Variable Capacity Autorack Railcar Deck Conversion

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional tri-level autorack railcars face limitations in accommodating vehicles of varying heights due to fixed deck configurations, leading to inefficiencies in loading and increased railcar requirements, as well as stability and clearance issues, particularly with vehicles having low ground clearance.

Innovation Solution

A variable capacity autorack railcar design that can be converted between unilevel, bi-level, and tri-level configurations by adding or removing decks, allowing for equal clearance across all decks and enabling the transportation of vehicles with different heights without the need for ramps or hinged sections, thus optimizing load factor and reducing empty positions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Quantity of substance

If a fixed tri-level deck configuration is used, then the load factor increases by accommodating more vehicles, but the adaptability to vehicles of varying heights decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveload factorVSAvoidadaptability to vehicle heights

Core Design Contradiction:

Quantity of substanceVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies the dynamics principle by making the deck configuration changeable between fixed and movable states. The B-deck is designed with hinged end sections that can pivot between a lowered position (for tri-level configuration) and a raised position (for bi-level configuration), allowing the railcar to adapt its deck structure dynamically based on the loading requirements and vehicle heights being transported.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies segmentation by dividing the B-deck into separate sections: hinged end sections at each end and a fixed central section. This segmentation allows the end sections to be independently pivoted to create different clearance profiles, enabling the railcar to accommodate various vehicle heights while maintaining structural integrity through the fixed central portion.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Ease of operation

If the B-deck is lowered to provide equal clearance, then the clearance for vehicles is improved, but the center of gravity height increases affecting stability

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveclearance for vehiclesVSAvoidcenter of gravity stability

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSStability of the object's composition

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by providing different deck heights at different locations along the railcar. The hinged end sections of the B-deck can be lowered to provide equal clearance at the ends where vehicles are loaded, while the fixed central section remains at a higher position. This localized adjustment provides the clearance benefit where needed without uniformly raising the center of gravity across the entire vehicle.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by lowering only the necessary portions of the B-deck (the hinged end sections) rather than the entire deck. This partial lowering provides sufficient clearance for vehicle loading at the critical end areas while maintaining higher deck positions in the central region, thereby achieving the required clearance function without excessively raising the overall center of gravity.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Adaptability or versatility

If hinged end sections are used on the B-deck, then the adaptability to different vehicle heights is improved, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveadaptability to vehicle heightsVSAvoiddeck structure complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies inversion by using hinged connections at the ends of the B-deck rather than in the center. This inverted hinge placement allows the end sections to pivot independently, creating the desired clearance variation at the locations where it is most needed for vehicle loading, while the fixed central portion provides structural stability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

4Adaptability or versatility

If the railcar is converted between bi-level and tri-level configurations, then the versatility of the railcar is improved, but the time required for reconfiguration increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveversatility of railcarVSAvoidreconfiguration time

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies preliminary action by pre-positioning the hinged end sections of the B-deck in their appropriate configurations before loading begins. The sections can be pivoted to the tri-level position in advance, allowing vehicles to be loaded onto all three decks without interruption, or positioned in the bi-level configuration beforehand when transporting taller vehicles, thereby minimizing reconfiguration time between trips.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS10676108B2Method of converting a tri-level auto-rack railcar to a bi-level auto-rack railcar

Publication Date: 2020.06.09 TRINITY RAIL GROUP LLC

AI summary

A method of shipping automobiles, railcars for shipping automobiles, and methods of manufacturing railcars for shipping automobiles to enable more efficient shipping of automobiles by facilitating conversion of autorack cars between unilevel, bi-level and tri-level configurations, and/or by providing increased load factors.