The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I've helped unload one of these, when I was working in the warehouse. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
On the loading gauge aspect:
Given the way that the Roadrailers carry their road tires a short distance above the rail, there is no way any piggyback with the tires sitting on a rail car can fit inside the same railway loading gauge with the same interior cargo height as a RoadRailer. And a Roadrailer would be designed for the ruling loading gauge of the network it runs on. Any piggyback trailer with the same capacity per length, will be higher than an equivalent Roadrailer, or conversely any Roadrailer with the same external height above the rail as an equivalent piggyback will have a greater capacity per length.
The Railrunner is not a normal Roadrailer, its a chassis for a standard container that converts it into a road railer. The bogie is a separable unit that replaces the semi truck with a rail truck, but that is how the newest Roadrailers do it as well ~ the original Roadrailers of the 1950's had bogies that lifted up out of the way when on the road and then were dropped down and locked into place to carry the trailer on the tracks, but a separate bogie is the more effective solution ~ if you normally send the truck out and then it returns to the same railhead, carrying the bogie as deadweight there and back is not the most effective solution. Also, that allows a single rail coupling bogie on either end of a string and a specialized inter-trailer bogie in between the trailers in the string.
The Railrunner would be a more comfortable fit for the CargoSprinter type of system, though, since the control pass through between lead motor unit and trailing motor units could be built into the chassis and the connection tested in-cab when the consist is marshalled.
The highest profile Roadrailer service in the US is the Triple Crown, established in the 1980's by the Norfolk Southern and since the 90's joined by BNSF to include service between Kansas and Texas. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
That's what I compared, too (with a typo: should be 9" for Terminal Anywhere, not 9'): whether the semi-trailer carries containers or not is not the issue here. (I couldn't find figures or drawings to estimate the lifting height of normal Roadrailers.) Lifting 230 mm above rail is not that much, and it actually appears somewhat less in practice due to the difference from spring suspension and tire deformation of the trailer road wheels (and possibly also because it appears as if the front part of the trailer is lifted less, something like 2").
Can you find figures on RoadRailer lifting heights? The Wikipedia photo appears to show a lower lifting height than Terminal Anywhere (my rough visual estimate is 150 mm), but it's not clear to me whether the other end of the trailer is lifted already.
the original Roadrailers of the 1950's had bogies that lifted up out of the way when on the road
There is a modern version, too: American Surface Lines' RailMate, but I suspect anything with deadweight carried around is a stillborn idea. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I'd assume that the separate bogies are also worth some increase in top speed.
Here's an almost end-on view of a Triple Crown Roadrailer consist: I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
The chassis means that the bottom internal floor of the container is higher above the rail than with the original Roadrail approach, but for standard containers & singlestack, clearances are not such an issue.
When just replacing piggyback, there isn't a separate chassis, just a bogie holding up the trailer, with the trailer specialized for running in both modes, and the internal floor of the freight trailer is closer to the tracks than with any piggyback railcar. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Are you sure we are talking about the same thing? On the official site of RailRunner, all photos and graphs of the Terminal Anywhere system show a bi-modal system consisting of semi-trailers specialized for running in both modes (chassis with road wheels and fifth wheel coupler on and with specialised ends for railroad mode) and bogies only. The only difference seems to be that in Terminal Anywhere the trailer is lifted by being pushing up a slide on the bogie, while if I read my sources right, in classic RoadRailer the trailer is raised by active operation of its suspensions. Here is a RailRunner video showing both the jacking-up and jacking-down of a semi-trailer on the bogie:
It doesn't appear to be any higher than a standard North American semi-trailer or a Triple Crown trailer, either,having similar fifth wheel heights and being 13,5' high when loaded with a high-cube container (which would be 11 cm higher than a standard European semi-trailer, however, so they'll need to modify the trailers if their tentative European export plans are to come to anything).
BTW, what is the top speed of classic Roadrailers on rail?
closer to the tracks than with any piggyback railcar.
Quite likely, but by how much? 50 mm, 100 mm, 150 mm? Again, do you have any figures on the wheeled end lifting height? I again couldn't find any, even with the Triple Crown help. Here I find a good side view, but the 135 mm I estimate between road wheel and rail (based on the trailer interior height data) isn't really useful. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Are you sure we are talking about the same thing? On the official site of RailRunner, all photos and graphs of the Terminal Anywhere system show a bi-modal system consisting of semi-trailers specialized for running in both modes (chassis with road wheels and fifth wheel coupler on and with specialised ends for railroad mode) and bogies only.
Indeed, if there is a more "rounded" loading gauge in the target network, the top of the Roadrailer trailer could be made higher and the freight capacity larger by putting the top higher than a rectangular box will allow, and slanting the sides near the top.
Now, I presume that the Roadrailer is designed within the AAR standard loading gauge, but so long as it fits within the STRACNET loading gauge:
... if there is a loading gauge constraint on some shortline between the STRACNET corridor and the origin/destination loading dock, it can just hit the road.
Railrunner may well have to work through European loading gauge issues if they are aiming for the European market. Its not likely to be a binding constraint for them given the standard AAR loading gauge to work with. A conventional Roadrailer would not be the same challenge, as you just design the trailer dimensions to suit the target market. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
IMHO the limiting factors in a US context are not AAR- but road-related: the 13.5' outer height limit and the standardised 47-49" fifth wheel height. So the front end external height of the cargo-holding structure cannot be larger than 115". A high-cube container is 114". So what about the inside? Checking figures, high-cube container internal height is 106", while Triple Crown dry vans have an inside height of 110" at the front and 112.25" in the rear. So in effect the 4" thick bottom of the container (about 10 cm) and a slope 2.25" high at the end is what's gained.
If RailRunner (or any new RoadRailer version) comes to Europe, they'll need to lower their stuff by about 10 cm to fit roads, but fortunately that won't reduce the cargo height: both the road vehicle height limit (4 m or about 13'2") and the standard fifth wheel heights (seem to be between 950 and 1,150 mm, or about 37" and 45") are lower.
if there is a more "rounded" loading gauge in the target network, the top of the Roadrailer trailer could be made higher
If a trailer is designed to fit the rounded corners of older railway loading gauges in Europe, then it will have a smaller capacity than a standard road trailer while already being more expensive as a special rail-ready construction, and thus be at a disadvantage. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
IMHO the limiting factors in a US context are not AAR- but road-related
If a trailer is designed to fit the rounded corners of older railway loading gauges in Europe, then it will have a smaller capacity than a standard road trailer while already being more expensive as a special rail-ready construction, and thus be at a disadvantage.
by Cat - Jan 25 14 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 22 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 26
by Oui - Jan 9 19 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 13 28 comments
by gmoke - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 15 90 comments
by gmoke - Jan 7 13 comments
by Cat - Jan 2514 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 221 comment
by Oui - Jan 219 comments
by Oui - Jan 21
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 1839 comments
by Oui - Jan 1590 comments
by Oui - Jan 142 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Jan 1328 comments
by Oui - Jan 1212 comments
by Oui - Jan 1120 comments
by Oui - Jan 1031 comments
by Oui - Jan 919 comments
by NBBooks - Jan 810 comments
by Oui - Jan 717 comments
by gmoke - Jan 713 comments
by Oui - Jan 68 comments
by gmoke - Jan 48 comments