This should prove interesting. This is a press release from ERFCP (European Rail Freight Customers Platform). For American readers they a customer lobbying group as their name implies.
Brussels, 31st August 2006 Single wagons – the way forward! Following a meeting of over 30 representatives of the rail freight industry in Brussels on Tuesday 29th August, including customers, independent train operators, forwarders and aggregators, wagon leasing and owning companies, infrastructure managers and representatives from two incumbent railway companies, the European Rail Freight Customer Platform (ERFCP) has written to European Commissioner Jacques Barrot asking the Commission to take urgent action on two issues which are causing severe problems for customers and leading to a speedy decline in such traffic. These issues are: 1. The refusal of many incumbent railway companies to allow any operator to use their marshalling yards and terminals at transparent and competitive prices, as required in the First Railway Package legislation. 2. The anti-competitive actions of some train operators in threatening customers with complete withdrawal of services if they use other operators for some of them. ERFCP noted that, whereas intermodal terminals were open to all operators, many marshalling yards were firmly closed to all except the incumbents. ERFCP suggests that this could be resolved by requiring incumbent operators to open these up to all operators, including provision of common services at transparent prices. Alternatively, the Commission must require Member States to transfer ownership and operation of marshalling yards to their Infrastructure Manager for them to provide common services and operations. As a result of this meeting, ERFCP has set up a project group to take forward actions to create a greater number of economic and reliable single wagon services. ERFCP President Georges di Lallo said ‘although we regretted the lack of interest from incumbent operators in the single wagon issue, customers, other train operators, leasing companies and aggregators welcomed the opportunity to hear about best practice in this sector, and discuss how this could be applied more widely. ‘From the number of people attending, it was clear that there was strong customer interest to build on the success of some single wagon service. /we agreed that there was good potential for growth if the best service qualities identified could be applied much more widely. ‘However, this potential for success will only happen if the Commission takes strong and urgent action to curb the continuing monopolistic actions of some railway companies and ensures that the First Railway Package measures are fully adopted and enforced.’ Further information: Klaus Meyer, Secretary General, t: 00 49 8943 63 0775
My own comments are that I wonder how the envision this working, for example in a humpyard how would you keep ABC Rail's freight cars separate from those of XYZ Rail's. Dedicate tracks to each company? Clear out enough tracks to do the second company's cars? Or pick and chose which services you provide, i.e. pickup from some customers but not others, operate some of the connecting hauls. And if the volume drops and costs go up who covers them, the incumbent? or the Government? Or do you adjust charges retrospectively? And do you expect the incumbent to handle the marginal services. All very strange.
beaulieu wrote:The 62000 series are easy to explain, when you are near death and on life support, you will take anything to survive.
And they aren't now?
If the JT1 - JT6 are at Tilburg it may be that they are a but difficult to get to. we'll wait and see.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
marcimmeker wrote:As for swallowing their pride, well, they are doing that with their Vossloh locomotives from Germany. Further, during or just after WW2 SNCF ordered 100 diesel locomotives which became class 62000. They were mainly used for switching hump yards in later years. We'll have to watch the leasing companies to see if they have anything on offer quickly or if th locomotives have to be build first. greetings, Marc Immeker
As for swallowing their pride, well, they are doing that with their Vossloh locomotives from Germany.
Further, during or just after WW2 SNCF ordered 100 diesel locomotives which became class 62000. They were mainly used for switching hump yards in later years.
We'll have to watch the leasing companies to see if they have anything on offer quickly or if th locomotives have to be build first.
marcimmeker wrote:This little bit of information escaped my information: http://www.railcargo.nl/index.cfm/menuid/6/hoofdcat/151/subcat/165/Product/1256 I shall have to pay even more attention to what moves or not at Kijfhoek on those days that I travel past it. And when I again have a working photo camera I will go out and take some pictures. greetings, Marc Immeker
This little bit of information escaped my information:
http://www.railcargo.nl/index.cfm/menuid/6/hoofdcat/151/subcat/165/Product/1256
I shall have to pay even more attention to what moves or not at Kijfhoek on those days that I travel past it.
And when I again have a working photo camera I will go out and take some pictures.
marcimmeker wrote: True, they twist and turn the rules upside down if it suits them and the rest lets them get away with it too often. If B-cargo is smart it hooks up with the Swiss (SBB-Cargo) which run trains to Cologne already. B-Cargo has 170 class 7700 diesellocomotives from Vossloh (http://www.loks-aus-kiel.de/index.php?nav=1400708), a development of the standard G1205. 20 are suitable for the Netherlands and Germany. No problem there. In fact, B-Cargo runs several trains in the Netherlands already. Besides, they moved about 60 million tons of freigth last year, some 27 million tons from Antwerp alone. Compare that to the 30 million or so of Railion NL. greetings, Marc Immeker
True, they twist and turn the rules upside down if it suits them and the rest lets them get away with it too often.
If B-cargo is smart it hooks up with the Swiss (SBB-Cargo) which run trains to Cologne already. B-Cargo has 170 class 7700 diesellocomotives from Vossloh (http://www.loks-aus-kiel.de/index.php?nav=1400708), a development of the standard G1205. 20 are suitable for the Netherlands and Germany. No problem there. In fact, B-Cargo runs several trains in the Netherlands already. Besides, they moved about 60 million tons of freigth last year, some 27 million tons from Antwerp alone. Compare that to the 30 million or so of Railion NL.
beaulieu wrote: marcimmeker wrote: Isn't SNCF Fret on a double standard? I understand that it is running freight trains to Antwerpen Noord Goederen, the switching yard for the harbor of Antwerp and a stone's throw from the Dutch border. Only now is France opening up to open access. Greetings, Marc Immeker Since when did something like that stop the French. I seriously wonder what will happen to B-Cargo, pretty soon the other railways will eat its lunch. No friends, only hungry wolves nipping at its heels.
marcimmeker wrote: Isn't SNCF Fret on a double standard? I understand that it is running freight trains to Antwerpen Noord Goederen, the switching yard for the harbor of Antwerp and a stone's throw from the Dutch border. Only now is France opening up to open access. Greetings, Marc Immeker
Isn't SNCF Fret on a double standard? I understand that it is running freight trains to Antwerpen Noord Goederen, the switching yard for the harbor of Antwerp and a stone's throw from the Dutch border. Only now is France opening up to open access.
Greetings,
owlsroost wrote: beaulieu wrote:Yes, but their timing is poor. I see no point in beginning route learning until the Channel Tunnel problem is solved. They could just begin operations and then have to stop until the problem is solved. In a normal, profit-driven business I'd probably expect them to wait too - but SNCF Fret is still a state-owned, union-dominated, monopolistic outfit where rational thought seems in short supply sometimes (if we get it wrong, the French taxpayer will bail us out, won't they ?). They've been prodded by EWS on their home ground and I suspect they think they're firing warning shots across the bows of EWS in the vain hope it'll go away.... beaulieu wrote:Yes, Although the problem with freight and the Channel Tunnel is also linked with the lack of commitment of SNCF Fret to taking care of its customers properly and more recently to the very slow implementation of Open Access in France. In any case even a reasonable amount of more freight traffic via the Channel Tunnel would not generate enough additional revenue to solve the financial problems. In fact the lower revenues will have the beneficial effect of getting the problem resolved sooner rather than later. Do you mean Eurotunnel revenues and financial problems ?
beaulieu wrote:Yes, but their timing is poor. I see no point in beginning route learning until the Channel Tunnel problem is solved. They could just begin operations and then have to stop until the problem is solved.
In a normal, profit-driven business I'd probably expect them to wait too - but SNCF Fret is still a state-owned, union-dominated, monopolistic outfit where rational thought seems in short supply sometimes (if we get it wrong, the French taxpayer will bail us out, won't they ?). They've been prodded by EWS on their home ground and I suspect they think they're firing warning shots across the bows of EWS in the vain hope it'll go away....
beaulieu wrote:Yes, Although the problem with freight and the Channel Tunnel is also linked with the lack of commitment of SNCF Fret to taking care of its customers properly and more recently to the very slow implementation of Open Access in France. In any case even a reasonable amount of more freight traffic via the Channel Tunnel would not generate enough additional revenue to solve the financial problems. In fact the lower revenues will have the beneficial effect of getting the problem resolved sooner rather than later.
Do you mean Eurotunnel revenues and financial problems ?
Thats what I am refering to, yes.
Yes, I know that a big problem with Channel Tunnel freight has always been SNCF Fret's attitude towards it (it's just the branch line to England, isn't it ?) - one of the reasons EWS started up ECR. Incidentally, have you heard of any moves by ECR to get clearance to run class 92's deeper into France ? They were originally designed for that but (if I remember correctly) the French rail unions objected to them on (probably spurious) safety grounds so it's never happened. Tony
Yes, I know that a big problem with Channel Tunnel freight has always been SNCF Fret's attitude towards it (it's just the branch line to England, isn't it ?) - one of the reasons EWS started up ECR.
Incidentally, have you heard of any moves by ECR to get clearance to run class 92's deeper into France ? They were originally designed for that but (if I remember correctly) the French rail unions objected to them on (probably spurious) safety grounds so it's never happened.
Tony
It has been reported in TR Europe that SNCF looked at installing the main French safety system KVB on their Class 92s and found the cost would be much too high. Probably due to the Class 92s, two locomotives built in one chassis design, a consequence of the Channel Tunnel again. If things get going for Channel Tunnel freight look for ECR to buy some Alstom 37000 series locomotives or perhaps one of the German designs.
marcimmeker wrote:Isn't SNCF Fret on a double standard? I understand that it is running freight trains to Antwerpen Noord Goederen, the switching yard for the harbor of Antwerp and a stone's throw from the Dutch border. Only now is France opening up to open access. Greetings, Marc Immeker
owlsroost wrote: beaulieu wrote:SNCF fret has started route learning from Dollands Moor with one of their formerly stored Class 92 locomotives. Could be interesting. The expected response to EWS operations in France I guess....
beaulieu wrote:SNCF fret has started route learning from Dollands Moor with one of their formerly stored Class 92 locomotives. Could be interesting.
The expected response to EWS operations in France I guess....
Yes, but their timing is poor. I see no point in beginning route learning until the Channel Tunnel problem is solved. They could just begin operations and then have to stop until the problem is solved.
According to a UK newspaper article recently, a more pressing problem is that the UK government is about to stop paying the 'minimum user charge' (a subsidy, basically) for freight trains through the Channel Tunnel, so EWS and SNCF have start paying about 32 million GBP a year to Eurotunnel themselves if they want to carry on running freight trains through it. At the current usage level of about 4000 trains per year, this equates to 8000 GBP per train - totally uneconomic, so at the moment EWS is saying it will stop running international trains in November unless a solution is found....
Yes, Although the problem with freight and the Channel Tunnel is also linked with the lack of commitment of SNCF Fret to taking care of its customers properly and more recently to the very slow implementation of Open Access in France. In any case even a reasonable amount of more freight traffic via the Channel Tunnel would not generate enough additional revenue to solve the financial problems. In fact the lower revenues will have the beneficial effect of getting the problem resolved sooner rather than later.
The current issue of 'Today's Railways' European edition has an editorial comment about the recent first run of a block cereals train in France by Euro Cargo Rail (EWS in France). Because of problems with one of the Vossloh locos it took 48 hours for the out and back trip (500km each way). A local newspaper reporter phoned the customer for comments afterwards (probably expecting criticism of ECR) and was told that they were very pleased with the service - because it usually takes 8 or 9 days for SNCF to do the same thing !!! Tony
The current issue of 'Today's Railways' European edition has an editorial comment about the recent first run of a block cereals train in France by Euro Cargo Rail (EWS in France). Because of problems with one of the Vossloh locos it took 48 hours for the out and back trip (500km each way). A local newspaper reporter phoned the customer for comments afterwards (probably expecting criticism of ECR) and was told that they were very pleased with the service - because it usually takes 8 or 9 days for SNCF to do the same thing !!!
Resitsa wrote:"Are you sure about that? " I find different indications about the extent of the "Bahnstrom" power lines set up for the NBS Cologne-Rhein-Main. They vary between 110km and over 400, which might involve beefing up the lines to the substations near Siegburg and Frankfurt (see page 74 of the following paper, regarding the "south end" in Hessen)www.rpda.de/dezernate/regionalversammlung/lb_rov_ice.pdf
"Are you sure about that? "
I find different indications about the extent of the "Bahnstrom" power lines set up for the NBS Cologne-Rhein-Main. They vary between 110km and over 400, which might involve beefing up the lines to the substations near Siegburg and Frankfurt (see page 74 of the following paper, regarding the "south end" in Hessen)www.rpda.de/dezernate/regionalversammlung/lb_rov_ice.pdf
This document appears to be the Evironmental Impact Statement. The section you point out appears to be where they are obtaining the power. The lines described are feeders to bring more power into the area of the NBS. The "Nibelungenbahn" is a non-electrified line connecting the Main-Neckar Bahn at Bensheim with the Reidbahn at Hofheim. The idea seems to be to draw power from the powerstation near Biblis and then route the new feeder over to the Main-Neckar Bahn and thence up to the Neubaustrecke, there must be some reason not to take the more direct Riedbahn. The DB appears to be taking the opening of the NBS as an opportunity to upgrade power supplies for the whole region. They cannot merely divert the needed power from the Rheinstrecke due to growth of freight traffic replacing the diverted passenger trains, so as part of the project they are installing new feeder lines. Is the powerstation at Biblis owned by DB Energie? In any case there may not be enough transmission capacity available in the Commercial Grid.
Besides, the installed "conversion" power in Limburg does not appear to cover more than two ICEs accelarating uphill. I thus suspect that the ABB equipement is only feeding the lesser part of the required energy.
The conversion station has a capacity of 120 MW, each ICE-3 set draws a maximum of 8 MW, so the station could handle 6 double sets, plus 2 single sets accelerating simultaniously, not very likely to be needed. The sets cruise at 300 kph at 75 percent power.
I also find that the question whether feeding new lines which only new-technology trains will be able to use with "non-compatible" frequency for the sake of locomotives of generations gone has been raised in german Parlament. Resitsa
I also find that the question whether feeding new lines which only new-technology trains will be able to use with "non-compatible" frequency for the sake of locomotives of generations gone has been raised in german Parlament.
Resitsa
I won't disagree with you in the case of the Rhein-Main NBS, however much of the savings in the case of the fixed infrastructure would be lost on the trainsets as they would require extra equipment. The trainsets would require the switchgear and cabling for 25Kv but cannot dispense with the 15Kv equipment since most of their runs are under that power supply. DB bought 50 ICE-3 sets able to run on 15Kv. and only 17 ICE-3M polycurrent sets, of these, 4 now belong to NS for service between Amsterdam and Frankfurt-am-Main. The DB is planning on using just 6 of the ICE-3M sets to cover the Frankfurt to Paris service, the remaining 11 sets are more than enough to cover the Amsterdam service.
"Abgeordneter Dr. R. Werner Schuster (SPD) Welche Konsequenzen zieht<snipped for brevity of quote>
"Abgeordneter Dr. R. Werner Schuster (SPD) Welche Konsequenzen zieht
<snipped for brevity of quote>
"Abgeordneter Dr. R. Werner Schuster (SPD) Welche Konsequenzen zieht die Bundesregie- rung daraus, daß durch das eigene Bahnstrom- netz entstehende jährliche Verluste und Unter- haltungskosten von ca. 100 Mio. DM vermieden werden können und durch die mit hoher Wahr- scheinlichkeit in einiger Zeit weitgehende Libe- ralisierung des Strommarktes aufgrund des Durchleitungsrechtes für Fremdbezug über das internationale Verbundnetz bei Strompreisdiffe- renzen von z. B. 5 Pf/kWh zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich beim derzeitigen Stromver- brauch der DB AG zusätzliche Kostenersparnisse von ca. 400 bis 450 Mio. DM jährlich möglich sind und damit bei einer Umstellung der Bahnstrom- frequenz auf 50 Hz und Bezug über das öffent- liche Verbundnetz Gesamtersparnisse von über 500 Mio. DM jährlich erreicht werden können und insbesonders für die Hochgeschwindigkeits- strecke Köln - Frankfurt daher eine eigene Bahnstromleitung technisch überhaupt nicht not- wendig ist? 67. Abgeordneter Dr. R. Werner Schuster (SPD) Welche Konsequenzen zieht die Bundesregie- rung daraus, daß nach den Angaben des Bundes- ministeriums für Verkehr die Umstellung der Bahnfrequenz auf 50 Hz einen Investitionsauf- wand von über 10 Mrd. DM für Lokomotiven und stationäre Anlagen erforderlich macht, aber gleichzeitig in dem beschlossenen Investitions- programm bis zum Jahre 2000 26 Mrd. DM für Lokomotiven und Fahrzeuge enthalten sind, die dem Stand der Technik angepaßt bzw. wegen Überalterung erneuert werden müssen und dies auch für die überalterten örtlichen Energiever- teilanlagen gilt und bei Abzug der Wiederbe- schaffungssummen für Lokomotiven und örtli- chen Energieverteilanlagen von den genannten 10 Mrd. DM nur noch geringe Beträge übrig blei- ben, denen die unter Frage 66 erwähnten, weit über dem Jahresgewinn der DB AG liegenden Ersparnissen entgegenstehen und mit den Ersparnissen nach Frage 66 evtl. Mehrkosten für geringere Neigungen auf der NBS Köln - Frank- furt finanziert werden können und nach den Ver- einbarungen zwischen Bund und DB AG entspre- chend der Bundeshaushaltsordnung Zuschüsse nur für Investitionen gewährt werden dürfen, deren Wirtschaftlichkeit durch Variantenver- gleich nach der Kapitalwertmethode und den von Prof. Ahlbach entwickelten Grundsätzen fest- gestellt wird?"
Resitsa wrote:"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." Well, this technology was not at hand for the Frankfurt--Siegburg (Cologne) high-speed line, opened thee or four years ago, for which (I quote from memory) around 450km dedicated high-voltage power lines had to be established to feed the substations. Which cost around 350 Mio Euro extra. Cost differential for operating cost is around 10-15%, due to higher maintenance and losses. Once the old "direct current"-engineered locos are all dead and replaced by three-phased models, it is more logical to gear these to accept 50Hz, which is relatively easy, than to use modern technologies to feed outdated current. It was certainly still more of a stupidity to retain 16 2/3 for this Frankfurt-Cologne electrification, as the "TGV like" profile choosen for it, with grades of 4%, preludes its commercial utilisation by any other Deutsche Bahn equipment than the ICE3. Which Deutsche Bahn is eager to buy in a dual voltage version also, be it only to reach Brussels and Paris under 50Hz. If the only trains allowed on the line are to be equiped progressively to accept 50Hz as well, it makes no sense to feed the line with any other juice than 50hz! But german trainology has always been marked by ideologies.... 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."
Well, this technology was not at hand for the Frankfurt--Siegburg (Cologne) high-speed line, opened thee or four years ago, for which (I quote from memory) around 450km dedicated high-voltage power lines had to be established to feed the substations. Which cost around 350 Mio Euro extra. Cost differential for operating cost is around 10-15%, due to higher maintenance and losses.
Once the old "direct current"-engineered locos are all dead and replaced by three-phased models, it is more logical to gear these to accept 50Hz, which is relatively easy, than to use modern technologies to feed outdated current.
It was certainly still more of a stupidity to retain 16 2/3 for this Frankfurt-Cologne electrification, as the "TGV like" profile choosen for it, with grades of 4%, preludes its commercial utilisation by any other Deutsche Bahn equipment than the ICE3. Which Deutsche Bahn is eager to buy in a dual voltage version also, be it only to reach Brussels and Paris under 50Hz. If the only trains allowed on the line are to be equiped progressively to accept 50Hz as well, it makes no sense to feed the line with any other juice than 50hz! But german trainology has always been marked by ideologies....
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.
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.
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 .
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 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.
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.
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
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).
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,
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.
"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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.