High Speed Freight

[Riise]

High Speed Rail (HSR) is an option that is being looked at by many regional planning boards across the world. With the majority of North American cities having a low population density and being located at great distances from each other the lack of potential patronage decreases the feasibility of many North American HSR projects. For projects that are very close to being feasible and even for those that already are could High Speed Freight be a possible solution to increase a project’s feasibility?

A major problem that I see is the difference in weight/tonnage. According to the American Bureau of Transportation Statistics the average weight of a freight train in 2005 was 2903 tonnes while a Eurostar Capital Train weighs in at a mere 800 tonnes. Could this problem be solved by simply adding more locomotives? Since a Eurostar train requires an electrical power output of 12,240 kW a high speed freight train would need 47,251 kW. Another problem I can see is the length of freight trains but this would be solved if the HSR lines were completely segregated, as the passenger trains could run during the day while freight would be moved by night.

What do you guys think, is High Speed Freight a possibility?

[Claeren]

I think that the power output to pull that much more weight would be exponentially higher, no?

But i do think it is something that could be looked at.


I always imagined a pressurized tube-line with meg-lev that allows passenger units OR frieght units to pass through. The units themselves would be automated and self-propelled and would operate as individual units along the line. Companies like WestJet or FedEx could simply own single train-units and send them down the tube when they are ready to depart.

To save costs you could even just construct a single line and then alternate direction of travel during the course of a day until traffic justified a twin tube.

A network linking Vancouver, Calgary, and Edmonton could be deadly!

But that is just a dream! :)

Claeren.

[bnk]

Good question and I would love it but there are many factors to take in account. First and foremost would be safety at grade crossings and the ability to stop an enormous amount mass in an acceptable time frame. Second would be any added stress to the rails themselves. I am sure there are other obstacles to overcome and maybe some others have concerns or suggestion to see if this would or could become feasible. My take on it is if was economically feasible and safe enough this would have already happened.

[Robert Pence]

This is my take on things. Usually I know when I'm full of crap, but not always, so read this at your own risk and take it for what it's worth:

< :speech: >
In the U.S., freight railroads are private entities and have to cover all their own costs out of revenues and generate sufficient profits to keep stockholders interested.

They're in competition with truckers, who benefit greatly by taxpayer subsidies to the interstate highway system. Truckers are losing some of their competitive edge as fuel costs rise, because trucks use much more fuel per ton-mile of freight hauled than do railroads.

Before interstate highways and the dominance of big trucks, railroads ran shorter freight trains, ran them more frequently, and often ran them faster, especially in the flat, open terrain of the midwest. With smaller trains and more frequent trips, they were able to pump a lot of tonnage through freight yards that were small by comparison with today's yards.

Likewise, passenger trains ran more frequently and often with fewer cars than now. Instead of the consists of 14 cars or so that Amtrak runs on some long-distance routes, with coaches and sleeping cars all mixed together, they ran frequent coach trains that served multiple on-line cities, and limiteds often made up of a few sleeping cars, a parlor-lounge and a diner, that stopped only at major cities. Double- or even triple- or quadruple track on high-traffic segments made it possible for them to run all that traffic and reliably maintain tight schedules.

Now, the railroads emphasize cost containment in order to maintain profitability, and that results in practices like running mile-long freights with multiple engines and one crew. Those trains take a long time to get rolling and a long time to get stopped, and except in the sparsely-populated areas of the West where some freights really fly, most of the freight traffic doesn't move very fast. The railroads have had to expand yards or build massive new ones to handle the big trains, and former passenger station concourses have been razed to provide clearance for bigger freight cars and double-stack containers.

The MBAs in the corporate headquarters have tried to show immediate benefits of the many mergers and acquisitions by quickly shedding what they felt was redundant or excess capacity, including double track, parallel routes and seasonally-surplus rolling stock. That has resulted in paralyzing shortages of cars during grain harvest, choking congestion as freight traffic has grown, and insufficient motive power on some roads to move the traffic.

There's a growing awareness of the rail capacity problem and a new effort to restore double-tracking on some of the critical routes where it no longer exists, and there's renewed interest in expanding capacity to accomodate effective passenger service that can maintain reasonable schedules.

Sustainable long-term change will only come when the country seeks and finds/creates a balanced solution to a national transportation system and does away with the current system where separate entities controlling highway, rail, air and water transport all pursue their individual short-term ROI numbers.

</ :speech: >

Sorry about that. You were warned.

[Riise]

Good question and I would love it but there are many factors to take in account. First and foremost would be safety at grade crossings and the ability to stop an enormous amount mass in an acceptable time frame. Second would be any added stress to the rails themselves. I am sure there are other obstacles to overcome and maybe some others have concerns or suggestion to see if this would or could become feasible. My take on it is if was economically feasible and safe enough this would have already happened.

My bad! In my first post I stated that the HSR lines should be segregated when I meant to say that they should be separated. They would be like the LGVs in France (see quote below). Rail stress due to the heavy axle weight would be worse for high speed freight relative to high speed passenger rail but isn't this a problem that's been faced before with low speed rail? If it is indeed an expensive problem it might be in many countries' interest to join together and fund an international research project for the creation of stronger rail. This is because high speed freight may be beneficial to many countries. I guess the question here is, will countries realize the benefit of high speed freight and work together?

LGVs are fenced along their entire length to prevent animals and people from wandering onto the track. Level crossings are not permitted and bridges over the line are equipped with sensors to detect objects that fall onto the track.

All LGV junctions are grade-separated, i.e. tracks crossing each other always use flyovers or tunnels in order to avoid the need to cross in front of other trains.

[Riise]

In the U.S., freight railroads are private entities and have to cover all their own costs out of revenues and generate sufficient profits to keep stockholders interested.

They're in competition with truckers, who benefit greatly by taxpayer subsidies to the interstate highway system. Truckers are losing some of their competitive edge as fuel costs rise, because trucks use much more fuel per ton-mile of freight hauled than do railroads...

Sustainable long-term change will only come when the country seeks and finds/creates a balanced solution to a national transportation system and does away with the current system where separate entities controlling highway, rail, air and water transport all pursue their individual short-term ROI numbers.

You bring up a great point! Some might say that rail has to unfairly compete with road transport which is heavily subsidized. Here in Canada I'm not sure to which extent each is subsidized but I believe they should both be made into user-pay systems. We all know about toll roads and motorways but in Sweden they have a kind of "toll rail system." Through a Crown corporation (government owned company) a single company, the government, owns all the rail and rents it out to different operators. Since most of the HSR projects I hear about are funded by a national government and sold to private rail operators I don't think it would be hard for national governments to create Crown rail companies to manage national HSR, hell maybe all rail!

[LostInTheZone]

federalize the busiest trunk lines and convert them to electrified double or triple track, and manage it like the interstate system. The railroads can still own branch lines. Remember that Russia, despite all its economic problems in the 90s, agressively worked to finish electrifying the trans-siberian railroad so that they could compete with shipping for the lucrative asia-europe route. I'm sure plenty of companies would love to bypass Panama shipping things between the coasts and intermediate points.

[Fabb]

TGV postal, in France : http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/frenchtgv/images/french7.jpg

http://www.lyon-en-lignes.org/Phototheque/albums/userpics/10001/normal_DSCF8431.JPG

[wong21fr]

Here's the biggest question, do any of the nations that possess high-speed rail use it for freight? Or, are their freight systems similar to the US's. This would probably solve the question of whether high speed freight is economically feasible, which is more important than the technical aspect.

[LostInTheZone]

^I'm pretty sure Switzerland mandates that all non-local freight be moved by train, not trucks, and that most of their network is electrified.

[wong21fr]

Can that really be considered high speed freight? From what I gather we are talking about freight trains that would have the same speeds, or nearly so, of the passenger trains.

[Swede]

Indeed, the freight-rail in Switzerland isn't HSR. They don't have any real HSR for passengers either. The only real HSR use for freight I know of is the TGV Postal, but that's, IMO, not the type of bulk freight we're talkin' 'bout here.

[wong21fr]

I agree, postal can't be considered freight in the scope here.

[Qaabus]

I really can't see the point of high speed railfreight.

High speed transportation can only be justified if the goods are expensive (in some way or another) or perishable. In every other case cheaper is better.

High speed trains are expensive and only work in the 300-800km range. Above that airplanes rule. And frankly I doubt if freight by HST is faster than by truck even in that small range, since freight takes a lot more time to unload of the train and reload it on a truck than it takes for a person to get to the trainstation.

[Xelebes]

Why would it only work in that range?

[BTinSF]

freight takes a lot more time to unload of the train and reload it on a truck than it takes for a person to get to the trainstation.

If it were containerized, why? Containers could be lifted right off the flatbed railcars and onto trucks:

http://www.nwcontainer.com/photos/image03c1.jpg

[Policy Wonk]

no market, air cargo is just too cheap.

[wong21fr]

If it were containerized, why? Containers could be lifted right off the flatbed railcars and onto trucks:

http://www.nwcontainer.com/photos/image03c1.jpg

Why would you need containerized goods on a train that travels at 125-plus MPH?

[Swede]

^To make on- and off-loading fast. The whole transport process has to be fast for the speed of the train to really matter. One problem with that is that containers aren't very aerodynamic. Maybe one container per car with the cars really just be aerodynamic shells...
But even then, freight that needs to go fast but not long enough to warrant air-freight might be delayed too much by having to go to a railyard and getting transferd to a train. I don't really see a market for it anytime soon (in 50 years, who can tell?).

[austin356]

It is feasible to some extent in certain circumstances. For example:

A direct HSFR, on independent tracks, from a Midwestern hub to a massive port in Mexico. This is already on the planning boards and being actively discussed between the two nations. When researching last year, it was said to be a very lucrative proposal for whatever company will be operating it.

[austin356]

Why would you need containerized goods on a train that travels at 125-plus MPH?

? Do you not understand what type of economy we live in?
Do you not know that every single purchase at walmart is calculated in real time (The second you buy a 12 pack of cola, it is being processed by the manufacturer for complete and near instant restocking)
Time drastically effects inventory management, better inventory management creates higher margins, higher margins create higher profits.

The above is why Operations Management has been one of the hottest fields since the tech bust, and its relevance to everyday business is growing at a rate that would beat the expectations of even Thomas Friedman, mr "The world is flat".


The Demand for High Speed Freight is there, it is just a matter of question when production of supply (of rail) will be cost effective enough to implement; I see only a pragmatic approach for the near to midterm future such as direct links from ports to hubs.

[cornholio]

^You couldent of said it any better, sometimes people dont realize how important the speed of all freight trasport is. I should know since I work for a freight forwarding/shipping company.

[MolsonExport]

High speed is perhaps unfeasible, given costs. But it is certainly possible to speed up rail freight a great deal, without undue investment in new technologies. If it helps to take some trucks off the roads, it would be a wonderful thing.

[wong21fr]

? Do you not understand what type of economy we live in?
Do you not know that every single purchase at walmart is calculated in real time (The second you buy a 12 pack of cola, it is being processed by the manufacturer for complete and near instant restocking)
Time drastically effects inventory management, better inventory management creates higher margins, higher margins create higher profits.

The above is why Operations Management has been one of the hottest fields since the tech bust, and its relevance to everyday business is growing at a rate that would beat the expectations of even Thomas Friedman, mr "The world is flat".


The Demand for High Speed Freight is there, it is just a matter of question when production of supply (of rail) will be cost effective enough to implement; I see only a pragmatic approach for the near to midterm future such as direct links from ports to hubs.

Ohh, gee thanks mister, I didn't realize that. Thanks for educating this dumb yokel out here.

Listen, I was questioning why you would containerize goods on such a limited scale in regards to HSR, when the only goods in question that are feasible are high-value, time sensetive. You can't stick a container full of Coke on HSR and expect it to be cost effective. One of rail's largest advantages is it's economics of scale, something that HSR could not match, since there is not way you are going to get a 50-car HSR train that is economically, not to mention technologically, feasible. If HSR becomes more cost-effective and the technology improves enough to allow for mass-transport of freight, perhapes HSR could be used for freight, but it's something that is 50 years or more off.

No, the better solution is better tracking of freight to allow for a more continuous shipping process as well as additional trackage so freight trains can operate more frequently with less stoppage.

[wong21fr]

Double Post