4 ms·

>Goods wise, trains could / should have taken the same kind of approach that the shipping industry did, with containers. In the US, containers are transferred

>Goods wise, trains could / should have taken the same kind of approach that the shipping industry did, with containers. In the US, containers are transferred from ships directly to trains. A train may have hundreds of cars, each single, double, or triple stacked with standard shipping containers.

morsch 11y ago
That's nuts. Double stacking doesn't seem viable with Central Europe's more thoroughly electrified rail network. Not that it's inherently incompatible, just that we'd have to rebuild it all. Also, the tunnels. A curious case of technological leapfrogging (in a sense; I rather prefer the electrified network even at the cost of no double stacked freight trains).
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  They don't have to be double stacked and often aren't. However, I have seen a number of double stacked trains and I'm sure it is highly dependent on the route (no short tunnels, etc) and shipping demand.
- tsotha 11y ago
  The American rail network is optimized for freight. Outside of a few lines in the Northeast it's not really an option for intercity travel. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to San Francisco (a 6-7 hour drive) there's only one train per day, it's expensive, and it takes twelve hours to make the trip. It's more of an amusement park ride than a way to get somewhere. But if you want to get something shipped rail is cheap and reliable (if not particularly fast).
- mrbabbage 11y ago
  The presence of overhead equipment for electrification is orthogonal; the real issue is loading gauge, a cross-section profile that defines the minimum car size that the most restrictive segment of a line must support. Usually, tunnels end up being the limiting factor, since these tend to be much costlier to design to accommodate larger cars. For instance, CSX carries double-stack containers on Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia and Washington under catenary, with a vertical clearance above top of rail of 5.54 m [1]. Compare with UIC G2 gauge, which only offers 4.65 m ATOR [2]. I don't know why parent is talking about triple stacking containers. That's completely infeasible; the tallest common loading gauge in America (AAR Plate H, or 6.3 m) doesn't even come close to fitting 7.8 m = 3 × 2.6 m (about the height of a container). [1] http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/Services_and_Partners/Dimensional-Clearance/Doublestack.pdf http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png
  - avn2109 11y ago
    This is a great comment and really interesting. Can you suggest a reliable source to read more about rail standards and loading constraints?

morsch 11y ago

That's nuts. Double stacking doesn't seem viable with Central Europe's more thoroughly electrified rail network. Not that it's inherently incompatible, just that we'd have to rebuild it all. Also, the tunnels. A curious case of technological leapfrogging (in a sense; I rather prefer the electrified network even at the cost of no double stacked freight trains).

jsprogrammer 11y ago
They don't have to be double stacked and often aren't. However, I have seen a number of double stacked trains and I'm sure it is highly dependent on the route (no short tunnels, etc) and shipping demand.
tsotha 11y ago
The American rail network is optimized for freight. Outside of a few lines in the Northeast it's not really an option for intercity travel. If you want to take a train from Los Angeles to San Francisco (a 6-7 hour drive) there's only one train per day, it's expensive, and it takes twelve hours to make the trip. It's more of an amusement park ride than a way to get somewhere. But if you want to get something shipped rail is cheap and reliable (if not particularly fast).
mrbabbage 11y ago
The presence of overhead equipment for electrification is orthogonal; the real issue is loading gauge, a cross-section profile that defines the minimum car size that the most restrictive segment of a line must support. Usually, tunnels end up being the limiting factor, since these tend to be much costlier to design to accommodate larger cars. For instance, CSX carries double-stack containers on Northeast Corridor between Philadelphia and Washington under catenary, with a vertical clearance above top of rail of 5.54 m [1]. Compare with UIC G2 gauge, which only offers 4.65 m ATOR [2]. I don't know why parent is talking about triple stacking containers. That's completely infeasible; the tallest common loading gauge in America (AAR Plate H, or 6.3 m) doesn't even come close to fitting 7.8 m = 3 × 2.6 m (about the height of a container). [1] http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/Services_and_Partners/Dimensional-Clearance/Doublestack.pdf http://www.csx.com/share/wwwcsx_mura/assets/File/Customers/S... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lademass_EBO.png
- avn2109 11y ago
  This is a great comment and really interesting. Can you suggest a reliable source to read more about rail standards and loading constraints?