Eastern Railroad Discussion > Triple Crown Done

I suspect the reasons for NS dropping Triple Crown..."Road-Railer"...service has been hashed over by people with a lot more knowledge than I have, but my question is about the Triple Crown trailers.  Were they reinforced structurally for use as rail cars an are they suitable for regular road use by trucking companies?  Are they heavier than a standard semi-truck trailer?  And would that impact their payload carrying capacity, under current weight limits?  It was a fascinating service both from a business and a railfan perspective and it's too bad to see it go...or not go, really.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/03/24 18:23 by a737flyer.

I see older Triple Crown trailers on the road here in Florida from time to time.  The logos are stripped away, but you can read the info

The trailers weigh 900lbs more than a standard trailer. They are only approved for so many years of service as a road railer due to the increased forces placed on each trailer. They will continue to be used on highway now but the tongue will be cut off the front of them. 

They ought to remove that heavy wheel-set while they're at it !

​W.

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They ought to remove that heavy wheel-set while
> they're at it !
>
> ​W.

Huh? You might want to google image Triple Crown Roadrailer

The majority of the loads Triple Crown hauled "cubed out" before they maxed out on weight, so other than some trivial fuel mileage penalty, there is no disadvantage to using TC trailers on the road. My employer has some trailers that have had MORE than 900 LBS of steel added to them for the type of service they are in. The other myth I keep seeing is that TC had to end because Wabash National stopped building road railer trailers. They stopped building them because people stopped BUYING them. Had sufficient sized orders been placed, they (or somebody else) would have cranked up the production line again. The biggest single reason road railer ultimately failed is because like most things on the railroad, if it doesn't fit into a neat little box that matches everything else they do, they either don't know how or just plain don't WANT to deal with it. People have been complaining and wringing their hands from day one about the dead weight of intermodal cars. Road Railer eliminated 98% of that dead weight, and the railroads STILL fumbled the ball.

Posted from iPhone

Were the last Roadrailers 48' or 53' ?

DutchDragon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Were the last Roadrailers 48' or 53' ?

53'

wcamp1472 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They ought to remove that heavy wheel-set while
> they're at it !
>
> ​W.

Mark V trailers and newer had no trailer attached rail wheelsets which was a huge improvement in the trailer's weight reduction. 

Photo 1 is a Mark IV version Roadrailer trailer.

Photo 2 is a Mark V version trailer. 

Both photos were taken by John E. Troxler

---

---

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but one big operational drawback is the wait time when there is a breakdown on the road for TCS-specific mechanical forces to arrive to fix the problem, since the car dept. did not work on them. That was always discussed in the dispatch office when planning the recovery from such a breakdown on a single-track district (ie., most of them). It was usually a longer wait, since they were only based in Ft Wayne. It didn't help their popularity any. Even worse in winter with bad roads.

That's where greater volume would have justified have more qualified personnel, parts and equipment in more places.

Posted from iPhone

NSDTK Wrote:
---------------------------
> The trailers weigh 900lbs more than a standard trailer

Mark V trailers are 900 lb heavier, you mean?

junctiontower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The majority of the loads Triple Crown hauled
> "cubed out" before they maxed out on weight, so
> other than some trivial fuel mileage penalty,
> there is no disadvantage to using TC trailers on
> the road. My employer has some trailers that have
> had MORE than 900 LBS of steel added to them for
> the type of service they are in. The other myth I
> keep seeing is that TC had to end because Wabash
> National stopped building road railer trailers.
> They stopped building them because people stopped
> BUYING them. Had sufficient sized orders been
> placed, they (or somebody else) would have cranked
> up the production line again. The biggest single
> reason road railer ultimately failed is because
> like most things on the railroad, if it doesn't
> fit into a neat little box that matches everything
> else they do, they either don't know how or just
> plain don't WANT to deal with it. People have been
> complaining and wringing their hands from day one
> about the dead weight of intermodal cars. Road
> Railer eliminated 98% of that dead weight, and the
> railroads STILL fumbled the ball.
>
> Posted from iPhone

38yrs of Triple Crown roadrailer service is hardly "fumbling".  They ran there course and I hate to see them go but you're seeing them now on spine cars and mixed with nice green containers 

The complication that an enroute breakdown could cause cannot be understated. The final #256 into Detroit sustained several hours of delay near Adrian, Michigan because of stuck brakes on one of the Triple Crown bogies just a few trailers behind the engine. The crew had to get ahold of a Triple Crown maintenance person to find out how to cut out the bogie's brakes. If they hadn't been able to do that from over-the-phone instructions, the crew would likely have outlawed waiting for a Triple Crown rep to get to the train, which would have been several hours even with the train being fairly close to both Detroit and Fort Wayne.

NS7112 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> junctiontower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The majority of the loads Triple Crown hauled
> > "cubed out" before they maxed out on weight, so
> > other than some trivial fuel mileage penalty,
> > there is no disadvantage to using TC trailers
> on
> > the road. My employer has some trailers that
> have
> > had MORE than 900 LBS of steel added to them
> for
> > the type of service they are in. The other myth
> I
> > keep seeing is that TC had to end because
> Wabash
> > National stopped building road railer trailers.
> > They stopped building them because people
> stopped
> > BUYING them. Had sufficient sized orders been
> > placed, they (or somebody else) would have
> cranked
> > up the production line again. The biggest
> single
> > reason road railer ultimately failed is because
> > like most things on the railroad, if it doesn't
> > fit into a neat little box that matches
> everything
> > else they do, they either don't know how or
> just
> > plain don't WANT to deal with it. People have
> been
> > complaining and wringing their hands from day
> one
> > about the dead weight of intermodal cars. Road
> > Railer eliminated 98% of that dead weight, and
> the
> > railroads STILL fumbled the ball.
> >
> > Posted from iPhone
>
> 38yrs of Triple Crown roadrailer service is hardly
> "fumbling".  They ran there course and I hate to
> see them go but you're seeing them now on spine
> cars and mixed with nice green containers 

It's a fumble because they were never able to grow the network long term beyond their own borders and make it the STANDARD way trailers and possibly even containers are moved.  Why not a 53' Roadrailer container chassis that could handle domestic and international containers?  Seems like an obvious way to make short haul intermodal work.