Proposed high speed freight service in France

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox

Dave re "If you had, you'd know that those other modes have had to pay for the infrastructure for the most part provided through user fees".

I do not beleve you can find any inependant study that shows truckers or water carriers do or do not pay taxes equal to the cost of their government provided ROW. An independent study means a study paid for by someone without a vested interst in the outcome. Studies by the AAR, ATA, AWO, etc. do not count. :)

If you know of such a study share the citation with the rest of us.

And I would challenge you to show us a study that backs up your side of the argument, with the same caveats.

In the meantime, go back and read some of the data provided by DSchmidt regarding this issue. He has cited information that gives credence to the argument that truckers DO pay their "fair" share of interstate highway corridors e.g. both the Interstate and U.S. Highway designations. Of course, defining "fair" itself is a subjective arguement, therefore not one that can easily be ascertained even by a so-called independent researcher.

I would also point out evidence that exists in the form of the Highway Trust Fund and the Waterway Trust Fund that gives credence to the argument that such modes pay their way, at least in areas where these user fees are applicable. Again, there is subjectivity in any argument regarding waterways, since most waterways are only a segment of an entire dam project, and they also allow recreational users alongside commercial users through the locks and channels.

But I think the point is well evidenced that other modes do pay for their respective infrastructure costs, e.g. the bulk of their ROW costs are borne via user fees, not from general tax funds. Certainly, there is no evidence to the contrary. It is true that some general funds in the guise of economic development funds are used on those modes, but those are generally in multimodal situations, including rail. Since those other modes are publicly owned and open access, it is harder to make apt comparisons to the world's only remaining owner-operator mode of transport, e.g. North American railroads.

[edblysard]

Ding!

[Anonymous]

Don: Mode B
Ed: Sounds like someone just hit the circuit.

[daveklepper]

I CANNOT PUT MY HANDS ON IT BUT ONE OF THE RESPECTED TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH MAGAZINES (MOSTLY UNIVERSITY TYPES) HAD A SURVEY THAT SHOWED THAT OVER 95% OF THE MAINTENANCE COSTS OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS WAS FROM TRUCK USE AND 5% FROM PRIVATE AUTOS, BUT THAT THE TRUCKS ACTUALLY PAID LESS THAN HALF OF THE MAINTENANCE COSTS.

BUT POSSIBLY THAT SUBSIDY IS ESSNETIAL TO THE "AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE" (IF YOU HAVE IT A TRUCK BROUGHT IT. EVEN IF YOU ARE A RAILROAD!"

[Anonymous]

With apologies to DSchmitt, I will plagerize one of his posts in the "Bush Budget Scraps Subsidies for Amtrak" thread and repost it here for the benefit of those who still think highways users don't pay their own way. I believe this data is from BTS.

DSchmitt - If you request I will delete this or modify it at your behest.


"The Highway subsidy Myth.

Direct user fees pay for only 60% of the road system. However the Federal share of the cost for Highways is 100% user fee.

States pay their share with 80% user fees (including what they get from the Federal government.).

Local roads are only 26% user fee (including what they get from the Feds and State) While the local streets and roads are not paid for by user fees, they are paid for by the people who use/and or benefit them.

<Until well after 1900, farmers in many parts of the country paid all or part of their property tax by building and maintaing the county road system. There were few autos to pay user fees but the roads were still needed.>

<Streets in the cities also pre-exist the auto and the the highway user fees.>

<In California new local roads are built by developers at theit expence. Upgrades to existing roads are often done by developers or paid for by developer fees. Some Highway (including Freeway) upgrades are paid for by developers too. This of course increases the developers cost, which they hope to recoup from customers, but it releaves the taxpayer of some of the direct costs for the road system.>

States and locals use some highway user fee revenue for non-highway puropses. They also use other revenue for highway purposes so the overall picture is very complicated

Taking all this into account, the highway subsidy is no where near 40%. It may even be in reality non-exsistent since Highway user fees are also used for non-highway purposes.

This post has been edited by DSchmitt on 07 Feb 2005, 22:43:12"

The idea that only railroads pay their own ROW costs is a myth. The difference between railroad ROW funding and ROW funding of other modes is that only railroads engage in defered ROW maintenance to enhance balance sheets. The other modes simply do not have that option due to the separation of infrastructure from transporter operations.

[Anonymous]

The point of this thread is to compare and contrast the advent of time sensitive freight services on a pre-existing HSR dedicated to passenger transport, and how the relative success of this freight service could provide data for constructing a muli-commodity HSR network in the U.S. If we can build a network that allows bulk transport at speeds in excess of nominal highway speeds, it would open up a whole new marketplace, both domestically and internationally.

I would suggest that the Highway and Waterway trust fund be merged into an Intrastructure Trust Fund, and have the diesel fuel tax be applied to all diesel fuel purchases regardless of mode. That means trucks, bargelines, and railroads would all pay a 20 to 30 cents per gallon tax. Each mode would be allowed to retain a high percentage (e.g. 80%) of the revenues for reinvestment in its modal form. The funds created by this user fee would go only to open access ROW's to ensure that no monopolistic endowment occurs. The flexibility of the funding options will ensure that multimodal projects get equal footing. The rail portion of this trust fund will be prioritized for those HSR projects that initially provide interconnections to the current rail network gaps, and will be designed similar to the Interstate Highway System e.g. elevated crossings, controlled access.

[vsmith]

I'm still trying to picture FedEX trailers going 200mph !!!![;)][D)][(-D][:-,][:-^]

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

We need to remember that the high speed freight service mentioned at the beginning of this thread does not in any way resemble freight service in the United States at a much higher speed. It would require a right of way dedicated to high speed passenger and freight service only and would probably also require dedicated motive power and rolling stock that would NOT be interchanged with the general freight pool. Also, the horsepower requirements to move this train would be tremendous. For comparison, the power cars of the Acela trainsets are rated at 6000 continuous HP each. Specialized freight service, even at 90 MPH, would also require a lot of horsepower.

Further question: How much of a market would there be for such a service at a rate that would provide a profit?

[Anonymous]

Acelas are waayyy overpowered - even for such an overweight train it is. Single power car in a push-pull configuration could keep the timetable as well as double power-cars now. Remember that Acela was designed to haul 12-14 coaches.

As for power requirements. If you have the wire above you then power is a minor issue. Russians have 12700 hp locos (single section, they also have triple section 3VL85 with 18600 hp :p) wich runs at 125 mph. With regenerative braking a good deal of power can be sent back to the wire.

The issue is capital cost of electrification. Because frankly - diesels are not so good for speeds above 100 mph.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Acelas are waayyy overpowered - even for such an overweight train it is. Single power car in a push-pull configuration could keep the timetable as well as double power-cars now. Remember that Acela was designed to haul 12-14 coaches.

As for power requirements. If you have the wire above you then power is a minor issue. Russians have 12700 hp locos (single section, they also have triple section 3VL85 with 18600 hp :p) wich runs at 125 mph. With regenerative braking a good deal of power can be sent back to the wire.

The issue is capital cost of electrification. Because frankly - diesels are not so good for speeds above 100 mph.

I seem to remember a blurb in one of my railroad related books that mentions the oringinal E units were geared for 112 mph operation. Again, this is using 1940's technology. Transportation theorists or the past have said that the upper speed limit for efficient stand alone surface transportation is around 125 mph, after which you need either an outside source of power, or a non-friction based guiding mechanism. We could probably up that to 150 mph or higher with today's technology. The point is, it is doable without electrification e.g. catenary.

[Anonymous]

Not quite.

For now the fastest diesel was circa 170 mph (again - russian loco :p). Problem is the fact that 125 mph diesel freight would be really expensive fuel-wise. Wires help here thanks to the regeneration. Also - each 5500 hp (such as sd90mac*) diesel is ~150-190 tons you need to haul around - this takes payload space. And since for 80+ mph service you need tons of power - diesels would quickly become too expensive to run.

With current technology 12000 hp 6-axle loco, with 15000-17000hp short term rating is quite possible.

So - possible with diesels? Yes (Burlington Zephyrs did run 100+ mph didn't they... in 1935). Economical - not bloody likely.

*note - this is _at rail_ rating.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

Not quite.

For now the fastest diesel was circa 170 mph (again - russian loco :p). Problem is the fact that 125 mph diesel freight would be really expensive fuel-wise. Wires help here thanks to the regeneration. Also - each 5500 hp (such as sd90mac*) diesel is ~150-190 tons you need to haul around - this takes payload space. And since for 80+ mph service you need tons of power - diesels would quickly become too expensive to run.

With current technology 12000 hp 6-axle loco, with 15000-17000hp short term rating is quite possible.

So - possible with diesels? Yes (Burlington Zephyrs did run 100+ mph didn't they... in 1935). Economical - not bloody likely.

*note - this is _at rail_ rating.

Let's explore this. Remember, we're talking about a speed that beats the truckers over the medium to long haul. Let's say we're trying to run a train that beats the long haul team truck drivers by one day. The shippers who would use this service are willing to pay a premium for this one day improvement, so that is priced into the fuel use cost. The hybrid technology should provide a match for electric locos regeneration. Also, the maintenance costs of catenary has to be taken into consideration. Finally, you can always gear a diesel for those top end speeds (at a cost to drawbar hp). With HSR, you're not going to see any 10,000 ton freights anyway.

If not diesels, what about those new turbines?

[daveklepper]

Turbines are not practical for railway operation because they need to run at constant speed and load to match or better the fuel efficiency of a conventional 4-cycle diesel.

Hybrid diesels for high-speed high-horsepower operation are not practical because of the truly tremendous amount of battery power that is necessary. For switching and for stop and go suburban operation, hybrids make sense.

Electrification is a way of delivering power with great flexibility of fuel sources. If clean burning low pollution coal is converted economically at one power plant today, but oil powers turbines at a another power plant tomorrow, and nuclear comes on line safely the third day, the high speed freight locmotive doesn't know or care about the difference.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Regeneration is a useful braking technique in an electrified operation but it can't be used with rectifier locomotives. Also, I don't believe that it generates enough electricity to make a major difference in power costs. In "When the Steam Roads Electrified", mention is made of a proposal for an electrified railroad to haul coal to port in which the regenerative braking used on the downhill loads would generate enough electricity to haul the empties uphill. No power plant would be needed. The ICC denied a certificate of public convenience and necessity since the economics were unrealistic.

Also, the locomotives may be straight electrics instead of diesels, but the horsepower requirements stay the same and the power still has to come from somewhere.

[Anonymous]

RailPower, the guys with the Green Goat, are in the stages of planning a road hybrid. It will be interesting to see if the same savings can be accrued as the yard version.

I believe the turbine concept today relies on either a turbine array, and/or incorporate the hybrid concept.

Rather than using batteries, the technology for using supercapacitors for energy storage is almost available commercially, and supercapacitors have a much greater energy storage per square foot than batteries. This could be that giant technological leap forward for hybrid locomotives that will make all other locomotive designs (diesel, electric, turbine) obsolete for high speed capability.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

oltmannd:
Really? Interesting? Out of sheer curiosity - how do these speeds corelate with dwell time then?

For example - if a train goes from point 1, to point 2, where it waits for 4 hours, then from point 2 to point 3 - where it waits for 6 hours and gets power swap and extra cars at the end then proceeds to point 4 - the avg speed is considered when the train moves or as its scheduled origin-dst distance and time? Including all stops and possible alterations?

Train speed is measured at the train le

RRs can measure these thing somewhat differently, depending on their point of view for each measure. Generally, train speed is measured from each dept to the next arrival. The intermediate dwell for crew changes, PU/SO, fueling isn't counted. If a train goes from A to C with a stop for work and crew change at B, the speed will be measured from dept A to arrive B and dept B to arrive C. If the train stops inbetween A and B or B and C, for a meet, recrew or whatever, this dwell time IS counted in the elapsed time.

Dwell is measured at the car level. Most RRs measure it each time a car is handled - which is defined as arriving and departing on a different train symbol. In most cases, the cars is humped, flat switched or block swapped. CN and BNSF also count car dwell at crew change points and intermediate work locations were the car is NOT handled (it's why their dwell numbers are so much lower than everyone elses).

The train speed number gives some idea of if the RR is congested or not w.r.t the trains getting over the road. The dwell number will tell you something about how fluid the yards are. Neither is a prefect measure, but they do give some idea of the overall health of operations.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

Don: Mode B
Ed: Sounds like someone just hit the circuit.

ZZZZZZZ....huh?

Get those damn canoes off the tracks, would you! There's a train coming!

[oltmannd]

A high speed freight train might not look much different from a high speed passenger train. In fact, they might be mixed trains. Not likely they'd look like a conv. intermodal train.

That 150 mph Bombardier turbine locomotive (Acela with at turbine shoved in where the transformer goes) is pretty slick. "Fuel consumption at part load" arguement doesn't mean much to high speed rail operations. Time is more highly valued than cost.

If HSR is a gov't sponsored operation, would they go looking for frt shippers? Amtrak has done a pretty good job of scaring freight off the NEC.... I think we'd have a cultural boundary to overcome.

[Anonymous]

oltmannd: thanks :)

futuremodal:

To beat trucks it would suffice to have avg 60-70 mph shuttle trains _for trucks_. On long routes this would allow truck companies to save on drivers (when the truck is shipped the driver may doze off - thus he is not needing a change). With 60 mph speed it would beat trucking hands down.

Simple solution: rr has let us say - Chi-LA route with 20 stops. On each stop truckers load/unload on the train and doze off when the train is in motion. Kind of like LD passanger trains - but for trucks.

For that you just need to scrounge Amtrak some P42's :p and run at 79 mph max.

But if you want to run 100+ mph freight for perishables and high-value stuff (mail, electronics, valuables, some UPS/FedEx stuff) then wired trailroad is the only way to go. Altho hybrid turbine _might_ be an interesting solution.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

oltmannd: thanks :)

futuremodal:

To beat trucks it would suffice to have avg 60-70 mph shuttle trains _for trucks_. On long routes this would allow truck companies to save on drivers (when the truck is shipped the driver may doze off - thus he is not needing a change). With 60 mph speed it would beat trucking hands down.

Simple solution: rr has let us say - Chi-LA route with 20 stops. On each stop truckers load/unload on the train and doze off when the train is in motion. Kind of like LD passanger trains - but for trucks.

For that you just need to scrounge Amtrak some P42's :p and run at 79 mph max.

But if you want to run 100+ mph freight for perishables and high-value stuff (mail, electronics, valuables, some UPS/FedEx stuff) then wired trailroad is the only way to go. Altho hybrid turbine _might_ be an interesting solution.

The physics are all wrong for a high speed hybrid loco!

To create a NEW market niche, you have to do something new. You need to knock at least a production shift out and better yet, whole days, out of the door to door transit time. Something like NY - Chic in 12 hours might be worth something.

[Anonymous]

Well... If running 24/7 from Chi to LA requires 3 ppl - and with shuttle train only one is needed... I call that an improvement :) Buuut ... the logistics of the truck company might be a problem here.

[Anonymous]

RE: How "train speed" is defined.

As an outsider with an ear to shippers, it makes sense for them to calculate a trains speed as how long it takes the railroad to move their cargo once it either leaves the dock in a boxcar or is transloaded from a truck at the railhead, then to the point where the cargo is either transloaded back to a truck or the boxcar is parked at the destination dock. The shipper doesn't care how many times a train needs to stop for meets, refueling, or crew changes, or how many times a boxcar needs to be reclassified at the next hump yard, it all counts the same. That's why when they read that trains average 25 mph, they assume that means the cargo will make it accross the country in 5 to 6 days, so when it actually takes two to three weeks, they think the railroad is lollygagging with their cars while UPS and other bigshot companies get the percieved red carpet treatment.

That's why I don't think 60 mph average for HSR would be sufficient, even with dedicated bi-modal or TOFC between coasts. A truck competitive HSR not only has to compensate for terminal transload times, it also has to compensate for the inevitable long waits in sidings and refueling depots.

[daveklepper]

Your statement about rectifier locomotives not having regenerative braking is true with the original rectifiers, but today you can have solid state rectification and use the power diodes in switcheable configuration. Indeed, the ideal freight locomotive would pick up AC power and also use AC motors. Whether the electronic frequency conversion, if necessary, would have an intermediate dc step would be up to the particular electronic control system. It is possible today to have a purely ac drive from catenary to wheel, without using rotary converters etc. Transformers are still necessary, and they are major expense and major weight and major real estate. But yes, regenerative braking with ac propulsion is again a possibility.

Again, my ideal USA high speed freight locomotive would be compatible AC electric and AC diesel-electric coupled together with power cables between, with the diesel acting as the "road slug" for the electric to insure high hoursepower and decent speed up the grades, with the electric acting as the "road slug" for the diesel when off the wire to insure good starting tractive effort. The motors as generators would feed grid resistors on the diesel for dynamic braking when not under wire and would be in a regenerative braking mode when under wire.

[dehusman]

You know, if you are looking at a speed which will permit beating a truck over a long distance route I suggest you read the UP article by Fraley in a recent issue of Trains.

The UP's "Gold Streak" and "Blue Streak" service was designed to do just that, let UPS beat Fed-Ex's truck service to LA, with conventional engines on conventional track with conventional crew agreements. The UP was able to operate the trains and make the schedule.

The rub was there wasn't sufficient capacity to do it on conventional track routes. It caused too much interference to the rest of the network. The BNSF has a double track route and they didn't want to try it either. You can implement it if you have one of the following:
1. You have a long distance route good for high speeds with minimal traffic.
2. A long distance multiple track route with traffic that all moves at a high speed.
3. A route with more than 2 tracks and a mix of train speeds.

Option one no longer exists in the US, options 2&3 don't exist outside the NEC.

Dave H.