Western Railroad Discussion > Battery powered container flats

Article in Sunday's LA Times about a company testing remote-controlled battery powered flats.  LA based company and testing underway on former Fillmore & Western tracks.  Article said they're also testing on G&W rails at the port of Savannah, GA.

I think this is old news.  Heard about this a year or 2 ago...but maybe a different company, or another round of trying to get funding?

I imagine this would have a application in some limited situation, but for big time railroading, i IMHO its goinng nowhere.

I think I saw a couple of those sitting west of Santa Paula last time I passed through there about a month ago. They caught me off guard as I was on the highway, but I’ve never seen anything like them.

          Won't work. Pie in the sky idea by those who have no reality.

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think this is old news.  Heard about this a
> year or 2 ago...but maybe a different company, or
> another round of trying to get funding?
>
> I imagine this would have a application in some
> limited situation, but for big time railroading, i
> IMHO its goinng nowhere.

Yeah I truly don't understand what the use case for this is outside of *maybe* for movements within ports. What last mile customers get rail deliveries in containers? I don't know of a single one.

atx_railfan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pdt Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I think this is old news.  Heard about this a
> > year or 2 ago...but maybe a different company,
> or
> > another round of trying to get funding?
> >
> > I imagine this would have a application in some
> > limited situation, but for big time railroading,
> i
> > IMHO its goinng nowhere.
>
> Yeah I truly don't understand what the use case
> for this is outside of *maybe* for movements
> within ports. What last mile customers get rail
> deliveries in containers? I don't know of a single
> one.

The use case is for some latest and greatest entrepreneur/engineer/scientists/think-tank to justify the local/state/federal grant money he was given.

Railway Age had an item that they finished one phase of testing and are getting ready for the next phase.

Like so many inventors, they look at something thinking they can automate it. The problem is they only see the most obvious facet that can be automated relatively easily. They don't see other parts of the process that aren't so easily, or cheaply done, because they don't know how the total process works. In this case, they just see an autonomous vehicle going from point A to B. They don't think about things like switches to leave Point A or those to access Point B.

I think they also don't realize that a customer who wants the flexibility of a truck will use a truck. The autonomous rail vehicle will still be restricted on routes and/or rail traffic.

Posted from Android

And how long will this take to replace a 15,000 foot Z train? Would have been perfect 50 years ago when Dole
moved finished pineapple products from plant to dock  via the narrow gauge line in Hawaii. 

Out

It might see the light of day if we're ever able to automate the way China is doing. 

I read somewhere that these things were going to be crewless, no one on board. Its about 100 miles from Savannah to Cordele. In the past the Georgia Central and the Georgia Ports Authority tried to make Cordele an inland port like they have done with CSX and NS. There was't enough business to keep the train on . If it an uncrewed operation it would have to be profitable, but between Savannah and Cordele there's about 2 dozen towns, all with mutiple road crossings, and there are other trains to meet along the way.

Sam

It's not supposed to replace a 15,000 foot Z.  It's supposed to shift the movement(s) of one to several 40 to 53 foot containers from road to rail in relatively short hauls.

G&W is involved in testing the technology with an eye toward shifting such lower volume, shorter haul business from road to rail.  Their initial target is container traffic moving through the port of Savannah, GA to and from local Georgia points.  This traffic now moves by truck.  Each inland service location may have  a low volume, but when aggregated into a new market opportunity the potential is substantial.

In times gone by I did work in intermodal market development.  I can see a lot of potential opportunities for this technology.  Don't worry about lining switches etc.  That's already been worked out.


 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/25 20:03 by Greyhounds.

"Don't worry about lining switches etc.  That's already been worked out."
Sure it is, just like the cost of buying the flat, maintaining the flat, having it sit around waiting to be loaded and unloaded 
and then the marvel of comparing the cost per haul vs that truck driver you're trying to fire. There's no question that the
technology would work, hell almost any technology can be made to work but in the true bottom line, does it make sense.
There's some nice You Tube footage on Indonesian sugar lines, narrow gauge, weed covered and being replaced by trucks.
Why, because the line of trucks to equal one train is ridiculous but so what? The mill owner doesn't need to maintain track,
locomotives, cars and the 7 guys it takes to get a train thru the weed covered outback! Let the trucker worry about the cost
per haul.

Out 

Well sure. Innovation always involves risk.  There is no certainty.

But taking financial risks is part of life and very necessary for human progress.  If this technology isn't economically viable it will be abandoned.  If it is economically viable it will be adopted and its use will spread.  

Right now people with money to invest are putting that money into system development,  They see financial viability and they are willing to take the financial risks based on their analysis.  

Will it work?  I believe it will.  But time will tell.

Parallel Systems First Commercial Pilot: Phase 2 Under Way (UPDATED 9/23) - Railway Age

callum_out Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Don't worry about lining switches etc.  That's
> already been worked out."
> Sure it is, just like the cost of buying the flat,
> maintaining the flat, having it sit around waiting
> to be loaded and unloaded 
> and then the marvel of comparing the cost per haul
> vs that truck driver you're trying to fire.
> There's no question that the
> technology would work, hell almost any technology
> can be made to work but in the true bottom line,
> does it make sense.
> There's some nice You Tube footage on Indonesian
> sugar lines, narrow gauge, weed covered and being
> replaced by trucks.
> Why, because the line of trucks to equal one train
> is ridiculous but so what? The mill owner doesn't
> need to maintain track,
> locomotives, cars and the 7 guys it takes to get a
> train thru the weed covered outback! Let the
> trucker worry about the cost
> per haul.
>
> Out 

You reach the point of where decreasing returns becomes loss. Having automated switches to route these things will cost a
small fortune, I'm not poo-pooing the concept, I'm just saying that the number of places this all makes sense would seem to
be very small. UP quotes around $3M to install two switches to connect an elevator in CTC controlled track circuits. So say
a local operator can do it for $500K, it's still an expense that would take forerver to justify on a low volume customer. And if
you're talking about an AI or operator quasi CTC circuit you're talking one move per car vs one move for a whole train. It's
not that I don't want to see this work but what I want is for it to go fetch Amazon containers from a local yard and bring ir or
them to a local DC, that would make sense.

Out 

pdt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think this is old news.  Heard about this a
> year or 2 ago...but maybe a different company, or
> another round of trying to get funding?

Article from 2022:
https://labusinessjournal.com/manufacturing/parallel-systems-receives-50-million-series/

That was Series A. They got Series B funding about 6 months ago. Still the same company, same name.

> I imagine this would have a application in some
> limited situation, but for big time railroading, i
> IMHO its goinng nowhere.

From my quick research, Parallel Systems' target is short haul (as Greyhounds said above), to "undo" what trucking did to loose car railroading ("boxcars").

One step this technology can't "skip" is moving the containers from intermodal trains to the battery-powered flatcar and vice-versa.

What remains to be seen is how the last mile is handled. Truck driver "shortage" isn't quite addressed if the battery-powered flatcars move from large intermodal terminals to smaller "local" terminals, where the boxes have to be transferred to trucks again.

Or will businesses expect to have rail spurs where the battery-powered flatcars go in, and forklifts and other small machineries load/unload the contents of the containers? This will address the truck driver "shortage" but will require many many businesses have spurs - this can't be done on the main, on sidings or anywhere that might interfere with general railroading. I don't see how this is an easy task, where countless businesses don't have spurs (and many spurs have been abandoned already).

Company's claims of relieving congestion and being climate friendly are mere buzzwords to satisfy 2 of the venture capital firms. Yawn. 2 of them have portfolios on AI-related technology. AI = self-driving? (laugh) Double Yawn. Anything to get the funding...

As of now, the risk of failure is very high, because the technology is dependent on many factors outside its control for it to succeed. I do hope the tests go well, and maybe they'll reconsider the "self-driving" technology, and have humans involved in operating the flatcars, whether onboard or by remote operators. I make this comment based on researching/riding an AGT system (Automated Guideway Transit) in Tokyo recently. That particular AGT trains still have manual controls, and the agency periodically have humans operate the trains, so unusual/emergency situations can be handled. Keep in mind that AGT has no crossings (completely grade separated).

One thing this technology CAN do is to prevent low-usage branch lines from abandonment. A "local" intermodal terminal can be built on them, so these flatcars can shuttle containers to/from large intermodal terminals, with minimal interference to general railroading - have a local job shuttle the flatcars to/from terminals on the main to the branch line, and run the flatcars on their own on the branch line?

Someone still has to pay for those "branch lines" which isn't cheap no matter what Class it is.

Posted from Android

I don't think this technology is necessarily suitable for today's infrastructure. I think you have to look ahead and see a bigger picture with new track structures and loading, unloading happening without the containers leaving the powered carriage, where complete automation of the entire process is the goal and the major cost savings.

In the United States pretty much every business park built post 1985 was built without rail access and that is problem number one.  Even older sites have lost their rail access as Class 1s have pulled out rail as customers cease shipments.  If 99%+ of potential customers don't have access to rail then what is the point?  If we get beyond that (along with several other workflow issues) there is the logistics of how do you unload the container? 

Standard containers were designed with the intention they are placed on a rubber tired chassis at its loading/unloading points and backed into a loading dock and loaded from the end. Docks might have 20+ slots for trucks so warehouse crews can run in and out of the container on a level deck using forklifts.  Railcars need to unload from the side because the car can't be spotted otherwise. There is no simple way around the unloading logistics without a ton of money being spent at each business site that would accept these loads.  Track to each dock that holds a single car?  Special containers that load from the side, but that would hamper loading/unloading at the opposite end of the shipment. 

To make this even remotely workable the parallel car would need to function like a hirail vehicle that can set itself on the pavement and drive with rubber tires the final miles.  That is probably not feasible and the current method of using rubber tires to deliver the container the final leg offers flexibility, choice of carriers, cheaper, faster, simpler, and does not require specialized infrustructure. If Parallel Systems was a listed stock I would be shorting the company.  The money being burned for developing this turkey can't last forever.
 

Todd Clark
Canyon Country, CA
Trainorders.com

I've been searching TO for a thread on new containers that had loading doors on the side, including images, but can't find it.  That could be a solution on some branch lines where spurs have been taken out.  Park the container flat on the main of a little used branch near the industry, unload from the side before the local next returns.  Many branches no longer have daily service.

mapboy

webmaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the United States pretty much every business
> park built post 1985 was built without rail access
> and that is problem number one.  Even older sites
> have lost their rail access as Class 1s have
> pulled out rail as customers cease shipments.  If
> 99%+ of potential customers don't have access to
> rail then what is the point?  If we get beyond
> that (along with several other workflow issues)
> there is the logistics of how do you unload the
> container? 
>
> Standard containers were designed with the
> intention they are placed on a rubber tired
> chassis at its loading/unloading points and backed
> into a loading dock and loaded from the end. Docks
> might have 20+ slots for trucks so warehouse crews
> can run in and out of the container on a level
> deck using forklifts.  Railcars need to unload
> from the side because the car can't be spotted
> otherwise. There is no simple way around the
> unloading logistics without a ton of money being
> spent at each business site that would accept
> these loads.  Track to each dock that holds a
> single car?  Special containers that load from
> the side, but that would hamper loading/unloading
> at the opposite end of the shipment. 
>
> To make this even remotely workable the parallel
> car would need to function like a hirail vehicle
> that can set itself on the pavement and drive with
> rubber tires the final miles.  That is probably
> not feasible and the current method of using
> rubber tires to deliver the container the final
> leg offers flexibility, choice of carriers,
> cheaper, faster, simpler, and does not require
> specialized infrustructure. If Parallel Systems
> was a listed stock I would be shorting the
> company.  The money being burned for developing
> this turkey can't last forever.
>  

No, this just isn't the way Parallel Systems is envisioned to work.

In the PS system the containers will still be spotted at the docks on rubber tired chassis.  The rail cars will just serve smaller lift facilities which will be nearer the customers.  The smaller facilities will be made economical by automation allowing smaller trains to cover costs.  With the PS system drayage costs will be significantly reduced.  Drayage costs are what render shorter haul intermodal non competitive vs. trucking.  The proposed PS system seems to deal with that problem quite well.

As to throwing switches, as I've stated, the problem has been already solved:

FAS-PAS Dark Territory Switch – Apex Rail Automation