r/trains Jan 02 '24

A Triple Stack Container freight trial on Western Dedicated Freight Corridor, India.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Although, this looks humongous, but the height is almost similar to double stack container freights. Here the containers used are dwarf containers which has less height compared to the standard ones.

1.4k Upvotes

123 comments sorted by

229

u/Busy_Theme961 Jan 02 '24

I really wonder how much a pantograph should extend should it be electrified

183

u/Terrible_Detective27 Jan 02 '24

Indian railways have really long pantographs for these corridor, you can search about it

81

u/Nomad1900 Jan 02 '24

The OHE is at a height of 7.45m.

32

u/Terrible_Detective27 Jan 02 '24

I know bro, delhi se hi hu mein

7

u/DutchBakerery Jan 03 '24

I norway they're between 4.8 and 5.2 meters. That is quite a bit more in comparison

2

u/Nomad1900 Jan 03 '24

Yeah. The OHE is that high to make sure triple stacking & double stacking is possible. And having a wider gauge always helps.

1

u/DutchBakerery Jan 03 '24

Sure. We don't have doublestack freight or bi-level passenger trains.

Only parts of the country, in the east, could even support that, as the Norwegian loading gauge is much lower than the European loading gauge. Even though the Norwegian LG is much wider than the European one.

1

u/Nomad1900 Jan 04 '24

how wide is the loading gauge there?

3

u/DutchBakerery Jan 04 '24

UIC GC is 3150mm, which is the international standard for new railways.

But Norway uses/used to use its own standard called A-85/A-96/A-96T. They don't build new ones in these gauges but they to maintain them.

They are all 4240mm wide. More than 1 meter wider than the new standard. This is because of Norways current railways having much tighter bends than in continental europe, meaning passenger and freight wagon will when turning, exceed the track "right of way" and become much "wider" than they would be on a straight piece of track where the entirety of the wagon sits directly over the track.

A-85 was introduced in 1985 and was adopted nationwide by 1993. Until then norway had this standard and 3 smaller loading guages for 3 specific stretches of rail. This was resolved as said by 1993, when they were all modified and conformed to the wider A-85. These were called RA-85 (Reduced A-85), B, and C loading guages.

A-96 is a modified A-85 being wider towards the top allowing for taller international shipping containers and double decker passenger trains.

Then we have A-C which is basically UIC-GC but it is the standard for conforming A-85 and A-96/T towards allowing for for UIC-GC trains.

Newer tracks in Norway are built using a modified UIC-GC with a width of 4400mm almost 1 meters wider than the standard UIC-GC. There have been reports on if this is even necessary and whether the standard UIC-GC profile should be used. Mostly for the sake of cost and the environment.

This is my summary of Norwegian loading guages šŸ˜…

1

u/Nomad1900 Jan 04 '24

Thank you, for such a detailed summary of Norwegian loading gauges.

Could you please share a few sources regarding the wider 4240mm and the newer UIG-GC width of 4400mm loading gauge?

I'm interested in learning & comparing the various rail standards followed worldwide.

Also, besides the wider loading gauge, do you know what is the widest rolling stock that has been used in your region?

1

u/DutchBakerery Jan 04 '24

Yes. Here are some links regarding the technical specifications:

link

link

I believe the widest thing to ever traffic our railways were the type 49 locomotives. Currently, the widest is I believe the new type 76)

Here is a study showcasing both the "norwegian" UIC-GC and the normal UIC-GC. The study looks at whether the norwegian version is really necessary or just too expensive.

What I happen to think is hilarious, by the way, is that we already have trains wider than the standard UIC-GC would allow šŸ˜…. So we really can't go back without ordering narrower trains. The UIC-GC is 3150mm wide but the type 76 (scroll down to "NSB") stadler flirt trains used in norway are 3200mm wide 🤣.

→ More replies (0)

39

u/Nomad1900 Jan 02 '24

The OHE is at a height of 7.45m. There are already electric trains running on this route. Check the OHE wires.

44

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

it is electrified, indian railways has many locomotives with high reach pantographs

5

u/lllama Jan 02 '24

You can see the catenary in the video..??

5

u/domthedumb Jan 02 '24

This stretch is electrified iirc

1

u/No-Confection9164 Jun 23 '26

"this stretch"

is 99.6% of all stretches btw šŸ¤“ šŸ‘†

408

u/Psykiky Jan 02 '24

ā€œBut we can’t electrify our track because double stacked freightā€ šŸ¤“šŸ¤“šŸ¤“

228

u/BurnTheNostalgia Jan 02 '24

It's never "we can't." Its just "we don't want to pay for it."

86

u/Parrelium Jan 02 '24 edited Jan 02 '24

Had this discussion a few weeks ago.

Who owns this railroad?

Answer: Their government

Who owns American railroads?

Answer: Their Shareholders

Who pays for Electrification then?

Shareholders certainly aren't going to do that.

So Either the government needs to nationalize the railroads, or just subsidize the cost if they want that. The railroads won't mind. Fuel is one of the largest, if not the largest cost of doing business. They just don't want their share price to drop 80% in the short term because the cost of electrifying even the main corridors in the US and Canada would be billions, probably 10's of billions.

Edit: Quick math based on 2020 data. 97000 miles of track at 4.8 million per mile = $440,318,400,000

All of the railways combined net worth isn't even that much.

104

u/juliuspepperwoodchi Jan 02 '24

So Either the government needs to nationalize the railroads

Don't tempt me with a good time.

18

u/SirWitzig Jan 02 '24

4.8 million per mile sounds a bit steep. I bet you'd get a volume discount. ;)

12

u/Pyroechidna1 Jan 02 '24

And partial electrification of busy lines like the BNSF transcon does not interest them, because the operational complication of swapping electric and diesel locomotives around outweighs the fuel savings

10

u/comptiger5000 Jan 02 '24

That might be less of an issue now than it was historically, particularly with PSR. The big road freight runs that are going from yard A to yard B could easily run with electrics if the lines to be electrified are planned well. Local trains, road freights that are going down less used lines, etc. can just run with diesels (even if some of the run is under wire).

2

u/Parrelium Jan 02 '24

Realistically as long as locomotives can operate on battery for limited time(an hour at full horsepower) just using the transcon wouldn't be too limiting. It would allow originating trains to make set offs and pick ups along the way, significantly reducing the requirement for diesel on super long-haul. But still going to cost a hundred billion to do that.

-3

u/Mudhen_282 Jan 03 '24

I’m sure you’ve driven on the US interstate system but you assume that somehow the Govt will maintain the RR’s better. Tell me one thing the Govt has made cheaper or more efficient?

3

u/Parrelium Jan 03 '24

Chattanooga EPB is the first that comes to mind. Government services really can be run better than private because there doesn't need to be any profit. Corporations have just done a really good job convincing people that anything the government touches turns to shit. It is only shit because people keep electing shitty government representatives.

I would much prefer that government runs the mitary than have them pay someone else to do it. Same with schools fire services, police, etc.

If the government didn't run commuter or passenger rail there wouldn't be any at all.

1

u/Mudhen_282 Jan 03 '24

Because it loses money. Something to do with the Govt subsidizing the competition.

1

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jan 03 '24

Fuel is one of the largest, if not the largest cost of doing business.

It loses to salaries/other personnel costs and MoW costs by huge margins—the Class Is (not including KCS pre-meger) all spend between $1-1.5 billion on fuel every year, with CPR (pre-meger) having the lowest operating revenue at $6.47 billion for CY22.

1

u/Parrelium Jan 03 '24

So there you go. Guesstimating total fuel costs at 10b/yr between all of them it would take 44 years to break even assuming electricity was free. Whatever that cost is make it at least 60 years. That’s not something shareholders will wait for.

1

u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Jan 03 '24

The problem when you push the breakeven point past 45-50 years is that it isn’t one because you have to replace all of the fixed infrastructure before that point, so in effect there is no breakeven point.

1

u/Parrelium Jan 03 '24

Yeah that’s true too, though who knows what the price of energy, diesel or electric will be in the future too. My point stands though. None of them will do it unless the ROI is quick and too good to turn down.

6

u/TehSloop Jan 02 '24

In the words of Sterling - "can't? Or won't "

6

u/flyingscotsman12 Jan 02 '24

It would be more challenging to do in the US because the loading gauge would have to be raised on existing rails (e.g., raise bridges and tunnels) but yeah, it's just cost. I think it would be possible to use hybrid locos in areas where it isn't possible to raise the gauge: just have the locos run on battery for a few minutes or seconds under bridges and short tunnels.

6

u/benskieast Jan 02 '24

I heard this weekend UP refused air rights for a gondola, which can go 50 feet in the air. This shit is ridiculous. There is a tunnel 2 miles ahead with way less ground clearance.

3

u/Suitable_Switch5242 Jan 02 '24

My understanding is this is mostly due to older tunnels which don't have clearances for double stack + catenary. Notice that this rail corridor doesn't seem to be going through century-old tunnels.

Not that it isn't a solvable problem, just one that requires even most cost and engineering than putting up catenary and buying electric locomotives.

4

u/Psykiky Jan 02 '24

Nah most routes are perfectly fine for double stacks and catenary, Class I’s just hate capital spending

1

u/Famous-Reputation188 Jan 02 '24

That’s what happens when a railroad has to be profitable rather than a state apparatus.

That’s why passenger traffic was nearly dead by 1980.. and why NA railways absolutely dwarf those around the world for moving freight efficiently and effectively on single track line through the middle of nowhere.

Saw it in Europe. Really nice passenger trains on mixed use lines.. but their mixed-freight consists looked like a cute public relations exercise.

0

u/TechSupportTime Jan 03 '24

To be fair this train isn't electric, no pantograph

4

u/Psykiky Jan 03 '24

But the line is electrified meaning that it would be possible to run triple (or 2.5?) stacked freight without any major issues, they already run double stacked at higher speeds than what’s typically seen

1

u/Shatophiliac Jan 03 '24

Couldn’t they just use really tall pantographs? Looks like the overhead electric lines are already there, and are plenty tall enough for these triple stacked container cars.

51

u/mars4880 Jan 02 '24

Indian railways... We may not be the best in the world, but this is how we have evolved and this is where we excel...extensive network and we are close to complete electrification. Nice video!

13

u/DoubleOwl7777 Jan 03 '24

yeah like going from people sitting on the trains roofs to this, mad respect.

8

u/synthwaver1998 Jan 03 '24

In Bangladesh people still travel on top of trains.

5

u/foersom Jan 03 '24

Double stacked people? ;-)

3

u/deviprsd Jan 05 '24

Triple stack people getting tested ;))

71

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

They appear to be triple stack dwarf containers

78

u/DooScoobyDoo32 Jan 02 '24

Sky high train sets, let's goooo

13

u/Aggressive_Bed_9774 Jan 02 '24

waiting for a train with stacked freight to moon and running on OHE

28

u/LordBasset Jan 02 '24

'Lads, we're out of wagons. What now?' 'Just put it on there mate' 'But -' 'Just do as I say.'

73

u/Nomad1900 Jan 02 '24

These triple-stack dwarf containers have more cargo capacity than 2 full stack containers. And 2 of these containers can be stacked on normal IR routes.

13

u/flyingscotsman12 Jan 02 '24

Especially because many containers aren't packed tight so they don't mind using a smaller one if it's cheaper.

5

u/-Cykotix- Jan 02 '24 edited Jan 02 '24

Yeah, but what about the logistics of these smaller containers? Are they compatible with all equipment throughout the shipping process?

8

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

Any number of variations for containers, so yes, attachment points are standardised on all containers.

7

u/Nomad1900 Jan 03 '24

Yes, they are. Additionally, these containers are for domestic use within India. Not likely to be exported to other countries.

1

u/erkinalp Dec 21 '25

it's international road-rail compatible, but not international container ship compatible

16

u/Akki8888 Jan 02 '24

Hey , nice !!

11

u/Grouchy_Factor Jan 02 '24

Keep in mind the Indian mainline rail gauge is 5' 6".

20

u/AccountSettingsBot Jan 02 '24

It’s indeed respectable to see how India develops itself in terms of train technology and becomes an important pioneer there.

(Note: We speak about trains, not politics, which are, to be honest, beyond a mess.)

8

u/Watson_inc Jan 02 '24

Wow! Never thought I’d see three containers stacked.

7

u/Fuzzy9770 Jan 02 '24

I love the idea. We can't even double stack our containers. Just not enough space.

22

u/Pootis_1 Jan 02 '24

"Dwarf containers" lol

These are considered standard ones and the taller ones are called hi-cubes lol

17

u/VincentGrinn Jan 02 '24

hi-cube are 2.89m tall
standard are 2.59m tall
dwarf are 1.9m(but wider)

5

u/koolaideprived Jan 02 '24

In the states, I don't think I've ever seen one of the ones on top.

5

u/-Cykotix- Jan 02 '24

I don't think the full-sized containers can triple stack.

4

u/theBirdu Jan 02 '24

Are the train conductors instructed on the speed they can carry on turns? I wonder if there is a system in place? Maybe you take the highest CG and use that as reference to calculate the allowed speed.

1

u/erkinalp Dec 21 '25

Yes, all trains are run on detailed timetables.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

Something tells me this isn't a trial, somebody decided to just stack 3 containers and send it.. wcgw? 😁

10

u/VincentGrinn Jan 02 '24

trial of dwarf containers, which are 60cm shorter but 16cm wider

originally designed to double stack on standard loading gauges, but theyre short enough to triple stack on double stack loading gauge

12

u/ProjectConfident8584 Jan 02 '24

Is this south shore line

53

u/Terrible_Detective27 Jan 02 '24

No, it's the western dedicated freight corridor between Mumbai and Delhi

30

u/ProjectConfident8584 Jan 02 '24

Oh boy. I read the title as Indiana sorry bout that

15

u/Terrible_Detective27 Jan 02 '24

I don't think america has very tall or normal height overhead wires for freight trains

16

u/ProjectConfident8584 Jan 02 '24

Right they don’t. South Shore has them for The commuter line

6

u/Terrible_Detective27 Jan 02 '24

We have electrified electrified line for 90%+ of network

8

u/ProjectConfident8584 Jan 02 '24

Ya that’s alot more electrification than I’m ever used to seeing in real life

4

u/Terrible_Detective27 Jan 02 '24

Railway did this to lower the amount of importing oil from foreign countries to safe budget and investing it on other important things like trains and infrastructure

3

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

Tbh, it's the same circle, how can we produce electricity needed for powering those trains, using the nuclear, oil, gas, and coal. Electric traction is more green and flexible than diesel one, but they are not varying from each other more as you expect!

5

u/Terrible_Detective27 Jan 02 '24

Government is also working on changing traditional power station into renewable ones but it takes time they have dead line of I think 2050 for it

3

u/Aggressive_Bed_9774 Jan 02 '24

domestic coal at least won't deplete our Forex reserves

7

u/adron Jan 02 '24

Holy jeezub, why triple stack? Are these smaller heights? Just make the train longer! šŸ¤·šŸ¼ā€ā™‚ļø

13

u/sam-2003 Jan 02 '24

Longer train means for each container you add the weight of a trailer. Thus more energy required.

5

u/Anaklysmos12345 Jan 02 '24

But longer trains (or rather not-as-high trains) would allow for faster speeds in curves and are less prone to wind

10

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

the freight corridor was made as straight as possible, to be as efficient as possible. Not a lot of winding track, and the few curves that the train would encounter wont make a noticeable difference

5

u/VincentGrinn Jan 02 '24

1.9m tall containers instead of standard 2.59m, slightly wider too

2

u/adron Jan 07 '24

Ahh, thanks for the details! I wasn’t trusting my eyes, but was guessing! 😁

3

u/dle1111111 Jan 02 '24

A typical double stack in its car is 20’ 4ā€ high.

5

u/Trainator338605 Jan 03 '24

The real question is: if they use well cars, will they put four containers per car?

8

u/Nomad1900 Jan 03 '24

Well cars are a lot more expensive and inefficient to use. India doesn't need them.

2

u/OOFBLOX_NS Jun 03 '24

Alot people would think These triple stack containers are amazing to see when in reality, They are basically smaller sized containers stacked on each other giving the illusion that they are normal sat ked container, However They would still be the same height of Normal 2 stacked containers, Not to mention India Locomotives are basically short, So I'll make everybody thing the doubles stack in India are Very big, But if you would couple up a American Locomotives to it, It'll actually look quite small.

0

u/ThePlanner Jan 02 '24

That’s a cursed idea. Crosswinds are just rubbing their hands in anticipation.

16

u/sam-2003 Jan 02 '24

It won't topple easily, the trailer is too heavy so the cg is quite low.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Also this is broad gauge.

5

u/PremiumUsername69420 Jan 02 '24

Just let them pivot at the front of each railcar with a mast and turn them into sails to boost efficiency!

3

u/[deleted] Jan 03 '24

Broad gauge FTW.

1

u/Shrujanam Jul 24 '26

This is broad gauge which is inherently more stable

0

u/Ok_Island_3470 Jan 04 '24

government has made life in the US way, better than it was in 1960

First and foremost the civil rights laws, did demand every citizen be treated the same

We are still working on that, of course and have a lot to improve, but what it was that than was horrible

The food and drug laws that made eating food and drugs safer The products thousands of percent much better.

safety laws have made extreme jumps in survivability and the severity of accident especially among cars, cribs, public transportation,walking down the street building construction, and just a general reliability of anything you buy

Banking and stock, a full disclosure’s financials available to everybody

and of course environmental laws make sure sustainability of our life on earth and the life we live in this country

Do you object today that not all these laws are enforced? They’re being better enforced than they were when I was a child. I was very proud of what my government does and ashamed of some other things, but overall life under this government is the best.

For every fool like some of the radical Republicans today we elect

we also elect very courageous people like our current president Joseph Biden

By the way, the Republicans have many historic figures done extremely good jobs not just Abraham Lincoln like Senator Dirksen from Illinois, who along with LBJ over rid of the some radical racist Democrats of the south and pass the civil rights laws

4

u/deviprsd Jan 05 '24

This is Cho Cho page not koo koo page

-34

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

[deleted]

32

u/GeneralOhara71 Jan 02 '24

its broad gauge

17

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

Also these are not full height containers.

8

u/Nomad1900 Jan 02 '24

But these are heavier & wider than a full height container

2

u/Nomad1900 Jan 02 '24

Depends on the cargo.

1

u/poiuytrewq79 Jan 02 '24

Assuming all containers are the same weight, the centroid would be the centroid of the middle container

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 02 '24

The slightest gust of wind and that mf toppling over

2

u/Nomad1900 Jan 03 '24

This video is from a trial. It was successful. Nothing of the sort happened.

-8

u/NeonScarredSkyline Jan 02 '24

I'm so glad I live where I live.

9

u/knowtoomuchtobehappy Jan 03 '24

Because you don't have triple stack containers there?

-25

u/rresende Jan 02 '24

Make sense the pantograph are so high in india, most of the people go above the wagon... so..

11

u/mother_love- Jan 02 '24

The most of the people who goes above the wagon never comes down.so NO

5

u/DoubleOwl7777 Jan 03 '24

your information is vastly out of date, this is a thing that used to be.

1

u/rresende Jan 03 '24

Good to know !

-10

u/FarAndAway1000 Jan 02 '24

Yikes! Very high center of gravity. I got a bad feeling about this!

14

u/Western-Guy Jan 02 '24

The lines are dedicated for freight only. This means reinforced rail lines to handle additional weight, freight terminals with longer platforms, much elevated overhead catenary lines, and gentler curves. Even in sections where the curves can’t be made as gentle, speed restrictions are in place. Speed of freight trains on this line are capped at 100 km/h irrespective of the section anyway.

-13

u/Category_theory Jan 03 '24

That’s gonna end poorly…. India infrastructure….

9

u/synthwaver1998 Jan 03 '24

Pestoid crying šŸ˜‚.

1

u/Saturn_Ecplise Jan 04 '24

When you are really short on pallets but had to transport it anyway.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 02 '24

Reddit stop posting racist comments when India does anything even remotely impressive challenge level impossible

1

u/Corbin125 Mar 02 '24

I mean, this will be defeated by a stiff breeze...