Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Is THIS a Viable Solution to the Current Amtrak Funding Crisis?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by martin.knoepfel</i> <br /><br />HSR for freigth and passengers are more expensive to build and to maintain than HSR that serve only passenger and some mail and parcel-trains. The question is whether the market niche is big enough to justify the higher costs. These costs would have to be covered by the freight trains alone, because any other solution would be a cross-subsidy which does not make sense economically. the problem is very simple. You can build a supply-chain based on almost any trip-time, supposed the trains arrive reliably. Why should a customer pay higher rates if the does not need the faster delivery? Parcels, mail and perishables are the only exception to this rule. <br /> <br />Furthermore, you need a fleet of decidated HSR-freight-cars, streamlined and equipped with electronicalle-controlled disc-brakes. So you have to transload the cargo at the end and at the beginning of the HS-run, or you have to buy an enormous fleet of these cars. In Europa, the fastet freight trains run at 100 mph, some perishable-trains from southern France to the North and limestone trains in Britan. But these are exceptions, and they run on the convetional lines, not the HSR. <br /> <br />The Germans tried to establish a HR-freigt-service. It failed on the commercial side, not from a technical or safety point of vue. Starting years ago, the French still run HSR-Mail trains on their HS-network, with yellow TGV-trainsets. I think, UPS is studying to introduce a similar service for parcels basing on PDG-airport as hub. <br /> <br />Entire Trucks - not only trailers or containers - on railcars is an idea practized in Europe for years. It is called the moving highway. It survives only because it is heavily subsidized by government. It is much cheaper not to haul the tractor and to hire a new tractor and driver for delivery of the trailer or container. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Martin, <br /> <br />There is another economic component besides the time sensitive commodity market. Warehousing is a capital cost that most distributors try to avoid or minimize whenever possible. The tendency toward the "just in time" economy favors quicker delivery of goods from the production facility to the consumer. The less time a commodity spends between production and eventual consumption, the better, regardless of whether it is a high value time sensitive commodity such as parcels or perishables, or a low value price sensitive commodity such as lumber or plastic pipe. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to think that the current practice of warehousing in transit is preferable to static warehousing. On the contrary, warehousing in transit is even less efficient than static warehousing, which itself is a waste of capital and rents. <br /> <br />You don't need specialized freight cars for HSR in the 100 to 125 mph range, other than a preference for electronic brakes, and a limit on the maximum weight per axle to allow for superelevation of curves. Streamlining in that speed range is overrated, and the current design of COFC, TOFC, and bi-modal consists is sufficient for that speed range and axle load limits for the most part. Even boxcar and tank car designs are sufficient. The only car types that might be a problem with air flow are empty centerbeams, while heavy grain and aggregate carloads would need to spread that weight over more axles. The point is, most current car designs would allow usage on both HSR and conventional rail operations, and the implementation of electronic braking can be done in conjunction with air brakes. The introduction of such car types can be done over time with the introduction of the new HSR corridors. <br /> <br />You mentioned the Germans trying a HSR freight operation. Was that only within the German borders? If so, I can see why it wouldn't be able to compete with Autobahn freight deliveries. The distances within Germany are not sufficient to allow the advantages of HSR freight. A European wide HSR freight system would be a different story, and the fact that certain freights already are running 100 mph over the conventional European rail system shows some promise. Of course, for the U.S., Canada, or Australia, the time niche differential in the major air freight and highway corridors is much more pronounced and therefore a service that fills that niche is much more promising. The standard air freight corridor cross country is overnight/24 hours, while the standard highway cross country trip takes three to four days. A surface transportation system that can travel cross country in the 48 hour range (and subsequently crossing half the country in the 24 hour range)opens up a whole new range of pricing possibilities between the two other modes. In essence, you are replacing warehousing costs with the costs of higher speeds, and it is assumed that latter will be less cost to the economy than the former, thus the advantage goes to HSR. And it is in this time/distance range that would favor passenger transport over both highway and air in the half cross country corridors, and to a certain extent the full cross country corridors.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy