Seems to me that a whole lot of fuel can be saved, pollution reduced, road damage deferred, and highwaytraffic removed if all truckloads traveled to close to their final destination by rail. How many years ago was RoadRailer technology developed that could make this a reality? Simple economics suggests it should have happened already, high fuel and insurance costs seem to suggest it should be progressing at an exponential rate now.

Thud.

Why hasn't this been embraced and implemented, and why don't we hear about efforts in the industry to do so? What am I missing?

dave

I'm no intermodal expert, but my guess is they were outcompeted by the standard lightweight 48' and 53' domestic box containers. That technology offers all the long-haul advantages of RoadRailer while 1. not requiring the box to be strengthened for drawbar forces, 2. taking advantage of the lift infrastructure and terminal facilities used for all other containers and 3. not being beholden to a proprietary patent pool.

Just guessing, but I'd be surprised if I'm far off the mark.

Just a note that Triple Crown Services is still marketing their services online, and I've seen NS TCS trailers still rolling here and there.

I think one of the problems that has done in the service is that you're pretty much talking dedicated service lanes. One route I remember seeing a heck of a lot of TCS trailers on was Detroit-Harrisburg, Pa., with trailers continuing on road to Chrysler's Newark, Del. plant--the one whose pending shutdown was just announced in the national news media.............

Another problem I've seen outlined in media analyses of RoadRailers is that, even with newer removable wheel dollies (as opposed to the self-contained non-removable rail wheels that marked the early RoadRailers), the trailers in question weighed about five tons more than the average highway trailer. That's five tons more for the truck to drag around and five tons less the truck can haul. It may not mean much when you're rolling Styrofoam coolers across town, but ship heavy electronics across the country, and it adds up.

I've personally loaded a rather plain road trailer with over $25 million worth of product. Once you've managed to do that, your entire perspective of freight shipping, no matter the mode, changes dramatically.

Add to Erik's comments one word - "doublestack". The ability to handle twice as many containers for a given train length created compelling economics that has largely driven the present intermodal boom in the rail industry. Roadrailers (Triple Crown) remain as a niche product.

Alan Maples
Everett Railroad

Tare weight - the vehicle is heavier, reducing the amount of weight that can be carried, and requiring more fuel to carry a pound of cargo.

Flexibility - RoadRailer can't touch containers for ease of use.

RoadRailer is a good idea surrounded by better ones.

JAC

OK I get the tare weight concept, but find it marginal rather than critical. How many intermodal container loads are bulk commodities anyhow?

I would have thought that the specialized, capital intensive infrastructure necessary to rig containers between railroads and flatbed trucks would make that option less competitive, considering all roadrailers need is a siding running through pavement. These can be built virtually anywhere at minimal cost, allowing for truck - train interchangeability without specialized rigging or handling pretty close to any reasonable desination.

Perhaps these costs are not yet critical enough to render the associated greater highway haul social and economic expenditures decisive? I'm just a mechanic, perhaps an economist can enlighten me further.

dave

Ah, but everyone HAS to build the ISO box lift infrastructure to handle the tidal wave of goods coming in 20 and 40 foot international boxes from Asia. Throw RoadRailer into the mix and you have a second type of terminal investment you need to make. Stick to boxes with ISO lift fittings, and you can handle and grow your domestic business using the terminal and train network you already built to handle the China and Asia imports business.

Basically intermodal is an international game--the domestic business is more than a rounding error, but still a pittance measured against the international business. International means ISO boxes, so it pays to align the domestic around the same standards used for the big gorilla--the international movements.

And the trailers need to be titled, licensed, with brake and light inspections as well as insured. That means you need to have someone keep track of them and keep their documents paired up with them so they can get through a weigh station without being tied up.

On the other hand, since the container trailer stays with the location, paper work is streamlined. Also, an ISO box is so cheap that they are considered throw away items. Living in a container port, you can buy a used one for as little as $500. Built new in Asia, they cost less than $10K (I've heard as little as $6000 to $8000 each). As a symptom of the U.S.'s imbalance of payments, a lot more containers come into the U.S. than leave so you see stacks and stacks of empty ones around the area. Many of them have only made one trip across the ocean.

Thanks - now it makes more sense. If you have to buy the expensive complicated stuff anyhow, simplicity has little to recommend it.

dave

The perceived economies of scale are also part of the problem. Roadrailer's advantage of not needing a large expensive mechanical terminal is in opposition to concentrating all the traffic in a large expensive mechanical terminal to keep the unit costs per box down. It also may conflict with running very long infrequent trains between very few of those expensive terminals.
To some extent, Roadrailer is useful for a retail, customer friendly, shorter haul operation, and large railroads may be in the transcontinental wholesale business today.
There are a few flat bed Roadrailers, so Container-on-Roadrailer is possible, but to gain the economy of doublestack service, they would be higher and more top heavy than TrailerTrain well cars.