the most efficient possible pig equivalents…