Proposed high speed freight service in France

[Anonymous]

Found this blurb in Railway Age magazine.

"If high speed passenger trains are a hard sell in the U.S., how about high speed passenger/freight trains? FedEx has approached France#8217;s Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transport about creating a freight component of the 200-mph TGV system. It would involve extending TGV track from a passenger terminal at Charles de Gaulle Airport to FedEx#8217;s European hub at the airport, which handles over one thousand tons of package freight a day, and designing specialty rolling stock."

In retrospect, it is suprising that it took time sensitive shippers this long to broach this concept. Could this be the key to making high speed rail profitable?

http://www.railwayage.com/B/xfromtheeditor.html

[Anonymous]

Sure, it could be, but it probably isn't...

LOL...

LC

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Found this blurb in Railway Age magazine.

"If high speed passenger trains are a hard sell in the U.S., how about high speed passenger/freight trains? FedEx has approached France#8217;s Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transport about creating a freight component of the 200-mph TGV system. It would involve extending TGV track from a passenger terminal at Charles de Gaulle Airport to FedEx#8217;s European hub at the airport, which handles over one thousand tons of package freight a day, and designing specialty rolling stock."

In retrospect, it is suprising that it took time sensitive shippers this long to broach this concept. Could this be the key to making high speed rail profitable?

http://www.railwayage.com/B/xfromtheeditor.html

FM-

I think we may have found something to agree upon![:)]

It's all about market niches and to say that there is no niche for frt in high speed rail is silly.

If Amtrak were to work a bit harder to accomodate frt on the NEC, we'd all be better off!

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Found this blurb in Railway Age magazine.

"If high speed passenger trains are a hard sell in the U.S., how about high speed passenger/freight trains? FedEx has approached France#8217;s Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Transport about creating a freight component of the 200-mph TGV system. It would involve extending TGV track from a passenger terminal at Charles de Gaulle Airport to FedEx#8217;s European hub at the airport, which handles over one thousand tons of package freight a day, and designing specialty rolling stock."

In retrospect, it is suprising that it took time sensitive shippers this long to broach this concept. Could this be the key to making high speed rail profitable?

http://www.railwayage.com/B/xfromtheeditor.html

FM-

I think we may have found something to agree upon![:)]

It's all about market niches and to say that there is no niche for frt in high speed rail is silly.

If Amtrak were to work a bit harder to accomodate frt on the NEC, we'd all be better off!

What has always intrigued me is how the philosophical aspects of railroading, the ability to carry bulk commodities at speed, has not been exploited in the U.S. We do a great job of carrying 15,000 tons of low value/low margin products at an average of 23 miles an hour, but when it comes to carrying time sensitive cargo at a speed which the time sensitive shipper demands, we fail miserably despite the higher profit margins. Perhaps the two aspects are diametrically opposed, yet the evolution of the overseas rail systems are begining to approach the original theoretical framework.

It would be ironic (and a bit of a disgrace) if it was the French who discover how to me***he two into a profitable cohesive system.

There is no reason that time sensitive freight cannot be the primary focus of railroading here in the U.S., because you can always haul non-time sensitive freight at time sensitive freight speeds (which should correspond to high end passenger speeds), but you can't haul time sensitive cargo at an average of 23 miles an hour and expect to get the business. The U.S. railroads seemed to have been so focussed on increasing load factors that they lost sight of the growth sectors for freight transportation.

Build a rail system in which the cargo gets over the line in an expedient manner, and it is likely that passenger services on that system will attract enough patronage in some corridors to make it in the private sector.

[cnw4001]

While I don't have any inside information, it looks like the FedEx inquiry is simply a logical follow on to the existing La Poste (SP?) TGV's operated by the French Postal Service.

The Dutch have had PTT Trains for years and the Royal Mail is supposedly resuming some of their dedicated mail trains after having pulled them out of service.

US railroads do have time-sensitive freight in the various auto-parts units whereby the parts arrive just-in-time at the assembly plants. The UPS coast-to-coast trains have also met with limited success, mainly due to the extraordinary effort at getting the trains "over the railroad(s)" on the required schedule.

[Anonymous]

I remember back in the 70's listening to a produce broker who was a friend of my Dad describe how, in its prime, the Illinois Central would transport express cars of in-season, highly perishable strawberries like clockwork overnight from north of Lake Ponchartrain in Lousiana to Chicago on their crack passenger trains. He absolutely could depend on his customers receiving their product on the advertised at the Chicago produce market.

An example of railroads demonstrating that they moved time-sensitive goods with great skill.

[espeefoamer]

Fed Ex seems to be asking to haul package freight on the TGV system.Light freight and express should be compatable without causing problems.This would not be like hauling coal or heavy freight trains over this line.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by espeefoamer

Fed Ex seems to be asking to haul package freight on the TGV system.Light freight and express should be compatable without causing problems.This would not be like hauling coal or heavy freight trains over this line.

Of course, it is possible to haul any commodity on high speed rail if it didn't get in the way.

BTW, I haven't seen any Fed Ex trailers on any TOFC consists here in the states. Does or has Fed Ex ever shipper TOFC in the U.S.?

[daveklepper]

As far as I know, FedEx in the USA is completely truck and plane. Long distance stuff goes air via the Memphis hub, local stuff in an area is direct truck. I often thought this would be a good market for Triple Crown if they had a National system.

The competition does use rail. fortunately.

[Anonymous]

The problems with moving time sensitive freight by the airlines caused the company I work for to quit the business..... Our treasured freight was either snowed in, temperatures were too hot, and/or bumped for passengers luggage..... Nevermind our company was paying $20 million a year in air freight, we were treated no better by the airllines staff than if we were shipping our pet dog.....

What really drove the executives at my company mad were their pricing schedule.... which was very similar to airline seating..... For example, with Expedia, if I wanted to fly to a funeral on a day's notice from Dallas to Las Vegas, I can fly for around $230, however, if the funeral was in Reno, the cheapest non stop flight is $750..... With ground transpotration, pricing is ussally reflected in miles.....

When Amtrak attempted to get into the express business a few years ago, many of the beer companies got involved..... They could move a carload or two of time sensitive beer, yes beer, quickly to the west coast from breweries on the east coast or from the Midwest.....quicker and cheaper by Amtrak than by over the road truck drivers..... However, to be successful Amtrak needed to have brought the product close to an on time schedule...... The failure in this venture was the inability to get there on time......notably the Sunset Limited arriving 8-10 hours late...... And the beer companies were intersted at Amtrak's average transcontinental speed of 40 mph..... Imagine if the speed was 90 mph, or even HSR's 150 mph.......

In America, both UPS and FedEx would be interested in HSR, moving time sensitive freight via a ground network between major cities...... Imagine if HSR was built between New York City and Chicago, being able to move goods by ground the 800 mile distance in less than 6 hours, literally overnight......

The railroads have missed this golden opportunity..... to underprice and outperform the airlines moving freight quickly..... Nothing less than a dedicated HSR network between the major cities will work...... HSR is more than just moving passengers quickly.......

[FThunder11]

High Speed Freight would be good for the customers and thats what we need in the US but i dont think its gonna happen here

[dehusman]

The high speed service would be only on one route and that only a couple hundred miles long and piggybacks on an existing highspeed service.

I don't see how that is reproducable in the US outside portions of the NE Corridor.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

The high speed service would be only on one route and that only a couple hundred miles long and piggybacks on an existing highspeed service.

I don't see how that is reproducable in the US outside portions of the NE Corridor.

Dave H.

We may not be able to handle 200 mph stuff yet, but remember that the original Zephyrs and steam powered Hiawathas were averaging over 75 mph and reaching speeds of 100+ mph over jointed rail, using 1930's technology, with no tilting technology, and with standard grade crossings.

It is a testament of underperformance that todays railroads can only average 23 mph and even Amtrak only averages 40 mph. Trucks average 50 to 60 mph, and remember highways have a natural speed limit that cannot exceed 70 to 80 mph without serious compromises to safety. Standard railroad technology in theory should allow 100+ mph operation without serious safety compromises or overly expensive infrastructure upgrades. If the railroads could do that, they would be in position to capture most of the time sensitive traffic crossing our country in trucks.

[Anonymous]

To emphasize Mr. Husman's point, and to borrow from Mr. Oltmann, the breweries have access to the same capital markets as everyone else. If high-speed service was really that valuable to them or to Mr. Clark's employers, they could buy their own airplanes, or built their own railroad. Since they aren't, I can only conclude that what they really want is Saks 5th Avenue service at Bob's Bargain Barn prices. I'm not feeling sorry for them.

OS

[espeefoamer]

The only problem I see with high speed freight is that heavy freight trains do more damage to the track.HSR track would have to be built to heavier standards to accomodate it, and there would be more maintinance needed.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by O.S.

To emphasize Mr. Husman's point, and to borrow from Mr. Oltmann, the breweries have access to the same capital markets as everyone else. If high-speed service was really that valuable to them or to Mr. Clark's employers, they could buy their own airplanes, or built their own railroad. Since they aren't, I can only conclude that what they really want is Saks 5th Avenue service at Bob's Bargain Barn prices. I'm not feeling sorry for them.

OS

OS,

You, like so many other conventional railroaders, live in a fantasy world, in that you think your industry is just like any other industry, thus subject to the same laws of capital.

Here's a quiz for you: What other industries besides railroads have been given land grants in the history of the U.S.?

To state flippantly that shippers shoud just build their own railroad denies the reality of how todays railroads came about in the first place. Today's railroads did not come about due to the demands of the free market, they came about due to the inducements of the federal government. If indeed you would like to see shippers enter the railroad business themselves, they're going to need either inducement to build their own lines, or equal access to existing lines.

[edblysard]

DING!

[edblysard]

Lets see...
way back when..
4 or 5 trains a day, doing 100mph...all passenger runs...costing the railroad money each train.
Which means they ran the 4 or 5 freight trains in between them, oh, say about 45 mph.
Versus today, 50 trains a day all twice as long as in the old days, all freight(read making money there) moving at 23 miles per hour...

Wow, what a hard choice!

Ed

[dehusman]

Futuremodal asked:
"Here's a quiz for you: What other industries besides railroads have been given land grants in the history of the U.S.?"

Here's a quiz back at you: What other transportation modes have had to build their own transportation systems?

How many trucking companies have had to build and maintain an interstate highway? How many airlines have had to build and maintain their own airports and navigation systems?
How many barge lines have had to build and maintain their own waterways?

The answer (except for a few canal boat systems) is none of them. In every case the Federal Government built and maintained the infrastructure for the airlines, truckers and barges..

So my answer to your question is :
The other trainsporations modes were all given de facto "Land Grants" that were even more valuable than the ones given to the railroads. The railroads were merely given part of the right of way, they had to actually pay for the construction of the transportation network and have had to maintain it. The other transportation modes weren't given ownership of the land, but the Federal Government absorbed all the costs of the acquiring the land, building the transportation network and maintaining it.

The government gave the railroads an egg and a strip of bacon and said "Go make breakfast". The government took the trucking companies, the airlines and the barge operators to Denny's and said "Put it on my tab".

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

How about 100 trains of the same length running at avg 46 mph?

[edblysard]

Maybe,
But you'd have to have a super yard as the final destination...
Yard space and dwell time in yards is the linch pin to train speed..
You could run trains on todays system at 50 mph, no sweat...but you dont have anywhere to put them, they would back up on the main in a heartbeat.

The TGV and other high speed trains dont have to be taken apart...they go from here to there, stop, the engineer walks back to the other end, and then the entire train goes from there back to here.
The train stays intact the entire time, (maintainance excluded), and if you tack a few boxcars on the end, it only takes a few minutes to have a yard goat pull em off.

Freight trains, on the other hand, are taken apart, rebuilt, switched out, blocked and classified several times over in their run...and that takes time and space.

To run mainline trains any faster than we do now would require more, and bigger yards than exsist today...and the odds of any new ones being built to handle inbounds arriving in the quanity stated are nill, it cost too much.

And, drawing any compairson between any European high speed rail system and the American freight system is silly...both are two completly different systems, designed for different purposes...financed differently, and constructed under completly different legal systems and governments.
Ed

[cnw4001]

The discussion has been very interesting but what FedEx is looking for is a way to move what amounts to mail point to point and hubbing from the end points. They're not talking about freight which would require truck transport because of size or weight.

The French postal service already does this with the mail and it happens primarily at night for next day delivery. Some of those TGV's which are owned by the Post have replaced mail lights between Paris and the south of France.TGV Paris-south coast is about six hours thus beating the highway speeds and making more overnight delivery possible.

A piece could be handed to FedEx in the south of France at 4 PM local time and be delivered the next day here in the US using TGV trains to the airport.

[Anonymous]

Mr. Husman, that's the best dissing of the Land Grant argument I've ever read. And I've been around awhile. A brilliant comparison and an apt analogy.

OS

[oltmannd]

The reason the RRs don't or haven't looked at high speed freight is because it's a moot point. They don't have the capital to do anything on that magnitude, so why even was a minute considering it. They barely can generate enough capital to keep their heads above water.

However, if and when HSR is considered, it's an artificial constraint to propose that it be passenger only. Might as well get as much bang for the buck you can.

The freight that would move on HSR probably wouldn't look like today's frt trains. Certainly, it wouldn't be loose car freight - no need to go 100 mph between hump yards only to spend 24 hours there.

If you're thinking FedEx and UPS, you're thinking too narrowly. Certainly, they would be interested, but you'd really be creating a new market niche, much like when FedEx originally formed. They didn't move into an existing niche, they CREATED one - overnight mail.

Maybe the HSR frt niche would be "overnight truckload" service - something like air freight service at truckload prices.

The problem with getting any HSR proposal to consider both frt and passenger is that we've slowly been building a wall between frt and passenger operations in this country and the more organizations you have to invite to the table to get something done, the harder it is to do.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dehusman

Futuremodal asked:
"Here's a quiz for you: What other industries besides railroads have been given land grants in the history of the U.S.?"

Here's a quiz back at you: What other transportation modes have had to build their own transportation systems?

How many trucking companies have had to build and maintain an interstate highway? How many airlines have had to build and maintain their own airports and navigation systems?
How many barge lines have had to build and maintain their own waterways?

The answer (except for a few canal boat systems) is none of them. In every case the Federal Government built and maintained the infrastructure for the airlines, truckers and barges..

So my answer to your question is :
The other trainsporations modes were all given de facto "Land Grants" that were even more valuable than the ones given to the railroads. The railroads were merely given part of the right of way, they had to actually pay for the construction of the transportation network and have had to maintain it. The other transportation modes weren't given ownership of the land, but the Federal Government absorbed all the costs of the acquiring the land, building the transportation network and maintaining it.

The government gave the railroads an egg and a strip of bacon and said "Go make breakfast". The government took the trucking companies, the airlines and the barge operators to Denny's and said "Put it on my tab".

Dave H.

Dave,

Do you even read any of the other threads on this forum. 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. They in turn have to include this cost when they bill their customers. The only difference between railroads and all other modes is that railroads pay property tax on the ROW, and they would rather have it that way than to equalize the playing field via open access/public ownership of rail ROW's. Indeed, the idea of the owner-operator transportation system is an anachronism, an idea that should have gone the way of the plank road. Being in control of so many factors of production only limits the scope of availability to potential customers. It is akin to a grocery store only selling procucts made by the store's owners - it limits customer choice at that store, and it limits the market exposure of the product.

This idea that truckers and barge lines are subsidized is a fallacy promoted by rail industry hacks. We've already pointed out that all but secondary roads and city streets are paid for by user fees. The barge lines on the Columbia/Snake waterway pay a 20 cents per gallon fuel tax that goes into the waterways trust fund. Only parts of the MIssissippi waterway are exempted from this fuel tax, ostensibly argued that riverboat commerce was present on the MIssissippi prior to any dams and levees being built, e.g. grandfathered.

You play fast and loose with the term "land grant" when applied to the user fees paid for by other modes. There is no logical comparison, therefore it is absurdly inappropriate to use that term in describing highway and waterway funding methods.

So the answer to your question "What other transportation modes have had to build their own transportation systems?" is in fact all modes in the interstate sense, at least where the corridor in question wasn't already provided by God and nature. That is why it is so arrogant and conceited for some to suggest that shippers who are dissatisfied with rail service should simply build their own rail lines. Kind of a railroaders version of "Let them eat cake".

I noticed you didn't answer my original question, but then again we all know the answer.....

[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.

[Anonymous]

edblysard:

My thoughts exactly. The 23 mph avg is with dwell times included. Start-to-stop trains probably make averages in the proximity 40mph. Even unit trains.

[oltmannd]

The train speeds reported to the AAR by the roads DO NOT include dwell time for intermediate yard work or crew changes.

[oltmannd]

Suppose, that, once upon a time, there were two tranportation modes. Mode A required a HUGE capital investment, but once done, operated for free. Mode B required no capital investment, but cost a few dollars to operate. Lets assume that the fully amoratized cost per trip for mode A worked out to $100, but mode B cost $10 per trip.

Which would you pick?

All this discussion over what is "proper" funding and out of which pocket Uncle Sam pulls the money is irrelevant. The point is "what do we get for our money".

[Anonymous]

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?