New 'modular' railfreight system

[Fat Controller]

I happened upon this via some photos on a blog featuring train movements in France. Whilst elements of the concept have been tried in the UK (the Russell containers), this seems to develop the idea to another level, with modules for handling timber, steel etc. Does anyone know if the idea's been looked at here?

http://www.innofreight.com/en/company/company.php

The idea seems to use modern chassis, and simply swapping bodies around if contracts expire or flows change, rather than parking the whole thing in somewhere like Long Marston.

[Glorious NSE]

I happened upon this via some photos on a blog featuring train movements in France. Whilst elements of the concept have been tried in the UK (the Russell containers), this seems to develop the idea to another level, with modules for handling timber, steel etc. Does anyone know if the idea's been looked at here?

http://www.innofreight.com/en/company/company.php

The idea seems to use modern chassis, and simply swapping bodies around if contracts expire or flows change, rather than parking the whole thing in somewhere like Long Marston.

I think there are lots of elements used before, about the only one that looks truly new might be the 'hopper' container for aggregates, which I guess only works with a specific wagon type!? I'm a little bit sceptical at the claim there that having a separate box and wagon mean you get an increased payload over a conventional wagon, that seems counter-intuitive as you'd be including features (and so weight) you didn't need on a bespoke aggregate hopper!

 

Just as a for instance, the 'pallets' system isn't fundamentally much different to the flatrack + multifret combination that DBS uses on it's steel trains through the tunnel, and the enclosed 'agrotainers' don't seem much different in concept (though the construction is different) to a normal 30' bulktainer?

 

[Fat Controller]

The hopper (s) seem to work with the standard chassis. I haven't yet seen what the chassis looks like without the boxes.

[Glorious NSE]

The hopper (s) seem to work with the standard chassis. I haven't yet seen what the chassis looks like without the boxes.

What I mean is it would presumably only work with their specific design of container flat - if you put it on somebody else's flat you'd likely have brake gear or chassis members or whatever in the wrong place as the unloading appears to go through the 'floor' - at least on one of those hoppers.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...I'm a little bit sceptical at the claim there that having a separate box and wagon mean you get an increased payload over a conventional wagon, that seems counter-intuitive as you'd be including features (and so weight) you didn't need on a bespoke aggregate hopper!...

 

Using payload as a synonym for utilisation of the running gear: so if the utilisation rises from uh% to >uh% by use of swap bodies, you probably do move a greater net payload per set of running gear. As ever, careful analysis of the construction, storage and handling charges of the swap bodies, any dead mileage to make body swaps and the construction cost and any load penalty of the wagon running gear plus whatever is the most heavily used body compared to a normally constructed wagon, and the available unused time of the running gear to exploit the swap bodies in; would all have to be chewed over to make or break the case.

 

Instinct tells me it's a great theory, but in practice within a very short period of the hardware going into service, one of the flows dries up due to a technology change, and the other flow's timings regularly shift from their formerly very predictable patterns so that there are demand conflicts, and set of swap bodies are impounded over a rental dispute when the handling yard changed ownership, and OFTFAGOS,  just build regular container flats, it's a whole lot less trouble.

[dvdlcs]

In Australia - and no doubt other places - there are various different types of container other than the regular boxes:

 

Bulk containers that look like a regular box but can be filled through chutes in the top and emptied either through the regular end doors or a "cat flap" door in the opposite end are used for bulk loose material.

 

Flatracks, and container bases with no raised ends, are used for steel and wood sections, as well as vehicles.

 

There are, or were, some hopper type containers which were intended for grain traffic but I believe these are out of use, and the wagons built for them are in general use as container flats.

 

All being ISO sizes/fixings, they can simply be dropped on to any container flat (length and weight restrictions notwithstanding) and hauled in an intermodal service.

[Edwin_m]

I'm only getting a home page from that link. 

 

I seriously doubt a container-based hopper is going to be competitive with dedicated hopper wagons, except perhaps for a short term flow for which no existing wagon is available (not a problem we're likely to have considering how many coal hoppers were built).  Hoppers are already optimised to maximise payload within length and axle load, which is why hoppers for denser stone are shorter than those for coal.  A container hopper would either have to discharge through the floor of the flat wagon it sits on (which requires a flat wagon with large holes in appropriate places), or be craned off to discharge separately (which requires it to be strong enough to hold its load when lifted, rather than just being self-supporting when empty).  Either way the arrangement is going to be a very inefficient user of limited volume and weight. 

[Fat Controller]

I'm only getting a home page from that link. 

 

I seriously doubt a container-based hopper is going to be competitive with dedicated hopper wagons, except perhaps for a short term flow for which no existing wagon is available (not a problem we're likely to have considering how many coal hoppers were built).  Hoppers are already optimised to maximise payload within length and axle load, which is why hoppers for denser stone are shorter than those for coal.  A container hopper would either have to discharge through the floor of the flat wagon it sits on (which requires a flat wagon with large holes in appropriate places), or be craned off to discharge separately (which requires it to be strong enough to hold its load when lifted, rather than just being self-supporting when empty).  Either way the arrangement is going to be a very inefficient user of limited volume and weight. 

Edwin,

Here's the link again:- http://www.innofreight.com/en/ It takes you to the home page, where there are clickable links to more specialised pages. I admit the hoppers do look as though they are a solution looking for a problem, but some of the other 'boxes' look interesting. Carrieres Boulonaise, near Marquise are trialling some of the covered boxes at the moment. 

 

Just had another look at the site; the ore hoppers carry 138 tonnes per pair of wagons (69t per wagon). If they run at the 22.5t maximum axle loading, this means they have a gross weight of 180t per pair, or 90t per wagon, and a tare of 42t per pair or 21t per wagon, which is at least comparable with fixed-body hoppers.

[Edwin_m]

Edwin,

Here's the link again:- http://www.innofreight.com/en/ It takes you to the home page, where there are clickable links to more specialised pages. I admit the hoppers do look as though they are a solution looking for a problem, but some of the other 'boxes' look interesting. Carrieres Boulonaise, near Marquise are trialling some of the covered boxes at the moment. 

 

Just had another look at the site; the ore hoppers carry 138 tonnes per pair of wagons (69t per wagon). If they run at the 22.5t maximum axle loading, this means they have a gross weight of 180t per pair, or 90t per wagon, and a tare of 42t per pair or 21t per wagon, which is at least comparable with fixed-body hoppers.

Ore is relatively dense so the wasted space probably doesn't matter so much, although the train will be quite a bit longer than if carrying the same amount of ore in conventional wagons.  A lighter cargo such as coal would probably "cube out" and not load the wagon to the maximum axle-load. 

 

It seems the "Rock-tainer" either needs chutes on the wagons (so needs a specialist wagon) or discharges to the side (which would be incompatible with most under-track discharge systems).

[Steadfast]

 

 

Just had another look at the site; the ore hoppers carry 138 tonnes per pair of wagons (69t per wagon). If they run at the 22.5t maximum axle loading, this means they have a gross weight of 180t per pair, or 90t per wagon, and a tare of 42t per pair or 21t per wagon, which is at least comparable with fixed-body hoppers.

Do European railways only operate to 22.5t axle loads? I never realised, I assumed, if anything, they'd be heavier than our stuff. Most UK aggregate hoppers seem to tare about 25t, giving 75t load, give or take, to give a margin to be safe for 102t.

 

Jo

[Fat Controller]

Do European railways only operate to 22.5t axle loads? I never realised, I assumed, if anything, they'd be heavier than our stuff. Most UK aggregate hoppers seem to tare about 25t, giving 75t load, give or take, to give a margin to be safe for 102t.

 

Jo

Yes; apart from the iron-ore trains in Northern Norway/ Sweden, 22.5t is the normal maximum load per axle.

[Danim]

didn't they trial the concept with the mpvs

[Fat Controller]

didn't they trial the concept with the mpvs

That was simply using the MPVs to move ISO boxes around; in many ways, this Austrian idea is closer to the way MPVs are used normally, swapping modules according to the job-in-hand.

[leopardml2341]

What the system needs to succeed, IMHO, is a government with a commitment to an integrated transport strategy.

 

Now, let me see, when did we last have one of those..........

 

Hat coat and run for the hills - cos the truth is scary

[Fat Controller]

What the system needs to succeed, IMHO, is a government with a commitment to an integrated transport strategy.

 

Now, let me see, when did we last have one of those..........

 

Hat coat and run for the hills - cos the truth is scary

Have we ever? It all started when Huskinsson got run over; not an auspicous beginning.

[leopardml2341]

Have we ever? It all started when Huskinsson got run over; not an auspicous beginning.

1948 an' all that, could have been a starting point.