That is in Cedar Park, Texas, just north of Austin. It is a portion of the disassembled T&NO 786, the drivers have new tires the boiler has been rebuilt. It will be reassembled and put back into service some time in the future. All it takes is time and money.
It looks like it is being refurbished. It says it was a rebuilt box car, after the previous track inspection cars were sold.http://www.atrrm.org/blog/2017/03/rehab-of-mkt-inspection-car-1045-underway/
This morning I saw my first of the new style Arrowedge containers here in Las Vegas. Quite different than the first version.
I haven't seen any yet. The fuel consumption numbers must be favorable if they are building more of these.
OMG, the trade-off study to justify this change in container design must have taken months, if not years, especially considering getting agreement from every shipper and every railroad. My biggest question is where is the break even point between loss of container volume (more containers needed for the same amount of product) versus increase in fuel savings (how many Arrowedge containers are needed in a train before the railroad saves enough in fuel cost to reduce the shipping cost per container). Somehow this seems like container technology is going in the wrong direction. First we had piggy-back trailers, then we had 20' containers, then we had 40' containers, finally we have 54' containers, all in the effort to ship at a lower cost. Now we want to reduce container volume so railroads can save fuel. Something doesn't compute here, guys. I think there's a whopping snow-job somewhere, just can't figure out who's drinking the Kool-Aid..... OTH, Karl, neat photo. you certainly got my brain cells into overdrive. Thanks, guy.
I think the theory or intent is to put one on the first car behind the locomotives only, so one per train. This would involve a little more planning when building up a train. I would guess that it would not make much difference in the long run, but what do I know? In streamlining theory, as was pretty well proven in the 1930s, a blunt end in front is not as bad as a blunt end in back. Air pressure builds up its own "dome" of higher pressure air across the front flat surface where a flat surface on the rear end creates way more drag due to turbulence. I have seen a lot of trucks lately on the highway with fold out panels on the rear end of trailers that create a tapered end. I guess they work but do require someone to deploy them before the truck heads down the road.
Russell, you may be correct, but the reward may be minuscule. I hope not, but the reward of most of these "improvements" may be nothing but increased employment for further studies. Sorry, been there, got too many coffee cups.
Or, it could even be a measure simply to look/keep some people happy. IOW- Cheap symbolism. These days, too much being done is merely shallow water. In the end, the consumer pays.
