What would a High Speed Freight Train look like?

200 cars means any advantage of high speed is lost in the marshalling etc . short sharp and fast , is whats needed .

By the way, no one (at least not me) mentioned trains comprised of 200 cars. A mile long high speed freight train based on 85 foot cars like my design would be about 50 cars long, 75 for a mile and a half.

10 000 tons would equal at least 100 cars though . probably more likely to be near 200 .
but anyway , the point is no classification time .

Actually, the point is significantly lowered Points A to B transit times. We've only barely scratched the surface of the classification/terminal dwell time issue.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

mtuandrew wrote: Either way, a freight connection south of the Selkirk Hurdle is really necessary to make true high-speed freight workable to New England.

There's absolutely no real commercial necessity for a freight connection south of Selkirk. Quite frankly, there's precious little freight business to be had on the east shore of the Hudson, and there hasn't been for decades.

This is arrant nonsense. Immense amounts of freight is delivered to Long Island, Westchester, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Connecticut.

You mean that there is little *RAIL* freight business. Because of two things: the "Selkirk Hurdle"; and the fact that in 1974 when the Poughkeepsie Bridge went out of service, containerization and TOFC were not in wide use and rail therefore couldn't compete with trucks for "final delivery". Containerization and TOFC now exist.

There's nothing wrong with routing freight traffic through Selkirk, and it was clear even in the 60s that the Poughkeepsie Bridge and New York car floats were outmoded and headed towards extinction.

And yet the car float is STILL OPERATING. And it's quite clear that there's a strong need for a fast railfreight connection to an intermodal transfer point on Long Island, one in the Bronx, and probably one in Connecticut. There's too many things coming from the west coast. (In the other direction, it would also allow the efficient use of the deep-water ports east of the Hudson.)

The proposal for a freight rail tunnel under New York Harbor has been around since the formation of the Port Authority, and it's been entirely needed the entire time. The only problem with routing freight traffic through Selkirk is that for deliveries to Connecticut or Long Island or New York City from the Southwest or Southeast, it's completely and utterly insane. It's a strictly local problem, but that locality is New York City.

Some interesting developments in Europe..................

From Trainsmag.com Weekly News WIre:

Channel Tunnel Operator Looks at Running Freight

Published: Wednesday, March 10, 2010
LONDON — The company that operates the Channel Tunnel is working on plans to introduce high speed freight trains through the sub-sea tunnel, as it pursues a series of initiatives to boost rail freight and passenger traffic, according to a story in London's Financial Times.

Jacques Gounon, executive chairman of Groupe Eurotunnel, revealed the company's involvement with Carex, a consortium developing high-speed rail freight, as he announced only the company's third full-year profit since 1986. Carex aims to replace some of the current short-haul flights by express air freight operators with trips by modified high speed trains.

Eurotunnel had also set up a working party with Deutsche Bahn, Germany's state-owned rail company, on setting up a train service between Europe's two main financial centres: London and Frankfurt. The working party was examining how DB's high speed trains might be accommodated within the tunnel safety rules.

In Japan, JR Hokkaido is developing a 200km/h (125mph) high speed freight train called "train on train", to be run through the Seikan undersea tunnel. It will utiltize narrow gauge (1067mm) container flatcars that are rolled on to a standard gauge carrier for transport. Why is this being done? Well, by 2015 HSR trains will be running through the tunnel, and currently 60 daily 1067mm gauge freight trains use this route. Though the tunnel tracks will be dual gauge, the planned hourly to half hourly HSR service frequencies will make it impossible to secure pathways in the tunnel for narrow gauge trains running at a top speed of 100km/h. The train on train concept seeks to remedy this. Apparently the trains will be hauled by dual unit high speed electric locomotives, perhaps standard gauge versions of this:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95% ... h200-0.jpg

wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_on_Train

Interesting thread. I had proposed something similar in another recent thread, although I assumed the freight trains would merely be conventional high-speed trainsets converted for package duty ( such as the TGV La Poste ).

Thinking about this some more ( and assuming the economics of high-speed freight make sense ), you would probably have to go the MU route for trains of any significant length. Loco-hauled trains past some point just wouldn't be able to deal with the 3% or higher grades common on HSR alignments. You'll also need to add axles once the mass of the car body and load exceeded the limits of around 17 tons per axle. My guess is high-speed freight would be best suited to loads which cube out before they hit the weight limits of the rolling stock. Such things might include priority mail packages, shipments of fresh produce, perhaps even shipments of livestock. Basically cargo could be anything which is relatively light AND needs to get where it's going in a big hurry. You might even be able to do intermodal on high-speed freight if the demand was there. An intermodal car would have to have an aero shell which is easily opened and closed for loading/unloading. Basically then your standard high-speed rail freight car would have rigid coupling ( same as existing passenger stock ), power connections, motors on some or all axles along with the needed control equipment, a pantograph every few cars, etc. The most cost effective route would be to take existing MU high-speed trainsets and adapt the car body to freight duty. In order to limit track damage it would probably be prudent to run high-speed freight only at speeds high enough so that the superelevation of curves isn't an issue. I'll guess this might be around 200 to 225 km/hr. No need in my book to run at 300 km/hr or up. You vastly increase power consumption, track wear, and noise ( especially critical if running late at night ) with faster running.

In my opinion the bigger challenge of high-speed freight would be the economics. Making use of an HSR alignment at night could bring added revenue, but the fees charged would need to exceed the running costs ( that includes any additional wear and tear on the track ).

If the cargo has to be transferred from regular cars to high speed cars back to regular cars that adds a delay. The trip would have to be faster enough to make up for the transfer delay. The faster you can load and unload the high speed train and keep this priority load moving the better. Piggybacking the load where regular rail cars ride on top of high speed trucks is an interesting way to speed up the transfer but it also raises the center of gravity.

It may be quicker overall to use "higher speed rail" instead of high speed rail. Use roadrailers or regular cars built to a standard where they can run 110 MPH. Then transfer the cars to regular railroads for local delivery - remembering that every hour one of these higher speed cars is not moving at higher speed it is just an expense. If building "higher speed" cars is inexpensive enough then the off HSR hours are more acceptable. Balance the cost vs the need for speed.

The only need I see for HSR freight is to replace air service freight where a HSR train could make the journey faster. LTL for critical shipments would be a stretch. The key would be to make it faster and cheaper - door to door - than the alternatives. It makes no sense to carry a load at 220 MPH just to let it sit waiting for the next leg of the journey. Compare a 600 mile HSR trip that takes 3 hours with the same trip via "higher speed rail" in 6 hours or a conventional rail trip in 9 hours. What is the point in getting there so quickly if the transloading time takes up all of the time saved?

the transloading would be quick ( has to be ), ive timed them unloading full size containers in under 2 minutes . Connecting services would be timed and frequent . Basically the freight consignment becomes like a passenger , with all its onnecting services worked out , just like a passenger ticket . space on the trains is sold and booked just like seats .

Sorry, but while I can see plenty of opportunities for the railroads to recapture freight previously lost to other modes, I doubt that higher speeds would directly figure very far into the equation.

To begin wih, the two modes which currently domimnate the high value/transit-time-conscious market, namely air and highway, almost always interchange directly. Adding rail to the mix would, in effect, be adding another middleman, since a rail carrier can't do door-to-door pickup for anything less than a shipment justifying the better part of a contrainer.

And very little rail traffic is that time-conscious. Santa Fe tried 80 MPH freight service with its Super C 1968-1976. It survived as long as it did primarily because of storage-mail business

And many of the shippers which have given the railroads a closer look in recent years, primarily for perishables, have emphasized that consistency and reliability are of greater importance than raw speed. The railroads lost a lot of meat and produce traffic in the late 60's and early 70-'s because even when a crew shwed up to unload a carload of pershables, it wasn't there due to delay on the road. The concept of highway pickup and delivery from a warehouse in Albany or Harrisburg receiving delivery in multi-carload or even trainload lots gives the wholesaler more options.

When responsibility for a segment of the freight market shifts from one mode to another, it often involves large volumes, and the transiion is accomplished in a (relatively) short time. The completion of toll-free Interstate 80 between Akron/Youngstown and the eastern Seaboard in 1980 doomed rail dressed-meat traffic in the space of a few months. That trend has been reversing, and the surface is still barely scratched. But a showy 120-mph freight wouldn't play to the people who will actually complete the cycle.

And many of the shippers which have given the railroads a closer look in recent years, primarily for perishables, have emphasized that consistency and reliability are of greater importance than raw speed. The railroads lost a lot of meat and produce traffic in the late 60's and early 70-'s because even when a crew shwed up to unload a carload of pershables, it wasn't there due to delay on the road. The concept of highway pickup and delivery from a warehouse in Albany or Harrisburg receiving delivery in multi-carlad or even trainload lots gives the wholesaler more options.

Yes, it's not so much speed that needs to be achieved but Swiss or Japanese attention to timeliness.

george matthews wrote:

And many of the shippers which have given the railroads a closer look in recent years, primarily for perishables, have emphasized that consistency and reliability are of greater importance than raw speed. The railroads lost a lot of meat and produce traffic in the late 60's and early 70-'s because even when a crew shwed up to unload a carload of pershables, it wasn't there due to delay on the road. The concept of highway pickup and delivery from a warehouse in Albany or Harrisburg receiving delivery in multi-carlad or even trainload lots gives the wholesaler more options.

Yes, it's not so much speed that needs to be achieved but Swiss or Japanese attention to timeliness.

Perhaps one can have both: http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 58&t=70613 The Union Pacific has inaugurated a new intermodal train, carded at 72 hours from Los Angeles to New Orleans along the Sunset Route, thence to Atlanta on the NS. Who knows what sort of timekeeping they'll be able to maintain, but the UP seems to be serious about running as fast - and as consistently - as possible.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

freight is not designed to go super fast

You coulda fooled me. I'm constantly passed on the highway by big rigs doing between 80 and 90 mph. And freight in the air is going about 500 mph.

And in case you didn't get the gist of the thread, it was about having freight operate on TGV-like corridors, which don't have any grade crossings. This is already being done on Germany's ICE network. However, if we were going to try and move the tonnage we currently do on high-speed corridors, they'd have to have some very shallow grades and not ones between 3% and 4% like you'd find on LGV/ICE lines.

I'm pretty sure he meant freight trains, not freight in general. Trains can make cross country freight just as fast, if not faster, than single driver tractor trailers. We have a UP that leaves LA and 3 days later is in Georgia. With that kind of service, why would you risk so much just to squeeze another 25mph out of the train? There is a big difference between running 79mph and going over 100mph.

I wonder what the cost to weight ratio is on MagLev designs. If you're gonna redesign a railroad from the ground up to be able to move freight at 110mph, why not shoot for 300mph, or how about 1000? Something like this could run from Chicago to LA taking advantage of the plains for a long flat straight run. Obviously any kind of HSR design would have to be completely grade separated, but by using the monorail style, you could have a straight ROW with minimal eminent domain transactions.

It's time we had another one of those "marvels of modern engineering" that we used to have all the time in this country. Let's build a maglev passenger/freight line directly from Chicago to LA. Across the plains it could be inside a rigid plexiglass tube so there's no noise complaints from those who would otherwise experience a sonic boom effect. Then when you hit the rockies, dig a tunnel, the longest railroad tunnel in world history.

Make the entire line double tracked, inside a tube you get the pneumatic effect to keep everything moving fast as long as it only goes in one direction in the tube.

I want my grandchildren to be able to say "why would you fly, just take the train, it's so much faster."

RedLantern wroter:

It's time we had another one of those "marvels of modern engineering" that we used to have all the time in this country. Let's build a maglev passenger/freight line directly from Chicago to LA. Across the plains it could be inside a rigid plexiglass tube so there's no noise complaints from those who would otherwise experience a sonic boom effect. Then when you hit the rockies, dig a tunnel, the longest railroad tunnel in world history.

Make the entire line double tracked, inside a tube you get the pneumatic effect to keep everything moving fast as long as it only goes in one direction in the tube.

I want my grandchildren to be able to say "why would you fly, just take the train, it's so much faster."

Sorry, but this is a perfect, painful example of the unrealistic expectations which arise when science-fiction and science fantasy try to overriide hard science.

We don't decide which of her secrets nature will give up; research (which is very costly) doesn't always provide the answers we want. And even if the technology could be adapted, the cost would be staggering.

Also, lead times are always much longer than the dreamers imagine. Both the practicality and the economic justification for complete dieselization were demonstrated by 1939, but Lima marketed and built steam locomotives for another ten years, N&W rebuilt them until 1953, and the transition wasn't completed until 1960.

And regrettably, the showcasing of the HSR fantasy by a group sheltered within the Beltway and not answerable (at least for the short run) to economic realities is likely to further diminish the prospects for the development of sustainable intercity passenger rail service at reasonable cost.

We are all going to have to go through some painful un-learning, like it or not.