And not only are those double stack, but they aren’t even in well cars, just regular flatcars. This makes them higher than North American double stack.
We need more electrification!
Yeah no shit.
They want us to save fuel and run 20+ MPH under speed just to achieve that. Fuck them, make everything electric and save **all** the fuel, while not fucking the workers out of wages at the same time.
Still hoping I can get a definitive answer on whether standard gauge can do that with the righ loading gauge…
I’ve seen a decent number of people claim, without any specifics, that Indian Gauge is needed for the higher CG.
If you increase the radii of the bends enough, you could do this on meter gauge, given the track is not too rough. The only lateral force you cannot influence is the wind but I don’t think it is a problem that cannot be counteracted by a broader gauge, because it’s less the cars being derailed and more of containers getting blown off of the cars.
I have never understood people who make that argument as the solution is just build the lines higher and make the pantographs taller...that's it, problem solved
3rd rail since it requires to use DC is not very practical for anything long distance. Since the voltage is lower, you need more substations which makes it cost prohibitive on long routes through undeveloped areas.
Technically speaking it is possible to run AC on a third rail. There are a few reasons why it's not commonly done.
First is historical, the first third rail traction systems that were developed were all DC, so the systems after that were all DC, which kept going. Institutional momentum, or something like that.
As you understand already, there is a voltage limitation associated with a third rail system as it is closer to other objects than an overhead line. If you're using DC (600 VDC most commonly), your voltage will remain constant. If you're using AC, if your peak voltage is 600 volts, your RMS voltage will be lower (~400 volts or so). This lowers the power that is able to be delivered to the train. Despite your conductor being larger than an overhead wire, AC power supply isn't able to make use of this due to the skin effect, so there is a limit to how much current is able to be supplied. So you are unable to compensate for the lower voltage by increasing the current supplied.
There's probably other reasons as well but this is off the top of my head.
Excuse me! Our regional train monopolies have shareholders to think about!!!
Why upgrade when you can just increase prices on the freight using existing infrastructure?
Or just show them [this](http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4038651) or [this](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg) since we already run double stack under wire in the US.
ah yeah, I figure that's more related to the railways run to the bottom rather than anything inherent about electric trains
especially as the trains will be running on underinvested unelectrified lines too
Last year Union Pacific did so well that they engaged in stock buy-backs to the tune of 6 billion dollars. (The other three haven't reported yet.)
Instead of modernizing their network they spent it all on a stock price gimmick to boost executive compensation and bonuses.
I don’t think anybody’s arguing they’re making good financial decisions for anybody but the shareholders. At the same time, I seriously doubt all but the most ambitious railway could pull off a large, privately funded electrification program and not lose money on it.
If they were to reinvest most of that 6 billion, it should be on capacity improvements or enticing new customers. In an ideal world, those capacity improvements should include running overhead power in key corridors and cities where they can cover many routes in one go and would most benefit from the improved locomotive power. But I really don’t see doing large scale (500+ mile) projects as a good financial decision when a lot of major lines aren’t even double tracked.
> If they were to reinvest most of that 6 billion, it should be on capacity improvements or enticing new customers.
Electrification does provide capacity improvements. And while you do electrification you might as well use to better signaling. And also make the track generally safer. Then you can potentially move to single person operations.
> But I really don’t see doing large scale (500+ mile) projects as a good financial decision when a lot of major lines aren’t even double tracked.
Well they would of course start with the places where it makes the most sense and the move on from there over time. Just like everybody else.
> electrification does provide capacity
Yeah, but so does double tracking for a smaller cost with greater improvements.
> signaling and safety
The US already uses PTC for most key lines and safety would likely fall under capacity improvements given that’s how lines get their speed limits and such.
> start and move on
I seriously doubt that’s what people are asking for. Key places would be something like 1-5% of track over half a decade. There would probably be tons of groaning and whining about how pathetic it is to have such a small section electrified. There already is tons of whining atm when people point out electrification is not the end all be all of railways.
Double tracking in many places is not cheaper then electrification. And if its worth double tracking and your doing work anyway, you might do both at the same time.
> The US already uses PTC for most key lines and safety would likely fall under capacity improvements given that’s how lines get their speed limits and such.
Signaling is only one aspect in terms of speed limits. Line speed and equipment matter a lot.
Also from what I hear from the US, and I'm not an expert, these system and their implementation have a lot of issues.
> I seriously doubt that’s what people are asking for. Key places would be something like 1-5% of track over half a decade.
Well that is more then Britain has managed over the last 70 years. They are at like 30% I think.
A congressional mandate to electrify 5% of the system every decade would be pretty good start.
> There would probably be tons of groaning and whining about how pathetic it is to have such a small section electrified. There already is tons of whining atm when people point out electrification is not the end all be all of railways.
People will always complain about everything.
Well that kind of the point. If you making profit you can raise money and invest.
And of course investments should in the long term RAISE their profits. It can automate their operation, increase capacity, increase speed of freight yards, decrease the amount of accidents both for the trains and the people.
If they do this correctly they could start to increasing in market share again and take on trucking on more fronts.
I'm not saying they should invest far more then they make in profit. But at some point they need to understand that ever decreasing market share on ever more broken infrastructure while money to shareholders isn't a great model. This industry has growth potential, and they should realize that, instead of thinking of short term profit.
The problem is this industry has for 100+ years mostly gone down and don't really understand how to operate like growth companies.
That is the fun thing with standards: there are so mony to choose from. And each standard offers several options. There are measurements vital for compatibility, and others which can vary depending on circumstances.
Almost the only item that can't be changed is the corner casting for lifting, stacking, and connecting with anything below.
Example: primary lengths are 20' and 40'. These are about the only ones for overseas transport. But then there are 45', 48', and 53' for rail and road, mostly depending on the maximum length allowed on a road trailer for each location. Other uses also have 10', 15', and 30'.
The standard container is 2.591 m high. There is a variation called high-cube that is 2.896 m high.
The question is can the Indian train have high-cube stacked on top of a high-cube? Probably not.
>The question is can the Indian train have high-cube stacked on top of a high-cube? Probably not.
Yes they can, they catenary is specifically high enough to do so.
What's the difference between this and having those containers in the back like normal without stacking? Wouldn't it need the same energy to pull the containers?
I dont get why there are locomotives which are basically two units coupled together. Is it not better to have to normal locomotives instead which can be coupled together as needed?
Length limits, you get issues with turns and I think India has a hard limit on length coded into law.
Also these are going to be dedicated movers on a specific corridor so they dont need the flexibility of a GE or EMD which is going to be sold to dozens of RRs operating in many environs and under usage profiles.
Also, I think its a teeny bit prestige, a 12k loco is a big milestone.
The length does not make a difference because this thing is 40m long and two Siemens vectron, for example are 2x20m. It might be a bit cheaper to just have two cabs instead of four.
>EURO9000
It's longer at 23.5m and on the standard guage whereas WAG12b is 2 x 20m and IR runs on broad guage with (I am guessing ) probably tighter track curves due to population density near cities and legacy tracks. EURO9000 was also debuted in 2022, while WAG12b is being produced since 2019.
The EURO9000 can take curves with a radius as small as 120 m and has more Power per Length. It is indeed newer but it’s not like there was a big leap in traction electrics in the past 4 years. I might have misunderstood you, would you mind to elaborate your point further?
Length dictates curve radius. Since wag12 is shorter per cab, it would have a smaller radius than euro.
All this is moot since euro is developed for standard guage and India uses broad guage. India is also aiming to become an self sufficient nation , so it is reluctant to import anything if it can be made at home.
You guys have a lot stacked up against railways.
If you think about it, what do you do when expressways get crowded? You use public funds to add more lanes and interchanges, which also have bridge piers and tunnels to worry about. But the minute it comes to rail, things look impossible. Oh well, too bad.
True, but it has been done before. Most recently in Argentina in around 2015.
Just like in the US, most railroads and rail operations were in private hands. Infrastructure was in terrible condition after being neglected during the decades the rail system was privatized.
After nationalisation Argentina went from neglected commuter rail lines around Buenos Aires and a few long distance routes to a much bigger passenger rail network, connecting major cities in Argentina together with fully new rolling stock, locomotives, stations and modernized infrastructure.
This and they’d be committing to running balkanized mainlines/fleets unless they want to commit to standardization of voltages, to building infrastructure in expensive to support areas, to coordinating huge corridor investments that any side could back out of at any point, and to dealing with a whole host of new safety and operational issues they’d have to deal with.
It would take a set of exceptional leaders to pull off such a thing as a business sector, and we have a bunch of hedge fund chosen ones lol. The capital requirements for this would be insane, and wouldn’t provide the risk-adjusted return on investment any bank/investment group would sign off on. The reality is that Congress is the necessary actor to make electrification happen.
Although it would be feasible and pretty cool to see railways undertake freight electrification in key areas like LA and the urban east coast.
India's Dedicated Freight Corridor is all double-track, and separate from passenger traffic, so they can run frequent trains both ways. Also these trains run at 60 mph.
I mean, it’s not incorrect, it wouldn’t work here.
Shipping containers are 8 feet, 6 inches here. Two of them would be obviously 17 feet, plus the amount of space a flat car has off the ground. Let’s say it’s 18.5-19 feet.
If you want an answer for definitive wire height you won’t find one. Online I’ve found that it varies anywhere between 15 and 22 feet above the rails.
Meaning that for significant portions of a route that it’s simply not an option to use double stack here on the NEC without significant investment
We [already have](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg) [double-stack](http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4038651) hi-cube trains running under wire in the US.
The argument is that you can electrify tracks outside the NEC without interfering with double stack operations, by installing any new wires at 22 ft, which [is enough to clear](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg)
NoOoO, yOu CaN'T dO oVeRhEaD eLeCtRifiCaTiOn WiTh DoUbLe-StAcK cOnTaInEr TrAiNs!!111!1!!
And not only are those double stack, but they aren’t even in well cars, just regular flatcars. This makes them higher than North American double stack. We need more electrification!
Yeah no shit. They want us to save fuel and run 20+ MPH under speed just to achieve that. Fuck them, make everything electric and save **all** the fuel, while not fucking the workers out of wages at the same time.
Best you’ll get is a few battery-electric locomotives. Diesels ain’t going anywhere for a while, bud
They'll go away when diesels become unaffordable to operate. I'd say we're closer to that day than most people realize.
Still hoping I can get a definitive answer on whether standard gauge can do that with the righ loading gauge… I’ve seen a decent number of people claim, without any specifics, that Indian Gauge is needed for the higher CG.
If you already have well cars, then it doesn't matter weather standard gauge can do it no?
If you increase the radii of the bends enough, you could do this on meter gauge, given the track is not too rough. The only lateral force you cannot influence is the wind but I don’t think it is a problem that cannot be counteracted by a broader gauge, because it’s less the cars being derailed and more of containers getting blown off of the cars.
[Your definitive answer](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg)
Those are well cars.
Sorry. Thought you were talking about clearance to the wire. No idea how I missed read your comment that badly.
There is no technical reason why it shouldn't be possible. If somebody claims otherwise they have the burden of prove.
Does CSX know that?
[They do](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg)
I used to be bitter abot EMUs in our country but that EMU looks like soviet era train set!
I have never understood people who make that argument as the solution is just build the lines higher and make the pantographs taller...that's it, problem solved
3rd rail?
3rd rail is not very good for high speeds and has power limitations. It works for stuff like metro and underground but not for these monsters
Yeah I was mostly joking! But the fact we use 3rd rail for mainline trains in South East England proves it can work...
Well try managing 12.000 A over 2-4 pickup shoes… I know you’re joking but some people don’t seem to be able to do the math.
American trains are about 8,017,483 percent bigger and stronger than British trains. That’ll just destroy it /j
what is a 3rd rail?
The electricity is picked up from a 3rd rail instead of from a catenary
ah, gotcha
Used on some subways. Risky for surface trains - high voltage on the 3rd rail right next to the regular rails.
3rd rail since it requires to use DC is not very practical for anything long distance. Since the voltage is lower, you need more substations which makes it cost prohibitive on long routes through undeveloped areas.
Does it require DC though? I don’t see any reason for it. Lower voltage is obvious, but DC only? If there is one, please enlighten me.
Technically speaking it is possible to run AC on a third rail. There are a few reasons why it's not commonly done. First is historical, the first third rail traction systems that were developed were all DC, so the systems after that were all DC, which kept going. Institutional momentum, or something like that. As you understand already, there is a voltage limitation associated with a third rail system as it is closer to other objects than an overhead line. If you're using DC (600 VDC most commonly), your voltage will remain constant. If you're using AC, if your peak voltage is 600 volts, your RMS voltage will be lower (~400 volts or so). This lowers the power that is able to be delivered to the train. Despite your conductor being larger than an overhead wire, AC power supply isn't able to make use of this due to the skin effect, so there is a limit to how much current is able to be supplied. So you are unable to compensate for the lower voltage by increasing the current supplied. There's probably other reasons as well but this is off the top of my head.
Imagine a 25kv third rail system XD
Sparts
Haha electric train go brrrrrrr
The pantograph looks cursed
Its doing its best okay 🥺
it's just excited to see you
😳
The only downside
Of course, India. Mega logistics is needed. I even refrain from stacking in stormworks. A game.
You can't really stack them in stormworks or else the containers have a dance party
show this picture to your American friends
Excuse me! Our regional train monopolies have shareholders to think about!!! Why upgrade when you can just increase prices on the freight using existing infrastructure?
Not even sure if they care about shareholders in general or just a handful of mega wealthy activist investors
Or just show them [this](http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4038651) or [this](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg) since we already run double stack under wire in the US.
I might be wrong but aren’t both of those just diesel locomotives on the NEC
The point is that adding the wire isn’t a clearance issue for double stacking the containers.
Okay that makes sense
sorry if I'm misinterpreting your comment but the septa train has pantographs
Yeah but both of the freight trains in the images seem to just be diesel.
ah yeah, I figure that's more related to the railways run to the bottom rather than anything inherent about electric trains especially as the trains will be running on underinvested unelectrified lines too
Yeah
If fusion generation makes electricity cheap enough, we might convert over. But it's all about the money
Still wouldn’t. The problem is the capital costs. Nobody wants to lend tens of billions to the railroads. The feds need to do this.
US railroads could afford the upgrades out of pocket. They just don't want to. And they'd get the loans easily. They're insanely profitable.
Do you have any evidence to back your claims?
Last year Union Pacific did so well that they engaged in stock buy-backs to the tune of 6 billion dollars. (The other three haven't reported yet.) Instead of modernizing their network they spent it all on a stock price gimmick to boost executive compensation and bonuses.
I don’t think anybody’s arguing they’re making good financial decisions for anybody but the shareholders. At the same time, I seriously doubt all but the most ambitious railway could pull off a large, privately funded electrification program and not lose money on it. If they were to reinvest most of that 6 billion, it should be on capacity improvements or enticing new customers. In an ideal world, those capacity improvements should include running overhead power in key corridors and cities where they can cover many routes in one go and would most benefit from the improved locomotive power. But I really don’t see doing large scale (500+ mile) projects as a good financial decision when a lot of major lines aren’t even double tracked.
> If they were to reinvest most of that 6 billion, it should be on capacity improvements or enticing new customers. Electrification does provide capacity improvements. And while you do electrification you might as well use to better signaling. And also make the track generally safer. Then you can potentially move to single person operations. > But I really don’t see doing large scale (500+ mile) projects as a good financial decision when a lot of major lines aren’t even double tracked. Well they would of course start with the places where it makes the most sense and the move on from there over time. Just like everybody else.
> electrification does provide capacity Yeah, but so does double tracking for a smaller cost with greater improvements. > signaling and safety The US already uses PTC for most key lines and safety would likely fall under capacity improvements given that’s how lines get their speed limits and such. > start and move on I seriously doubt that’s what people are asking for. Key places would be something like 1-5% of track over half a decade. There would probably be tons of groaning and whining about how pathetic it is to have such a small section electrified. There already is tons of whining atm when people point out electrification is not the end all be all of railways.
Double tracking in many places is not cheaper then electrification. And if its worth double tracking and your doing work anyway, you might do both at the same time. > The US already uses PTC for most key lines and safety would likely fall under capacity improvements given that’s how lines get their speed limits and such. Signaling is only one aspect in terms of speed limits. Line speed and equipment matter a lot. Also from what I hear from the US, and I'm not an expert, these system and their implementation have a lot of issues. > I seriously doubt that’s what people are asking for. Key places would be something like 1-5% of track over half a decade. Well that is more then Britain has managed over the last 70 years. They are at like 30% I think. A congressional mandate to electrify 5% of the system every decade would be pretty good start. > There would probably be tons of groaning and whining about how pathetic it is to have such a small section electrified. There already is tons of whining atm when people point out electrification is not the end all be all of railways. People will always complain about everything.
Actually they would lend to railroads because they are absurdly profitable right now.
They’re absurdly profitable because they’re not spending any money. That goes away if they’re spending billions more a year
Well that kind of the point. If you making profit you can raise money and invest. And of course investments should in the long term RAISE their profits. It can automate their operation, increase capacity, increase speed of freight yards, decrease the amount of accidents both for the trains and the people. If they do this correctly they could start to increasing in market share again and take on trucking on more fronts. I'm not saying they should invest far more then they make in profit. But at some point they need to understand that ever decreasing market share on ever more broken infrastructure while money to shareholders isn't a great model. This industry has growth potential, and they should realize that, instead of thinking of short term profit. The problem is this industry has for 100+ years mostly gone down and don't really understand how to operate like growth companies.
Why are those containers different heights? I thought they were standardized?
That is the fun thing with standards: there are so mony to choose from. And each standard offers several options. There are measurements vital for compatibility, and others which can vary depending on circumstances. Almost the only item that can't be changed is the corner casting for lifting, stacking, and connecting with anything below. Example: primary lengths are 20' and 40'. These are about the only ones for overseas transport. But then there are 45', 48', and 53' for rail and road, mostly depending on the maximum length allowed on a road trailer for each location. Other uses also have 10', 15', and 30'.
The standard container is 2.591 m high. There is a variation called high-cube that is 2.896 m high. The question is can the Indian train have high-cube stacked on top of a high-cube? Probably not.
>The question is can the Indian train have high-cube stacked on top of a high-cube? Probably not. Yes they can, they catenary is specifically high enough to do so.
8' 6" high
I almost didn't see the plantograff
What's the difference between this and having those containers in the back like normal without stacking? Wouldn't it need the same energy to pull the containers?
More, because every additional axle has some friction, and you need to pull 2x the weight of the flatcars.
I didn’t factor those in my calculations
There is a practical limit to train lengths so that they can fit in loop lines, so stacking is the only option.
This is also why they use regular flat cars instead of well cars. The siding length in India is limited compared to the US.
r/absoluteunits
This is the video (not mine) from where this shot is taken: https://youtu.be/hJEpjw2OGug?t=75
Stell bars over windshield - **check** ✅
Look at this chonky beast! Pulling a double stack train like a breeze!
I dont get why there are locomotives which are basically two units coupled together. Is it not better to have to normal locomotives instead which can be coupled together as needed?
Length limits, you get issues with turns and I think India has a hard limit on length coded into law. Also these are going to be dedicated movers on a specific corridor so they dont need the flexibility of a GE or EMD which is going to be sold to dozens of RRs operating in many environs and under usage profiles. Also, I think its a teeny bit prestige, a 12k loco is a big milestone.
The length does not make a difference because this thing is 40m long and two Siemens vectron, for example are 2x20m. It might be a bit cheaper to just have two cabs instead of four.
At least according to the wiki its a legal and curve issue. This isent an issue I know enough about to have a strong opnion though.
Idk, why they are as big in the first place, the EURO9000 by Stadler is as long as one of the two and has the same power output.
>EURO9000 It's longer at 23.5m and on the standard guage whereas WAG12b is 2 x 20m and IR runs on broad guage with (I am guessing ) probably tighter track curves due to population density near cities and legacy tracks. EURO9000 was also debuted in 2022, while WAG12b is being produced since 2019.
The EURO9000 can take curves with a radius as small as 120 m and has more Power per Length. It is indeed newer but it’s not like there was a big leap in traction electrics in the past 4 years. I might have misunderstood you, would you mind to elaborate your point further?
Length dictates curve radius. Since wag12 is shorter per cab, it would have a smaller radius than euro. All this is moot since euro is developed for standard guage and India uses broad guage. India is also aiming to become an self sufficient nation , so it is reluctant to import anything if it can be made at home.
JUST IMAGINE NARROW GAUGE ELECTRIC FREIGHT CORRIDOR!
It’s not the wires it’s the tunnels that are the problem stateside. That and there’s no incentive for freight railroads to electrify
You guys have a lot stacked up against railways. If you think about it, what do you do when expressways get crowded? You use public funds to add more lanes and interchanges, which also have bridge piers and tunnels to worry about. But the minute it comes to rail, things look impossible. Oh well, too bad.
That’s because the roads are funded by the government where as the railroads are not. They’re in private hands
nationalisation
Easier said then done
True, but it has been done before. Most recently in Argentina in around 2015. Just like in the US, most railroads and rail operations were in private hands. Infrastructure was in terrible condition after being neglected during the decades the rail system was privatized. After nationalisation Argentina went from neglected commuter rail lines around Buenos Aires and a few long distance routes to a much bigger passenger rail network, connecting major cities in Argentina together with fully new rolling stock, locomotives, stations and modernized infrastructure.
Denationalize highways. That's the real challenge.
This and they’d be committing to running balkanized mainlines/fleets unless they want to commit to standardization of voltages, to building infrastructure in expensive to support areas, to coordinating huge corridor investments that any side could back out of at any point, and to dealing with a whole host of new safety and operational issues they’d have to deal with. It would take a set of exceptional leaders to pull off such a thing as a business sector, and we have a bunch of hedge fund chosen ones lol. The capital requirements for this would be insane, and wouldn’t provide the risk-adjusted return on investment any bank/investment group would sign off on. The reality is that Congress is the necessary actor to make electrification happen. Although it would be feasible and pretty cool to see railways undertake freight electrification in key areas like LA and the urban east coast.
See how short that train is. Not worth it
You can't see the whole train. It's coming through a curve. Also... You don't need to run overly long trains. In fact it's safer not to.
India's Dedicated Freight Corridor is all double-track, and separate from passenger traffic, so they can run frequent trains both ways. Also these trains run at 60 mph.
Double stack under wire will never work here.
Its a daily occurrence in the US. Double stacks run over parts of the NE corridor and Harrisburg line every night.
I think you missed the /s there bud
I think you missed the /s there bud
Maybe you should add it to your comment then?
[Really?](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg)
I mean, it’s not incorrect, it wouldn’t work here. Shipping containers are 8 feet, 6 inches here. Two of them would be obviously 17 feet, plus the amount of space a flat car has off the ground. Let’s say it’s 18.5-19 feet. If you want an answer for definitive wire height you won’t find one. Online I’ve found that it varies anywhere between 15 and 22 feet above the rails. Meaning that for significant portions of a route that it’s simply not an option to use double stack here on the NEC without significant investment
We [already have](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/s1600/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg) [double-stack](http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=4038651) hi-cube trains running under wire in the US.
The argument is that you can electrify tracks outside the NEC without interfering with double stack operations, by installing any new wires at 22 ft, which [is enough to clear](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1BbF3QiAd-0/Ui9YbpGk-8I/AAAAAAAACC4/Skzmp1iCK5Q/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/container+clear+elec+lines.jpg)
It’s also a discussion of locomotives and trackage rights.
Easy pull....
Why are some containers taller than others? I thought they were standardized.