Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: Are the railroads mostly kept within the borders of their own countries, or are they multi-national infrastrucures-like the way CN and CP operate in 2 countries?
B cargo also operates in the Netherlands:
The Ford train (Mondeo's) from Genk in Belgium to Vlissingen Sloe.
The Volvo transit train from Almhult in Sweden at least from Bad Bentheim (border station in Germany on the line Hengelo - Rheine) to Antwerp via Roosendaal.
Terneuzen Dow via Gent and Antwerp in Belgium to Buna Werke in Germany.
Another new operator in the Netherlands is Veolia Cargo Nederland (formerly Connex Cargo). It has a contract to deliver each month 15-20 coal trains from EMO (a company transloading coal and ore from ship to rail and barge) on the Maasvlakte to Dortmund.
One curious operation is that by the small operator Bocholter Eisenbahn. It works for Railion and moves traffic from Emmerich (border station in Germany) to Arnhem. It is apparently too expensive for Railion Nederland to stop in Arnhem on the way from Rotterdam to Emmerich.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
Edit: the Terneuzen train has to run through Belgium as this part of the Netherlands is not connected to the rest of the country. It is in the extreme southwest of the country on the left or south bank of the river Westerschelde. The train itself runs through the rest of the Netherlands via Roosendaal and leaves, presumably, via Bad Bentheim.
Last time I went to Terneuzen (admittedly it's 6 years ago) NS kept a few 2200's there. I'm not really surprised that the traffic has gone to B Cargo.
To revert to the subject of passport control my last European rail jaunt (November 2005) is quite instructive.
Draw from this what you will....
marcimmeker wrote:B cargo also operates in the Netherlands: The Ford train (Mondeo's) from Genk in Belgium to Vlissingen Sloe. The Volvo transit train from Almhult in Sweden at least from Bad Bentheim (border station in Germany on the line Hengelo - Rheine) to Antwerp via Roosendaal. Terneuzen Dow via Gent and Antwerp in Belgium to Buna Werke in Germany. Another new operator in the Netherlands is Veolia Cargo Nederland (formerly Connex Cargo). It has a contract to deliver each month 15-20 coal trains from EMO (a company transloading coal and ore from ship to rail and barge) on the Maasvlakte to Dortmund. One curious operation is that by the small operator Bocholter Eisenbahn. It works for Railion and moves traffic from Emmerich (border station in Germany) to Arnhem. It is apparently too expensive for Railion Nederland to stop in Arnhem on the way from Rotterdam to Emmerich. greetings, Marc Immeker Edit: the Terneuzen train has to run through Belgium as this part of the Netherlands is not connected to the rest of the country. It is in the extreme southwest of the country on the left or south bank of the river Westerschelde. The train itself runs through the rest of the Netherlands via Roosendaal and leaves, presumably, via Bad Bentheim.
Murphy Siding wrote: Hugh Jampton wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Is there a *standard* language used in train operation on the continent?Each country uses it's local profanities. I'm sure some profanities are universal.
Hugh Jampton wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: Is there a *standard* language used in train operation on the continent?Each country uses it's local profanities.
Murphy Siding wrote: Is there a *standard* language used in train operation on the continent?
I'm sure some profanities are universal.
I believe some hand-signal profanities are international.
Okay, here's something I've always wondered. A large percentage of Euro steam locomotives in pictures I've seen do not have headlights.
Did they not run at dark/night, or did they run in the dark with no headlamp? Or were they called "torches?"
Yes, of course they ran at night - in simple terms the rails guide the train and the signals are illuminated so why do you need a headlight ?
Not sure about other European countries, but in the UK we didn't have headlights generally on trains until the 1970's - just white marker lights, other than a on a few trains which ran on more remote branch lines in Scotland and Wales. I believe the main reason for fitting them at that time was to make trains more visible in daylight for people working on the track, rather than night time use.
Tony
There are two answers to this.
European railroads tend to be fenced off - indeed, the law in the UK states that railway property must be adequately fenced - so there is'nt as much of an issue for crews needing to see that the road ahead is clear of livestock etc..
I think that some Scandinavian steam had headlights, presumably to spot moose.
The second answer is that the headlight on modern traction is largely to make oncoming trains more visible to MOW personnel. This was'nt an issue in steam days as, even when coasting, a steam loco on jointed track is a noisy old beast!
Wow! Running "blind" at night at speed! I cannot begin to imagine how scary that would be for those of us used to seeing where we are going.
Thanks,
Pop Z
Why is that scary?
When you train as a driver (engineer) you learn the road, to the point where you know every wrinkle.
At night you should, therefore, know where you are by either elapsed time or what you see outside.
I'm not sure where you live, Poppa, but it's never truly dark. In populated areas there's always a sodium glow. In rural areas, on a cloudy night, it's amazing how quickly the human eye adapts to conditions.
Anyway - if you're on a steamer, and you know roughly where you are, what do you need to see??
Poppa_Zit wrote: Wow! Running "blind" at night at speed! I cannot begin to imagine how scary that would be for those of us used to seeing where we are going. Thanks, Pop Z
I take it that there are not as many grade crossings in Europe, as we are used to over here?
Murphy Siding wrote: Poppa_Zit wrote: Wow! Running "blind" at night at speed! I cannot begin to imagine how scary that would be for those of us used to seeing where we are going. Thanks, Pop Z I take it that there are not as many grade crossings in Europe, as we are used to over here?
Lets face it - if you're doing fair speed at night and you're close enough to see something then you've already hit it. Remember that the majority of Europe is fully signalled with regular checks on train integrity from either track circuiting or visual inspection of the tail lamp by the signalman who could not give train out of section without seeing and recording the fact.
Cornfield meets were rare in the extreme compared to the potential in dark territory. I find running to train orders far scarier as a concept than the lack of a headlight
Kev
Okay, here's one. Why does most non-North American equipment have buffers? This is something that has baffled me since I was a little kid, watching Thomas the tank engine...............
Dave
mustanggt wrote:Okay, here's one. Why does most non-North American equipment have buffers? This is something that has baffled me since I was a little kid, watching Thomas the tank engine............... Dave
I've just got my July Trains magazine.
Don Phillips suggests that European freight operations are inefficient and labour intensive in comparison to the North American model.
I'd disagree. How can a freight travelling at maybe 25MPH on a secondary route with three or four crew members aboard be more efficient than a single manned 75MPH freight?
I accept that European railroads can't move 100+ unit coal or intermodal trains but in cost per mile terms which is the more efficient?
I'm asking this from a European perspective - any offers?
Possibly this is a question that cannot be answered. Later in the same magazine I read that Ohio Central crews consider themselves lucky to know their assignments a week in advance...I'd imagine most Western European passenger and freight crews will have rosters up to three months in advance, indicative of the enormous divides between US and European railroading cultures.
Simon Reed wrote:I've just got my July Trains magazine. Don Phillips suggests that European freight operations are inefficient and labour intensive in comparison to the North American model. I'd disagree. How can a freight travelling at maybe 25MPH on a secondary route with three or four crew members aboard be more efficient than a single manned 75MPH freight? I accept that European railroads can't move 100+ unit coal or intermodal trains but in cost per mile terms which is the more efficient? I'm asking this from a European perspective - any offers? Possibly this is a question that cannot be answered. Later in the same magazine I read that Ohio Central crews consider themselves lucky to know their assignments a week in advance...I'd imagine most Western European passenger and freight crews will have rosters up to three months in advance, indicative of the enormous divides between US and European railroading cultures.
And I disagree with...etc..
The Phillips article is a generalisation so I have also generalised.
I think we're all familiar with the concept of UP's triple track raceway across Nebraska and I'd completely agree that this diesel freight railroading at it's optimum, with uninterrupted high speed running over a well engineered level-ish route.
That, however, is very much an exception.
Let's think about a unit coal train heading East from Powder River. UP and BNSF have the whole Powder River operation running quite nicely - see this months Railfan and Railroad. Once you're across Nebraska, however, both roads suffer a huge dwell time in Kansas City.
Dwell time is pretty much an unknown concept in Europe. It does exist, but is managed.
East of KC the comparison is no longer viable, primarily because you're on single track routes. I've often wondered how much of a US crew's 12 hours is tied up waiting for meets. You're also climbing, so will maybe need 4 locos.
As I say, the Europe/US comparison is'nt valid but how cost effective is 2 men and 4 locos doing maybe 100 miles in 12 hours?
Simon Reed wrote:And I disagree with...etc.. The Phillips article is a generalisation so I have also generalised. I think we're all familiar with the concept of UP's triple track raceway across Nebraska and I'd completely agree that this diesel freight railroading at it's optimum, with uninterrupted high speed running over a well engineered level-ish route. That, however, is very much an exception. Let's think about a unit coal train heading East from Powder River. UP and BNSF have the whole Powder River operation running quite nicely - see this months Railfan and Railroad. Once you're across Nebraska, however, both roads suffer a huge dwell time in Kansas City. Dwell time is pretty much an unknown concept in Europe. It does exist, but is managed. East of KC the comparison is no longer viable, primarily because you're on single track routes. I've often wondered how much of a US crew's 12 hours is tied up waiting for meets. You're also climbing, so will maybe need 4 locos. As I say, the Europe/US comparison is'nt valid but how cost effective is 2 men and 4 locos doing maybe 100 miles in 12 hours?
You can't just measure efficiency of a railroad just by crew sizes and traffic density. European freights often have only one crew member but cannot do any work on route exerpt at manned stations. European stations have more personel compared to the USA. Station personel are used for set offs and swicthing. A line with only one large train a day is better off with a full crew of say 3 men then keeping station staff around to help several small freights, it can easily end up using more labour to handle the same tonnage. I've seen Euro stations where a crew of 3 don't have much to do because only one freight sets off and lifts in each direction often only 3 or 4 two axle cars with 30 ton grain loads. More recently another freight comes by 3 times a week just to run around it's train with the engine and go the other way because there is no more train personel at a junction down the line where it sould realy be turning.
US railroads adjust their freight trains more to customer demand compared to many Euro freight trains wich often are very compromised to fit between passenger scheduals. US trains only handle freight that is profitable to handle and just turns down other traffic that is less profitable or non profitable.
Also if you think about ot why should there be two buffers at the end of each car? one buffer to the right on all equipement would accomplish the same for half the amount of buffers. Some permanemtly coupled cars are like this. Buffers are used in Europe but not in Russia (a huge rail network) and not in Japan or large parts of Austaria and Africa.I'd say most trains in the world do not use buffers .
Murphy Siding wrote: Is all European rail traffic predominately centered on passenger traffic?
Hugh Jampton wrote:and I,, oh forget it...It's easier to work out the various efficiencies (I'm but a simple engineer, % efficiency is work out / work in * 100, but my economist friends can work out efficiency a hundred different ways) for the American railroads as they're mostly freight. This report from the University of Minnisota is quite comprehensive on the American side. http://www.trb.org/conferences/railworkshop/background-McCullough.pdfThe difficulty is that Europe is a much more mixed traffic affair, and I'm sure to try and work out tonne km / employee would probably never give an accurate answer (e.g. signallers and track maintenance people who don't work directly for the freight operator). RRUK have looked at efficieny of route usage and show that the US is 3.4 times more efficient than the UK. http://portal.railresearch.org.uk/RRUK/Shared%20Documents/BENCHMARKING2.pdf The comparison table is at the bottom of page 2 and compares a number of countries.
440cuin wrote:You can't just measure efficiency of a railroad just by crew sizes and traffic density. European freights often have only one crew member but cannot do any work on route exerpt at manned stations. European stations have more personel compared to the USA. Station personel are used for set offs and swicthing. A line with only one large train a day is better off with a full crew of say 3 men then keeping station staff around to help several small freights, it can easily end up using more labour to handle the same tonnage. I've seen Euro stations where a crew of 3 don't have much to do because only one freight sets off and lifts in each direction often only 3 or 4 two axle cars with 30 ton grain loads. More recently another freight comes by 3 times a week just to run around it's train with the engine and go the other way because there is no more train personel at a junction down the line where it sould realy be turning.
Very true but those days are gradually coming to an end. Particularly in those countries with Open Access. You may be familiar with the German program called MORA-C which was a program by DB Cargo to reduce losses on single carload railfreight in the mid -nineties. The government decided to reduce subsidies which raised losses at DB so they had to cut off the most expensive part of single car operations . They also have invested in improving their humpyards to more make them State of the Art for 2000, they are about halfway through the program of rebuilding their yards. Recently they began a new round of carload cutbacks. Open Access and the desire, and requirement to end subsidies is doing this. The Swiss who have a Railfreight marketshare similar to the US just went though a similar carload service cut back which they finished in April, 2006. Due to social concerns they don't tend to layoff employees like in the US. In the Swiss case there will be enough retirements to take care of the extra Employees, although there will need to be some shifting of where people work.
Of course in Europe, the solution because the trains are smaller is to cutoff trains. Remember what you saw in the Eighties and early-Nineties in Europe no longer applies. Open Access in the central core of Europe has changed everything. The changes in France will be delayed, but should happen also.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.