| Posted by Mike on April 1, 2014 | |
Any bets on how long this will last???
|
I wonder if there is any savings to this or if it's just a waste?
|
One was damaged in three bridge contacts going up to Minnesota where they do not belong do to bridge clearance issues. Story can be found on Trains magazines' web site.
|
I thought it was some sort stack protection in case they hit a bridge.... :-)
|
I'd be skeptical of its effectiveness, especially when you consider that a lot of double-stack trains have occasional single-stacked cars mixed in. Each gap in the line would act like a speed brake on an aircraft.
|
I have to agree with Erick. Even with the entire train double-stacked, the gaps between the cars and stacks of containers has to create so much air turbulence that any savings in reduced drag on the first container doesn't seem like it would be measurable.
|
| Posted by Roy S. on April 1, 2014 | |
I think they should run their e-units on the head of their fastest freights for the improved aerodynamics.
|
| Posted by JerryE on April 2, 2014 | |
I suspect that the biggest "drag" effect, having to force the air flow around, is being caused by the leading locomotives themselves... Nice "Green" PR (stunt) thought!
|
| Posted by Seva on April 2, 2014 | |
This doesn't make any sense. At first I thought this was an April Fools' joke. I still sorta hope it is.
|
| Posted by on April 2, 2014 | |
This is cost-driven railroading, after all, and someday, someone is going to conclude they lose more revenue by not filling that top slot with a paying load than they save in fuel efficiency.
|
with big trucks the gap between truck and trailer should be less than 3 feet any more and you are using more fuel look at the gap on these containers i dont think the wedge wont do any thing
|
I interned with UP a few years ago, when they were first testing the Aero Wedge. The data showed that it did actually save more money in fuel savings than was lost by not having a loaded container in its place.
|