beaulieu wrote: martin.knoepfel wrote:Rail4Chem is focused on chemicals. Other OA-carriers as well as the state-owned companies haul a large degree of differtent goods. Martin, Rail4Chem certainly hauls a lot of chemicals, its biggest stockholder is BASF, but they are also the third largest contractor for Hupac, ahead of Trenitalia, TX Logistics, and Dillen & LeJeune Cargo. So they are big in Intermodal too.
martin.knoepfel wrote:Rail4Chem is focused on chemicals. Other OA-carriers as well as the state-owned companies haul a large degree of differtent goods.
I see them regularly hauling a grain train in front of my house on the Rotterdam Central to Dordrecht line. So it probably comes from northern or eastern Germany / Europe and goes to a terminal in Rotterdam harbor.
Power is a class 66 and more and more they use there own hoppers (green).
greetings,
Marc Immeker
Bon't dissmiss the two axle freight car.
Two axle cars are light and simple (therefore cheap) to build. They ride well enough for much freight on good track, they can be bumpy though. European track is often much smoother then US track so the US would have a tracking problem with long 2 axle cars. Some modern German 2 axle freight cars are good for 125mph.
Some 4 axle cars in Europe for lumber and stuff are just a pair of two axle cars permanently coupled together and can carry more then a single 4 axled car with two bogies.
marcimmeker wrote: beaulieu wrote: martin.knoepfel wrote:Rail4Chem is focused on chemicals. Other OA-carriers as well as the state-owned companies haul a large degree of differtent goods. Martin, Rail4Chem certainly hauls a lot of chemicals, its biggest stockholder is BASF, but they are also the third largest contractor for Hupac, ahead of Trenitalia, TX Logistics, and Dillen & LeJeune Cargo. So they are big in Intermodal too. I see them regularly hauling a grain train in front of my house on the Rotterdam Central to Dordrecht line. So it probably comes from northern or eastern Germany / Europe and goes to a terminal in Rotterdam harbor. Power is a class 66 and more and more they use there own hoppers (green). greetings, Marc Immeker
The grain is a joint venture with their "European Bulls" alliance partner in the Czech Republic, Viamont.
Hugh Jampton wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: beaulieu wrote:Here is a first look at the new Vossloh built, GM powered Euro 4000 locomotive. This is a SD70M-2 in a European package.Euro 4000 Maybe it's just me, but I liked the look of the smaller road switchers in the photos better. What are they? They appear to be Vossloh G-1200s http://www.vossloh-locomotives.com/fs_main.html(you'll need to poke around a bit to find them)or possibly they're G 1100s if this site is to be believed http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/de/private/port/SK/pix.htmlin any event Seehafen Kiel is the Port of Keil and these engines are part of their railway.
Murphy Siding wrote: beaulieu wrote:Here is a first look at the new Vossloh built, GM powered Euro 4000 locomotive. This is a SD70M-2 in a European package.Euro 4000 Maybe it's just me, but I liked the look of the smaller road switchers in the photos better. What are they?
beaulieu wrote:Here is a first look at the new Vossloh built, GM powered Euro 4000 locomotive. This is a SD70M-2 in a European package.Euro 4000
Maybe it's just me, but I liked the look of the smaller road switchers in the photos better. What are they?
This site gives more details about locomotives build in Kiel:
http://www.loks-aus-kiel.de/index.php?nav=1000001
Unfortunately it is only in German. It is not difficult to navigate. If anyone has problems with translating contact me.
Firmengeschichte gives a little history of locomotive building in Kiel.
Typenbeschreibungen gives descriptions of the various locomotive types build.
Lieferlisten are lists of worksnumbers, note: numbers are not from 1 to the last but by type / power.
Fuhrpark-Übersichten gives information on leasing pools and the various types of railway customers.
If the Seehafen Kiel loks are G1100's then they are 2nd generation otherwise 3rd generation (up to G1206).
Marc and Martin - I'm very jealous!
Marc - I'll have ridden past your home on countless occasions but what a cavalcade of trains you'll be able to watch no wonder you're so knowledgable.
Martin - I've ridden through Weinfelden a few times but I've never ridden the MtHB route from Wil to Konstanz. It's high on my list for my next visit to Switzerland.
440cuin wrote: Don't dissmiss the two axle freight car. Two axle cars are light and simple (therefore cheap) to build. They ride well enough for much freight on good track, they can be bumpy though. European track is often much smoother then US track so the US would have a tracking problem with long 2 axle cars. Some modern German 2 axle freight cars are good for 125mph. Some 4 axle cars in Europe for lumber and stuff are just a pair of two axle cars permanently coupled together and can carry more then a single 4 axled car with two bogies.
Don't dissmiss the two axle freight car.
That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Europe has a long running experience with single axle bogies. Because of this familiarity, the European railroads will probably be more accepting of new railcar designs that incorporate single axle concepts than the US railroads have.
Thanks for the compliment Simon but notice that Beaulieu comes up with all those details.
By the way, summer season limits my visibility of the railroad because all the trees have leaves.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: The April 1995 issue of Trains Magazine has a little blurb about an order of roadrailers sold to a German company. The contract was for 150 trailers and 78 removeable rail bogie wheelsets. They were said to be testing in Scandanavia, and would be run by a Bavarian firm over state owned railways in Germany, Austria and Italy. Did anything ever become of this experiment?
futuremodal wrote:That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Europe has a long running experience with single axle bogies. Because of this familiarity, the European railroads will probably be more accepting of new railcar designs that incorporate single axle concepts than the US railroads have.
beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Europe has a long running experience with single axle bogies. Because of this familiarity, the European railroads will probably be more accepting of new railcar designs that incorporate single axle concepts than the US railroads have. And yet Dave, all recent orders that I have seen have been for 4-axle freight cars.Take a look at this Hbbillns, a quite new Aluminum bodied sliding-wall van (boxcar), look at the dismal load capacity, fine if you have a very light load, not very good for something heavier, like bagged cement. The load limit is in metric tonnes equivilent to about 1.1 US Short tons.(Maximales Ladegewicht)SBB Cargo Hbbillns graphicFor comparison look at the equivilent 4-axle car a "Habbillns"note the extra lower case "a" in the designation. SBB Cargo Habbillns graphic
futuremodal wrote: That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Europe has a long running experience with single axle bogies. Because of this familiarity, the European railroads will probably be more accepting of new railcar designs that incorporate single axle concepts than the US railroads have.
John,
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that single axle bogies would be used in such an antiquated manner, and no one is suggesting that four wheel stand alone cars will be making a grand comeback anytime soon. Rather, the use of single axle bogies could be seen in multiple platform articulated sets where the load bearing weight is spread over the length of such cars.
It is theorectically possible that a TTOX/Four Runner-type car could also make an appearance for hauling single containers, since the load limit combined with a desire for minimizing tare makes it a perfect fit in Europe. There probably won't be a TTOX clone for hauling single lorries, since that would require raising clearances over at least the core of the European system, and that seems a long way off if ever.
The point is, European railroads have a long running familiarity with single axle bogies, so if say a knock-off of the Southern 100 or the Four Runner makes an appearance, it'll probably have a longer stay than such car types had in the US.
martin.knoepfel wrote:@beaulieuUnfortunately, I was not able to go to Rorschach, because I had to work this weekend. Where did you see the pictures? I didn't find any on the web.
futuremodal wrote: beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: That's kind of the point I'm trying to make. Europe has a long running experience with single axle bogies. Because of this familiarity, the European railroads will probably be more accepting of new railcar designs that incorporate single axle concepts than the US railroads have. And yet Dave, all recent orders that I have seen have been for 4-axle freight cars.Take a look at this Hbbillns, a quite new Aluminum bodied sliding-wall van (boxcar), look at the dismal load capacity, fine if you have a very light load, not very good for something heavier, like bagged cement. The load limit is in metric tonnes equivilent to about 1.1 US Short tons.(Maximales Ladegewicht)SBB Cargo Hbbillns graphicFor comparison look at the equivilent 4-axle car a "Habbillns"note the extra lower case "a" in the designation. SBB Cargo Habbillns graphic John, It's a bit disingenuous to suggest that single axle bogies would be used in such an antiquated manner, and no one is suggesting that four wheel stand alone cars will be making a grand comeback anytime soon. Rather, the use of single axle bogies could be seen in multiple platform articulated sets where the load bearing weight is spread over the length of such cars. It is theorectically possible that a TTOX/Four Runner-type car could also make an appearance for hauling single containers, since the load limit combined with a desire for minimizing tare makes it a perfect fit in Europe. There probably won't be a TTOX clone for hauling single lorries, since that would require raising clearances over at least the core of the European system, and that seems a long way off if ever. The point is, European railroads have a long running familiarity with single axle bogies, so if say a knock-off of the Southern 100 or the Four Runner makes an appearance, it'll probably have a longer stay than such car types had in the US.
The TTX Four Runner Cars used two different designsof suspension, one of which was a licenced copy of the British Rail "Taperlite" design which used two very long variable thickness leaf springs per axle box. So by definition, this version was in use in Europe before it was tried in the USA. British four wheel wagons have used the alternative US design used on the other Four Runners for years before they were used in the USA. There have been four wheel container wagons in Britain long before shipping containers arrived and similarly in Germany. They never went away, if that is consistent with a long stay.
M636C
"One of the more stupid things our government and parliament did was authorizing just to the border and not making sure that there was a treaty with Germany. "
This is quite frequent german practice, the same has happened with the east belgian HS line, which will end up in a few kilometers with heavy speed restriction before mandatory stop in Aachen for all Thalys and ICEs. The same will happen east of Strasbourg when the TGV Est will be running next year: Nothing much is done on the german side, and in any case too late as these international projects obviously have the lowest priority in german planning. This is not really new. Thirty years ago you would travel Paris-Forbach at 120 kmh average speed on your TEE, and only reach less than 80kmh on the way to Frankfurt beyond the german border.
"The biggest, I think, was electrifying at 25 kv AC. Yes, all modern schemes are at that but the Germans, Swiss and Austrians (and Sweden but not, repeat, not Denmark (also 25 kv AC and a tunnel connection to Malmo from Kopenhagen I think) run at 15kv 16 2/3 hz..."
Well, 16 2/3 is substantially more expensive, as this frequency is not compatible with the countries' "industry" standard of 50hz (60 in the US). Which implies a completely segregated power and distribution infrastructure, and a huge investment. As well as heavier engines, due among others to heavier transformers. In fact Norway has seriously considered switching from 16 2/3 to 50Hz for their Stavanger line.
Don't forget, 16 2/3 was only born out of the lower-frequency requirements of the 1920s' engine technology (direct AC engines), and was not justified any longer when technology moved towards rectifiers (later converters) feeding DC engines (later 3-phase synchronous or asynchronous), which was around 1965.
Resitsa.
Resitsa,
The new Betuweroute is a relatively short west - east line. It would have been more logical to use the German system. We in the Nehterlands can't expect Germany to change its system. Indeed, when the question arose which system to use it was viewed in a country wide review of the Dutch electrification system. Even for such a small country it is very expensive to change over to 25 kV AC.
Since the new high speed line from (Amsterdam-) Schiphol to the south connects with the Belgian and French high speed lines, naturally their 25 kV AC was chosen.
beaulieu wrote: marcimmeker wrote: beaulieu wrote: martin.knoepfel wrote:Rail4Chem is focused on chemicals. Other OA-carriers as well as the state-owned companies haul a large degree of differtent goods. Martin, Rail4Chem certainly hauls a lot of chemicals, its biggest stockholder is BASF, but they are also the third largest contractor for Hupac, ahead of Trenitalia, TX Logistics, and Dillen & LeJeune Cargo. So they are big in Intermodal too. I see them regularly hauling a grain train in front of my house on the Rotterdam Central to Dordrecht line. So it probably comes from northern or eastern Germany / Europe and goes to a terminal in Rotterdam harbor. Power is a class 66 and more and more they use there own hoppers (green). greetings, Marc Immeker Marc, in my previous post I was wrong about where the grain is originating, it is coming out of Austria, and the Rail4Chem partner there, LTE. Not from Viamont in the Czech Republic.
The latest issue of the Dutch periodical Railmagazine has a news item about Rail4chem's grain traffic.
For the first half year they moved more than 250.000 tons to Rotterdam and in the busier second half they will move even more. The forecast is 600.000 tons, up from last year. The contrat is with a trader called Glencore. Last july ervery workday 2 trains arrived at Rotterdam Botlek, one combined trains from the Cech Republic and Slovakia and the other from Hungary. In the first 2 weeks of august 9 trains with soja left for Eastern Europe increasing the efficiency of the trains sets. Destination at Rotterdam Botlek is Maas Silo. Loading is next door at EBS Laurenshaven. Trains left within 48 hours.
Due to the increasing amount of grain moved, the variety of cars is growing too. Lots of Hungarian cars of the Tadgs and Tapgs were used as well as Italian (FS) brown Tadgs. Glencore seems to be happy with Rail4chem.
Resitsa wrote:<snipped> "The biggest, I think, was electrifying at 25 kv AC. Yes, all modern schemes are at that but the Germans, Swiss and Austrians (and Sweden but not, repeat, not Denmark (also 25 kv AC and a tunnel connection to Malmo from Kopenhagen I think) run at 15kv 16 2/3 hz..." Well, 16 2/3 is substantially more expensive, as this frequency is not compatible with the countries' "industry" standard of 50hz (60 in the US). Which implies a completely segregated power and distribution infrastructure, and a huge investment. As well as heavier engines, due among others to heavier transformers. In fact Norway has seriously considered switching from 16 2/3 to 50Hz for their Stavanger line. Don't forget, 16 2/3 was only born out of the lower-frequency requirements of the 1920s' engine technology (direct AC engines), and was not justified any longer when technology moved towards rectifiers (later converters) feeding DC engines (later 3-phase synchronous or asynchronous), which was around 1965. Resitsa.
The same advances in technology that make 3-phase asynchronous traction motors possible also means that simple frequency convertors are affordable for each substation eliminating the requirement for a separate distribution network. So 16.7Hz is more expensive, but not greatly so. The Oresund Link is combination bridge and tunnel with most of the distance electrified at 25Kv/50Hz.
Regarding the Dutch Betuwe Line, once the Dutch Government agreed to eliminate the two 1.5Kv DC sections, the 25Kv/50Hz. isn't a big deal vitually all potential Electric Locomotives likely to use the line can run equally well off either 15KV/16.7Hz. or 25Kv/50Hz.
The problem with the 25Kv 50Hz Oresund Link is that at both ends, Sweden and Germany have both 15Kv 17.7Hz ! Well that means a loco change at both ends, not good railroading. Of course there are some dual voltage newer locos but they are expensive and preclude the use of any other older but potentialy usefull locos.
As a rail fan I miss out on the idea of seeing German and Swedish locos together and in Denmark !! The class 103's did make it to Padborg the border town in Denmark because Germany electrified to Padborg from Hamburg with 15KV 16.7Hz to reach Denmarks new wire.
The 103 types could realy haul xss going up the newly electrified line from Hamburg with a long train compared to the diesel trains, but once they changed to a Danish loco and continued to Fredericia the train went snails pace hauled by the Mz (an SD40 in European disguise) no acceleration at all and I felt I could have walked faster backwards. I wondered why they would use a diesel anyways when they have 25K/50Hz ?!
It should all have been 15Kv 16.7Hz all the way .
Well I'm not neccesarily blaming Denmark, or some other country, it is just that the Oresund Link goes right through Denmark. It might not even be the railroads fault if it is laws from outside. But if these interoperable directives are EU then it is still the country's fault for voting to be part of EU. Of course Denmark did vote out but they couldn't get out , and it would have been too late because they were already building the 25Kv system.
I also think there will be too many changes to ever reach total interoperatabilty. There will always be too many changes / improvements. Right now there are more coupler sysems then there had ever been in the past, and although there has always been many signal systems all over Europe, now more then ever are the signal systems noncompatible. And the future will have maglev trains.
On the flip side perhaps the US railroads are too interoperable so improvements in brakes and couplers is limited.
Some Mz's had 16 cylinder engines like the SD40.
The original plans for electrification in Denmark was more of a Danish regional network idea. Alot of branch lines were to be electrified. But after starting to string wires up they realised it was going to be expensive and then they came out with new diesel intercity MU trains (IC3) wich seemed to defete the whole purpose of electrification. It seemed like they almost regretted electrification, but then came the bridges and the electrifiction became the international through route. Like you said there wasn't even going to be a conection to Germany at first.
To this day there still isn't many through passenger trains on this route.
Now they want to sell off the Ea electrics and some are only 14 years old, they are not great freight haulers and they were expensive engines when new.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.