Trains.com

Burkhardt competes in the Polish All-Comers Railroad extravaganza!

1059 views
20 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Burkhardt competes in the Polish All-Comers Railroad extravaganza!
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 8, 2007 8:20 AM

 

The article on Burkhardt's Polish rail service provider was quite interesting, not only in that they are competing with roughly 20 other rail service providers over the state run infrastructure....

Shock [:O]

 

......but also in that the author never once used the term "open access" in describing the Polish railway situation, even though it is a classic example of an open access system.

Hmmmmm, has TRAINS staff banned the use of the phrase "open access" to satisfy the baseline constituency?

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Monday, January 8, 2007 8:29 AM

It appears that FM has become such a cheerleader for "open access" that he sees a vast conspiracy against it every time he believes that the term should be mentioned but isn't.

I'm willing to believe that FM is getting bored with his train-watching (not much beyond BNSF and UP in his neck of the woods) and has blindly subscribed to his pet theory to get a little more variety in his life.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Monday, January 8, 2007 12:13 PM

I heard Mr. Burkhardt speak regarding open access at Northwestern.  He has extensive experience with the concept based on his European operations.

He did not express a favorable view of open access.

 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    July 2003
  • 964 posts
Posted by TH&B on Monday, January 8, 2007 12:39 PM
Mr Burkhardt seems like a real railroad bussiness man. He does railroading as a bussiness under a variety of conditions and circomatances. Open access is just a condition he operates some of his trains under, that's all. He must have alot of railroad experience of all sorts by now, I'm sure he can stay ahead of the game, if anyone can that is.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • 400 posts
Posted by martin.knoepfel on Monday, January 8, 2007 2:29 PM
Could anyone post the speech or a link to i? Would be interesting to read it or at least a good summary oft it.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 8, 2007 6:59 PM
 CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:

It appears that FM has become such a cheerleader for "open access" that he sees a vast conspiracy against it every time he believes that the term should be mentioned but isn't.

I'm willing to believe that FM is getting bored with his train-watching (not much beyond BNSF and UP in his neck of the woods) and has blindly subscribed to his pet theory to get a little more variety in his life.

Oh now, Paul!  Just because one author of one TRAINS submission does not use the words "open access" when describing Burkhardt's Polish rail operations, such does not make it a vast conspiracy.  I was just wondering if TRAINS editorial staff has opted to edit out any reference to the phrase, since I haven't seen it for quite a while.  The bottom line is that the Polish rail system is open access, and to not make mention of that fact in the article seems a little odd, don't you think?

BTW - yes, train watching up here is extremely boring.  Either those long reddish-brown grain worms, or the occassional UP mixed freight.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, January 8, 2007 7:07 PM
 greyhounds wrote:

I heard Mr. Burkhardt speak regarding open access at Northwestern.  He has extensive experience with the concept based on his European operations.

He did not express a favorable view of open access.

Not suprising.  Most entraprenuers don't like competition, and open access is predicated on bringing compeition to the classical "natural" monopoly of the integrated rail system.

But just remember this - most rail shippers do express a favorable view of OA and/or intramodal rail competition, at least those who are blessed to have access to it.

You see, Ken.  It's not about the railroaders, it's about the railroadees.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Crozet, VA
  • 1,049 posts
Posted by bobwilcox on Monday, January 8, 2007 8:06 PM
I don't think Ed's ideas about OA are based on theory.  Ed's not a theory kind of guy.  It is probably based on this experiences in the UK.  Perhaps some posters in the UK would have some views about Ed and EWS in the UK.
Bob
  • Member since
    January 2005
  • From: Duluth,Minnesota,USA
  • 4,015 posts
Posted by coborn35 on Monday, January 8, 2007 8:09 PM

When I met him this summer, he seemed very involved with that whole operation.

Mechanical Department  "No no that's fine shove that 20 pound set all around the yard... those shoes aren't hell and a half to change..."

The Missabe Road: Safety First

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Monday, January 8, 2007 9:24 PM

 bobwilcox wrote:
I don't think Ed's ideas about OA are based on theory.  Ed's not a theory kind of guy.  It is probably based on this experiences in the UK.  Perhaps some posters in the UK would have some views about Ed and EWS in the UK.

Well, Ed hasn't been involved with EW&S since the the WCL board gave him the boot. But EW&S is struggling in the UK as they are the highest cost company, not by a large amount, but Keith Heller is trying to improve profit margins, and they have been losing business as a result. EW&S is now expanding into France through its subsidiary Euro Cargo Rail. Rail haul distances are longer in France and they intend to apply for a German license as well. The French market is wide open for newcomers right now, but the German market is much more competitive, like that in the UK. We will see how they do in France once Open Access is a more mature market and there is more competion from companies like Rail4Chem and Veolia Transport.

  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Antioch, IL
  • 4,371 posts
Posted by greyhounds on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:17 AM
 futuremodal wrote:

But just remember this - most rail shippers do express a favorable view of OA and/or intramodal rail competition, at least those who are blessed to have access to it.

This means nothing.  "OR intradmodal rail competition".  Every buyer wants more suppliers to compete for his/her business.  It doesn't matter if he/she is buying rail transportaiton or lawn mowers.

It's like saying "Most" people are for clean water, clean air, winning baseball teams, good and safe food, etc. 

Burkhart is an experienced, accomplished, honest railroad man.  You might want to actually consider his input.  I have never heard an experienced, accomplished railroad person embrace open access.  I certainly have heard such people reject it. 

He certainly would be the type who could greatly benifit from open access, if it would actually work.  He can out "railroad" just about anybody around.  If he doesn't buy into it, there's probably a good reason.  You might want to examin that reason.

 

 

"By many measures, the U.S. freight rail system is the safest, most efficient and cost effective in the world." - Federal Railroad Administration, October, 2009. I'm just your average, everyday, uncivilized howling "anti-government" critic of mass government expenditures for "High Speed Rail" in the US. And I'm gosh darn proud of that.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:41 PM
 greyhounds wrote:
 futuremodal wrote:

But just remember this - most rail shippers do express a favorable view of OA and/or intramodal rail competition, at least those who are blessed to have access to it.

This means nothing.  "OR intradmodal rail competition".  Every buyer wants more suppliers to compete for his/her business.  It doesn't matter if he/she is buying rail transportaiton or lawn mowers.

It's like saying "Most" people are for clean water, clean air, winning baseball teams, good and safe food, etc. 

Burkhart is an experienced, accomplished, honest railroad man.  You might want to actually consider his input.  I have never heard an experienced, accomplished railroad person embrace open access.  I certainly have heard such people reject it. 

He certainly would be the type who could greatly benifit from open access, if it would actually work.  He can out "railroad" just about anybody around.  If he doesn't buy into it, there's probably a good reason.  You might want to examin that reason.

You might want to post the article so we all can see what Burkhardt really said, not just your take on what he said.

I can see Burkhardt and every other owner of an integrated rail property opposing OA.  I can also see Burkhardt and every other owner of a rail services company supporting OA to expand the customer base.  Since most of Burkhardt's properties are of the integrated model, one would presume that he'd have a generally negative view of others being able to access his property at will.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, January 10, 2007 8:20 AM

Some food for thought:

Open access has only been used as one version of various attempts to de-nationalize railroad systems.  The concession system also been used.  At any rate, the state still owns the infrastructure.

What's good for the customers (lower rates, prices, etc.) is not necessarily good for the providers of the goods or services.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Bath, England, UK
  • 712 posts
Posted by Tulyar15 on Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:37 AM
But in the free market, the customer is meant to be king!

One interesting development in Poland. The British Train company Freightliner has been granted a licence to operate coal trains. It plans to take the coal to the port of Gdansk, then ship it by sea to England, then from Immingham to a number of English power stations by rail. I guess it's too much to hope they could rail haul it all the way from Poland to England!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:16 AM

 Tulyar15 wrote:
But in the free market, the customer is meant to be king!

One interesting development in Poland. The British Train company Freightliner has been granted a licence to operate coal trains. It plans to take the coal to the port of Gdansk, then ship it by sea to England, then from Immingham to a number of English power stations by rail. I guess it's too much to hope they could rail haul it all the way from Poland to England!

Could it be that passenger congestion over Continental lines has made this bi-modal solution of using rail-ship-rail the best alternative?  Or is it some other form of physical or political constraints engendered in the European rail network that has forced this move?

It would seem the all rail move would make the most sense.

  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:20 AM
 futuremodal wrote:

 Tulyar15 wrote:
But in the free market, the customer is meant to be king!

One interesting development in Poland. The British Train company Freightliner has been granted a licence to operate coal trains. It plans to take the coal to the port of Gdansk, then ship it by sea to England, then from Immingham to a number of English power stations by rail. I guess it's too much to hope they could rail haul it all the way from Poland to England!

Could it be that passenger congestion over Continental lines has made this bi-modal solution of using rail-ship-rail the best alternative?  Or is it some other form of physical or political constraints engendered in the European rail network that has forced this move?

It would seem the all rail move would make the most sense.

The Channel Tunnel may be the restricting factor for an all-rail move.  I'm not sure of the gradients, clearances and other engineering factors involved but those factors plus the usual speed restrictions on mineral freight may keep large (by European standards) coal trains out of the tunnel.

The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:21 AM
 CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:

The Channel Tunnel may be the restricting factor for an all-rail move.  I'm not sure of the gradients, clearances and other engineering factors involved but those factors plus the usual speed restrictions on mineral freight may keep large (by European standards) coal trains out of the tunnel.

 

The first problem would be the Channel Tunnel, I don't think that they would even worry about any other problem until they have a solution to that one. The problem is that as of today the Chunnel is not Open Access, second they do not offer rates for freight haulage, EW&S and SNCF Fret are covered by a special agreement signed as part of the original agreement to build the tunnel. Since I haven't heard of freight service through the Chunnel being shut down, I assume that Eurotunnel is going on a day by day basis until their agreement with their creditors is finalized. The agreement between the British and French governments to subsidize freight through the tunnel ended last month.  Everyone concerned with freight through the Chunnel is waiting to see what Eurotunnel is going do. There may be pathing problems as well, but I doubt that they are insurmountable.

  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:12 AM

 Tulyar15 wrote:

One interesting development in Poland. The British Train company Freightliner has been granted a licence to operate coal trains. It plans to take the coal to the port of Gdansk, then ship it by sea to England, then from Immingham to a number of English power stations by rail. I guess it's too much to hope they could rail haul it all the way from Poland to England!

Would this coal move in 2 or 4 axel wagons ?

Dale
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:55 AM
 nanaimo73 wrote:

 Tulyar15 wrote:

One interesting development in Poland. The British Train company Freightliner has been granted a licence to operate coal trains. It plans to take the coal to the port of Gdansk, then ship it by sea to England, then from Immingham to a number of English power stations by rail. I guess it's too much to hope they could rail haul it all the way from Poland to England!

Would this coal move in 2 or 4 axel wagons ?

 

Almost certainly it would be in standard 4-axle Falns coal hoppers, pretty much the standard for Continental Coal haulage. Standard Freightliner 4-axle HHA or the new HXA hoppers would take too long to get approval for Polish Operations.  Newer British coal hoppers dump between the rails while Continental European coal hoppers dump outside the rails. I would expect the port facilities to be designed for the Falns type hoppers. Freightliner doesn't own any older British 2-axle HAA and derivative design hoppers, all passed to EW&S ownership and they are phasing them out in favor of new 4-axle HTA design hoppers. The British freight car (wagon) coding system is different than that used by Continental European companies.

 

Falns coal hopper 

 

Freightliner HHA coal hopper 

 

EWS HTA coal hopper 

 

British 2-axle coal hoppers 

  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Bath, England, UK
  • 712 posts
Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, January 12, 2007 1:47 AM
 futuremodal wrote:

 Tulyar15 wrote:
But in the free market, the customer is meant to be king!

One interesting development in Poland. The British Train company Freightliner has been granted a licence to operate coal trains. It plans to take the coal to the port of Gdansk, then ship it by sea to England, then from Immingham to a number of English power stations by rail. I guess it's too much to hope they could rail haul it all the way from Poland to England!

Could it be that passenger congestion over Continental lines has made this bi-modal solution of using rail-ship-rail the best alternative?  Or is it some other form of physical or political constraints engendered in the European rail network that has forced this move?

It would seem the all rail move would make the most sense.


I think its most likely political constraints, particularly in France. In order for Freightliner to run trains all the way from Poland to England, FReightliner would need an operating licence for all the countries it would have to run thru ie Germany, Belgium and France. Whilst Germany would not be a problem as it has a fairly liberal OA regime, I'm not sure about Belgium but judging by France it would be very difficult. EWS have only just been given a licence to operate their after much hassle.


As for motive power, I believe class 66's have at last been approved for use in France, which mean they are now approved in all the above mentioned countries, providing of course they're fitted with all the relevant signalling systems. Electric locos would be needed to haul the trains thru the Chunnel but that's not a problem as there's plenty of class 92 electric locos which were designed for use in the Chunnel going spare at the moment - the 6 owned by Eurostar are still up for sale. (It's been rumoured that Fret-SNCF may buy them now that it's got a licence to operate in Britain)


Probably the most practical solution might be for Frieghtliner to do a deal with Fret SNCF (uniting against the common enemy, EWS!) , and get a licence for Germany and Belgium. But event that would require complex negotiations so dont hold your breath. (Perhaps a better alliance might be Freightliner and the Belgians as the Belgian Railways electric locos are passed for running, and fitted with the necessary signalling systems, in Germany, Belgium and France).
  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: NL
  • 614 posts
Posted by MStLfan on Friday, January 12, 2007 5:54 AM

 Tulyar15 wrote:


One interesting development in Poland. The British Train company Freightliner has been granted a licence to operate coal trains. It plans to take the coal to the port of Gdansk, then ship it by sea to England, then from Immingham to a number of English power stations by rail. I guess it's too much to hope they could rail haul it all the way from Poland to England!

Coals to Newcastle?

It is not really necessary to have a license in all countries, only if you want to run trains under your own name. Especially in Germany there are enough operators willing to move trains for you, at a price of course. Probably rail to port and then by ship to England is simply the cheapest option.

In France Veolia would probably very happy to move your trains, just to get even at SNCF for all the delaying tactics in getting a license...

greetings,

Marc Immeker

For whom the Bell Tolls John Donne From Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1623), XVII: Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris - PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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