Win:Win for road & rail?

[Scuba_Steve]

These might be old news (after all vids from 2010) but 1st time I seen the things

Could be a good way to do long distance haulage rather than the big rigs rolling up/down SH1 each night, be more scenic for the drivers too I would imagine; our rail system still takes the "scenic" route for the most part



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zcbitdaSGQ

[unstuck]

Looks pretty cool. Instead of 9 big rigs a week that get hit by trains in the states, it could 18 big rigs getting totalled instead. Mind you those truck/train things seem to be going a hell of a lot slower than the normal trains, so may be able to stop quicker.:2thumbsup

[caspernz]

Yes, an idea that has merit...except our network can't even handle the high-cube boxes going thru the tunnels as it is, so any big stuff is simply a no-go.

As an example: High-cube boxes coming south from Palmy can't go by rail as the Kapiti Coast tunnels are too low :facepalm:

But yep, even as a trucker myself, I have to admit the inter-modal approach would work in this country. The vast majority of crap moving by roads could easily travel by rail, if there was capacity :shutup:

[NinjaNanna]

what's the #$% point in that!!!

If retrofitted trucks and their load could drive on drive off railway lines at any given point, then you'd have a useful system.

What you don't want is a system that requires double handling and pre-requisites of fixed sidings. That's the whole problem with rail to start with.

[DrunkenMistake]

Pretty neat!

I seen this the other day while I was looking up some work stuff,
http://eng.armaksa.com/products-2/construction-machinery/hydrema-construction-machinery-for-railroadsland/

[oldrider]

Rail in NZ is too old too unreliable too much double handling involved ...without taxpayer subsidies it's just not economical and nobody really wants to use it!

The majority want "everyone else" to use it! :lol:

[mashman]

what's the #$% point in that!!!

If retrofitted trucks and their load could drive on drive off railway lines at any given point, then you'd have a useful system.

What you don't want is a system that requires double handling and pre-requisites of fixed sidings. That's the whole problem with rail to start with.

Are you saying that you could string trains of trucks and their loads together and order them in such a way that the rear truck would come off first, 2nd to rear would come off second etc...? So when they get close to their destination, they could detach, switch points, leave the main trunk, then leave the track close to their destination?

[unstuck]

Pretty neat!

I seen this the other day while I was looking up some work stuff,

Thats pretty cool, would be a lot easier to roll joints between tipping points than a normal artic dumper.:niceone:

[NinjaNanna]

Are you saying that you could string trains of trucks and their loads together and order them in such a way that the rear truck would come off first, 2nd to rear would come off second etc...? So when they get close to their destination, they could detach, switch points, leave the main trunk, then leave the track close to their destination?

no - each truck is still an individual entity, they just travel on the rail rather than road. They'd be retrofitted to get on and off the rails at any suitable point on the line. Traffic management would be difficult but we have very smart programmers and computer control for that these days.

The advantage would be heavy freight loads on a system that's actually meant for heavy loads rather than destroying the bitumen.

[Tigadee]

Mind you those truck/train things seem to be going a hell of a lot slower than the normal trains, so may be able to stop quicker.

Lower the train and put those rubber tyres to work slowing down the train? Otherwise a pair of disposable emergency reverse rocket boosters would do... :laugh:

[mashman]

no - each truck is still an individual entity, they just travel on the rail rather than road. They'd be retrofitted to get on and off the rails at any suitable point on the line. Traffic management would be difficult but we have very smart programmers and computer control for that these days.

The advantage would be heavy freight loads on a system that's actually meant for heavy loads rather than destroying the bitumen.

Me likey...

[oldrider]

no - each truck is still an individual entity, they just travel on the rail rather than road. They'd be retrofitted to get on and off the rails at any suitable point on the line. Traffic management would be difficult but we have very smart programmers and computer control for that these days.

The advantage would be heavy freight loads on a system that's actually meant for heavy loads rather than destroying the bitumen.

The roads are already there costs less to make them stronger than it does to build a special purpose-built railway track and the existing one is too small and narrow anyway! Big $$$$$$ :yes:

[Scuba_Steve]

The roads are already there costs less to make them stronger than it does to build a special purpose-built railway track and the existing one is too small and narrow anyway! Big $$$$$$ :yes:

You don't need to build a "special purpose-built" track the current tracks would work fine aside from a few tunnels

[Marmoot]

Go home, Optimus Prime. You're drunk....

[oldrider]

You don't need to build a "special purpose-built" track the current tracks would work fine aside from a few tunnels

Bridges, tunnels and tracks, currently too old too narrow and too run down means new tracks all inclusive too many $$$$$$$. :mellow:

[Scuba_Steve]

Bridges, tunnels and tracks, currently too old too narrow and too run down means new tracks all inclusive too many $$$$$$$. :mellow:

all run trains now but somehow couldn't run trucks??? I fail to see your logic here

[oldrider]

all run trains now but somehow couldn't run trucks??? I fail to see your logic here

It's a toy railway, to advance to match today's requirements it will need big $$$$$ spent on it and taxpayer subsidies to keep it going.

I am a railway enthusiast and have a long family history/interest so I am not anti railway just a realist not ant rail.

[Scuba_Steve]

It's a toy railway, to advance to match today's requirements it will need big $$$$$ spent on it and taxpayer subsidies to keep it going.

I am a railway enthusiast and have a long family history/interest so I am not anti railway just a realist not ant rail.

Whereas I like trains but tend to be anti-passenger-rail; they're just not economical

But even so our "toy railway" should be able to handle the trucks that currently roll our highways & moreso should be better equipped to handle them in both size & weight

[oldrider]

Whereas I like trains but tend to be anti-passenger-rail; they're just not economical

But even so our "toy railway" should be able to handle the trucks that currently roll our highways & moreso should be better equipped to handle them in both size & weight

It is certainly an interesting concept and rail needs to maximise flexibility/integration of road born freight to keep cost down and make it viable.

Have you looked down (along) a railway track of late ... talk about a dog's hind leg, I don't know how they (trains) stay on the bloody tracks! :facepalm:

[Scuba_Steve]

It is certainly an interesting concept and rail needs to maximise flexibility/integration of road born freight to keep cost down and make it viable.

Have you looked down (along) a railway track of late ... talk about a dog's hind leg, I don't know how they (trains) stay on the bloody tracks! :facepalm:

might be different for where you're looking my local track looks decent even has a hiab cruse up & down 2-4 times a day.
And hey just be thankful they learn't their lesson & don't weld them together anymore :brick:

[jasonu]

Not quite the same thing but a few years ago when the price of diesel was more than $6 a gallon it was cheaper to load the semi trailers, use a truck to pull them to the railway yard and transport them across country on railway cars.

[SPman]

It is certainly an interesting concept and rail needs to maximise flexibility/integration of road born freight to keep cost down and make it viable.

Have you looked down (along) a railway track of late ... talk about a dog's hind leg, I don't know how they (trains) stay on the bloody tracks! :facepalm: Sounds like the track from Sydney to Melbourne. Sometimes they can't stay on the tracks.
WA is narrow gauge, apart from the main track east, which is dual gauge and fairly new - even then they have trouble keeping the track up to standard.


Whereas I like trains but tend to be anti-passenger-rail; they're just not economical I'm pro passenger (I like it), but, unless you've got the volume of traffic, they aren't "commercially" viable. Our local railcar is being chopped, because the State Gov won't subsidise it any more - they'll spend $20m on upgrading their own offices, but not $900,000 to keep the railcar units operating - these are modern, standard gauge units, which can scoot along at 150k on decent track....

[mashman]

I'm pro passenger (I like it), but, unless you've got the volume of traffic, they aren't "commercially" viable. Our local railcar is being chopped, because the State Gov won't subsidise it any more - they'll spend $20m on upgrading their own offices, but not $900,000 to keep the railcar units operating - these are modern, standard gauge units, which can scoot along at 150k on decent track....

What would it cost to get the track to a stage where it can easily be run on at decent speeds? Build an extra track/tunnels and make it fit for purpose. Then the next generation can upgrade the one that we're currently using. It would give Welly an extra out too :D. Doh, sorry, what was I thinking.

[oldrider]

When it comes to public utilities like post office, buses, railways etc most of those that want to keep them won't use them, they want "others" to use them! :mellow:

The other thing is once they are owned or heavily state subsidised, they (the utilities) become a political points scoring football and people just stop using them. :wacko:

[SPman]

What would it cost to get the track to a stage where it can easily be run on at decent speeds? Build an extra track/tunnels and make it fit for purpose. Then the next generation can upgrade the one that we're currently using. It would give Welly an extra out too :D. Doh, sorry, what was I thinking. Decent speeds - NZ is hamstrung by running narrow gauge track - a good stable smooth base might see 120kph out of units - the Perth electric commuters are 3'6" and run up to 100 kph between stations - quicker on the new lengths of track running up and down the coast. "our" railcars run on 4'8" gauge (standard gauge) and the one to Kalgoorlie is timetabled at 120 kph average - will run to 160kph. The main cost in establishing decent track is time to do it properly making sure the subgrade is good and easing curves etc. Not initially cheap, but, worth it in the long run..but...Kiwis long run is about 3 yrs - election cycle thinking.....:facepalm:

[mashman]

Decent speeds - NZ is hamstrung by running narrow gauge track - a good stable smooth base might see 120kph out of units - the Perth electric commuters are 3'6" and run up to 100 kph between stations - quicker on the new lengths of track running up and down the coast. "our" railcars run on 4'8" gauge (standard gauge) and the one to Kalgoorlie is timetabled at 120 kph average - will run to 160kph. The main cost in establishing decent track is time to do it properly making sure the subgrade is good and easing curves etc. Not initially cheap, but, worth it in the long run..but...Kiwis long run is about 3 yrs - election cycle thinking.....:facepalm:

:laugh: they're busy.

[Ocean1]

Our local railcar is being chopped, because the State Gov won't subsidise it any more

What, that rail system they built down to the southern "suburbs" a couple of years ago?