Continental European Railway Operations

[M636C]

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 graphic

For 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

[beaulieu]

@beaulieu

Unfortunately, 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.

Drehschiebe-Online, Sichtung Forum (Sightings)

Here's a direct link 

Rorschach Jubilee


Looks like the Works at Olten also had their Open Day on Saturday.

Pictures in the same forum

Olten Open Day pictures

[martin.knoepfel]

@beaulieu

Unfortunately, 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.

[Anonymous]

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 graphic

For 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. 

[beaulieu]

Martin, did you manage to go to Rorschach, on Saturday, for the St. Gallenlinie 150 year jubilee? From the pictures posted it looks like they had a nice display of both old and new locomotives and coaches.

[martin.knoepfel]

The governments of the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and Italy have agreed to equip the Rotterdam-Genoa-corridor with European Train Control Systems (ETCS) Level II til 2012. At least, for engines running on this corridor, the expensive different train-control-systems will be redundant. Of course, you never know wehether some politcal interference or lack of money compromise a good plan. At least, ETCS seems to work know. First trials in Switzerland had disastrous results.

On the new mainline from Olten zu Berne in the "flatlands" (Mittelland) of Switzerland, Swiss Federal Railways installed conventional signals and ETCS Level II. In the evening, they change from conventional to ETCS. Late in 2006 or in 2007, they want to migrate completely to ETCS. The problem is, only ETCS will  make 125 mph-running possible with trains following each other within 2 minutes. Which in turn is necessary to keep the hub-and-spoke-system of Bahn 2000 (rail 2000) working on the long run.

[beaulieu]

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.

[beaulieu]

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 graphic

For comparison look at the equivilent 4-axle car a "Habbillns"
note the extra lower case "a" in the designation.

SBB Cargo Habbillns graphic

[beaulieu]

   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?

The company probably died from massive brain hemoraging, due to beating their heads against the wall trying to get the roadrailer system approved in three countries in their lifetime. Seriously 1995 was much too early to try something like that. Open Access had just started in Germany but not in Austria or Italy. Trying to get the DB, OeBB, and FS to use the system in cooperation would have been a waste of time.

[Murphy Siding]

   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?

[MStLfan]

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.

greetings,

Marc Immeker

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

[Simon Reed]

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. 

[MStLfan]

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.html


in any event Seehafen Kiel is the Port of Keil and these engines are part of their railway.

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).

greetings,

Marc Immeker

[martin.knoepfel]

From the office I work in, I can see a lot of trains passing the station of Weinfelden in the Eastern region of Switzerland. Some of the four-wheeler freight-cars look quite new  with shining alu-sides. (Some are already  sprayed with graffitti!)

[beaulieu]

Hupac Ltd. has reported the traffic figures for the first half of 2006 and they show a continuation of the strong growth from 2005.

Service                                           1st half 2005           1st half 2006       change

UCT transalpine IM                     184,854 units           215,550  units         +16.6 %

UCT other  IM                             56,734 units              72,999 units          +28.7 %

Rolling Highway                            13,404 units              11,030 units          -17.8 %


Total                                        254,983 units          299,579 units            +17.5 %


The Rolling Highway figures are hurt by the restrictive clearances in the tunnels on the Gotthard route.

[beaulieu]

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.

[TH&B]

 

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.

 

[MStLfan]

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

[daveklepper]

Westinghouse demonstrated single-phase AC electrification on the Camden and Ambay line of the P in 1902 or 1903, probably the latter, and impressed the New Haven management.  PRR took a wait and see attitude and New York Central decided on DC underruning third rail with GE.   That was the U demonstration.

[Anonymous]

I've admired those huge threads about British railroading or the coffeeshop.
So I am going to start one here about European railroading in general.

Marc Immeker

A question I had im my head from long time: why did european RRs choose to use 4 wheels (2 axes) freight and passenger cars (even after having tried the 8 wheels cars in 1860-80s, e.g Wuertenger and some ante SBB swiss rrs), and only after WW1 started using again 4 axes passenger cars (after going with the 3 axes ones)? They are still building 2 axes freight cars today (but the percentage of 4 axes increased a lot in the last 20-30 years).

US RR started almost from the beginning with the 4 axes, and never changed. What are the advantages (and the down side?) of this choice.

Sebastiano

There are many reasons to use 2 2-axle bogies (trucks), the reason that US railroads went to them early is due to the poorer quality of our track. Rolling stock with bogies handles bad track better.
As to why the Europeans stayed with two axle stock longer, I can think of three contributing factors.
One, speeds were low for freight and distances were short. Two on the Continent frequent wars probably  meant there was greater demand for the money to rebuild the railways, certainly there was an incentive to make freight cars last as long as possible. Three in many cases lack of competition, so little or no innovation. I think now that open access is taking hold you will see most freight cars built with capacity, up to the maximum weight allowed. Many of the current 2 axle freight cars have no more weight carrying capacity than a highway truck.

There isn't necessarily a correlation between maximizing load factor and using 2 axle bogies.  Indeed, the opposite is true - load factor actually improves with single axle bogies vs two axle bogies because a lot of extra parts are disposed with, e.g. no need for a center plate et al.  It is the rigid wheelbase of railcars with single axle bogies that limits their use for cars that require a solid platform at maximum length.  Single axle bogies work well for cars that come in multiple platforms wherein the commodity is aggregatable such as coal (the Southern 100 4 unit coal car comes to mind), or with lighter weight items where the space between platforms can straddled such as the Iron Highway ro-ro car. 

If you follow the discussion on the Iron Highway thread....

http://www.trains.com/trccs/forums/878549/ShowPost.aspx

...you will see that single axle bogies were paramount in many of the innovations that were meant to increase load factor.  The TTOX/Four Runner TOFC cars, the Southern 100, the Iron Highway, the Trough Train, all used single axle bogies in whole or in part (althought the original Iron Highway actually used axleless independent wheels, which was a primary problem with the concept).  The consensus seems to be that single axle bogies work fine for cars with a wheelbase of 25' or less, or if implemented with some form of articulation to offset the drawbacks of a rigid wheelbase.  It should be noted that these innovations were eventually scrapped not because of the single axle bogies, but because of other quirks related to non standardization of parts.

Standardization is the primary reason US railroads have stuck with the two axle bogie over single axle or three axle bogies. 

In a somewhat ironic twist of historical fate, back a few years ago before they went bankrupt, the US bogie manufacturer ABC-Naco had developed an axle set with independent suspension that could be offered in single axle, two axle, and three axle configurations.  All the parts were interchangable with each other, and the independent suspension gave a superior ride quality over the US standard three piece bogie.  This innovation would have allowed complete standardization of any axle configuration for bogies, which may have finally paved the way for wider acceptance of cars which use single axle bogies.

[martin.knoepfel]

In Switzerland, railways are in a somehow privileged position. They can run day and night. Trucks are not allowed to run during the night and on weekends, exept for perishables.

In several other European countries, IIRC Germany being among them, trucks are banned on weekends, too. However, there is no EU-standard as to weekend-bans for trucks.

[beaulieu]

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.

[beaulieu]

Switzerland is in a unique position in that as far as freight traffic is concerned most of it is bridge traffic between Italy, germany and France. Sitzerland would have very little benifit in having large amounts of trucks driving through only gengeling the hiways and poluting the valleys with little economic gain for Switzerland itself. It is not an EU country so EU laws don't apply, so if the surounding big countries insist on wanting to truck or rail their comerce through Switzerland then wring them dry, make the shippers pay wich is what they are doing by charging the truckers heavily who will have to recover the charges from the shippers who are the Germans, Italians and French and even the rest of Europe.

The Swiss taxpayers cover the great internal passenger train services and the very expensive mountainous roads.

Further to your point, it is now codified in the Swiss Constitution that the Government must get truck traffic levels down to 1990 levels within two years after the completion of the Alpine Base tunnels. Originally it was to be 2 years after the Loetschberg opened, but the Government said there was no way that could be done, so it will be two years after the Gotthard Base Tunnel is done.

The heavy taxes on large trucks is providing between half and 2/3 of the money for boring the two railway base tunnels. The Swiss are influenced by the EU, by treaty the EU agreed not to contest the Swiss truck taxes since the Swiss used the money for two things, the first is to construct the two base tunnels, and the second is to subsidize transalpine Intermodal service. All Intermodal service operating in or though Switzerland is subsidized by the Government with the money being paid to the IM company, this also includes the Rolling Highway services. The Swiss Government also provides money to build or upgrade Intermodal facilities based upon how much traffic will move across Switzerland. The Swiss agreed to spend all the money raised by the truck taxes on improved transportation facilities, so they aren't wringing the rest of Europe dry.

[beaulieu]

I've admired those huge threads about British railroading or the coffeeshop.
So I am going to start one here about European railroading in general.

Marc Immeker

A question I had im my head from long time: why did european RRs choose to use 4 wheels (2 axes) freight and passenger cars (even after having tried the 8 wheels cars in 1860-80s, e.g Wuertenger and some ante SBB swiss rrs), and only after WW1 started using again 4 axes passenger cars (after going with the 3 axes ones)? They are still building 2 axes freight cars today (but the percentage of 4 axes increased a lot in the last 20-30 years).

US RR started almost from the beginning with the 4 axes, and never changed. What are the advantages (and the down side?) of this choice.

Sebastiano

There are many reasons to use 2 2-axle bogies (trucks), the reason that US railroads went to them early is due to the poorer quality of our track. Rolling stock with bogies handles bad track better.
As to why the Europeans stayed with two axle stock longer, I can think of three contributing factors.
One, speeds were low for freight and distances were short. Two on the Continent frequent wars probably  meant there was greater demand for the money to rebuild the railways, certainly there was an incentive to make freight cars last as long as possible. Three in many cases lack of competition, so little or no innovation. I think now that open access is taking hold you will see most freight cars built with capacity, up to the maximum weight allowed. Many of the current 2 axle freight cars have no more weight carrying capacity than a highway truck.

[beaulieu]

1903 is the year that the New York New Haven and Hartford management decided on 11000 volt 25 cycle AC electrification.  The first New Haven electrics into Grand Central ran in 1907.  Apparenly the German electrication of 1904 was the first single phase AC electrification.

Now that I know what you are looking for I can answer it for you. In 1903 Swiss engineer Hans Behn-Eschenburg working for Maschinenfabrik Oerlikon (MFO) successfully demonstrated a fully controllable single phase AC motor of a size useful for a railway. In 1904 MFO electrified a SBB  branchline from Zurich Seebach to Wettingen at 5.5Kv 16Hz AC. The New Haven probably heard or saw the demonstration and were convinced.

[Simon Reed]

Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham began running at 6600V 25Hz in 1908.

The original motor cars were equiped by Siemens (Germany) or Westinghouse (USA) suggesting that the board had made fact finding enquiries in both directions.

An interesting and comprehensive history is here:-

http://glostransporthistory.softdata.co.uk/electrif.htm

An interesting reference in the article is to the South India Railway. Are we looking at the wrong continents for pioneering HV electrification? 

[martin.knoepfel]

Rail4Chem is focused on chemicals. Other OA-carriers as well as the state-owned companies haul a large degree of differtent goods.

[owlsroost]

1903 is the year that the New York New Haven and Hartford management decided on 11000 volt 25 cycle AC electrification.  The first New Haven electrics into Grand Central ran in 1907.  Apparenly the German electrication of 1904 was the first single phase AC electrification.

The London, Brighton and South Coast Railway in the UK also decided on 6600V 25Hz overhead electrification in the same year (apparently after a visit to the USA), but the first trains didn't run until 1909.

Eventually the LBSCR system was converted to 660/750V DC 3rd rail in the late 1920's to bring it in line with the rest of the Southern Railway system (formed by merging the LBSCR, LSWR, SER and LCDR in 1923). Pity really - in modern terms, the 6600V 25Hz system would be much more suitable for the sort of high-performance trains running on the system today. DC 3rd rail is fine for short distance urban systems because it keeps the train equipment simple (which is why it's common in metro/subway systems) but it takes a lot of feeder stations to cover the 140 miles from London to Weymouth....

Tony

[daveklepper]

1903 is the year that the New York New Haven and Hartford management decided on 11000 volt 25 cycle AC electrification.  The first New Haven electrics into Grand Central ran in 1907.  Apparenly the German electrication of 1904 was the first single phase AC electrification.