Trailer based intermodal freight - to fund HSR lines

Hello,
I have been wondering why no of the HSR proposals have considered single level conventional plate van trailer based intermodal to supplement the income of a new line. Depending upon the HSR line speed the intermodal trains would either be operated during the daytime non-peak times or during the night. The night operations would probably be preferred.

I am not suggesting a high speed freight service but something that would run at a consistent 70 mph for hours on end.

The operation would not be a very short haul operation but rather something in the 400-600 mile range to deliver speeds consistent with truck operations overnight. The high speed line might only form a portion of the overall route but in states like CA where everything is tapped out to be able to run at 70 mph unrestricted versus an average of 28 mph would provide a huge time savings.

Why restrict it to 70 mph ? . I would think something like 100 mph would be necessary to be really competitive . but it would be the average speed that would count . and , yes , it is the way to go for hsr in The USA

I think the reason is that all dreamers of HSR know that the road they are on goes through Washington, nothing will get built with out lots of federal bucks. Pissing of the freights will make getting anything done much more difficult. Secondly, the desire is to get real HSR, not tanks on rails like Acela. It will be difficult enough to get the FRA to be reasonable without freight on the system.

At some point we have to stop worrying about ticking off a few large freight companies when it comes to moving the country ahead. We hit $100 a barrel today. At some point we can't throw away the economy on a few companies that still want to do things the old way. They want a piece of freight, then let them move up to high speed too.

I think that in the end there needs to be two forms of freight - heavy and bulk freight, and light freight, more akin to what the UPS and FedEx provide, although a bit bigger. Perhaps these companies might even drive this. Another area that I think needs development is high-speed autorail. That would require some ingenuity to come up with an efficient and fast load/unload mechanism, but I think that is a prime area for HSR to get a foothold.

it would be the trucking firms that lose out , not the railroads . This would be frieght the railroads are not currently wining anyway . high value light wieght commodities . the airlines would take a hit as well .

the problem with HSR "light" freight is that with such short distances the terminal time and expense would ruin the economics. There would not be enough volume to pay the daily operating and infrastructure cost because the price point would need to be fairly high.

The one place it would make sense is on the California system should it ever be built. They could take the basic passenger trainset and turn it into a freighter that would handle the bins that the airlines put in their holds. This should shut up the FRA, California could have the volume that would make the economics work.

Yes , Terminal time would be critical .
Airline bins , or lightwieght versions of 20 / 40 foot containers would be ideal . no marshalling , the train stays as a fixed consist , the containers removed and loaded out , or swapped to another train . The french designed a system where containers were swapped enroute , all computerised . im not sure if it ever saw actual use . But europe has a system of high speed frieghts , competing on quite short distances .
Here in NZ , they carry containers for as short as 150 miles , but that is quite high volumes , and certainly not that high a speed . ( though the average speed would be relatively high ) .

Yes , Terminal time would be critical .
Airline bins , or lightwieght versions of 20 / 40 foot containers would be ideal . no marshalling , the train stays as a fixed consist , the containers removed and loaded out , or swapped to another train . The french designed a system where containers were swapped enroute , all computerised . im not sure if it ever saw actual use . But europe has a system of high speed frieghts , competing on quite short distances .
Here in NZ , they carry containers for as short as 150 miles , but that is quite high volumes , and certainly not that high a speed . ( though the average speed would be relatively high ) .

The trick is not to "compete" with trucks or aircraft, but to coexist with them. Aircraft use all kinds of cargo containers, many of which are only usable on larger aircraft. These are small and light - perfect for a HSR route. As fuel costs surge air travel between point gets expensive - and air is not very efficient when you have relatively close distances. Few airlines want to fly a large aircraft between two close points. This is where rail fits in - as a link in the air transport chain to fill in the smaller thinner routes. It will involve a total rethink of how cargo is handled - but I think it is high time for rail to do that anyway.

Well, by definition if a standard 53' truck plate van is used as the freight intermodal vehicle of choice this combination would have a similar overall weight per unit length as a passenger railcar. It could be possible to provide a 600k buff in the intermodal cars as well. Yes, it would require a FRA mindset change to allow European buff strengths but when it is pointed out that much larger disparates exist on the highway maybe something can change.

There is also the possibility of operating a full time separation between freight with V > 125 mph passenger during the day and V < 125 mph passenger and freight overnight. The pressure waves in tunnels may even dictate this to keep the trailer walls from being damaged. More than likely any HSR trainsets designed to operate off the HSR system will have a 800 k buff strength for up to 125 mph operation on conventional lines making compliance a non-issue.

With regard to distance the freight run does not have to be only over the HSR line. If the HSR line were to provide a bypass around major metro areas say 300 miles apart there is nothing to keep a 600 mile intermodal route from using the bypass in the middle during the overnight hours.

There is so much congestion on so many parts of the rail network that such a system might be welcomed by the investor owned railroads as it would relieve some pressure for open access.

What is lacking is a quick loading intermodal rail car that can take conventional plate van trailers. A system called Modalohr is in service in Europe in which the railcar body swings out to allow the trailer to load from the ground. I am working on a simpler variation of the same idea hence the brainstorming session.

If a 8 hour terminal window, of which 4 hours would realistically be used to load a trailer, were provided a lot of the overnight truck freight would begin to move over such a service as long as the trailers were quickly loaded by the over the road driver. This self service approach would vastly improve the economics of the terminal, making shorter runs possible.

Do they need the buffer stenght if theyre not carrying passengers ?
I would have thought it would be better for the frieght cars to crumple , allowing more cushioning to the passenger cars .

I would tend to think more in terms of aircraft containers - the smaller units, than truck bodies. You can always load a few aircraft containers onto a flatbed easier than you can load a truck container on an aircraft.

i would think with the rising cost of oil , and the higher speeds , aerodynamics would need to be looked at , so an enclosed system would be desirable . Either that or containers are shaped to be inline with the wagon bulkheads .

The FRA is not going to allow slow or heavy trains to be on HSR networks. They might allow HSR freighters to operate if they are about the same weight as the passenger trainsets and if they move at the same speed. The types of freight would be quite limited, mail, package delivery, food, electronic sub assemblies, stuff that is relatively light but for which speedy delivery counts. In order for this to work however the shipping containers would need to go point to point, no handling due to time and cost constraints.

With regards to buff strength the conventional Roadrailers have a buff strength of around 400K. A intermodal railcar system loading plate van trailers could have a buff strength of 400-600K, and a lower line of buff/draft, and easily be compatible with the HSR rail system (at night V < 100-125 mph) and conventional rail lines during the day.

The ability for a HSR line to handle conventional trailers would eliminate the need to reinvent a distribution network for the freight as would have to be done with airline style containers. The amount of freight moving in conventional plate van trailers is so vast and geographically diverse that to take 20-30% of it would use up a healthy share of single line night time capacity in the busy corridors during maintenance whereas special aircraft containers could only provide a small pot to capture.

There is of course the option of a HSR line that only has a maximum speed of 125 mph. This is what Europe has now as their conventional lines with the exception that they are very crowed as well. If a 125 mph line can provide constant cruising speeds and station bypasses then it can easily deliver the a network suitable for most travel needs in the 300-400 mile corridors.