In an effort to utilize parts of our corridors, without having to massively expand the freeway system.
Today’s piece comes from Myrmidonot
Modern track overlay proposal for further discussion.
In an effort to improve safety and stability, I propose that RR tracks be widened to 7′. This will allow-for improved payloads, and more importantly, faster speeds (due to that wider footprint).
The upside of this is immediate, as the new track would straddle the existing lines (for the foreseeable future; and in some cases, almost indefinitely). By the use of a straddle, all existing cars may be utilized, but primarily at the ends/feeders for the long-haul lines (served by the wider track, where the gains are most obvious).
There is even an argument to leaving the old gauge rails in place, to allow for greater payloads when absolutely necessary. (Just add a couple of trucks beneath the wide carriage tracks.) It would be nice to raise the wheel diameter (for payload), but it would be easier to just add a third axle to a longer truck). Details to be worked out!
Initially, this will remove thousands of tractor-trailers from the highway, as they may ‘almost directly load’ onto the new larger flatbeds. Existing rail cars (by the use of overhead cranes) may be loaded (sans trucks) onto many of those same flatbeds but set into a faux-axle indentation locations (this allows for the off-loading back into regular gauge rail, at the other end (again, via overhead cranes).
The “distribution centers” at either end of these long-haul points would quickly allow for containers, tractor-trailers, and all existing boxcars, etc. to be directed as needed. Just like a port! Simply integrate this into our existing long-haul infrastructure.
A few details:
Obviously, a wider right-of-way will be required. Most likely ten feet (or so) between sets if rails if we allow for 8′ to 9′ wide loads. (Twelve feet for safety, if possible!)
Initially, flatcars will be in the majority, as they may haul boxcars, as well as containers, semi-trailers, and most existing over-the-road vehicles (if need be). Their increased capacity could reshape how we move goods, instead of primarily by sea.
Modestly, I would think the overall length would be sixty-two feet+/- for cargo, plus whatever is required for standardized connections. (There may be some shorter, if need be, as well as longer for special requirements.) The right-of-way being the biggest consideration (especially for turning; and if parallel lines are running in the opposite direction).
The ability to handle high-cube (single, or even stacked with a regular) would be considered for many runs, or postponed until select lines are both widened and enlarged vertically (load limits applied).
For the majority of long haul freight, this would reduce road traffic; and other than loading/unloading times, would be much more economical due to higher capacity, higher efficiency, and higher speeds.
Much higher speeds would require enclosed ‘cars’, but the wider track allows for greater stability and safety (all things considered).
All this presumes there are sufficient efficiencies to be gained by upgrading major corridors. Terrain being the same obstacle as it was 175 years ago. Anyhow, the Panama Canal needs some real competition!
As long as the committee who reviews this would apply this (initially) for long-haul freight, on terrain which may support it, it won’t become the boondoggle that other rail projects endure.
K.I.S.S.
… the end …
