|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 31, 2015 9:18:43 GMT
This is a heavy heavy heavy myth....
It involves the idea that Railways would be better ripped up converted to roads, and kept as Commercial transport only.
The idea is, you take away the heavy trains, and use lighter road-trains, such as Australia uses, much shorter that huge mile long trains.
The transport would be regulated, as trains are, but not on rails.
Passenger railways be replaced by Bus, but, a "train" of buses, one towing the next.
This, apparently, would improve the railway, as shorter stopping distances allows for less distance between "Units".
I am wondering.....
Plus, the use of road vehicles, allows separating of the carriages for normal road use at the destinations....
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 31, 2015 14:31:10 GMT
I can think of a number of reasons why it's not a good idea.
1. Efficiency. Steel on steel, while not as good at stopping, has a much lower rolling resistance than soft rubber on concrete. Multiply that times hundreds of wheels and you see why railroads advertise they can move a ton of freight 450 miles on one gallon of fuel.
2. Increased employee count. A mile long train has about 100 train cars (depending on the type of car) and is usually driven by a crew of two people. How many drivers would it take to pull 100 semi trailers utilizing short links of 5 to 10 trailers? To say nothing of the fact that one train car can hold a whole lot more than one semi trailer.
3. Safety. If a train engineer nods off or becomes distracted for a second or two, he may miss blowing the horn at a whistle post. If a semi driver does the same, it's a disaster.
4. While your idea that transfer from trains to roadways would be easier, the use of piggy backs and containerized railroad cars pretty much negates that advantage.
Now here's a crazy idea that may work.
Convert interstate or cross-country highways to railroads. You have a continues train of flat cars running down the tracks. As you drive your car down an entrance ramp, an automatic loader picks up your car and places it on the next moving empty train car. When you get to the place where you want to get off, you press a button on a remote control and an automatic unloader plucks your car off the moving train and puts it on an exit ramp.
I'm not sure how the loader-unloader (LODUN) would work, but I'm sure there is someone a lot smarter than I am that could figure that out. Maybe TLW or C-64
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Jan 31, 2015 22:53:32 GMT
Not to mention the cost of gasoline is only going up as the anual production tries to keep up with the increased demand(the current dip nonwithstanding).
Having an transport system that isn't dependent on one type of raw fuel might be handy at some point in the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 1, 2015 2:59:33 GMT
I can think of a number of reasons why it's not a good idea. 1. Efficiency. Steel on steel, while not as good at stopping, has a much lower rolling resistance than soft rubber on concrete. Multiply that times hundreds of wheels and you see why railroads advertise they can move a ton of freight 450 miles on one gallon of fuel. 2. Increased employee count. A mile long train has about 100 train cars (depending on the type of car) and is usually driven by a crew of two people. How many drivers would it take to pull 100 semi trailers utilizing short links of 5 to 10 trailers? To say nothing of the fact that one train car can hold a whole lot more than one semi trailer. 3. Safety. If a train engineer nods off or becomes distracted for a second or two, he may miss blowing the horn at a whistle post. If a semi driver does the same, it's a disaster. Some additional info: Rail cars hold a LOT more than road trailers. In the US, I believe the normal weight limit is 40,000 lbs without a heavy load permit*. A typical rail car hand hold a maximum of 200,000 lbs.** Even if you have a heavy haul road train, Aussie road train limits are between 160,000 and 240,000 lbs. So each car carries as much as a single road train. A 100 car train carries the same cargo as 100 road trains, using much less fuel and personnel On the Safety Side, in the US, most long haul trains are equipped with dead-man systems. The engineer has to hit a button every few minutes, otherwise the train will automatically bring itself to a stop. * Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. ** Per BNSF. www.bnsf.com/prospective/faqs.html |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 1, 2015 3:35:25 GMT
I can think of a number of reasons why it's not a good idea. 1. Efficiency. Steel on steel, while not as good at stopping, has a much lower rolling resistance than soft rubber on concrete. Multiply that times hundreds of wheels and you see why railroads advertise they can move a ton of freight 450 miles on one gallon of fuel. 2. Increased employee count. A mile long train has about 100 train cars (depending on the type of car) and is usually driven by a crew of two people. How many drivers would it take to pull 100 semi trailers utilizing short links of 5 to 10 trailers? To say nothing of the fact that one train car can hold a whole lot more than one semi trailer. 3. Safety. If a train engineer nods off or becomes distracted for a second or two, he may miss blowing the horn at a whistle post. If a semi driver does the same, it's a disaster. Some additional info: Rail cars hold a LOT more than road trailers. In the US, I believe the normal weight limit is 40,000 lbs without a heavy load permit*. A typical rail car hand hold a maximum of 200,000 lbs.** Even if you have a heavy haul road train, Aussie road train limits are between 160,000 and 240,000 lbs. So each car carries as much as a single road train. A 100 car train carries the same cargo as 100 road trains, using much less fuel and personnel On the Safety Side, in the US, most long haul trains are equipped with dead-man systems. The engineer has to hit a button every few minutes, otherwise the train will automatically bring itself to a stop. * Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. ** Per BNSF. www.bnsf.com/prospective/faqs.htmlsemi trucks are usually rated for a 44,000 pound GVW. for my input - I agree, more trains not less. my idea is simply to have an easy load system at stations, allowing easy loading and assembly of trains - allowing travel from hub to hub theoretically with good car design, there could be an electric merging section at the hubs where the trains could break and reform in motion. I'll be totally honest - the concept needs a LOT of work. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 1, 2015 4:29:42 GMT
my idea is simply to have an easy load system at stations, allowing easy loading and assembly of trains - allowing travel from hub to hub theoretically with good car design, there could be an electric merging section at the hubs where the trains could break and reform in motion. I'll be totally honest - the concept needs a LOT of work. The RR has used a similar system to what you described for years. It's called the "hump". A train is pushed up this small hill (the hump) and then the individual cars are broken off and let to free roll down the other side. As they travel down the "hump", automatic switch tracks direct them into assembly tracks to form new trains. There are automatic brakes that slow the cars down until they hit the new train and the couplers automatically engage making up the new train. When the train fully assembled, an engine hooks on the end and off it goes to the next hub. This time lapse video gives a good look at how a hump yard works. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 1, 2015 4:36:31 GMT
my idea is simply to have an easy load system at stations, allowing easy loading and assembly of trains - allowing travel from hub to hub theoretically with good car design, there could be an electric merging section at the hubs where the trains could break and reform in motion. I'll be totally honest - the concept needs a LOT of work. The RR has used a similar system to what you described for years. It's called the "hump". A train is pushed up this small hill (the hump) and then the individual cars are broken off and let to free roll down the other side. As they travel down the "hump", automatic switch tracks direct them into assembly tracks to form new trains. There are automatic brakes that slow the cars down until they hit the new train and the couplers automatically engage making up the new train. When the train fully assembled, an engine hooks on the end and off it goes to the next hub. This time lapse video gives a good look at how a hump yard works. to make a viable system I would hope to work out how to slip cars in and out of the train at speeds closer to 50-60 MPH. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Feb 1, 2015 4:38:11 GMT
Some additional info: Rail cars hold a LOT more than road trailers. In the US, I believe the normal weight limit is 40,000 lbs without a heavy load permit*. A typical rail car hand hold a maximum of 200,000 lbs.** Even if you have a heavy haul road train, Aussie road train limits are between 160,000 and 240,000 lbs. So each car carries as much as a single road train. A 100 car train carries the same cargo as 100 road trains, using much less fuel and personnel On the Safety Side, in the US, most long haul trains are equipped with dead-man systems. The engineer has to hit a button every few minutes, otherwise the train will automatically bring itself to a stop. * Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong. ** Per BNSF. www.bnsf.com/prospective/faqs.htmlsemi trucks are usually rated for a 44,000 pound GVW. for my input - I agree, more trains not less. my idea is simply to have an easy load system at stations, allowing easy loading and assembly of trains - allowing travel from hub to hub theoretically with good car design, there could be an electric merging section at the hubs where the trains could break and reform in motion. I'll be totally honest - the concept needs a LOT of work. There is this idea for 'easy' loads and unloads (being a little tongue in cheek here), but it does keep thing moving along (hopefully) www.techandfacts.com/chinese-train-that-never-stops/ |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 1, 2015 4:39:11 GMT
to make a viable system I would hope to work out how to slip cars in and out of the train at speeds closer to 50-60 MPH. That would be something to see. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 1, 2015 5:40:52 GMT
to make a viable system I would hope to work out how to slip cars in and out of the train at speeds closer to 50-60 MPH. That would be something to see. the next challenge would be restroom facilities - it would work for RVs loaded on railcars. not so good for the average automobile. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Feb 1, 2015 7:36:46 GMT
I do not think this,would work well, and something similar to,this has already be done in my town, though for Buses not Lorries. In the 1960s the Beaching Cuts closed around 5000 miles of Railways in the UK that were considered unsustainable. One of these was the branch line between my town and nearby Dunstable, which was left derelict for many years, then in the late 200os the construction of a guided Busway running on the route of the old railway line was mooted, and construction finished in 2013. Since then it has been a commercial disaster, wit passenger numbers way below expectations . www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-27060792The engineering has not been sound. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-29138412But that's not to say a lorry system might not work better. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 1, 2015 8:41:13 GMT
"Driver-less cars", why not trucks.
We already have the ability to have a vehicle drive on its own.
We already have the ability to get one vehicle "follow" another one.
I am suggesting road trains where each individual vehicle "Follows" the next one, on auto-pilot...
The driver would just pick it up from the freight yard at destination.
Or "Road trains" where there are multiple trailers, where each trailer can just be unhooked and hooked to a normal semi-cab.
The idea is mass freight where the freight does not have to slow down every 100 yds because of rollerskate cars...
If trucks could manage the huge distances without normal road traffic, I bet they can get close to the MPG per ton a railway can.
especially when there are less hills to climb...
Less handling at fright yards as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Feb 1, 2015 13:33:35 GMT
my idea is simply to have an easy load system at stations, allowing easy loading and assembly of trains - allowing travel from hub to hub theoretically with good car design, there could be an electric merging section at the hubs where the trains could break and reform in motion. I'll be totally honest - the concept needs a LOT of work. The RR has used a similar system to what you described for years. It's called the "hump". A train is pushed up this small hill (the hump) and then the individual cars are broken off and let to free roll down the other side. As they travel down the "hump", automatic switch tracks direct them into assembly tracks to form new trains. There are automatic brakes that slow the cars down until they hit the new train and the couplers automatically engage making up the new train. When the train fully assembled, an engine hooks on the end and off it goes to the next hub. This time lapse video gives a good look at how a hump yard works. One thing to note is that while the switching and consist building is all automatic, once a consist is built, it still requires a person to go between each car and manually connect the brake lines and open the angle cock valves and connect electrical lines if there are any. At least in the US, FRS law also requires that someone preform a Class 1 break check after building the consist which requires someone to walk the full train to ensure that the breaks are operating correctly. So while switching is automatic, it still requires a fair amount of human labor. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 1, 2015 15:24:24 GMT
"Driver-less cars", why not trucks. We already have the ability to have a vehicle drive on its own. We already have the ability to get one vehicle "follow" another one. I am suggesting road trains where each individual vehicle "Follows" the next one, on auto-pilot... The driver would just pick it up from the freight yard at destination. Or "Road trains" where there are multiple trailers, where each trailer can just be unhooked and hooked to a normal semi-cab. The idea is mass freight where the freight does not have to slow down every 100 yds because of rollerskate cars... If trucks could manage the huge distances without normal road traffic, I bet they can get close to the MPG per ton a railway can. especially when there are less hills to climb... Less handling at fright yards as well. we do have mills with privately owned haul roads, here. there may be benefit in closing an abandoned rail line and converting it to a private haul road. there is a substantial overhead in running a railroad which requires a certain volume of traffic to make it cost effective. I believe the minimum cost effective volume on a private haul road might be less. however, I think the factor of steel wheels on a steel track is much more significant in the high fuel efficiency of rail traffic than you are giving it credit for. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 2, 2015 5:38:38 GMT
There is a myth to be busted then.
Take a vehicle, perhaps one of the ones that does Line maintenance work, that has the ability to change wheels from rubber to steel, and run it down a railway line on steel for an hour, then put it on a (flat) test track (Maybe a NASCAR track?..) and run it again on the tyres for an hour.
See which gets the best MPG.
Its the same vehicle, no changes, just one use of Steel tyres, then do the hydraulic changeover to Rubber tyres.
To be honest, I think the main advantage of Rail lines is the no stopping thing, being the line is always clear before it moves.
With the low rolling resistance of modern tyres, I dont think the difference will be that much....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 2, 2015 11:16:54 GMT
There is a myth to be busted then. Take a vehicle, perhaps one of the ones that does Line maintenance work, that has the ability to change wheels from rubber to steel, and run it down a railway line on steel for an hour, then put it on a (flat) test track (Maybe a NASCAR track?..) and run it again on the tyres for an hour. See which gets the best MPG. Its the same vehicle, no changes, just one use of Steel tyres, then do the hydraulic changeover to Rubber tyres. To be honest, I think the main advantage of Rail lines is the no stopping thing, being the line is always clear before it moves. With the low rolling resistance of modern tyres, I dont think the difference will be that much.... I'm not sure if that will give us a clear result, as most track maintenance equipment uses the rubber tires to drive it, even if it is on the rails. - and it runs at limited speeds. I wonder if they could get a hold of one of the top gear "train conversion" cars. then they could run them at the same speed with both rail and rubber wheels. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 2, 2015 14:44:53 GMT
There is a myth to be busted then. Take a vehicle, perhaps one of the ones that does Line maintenance work, that has the ability to change wheels from rubber to steel, and run it down a railway line on steel for an hour, then put it on a (flat) test track (Maybe a NASCAR track?..) and run it again on the tyres for an hour. See which gets the best MPG. Its the same vehicle, no changes, just one use of Steel tyres, then do the hydraulic changeover to Rubber tyres. To be honest, I think the main advantage of Rail lines is the no stopping thing, being the line is always clear before it moves. With the low rolling resistance of modern tyres, I dont think the difference will be that much.... One ton of freight, 450 miles, one gallon of fuel. On a flat open road, think you can beat that? Even with a long string of semi trailers? I never have tried to move a semi truck trailer by hand but I have moved a 60' rail road box car and was able to get it up to a pretty good clip from a dead stop just by leaning on it. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 3, 2015 8:29:16 GMT
And road transport... what are they getting... obviously a lot less.
Why?.. because of the constant stop start.
So why cant Road transport be as good as rail.....
Instead of having to go round ring roads, straight past.
With no non-commercial rollerskate idiots.
Kind of what Motorways were invented for....
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Feb 3, 2015 14:53:29 GMT
And road transport... what are they getting... obviously a lot less. Why?.. because of the constant stop start. So why cant Road transport be as good as rail..... Instead of having to go round ring roads, straight past. With no non-commercial rollerskate idiots. Kind of what Motorways were invented for.... Will you get better mileage in a truck if it's not in stop and go traffic? Of course you will. Is it quicker to go straight through a city than around it if there is no traffic? Absolutely. But again, it's the wheels that are the main problem. It's not the right-of-way that gives the RR the main advantage other than to use steel-on-steel wheels you also need the right-of-way because of the increased stopping distances. So here's an easy test. Take a truck, or even a regular passenger automobile, and drive it for 10 miles on a straight and level road and at a constant speed of 50mph. Now replace the rubber tires with steel train wheels and do the same test on a straight and level train track. Compare the fuel consumption. I have no doubt that you will see a substantial increase in mileage on the train track. I think the real solution to your problem is for you to just turn in your CDL and apply for a position as a train engineer. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 3, 2015 15:21:26 GMT
And road transport... what are they getting... obviously a lot less. Why?.. because of the constant stop start. So why cant Road transport be as good as rail..... Instead of having to go round ring roads, straight past. With no non-commercial rollerskate idiots. Kind of what Motorways were invented for.... when I drove home through southern california with the travel trailer, to get 450 ton-miles per gallon, I would have had to be getting 90 MPG with my van and travel trailer. to get 450 ton-miles per gallon for a US semi truck, they would have to get at least 20 MPG. we have plenty of stretches in the US where a semi truck can drive over a hundred miles with no real interference from cars. |
|
