Sagawa Transport: 'Local Rail Cargo'?

[stevenh]

So, the creators of the 'Super Rail Cargo' M250 have also created a diesel version?

Or is this a photoshop?

Cool pic nonetheless...

 

 

http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/kisaroha58/31318875.html

 

 

[miyakoji]

Definitely a shop. "Uso-den," uso meaning lie, or 'no way' and den from densha. I think we've discussed these briefly. I'm not nuts about them, but sometimes they're clever or look kind of cool.

[Davo Dentetsu]

Heh, a photoshop really.  But... a good diesel motor or two and a couple of wagons could make it a viable option?

[katoftw]

yup a photo shop chop up.  shadows are missing.  letters are clean while surround metal is weathered.

[westfalen]

I like it. Although unlikely it actually looks plausible, there are lots of Kiha 40's out there as conversion fodder.

 

And I've got a new name for my layout, 'Uso Den'.

[kvp]

There are still various ideas in Europe to actually build something like this, but compared to a normal road running truck, you won't have any real advantages, but have the disadvantage of mutiple transfers, from road to rail and back. Very few destinations have direct rail access nowdays and if they do and container over rail is viable, then an old diesel (or electric) locomotive and a bunch of flatcars is still much cheaper. Even the Siemens diesel cargo multiple unit was a commercial failiure. The super rail cargo is only viable because it has to run on a relatively high speed line, with passenger trains and the electric traction is cheaper than diesel. Still a normal cargo train with 2 8 axle electric locomotives (placed in a push-pull configuration) would provide the same capabilities for the same price but with more flexibility, but they were not available when the M250s were created.

[cteno4]

I think this was done w/ removable containers on some of those old freight cars made out of dmus. I don't think the containers were iso, but I remember when reading about them there was talk of doing it to carry two 12' isos.

 

Jeff

[kvp]

They were old passenger emu-s converted to flatcars. Actually there are still such units in use as departemental trains, but only for domestic containers and none of them are in revenue service. It's much easier, cheaper and more flexible to use a locomotive on most of the possible freight routes. Afaik, the new Tomytec train collection will feature two of such maintenance flatcar emu-s and there was a recent B-train shorty flatcar emu that had a domestic container on one of them. (as a way to hide the motor)

[westfalen]

I've been thinking about this and think if they built a diesel version of the M250 it could likely have DF200 style cabs.

[Davo Dentetsu]

I can't see why a rural area couldn't use a not used often siding and either the facility having a lone forklift or even the train carrying it's own offloader for the containers.  A solution wouldn't be beyond these folk.  ;)

[kvp]

The ideal vehicle would be a DC flatcar emu (at least 2 motored units with 1 cab each), that could be equipped with a diesel container for catenary less operation and/or an AC transformer/pantograph container for AC operation. A number of flatcars could be added between the two ends, that carry control signals, power cables and breaking equipment. A number of optionally cabless boosters could be used too. The train could also carry a forklift on one car. There are plans to build exactly this kind of train in Hungary as an EU research project, but calculations indicate that a freight multiple unit is only worth it for fast freight, long distances, between large logistic centers and when using a high speed electrified passenger corridor.

 

The problem is logistics and human resources. Most rural destinations would need road transport to and from the nearest station. Rail transport in a small scale (especially with diesel power) is not that optimal that the extra road transfer(s) could be financially acceptable. Not to mention the extra number of people needed for operating multiple (rail/road) vehicles. The only usable technologies for this kind of traffic is the roadrailer, where the road transport cars are moved over the rail network and the rola cars, where the trucks just roll onto the flatcars. And this is only viable above a certain number of trucks and a certain distance. (at least 4 trucks, 8 with the use of double trailers and at more than 2 hours of travel time) Add the cost of taxpayer maintained roads versus privately maintained rails and the extra cost to maintain a rural line to heavy freight rail standards instead of light railway standards and you get that it's simply not worth it. This is the main reason nobody does it in Japan, where they already have the technology since the early 1960-ies.