Trains.com

Trouble in open access paradise?

12891 views
187 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Cambridge, UK
  • 419 posts
Posted by owlsroost on Monday, August 21, 2006 7:36 AM
 Simon Reed wrote:

The bad part of this is that the authorities have a tendency to be swayed by the financial, rather than social, value of the franchise. The SRA seemed to be a subsiduary of Virgin on a number of occasions, and the regulatory authority of the DfT is so weak that it's taken Civil Law to stop GNER bullying Grand Central.        

There's some interesting stuff regarding the outcome of the application for a Judicial Review initated by GNER concerning open-access passenger operators on the ECML here - http://home.ezezine.com/759/759-2006.08.21.00.01.archive.html

If you follow the link to official judgement - http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/square/ca14/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/PDF%20files/Judgment___approved___27_July_2006.pdf - some of the comments are quite entertaining - particularly paragraph 89 on page 26 (basically, if the track access charging regime is so favourable towards OA passenger operators, why aren't there more of them ?). The answer of course is that it's financially riskier being an OA operator compared to a franchisee.

There's a bit more background to the GNER situation here - http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/INFORMED%20SOURCES%20ARCHIVE/INF%20SRCS%202006/Informed%20Sources%2005%202006.htm

Tony

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Cambridge, UK
  • 419 posts
Posted by owlsroost on Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:11 PM

Actually, the London - Birmingham route(s) are a good example of both competing operators on one route and competition between routes.

If we restrict the comparison to standard class 'walk on' fares (no advance booking needed) - the tickets most people buy - then :

Chiltern Railways (Marylebone - Moor Street route, 140 minute journey time) offers 15, 26 and 65 GBP returns.

Silverlink + Central Trains (Euston - New Street, 135 minute journey time with a change at Northampton) offers 21, 23 or 42 GBP returns.

Virgin WC (Euston - New Street, 90 minute journey time) offers 36 or 108 GBP returns (also valid on Chiltern and Silverlink). All the cheaper VWC tickets are advance booking only, from 20 GBP return upwards.

The cheaper tickets of course have more restrictions on which trains they can be used on, and the 36 and 108 GBP returns are any operator/any route tickets - so you could add Paddington - New Street (FGW + Virgin CC, 135 minutes, change at Reading) to the list too !

All of the operators above are franchisees, not open access.

Tony

  • Member since
    March 2005
  • From: Sulzerland, UK
  • 337 posts
Posted by Simon Reed on Thursday, August 10, 2006 2:32 AM

I've not been able to reply before now but Owlsroost has done it very eloquently for me - thanks.

Beaulieu - your point about WCML stopping services illustrates precisely what is good, and bad, about open access passenger service.

A passenger travelling between London Euston and Birmingham (Britain's second biggest city) have the option of travelling with Virgin or Silverlink.

Virgin provide an express service with 140MPH capacity tilting trains. Silverlink provide far less opulent accomodation and probably take nearly twice as long.

I could'nt immediately give you the respective fares but the Virgin train is going to be by far the most expensive option. If, however, you are of restricted financial means you can still make the journey on the Silverlink train.

I fully accept that this is a nod towards the class differentials imposed on the very earliest rail travellers but it provides a semblance of a different type of Open Access - ie the provision of options for the passenger.

The bad part of this is that the authorities have a tendency to be swayed by the financial, rather than social, value of the franchise. The SRA seemed to be a subsiduary of Virgin on a number of occasions, and the regulatory authority of the DfT is so weak that it's taken Civil Law to stop GNER bullying Grand Central.        

  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 8:52 PM
 beaulieu wrote:
 Hugh Jampton wrote:
A quick nose around the rest of Europe and elsewhere shows privatisation as the root of all evil.


Water, Gas, Electricity etc. yes. But Estonia, is the only rail privatization otherwise. Well you could consider the Dutch and Danish freight services privatized.


Yeah, but I bet they didn't fragment it into half a million different companies though.
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 8:32 PM
 Hugh Jampton wrote:
A quick nose around the rest of Europe and elsewhere shows privatisation as the root of all evil.


Water, Gas, Electricity etc. yes. But Estonia, is the only rail privatization otherwise. Well you could consider the Dutch and Danish freight services privatized.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 8:27 PM
 futuremodal wrote:

An excellent synopsis.  But I still don't know your take on the whole "was it the privatization, or was it the quasi-open access" argument as it relates to the problems experienced.  Surely they overdid it with the break up into 100+ entities - do we put that one in the "privatization" catagory or the "open access" category?



The extreme breakup was done to extract the maximum amount of money out of the sale. Most people will agree with that. Some people add that another reason was to make it nearly impossible to undo the privatization, I think that part would be hard to prove as they have moved back closer to BR with Network Rail. I don't think anyone on either side in British politics wants to take back the freight business. Another unknown is whether or not the government that privatized BR really knew what it would cost them in the long run, or if their attitude was we need to do this to get reelected and then we'll fix the problems later. Call those problems badly handled Privatization problems rather than an Open Access problem. No Country in Europe right now has more than a token amount of Open Access for passengers. Open Access is really about freight.

If Open Access were to come to passenger service you would need a strong referee over network capacity. Unlike with a bus on a motorway a small DMU or EMU takes up just as much track capacity as a Eurostar or HST, of course you don't run a stopping service with a Eurostar either. What has to be balanced is the needs of the larger cities - longer distance services with the needs of smaller towns and their people, because there will never be enough capacity for both unless someone enforces a rationing system as opposed to a system where "he who has the most money rules". There is an ongoing discussion right now over stopping services on the WCML eating up pathing for both freight and Intercity passenger. Another case is with the Crossrail project, the freight hauliers are very concerned that they will be forced off the inner portion of the Great Western Main Line, between all the trains of First Great Western, Great Western Connect, Heathrow Express, and the new Crossrail services (8 trains per hour?) on a 4 track mainline.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:49 PM
A quick nose around the rest of Europe and elsewhere shows privatisation as the root of all evil.
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 7:33 PM
 owlsroost wrote:

Taking a cue from Simon Reed's contribution, my take on the privatisation/open access situation in the UK is:-

1. Open Access freight is probably the best thing to have happened to rail freight since BR was formed in 1948 - even allowing for economic growth and changing traffic patterns (e.g. power station coal traffic switching to imported coal with longer hauls) it's reversed the relentless decline in rail freight and made it a truly competitive (between operators) business for the first time since 1825.

2. To make open access work, I think you need to separate the infrastructure from the train operators and provide some sort of independant regulator to sort out disputes and keep the playing field fair and level - they got that bit basically right. One thing that seems to have 'matured' since privatisation is the attitudes of operators and Railtrack/Network Rail towards each other when problems happen on a day-to-day basis - they've realised (re-discovered ?) that the railway is a complex system and keeping it running smoothly needs co-operation, not laywers arguing with each other over the fine print in the contracts.

3. The big mistake was setting up Railtrack as a 'virtual' company as far as maintenance was concerned (it was all contracted out), and splintering the ex-BR maintenance function into so many small pieces. All this really achieved was increased costs and a crucial core activity which was far more difficult to control and monitor - and it's taken even more effort/money to put the  maintenance function back together under Network Rail.

4. I think open access passenger operations could work here on a larger scale, now that the industry has recovered from the initial 'nuclear explosion' and has (in some cases) re-learnt how to run a railway. The big problem I see is how do you handle socially necessary subsidised services, without the subsidies directly or indirectly contributing to the profits of an open-access operator on the route - the franchise model seems to be the best compromise anyone has come up with so far. One thing to keep in mind is that there is actual competition between operators on some routes e.g. GNER, Virgin and TPE between York and Newcastle (while operators are required to sell and accept operator-agnostic tickets, they are free to sell cheaper operator-specific tickets if they want to, and run more trains than their basic franchise commitment mandates). I think the recent round of franchising changes have been a retrograde step in some cases because they've reduced the competion possibilities e.g. all of the services from Paddington (First Great Western) and Liverpool Street ('one' Railway) are now in the hands of a single operator where before they had different commuter and long-distance operators.

5. I suspect one reason why the politicians didn't want to risk more open access passenger operations at the start is because of earlier experiences when bus operations in most parts of the UK were privatised and de-regulated. It basically went from regulated monopolies through a period of instability (in some cases schedules and routes changing every week, lots of buses on prime routes and very few on others etc - not very useful if that was the only way you had of getting to work etc), then slowly the bigger operators either bought out or forced off the road the smaller ones (by undercutting the fares and/or swamping the route with buses) until we ended up with a different set of regional monopolists - e.g. Stagecoach, First Group and Arriva (sometimes known collectively as the 'bus bandits'). If the bus services in my area are typical, overall they have improved compared to pre-regulation, but things took a long time to settle down and in some cases there is a clear separation between commercial services (basically morning to early evening, mon-sat) and subsidised (run under contract from the local council) services at other times e.g. a different operator.

So, overall - I think it's been a successful experiment (but expensive), and I don't think I'd want to go back to BR - that had it's problems too.

Comments ?

Tony

An excellent synopsis.  But I still don't know your take on the whole "was it the privatization, or was it the quasi-open access" argument as it relates to the problems experienced.  Surely they overdid it with the break up into 100+ entities - do we put that one in the "privatization" catagory or the "open access" category?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Cambridge, UK
  • 419 posts
Posted by owlsroost on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 1:27 PM

Taking a cue from Simon Reed's contribution, my take on the privatisation/open access situation in the UK is:-

1. Open Access freight is probably the best thing to have happened to rail freight since BR was formed in 1948 - even allowing for economic growth and changing traffic patterns (e.g. power station coal traffic switching to imported coal with longer hauls) it's reversed the relentless decline in rail freight and made it a truly competitive (between operators) business for the first time since 1825.

2. To make open access work, I think you need to separate the infrastructure from the train operators and provide some sort of independant regulator to sort out disputes and keep the playing field fair and level - they got that bit basically right. One thing that seems to have 'matured' since privatisation is the attitudes of operators and Railtrack/Network Rail towards each other when problems happen on a day-to-day basis - they've realised (re-discovered ?) that the railway is a complex system and keeping it running smoothly needs co-operation, not laywers arguing with each other over the fine print in the contracts.

3. The big mistake was setting up Railtrack as a 'virtual' company as far as maintenance was concerned (it was all contracted out), and splintering the ex-BR maintenance function into so many small pieces. All this really achieved was increased costs and a crucial core activity which was far more difficult to control and monitor - and it's taken even more effort/money to put the  maintenance function back together under Network Rail.

4. I think open access passenger operations could work here on a larger scale, now that the industry has recovered from the initial 'nuclear explosion' and has (in some cases) re-learnt how to run a railway. The big problem I see is how do you handle socially necessary subsidised services, without the subsidies directly or indirectly contributing to the profits of an open-access operator on the route - the franchise model seems to be the best compromise anyone has come up with so far. One thing to keep in mind is that there is actual competition between operators on some routes e.g. GNER, Virgin and TPE between York and Newcastle (while operators are required to sell and accept operator-agnostic tickets, they are free to sell cheaper operator-specific tickets if they want to, and run more trains than their basic franchise commitment mandates). I think the recent round of franchising changes have been a retrograde step in some cases because they've reduced the competion possibilities e.g. all of the services from Paddington (First Great Western) and Liverpool Street ('one' Railway) are now in the hands of a single operator where before they had different commuter and long-distance operators.

5. I suspect one reason why the politicians didn't want to risk more open access passenger operations at the start is because of earlier experiences when bus operations in most parts of the UK were privatised and de-regulated. It basically went from regulated monopolies through a period of instability (in some cases schedules and routes changing every week, lots of buses on prime routes and very few on others etc - not very useful if that was the only way you had of getting to work etc), then slowly the bigger operators either bought out or forced off the road the smaller ones (by undercutting the fares and/or swamping the route with buses) until we ended up with a different set of regional monopolists - e.g. Stagecoach, First Group and Arriva (sometimes known collectively as the 'bus bandits'). If the bus services in my area are typical, overall they have improved compared to pre-regulation, but things took a long time to settle down and in some cases there is a clear separation between commercial services (basically morning to early evening, mon-sat) and subsidised (run under contract from the local council) services at other times e.g. a different operator.

So, overall - I think it's been a successful experiment (but expensive), and I don't think I'd want to go back to BR - that had it's problems too.

Comments ?

Tony

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 8:25 AM
Rail should take a bigger share of Rotterdam's traffic this year if they just have the capacity. Water levels on the Rhine River and canals that depend on the Rhine for water are reaching seriously low levels. Many of the Barge Operators have enacted low water surcharges due to reduced carrying capacity.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 8:19 AM
Another way to look at the Port of Rotterdam in photographs is to look at the photos in a thread in another forum. There are photographs of the Ports rail facilities as well as the Docks and similar. I strongly recommend a Broadband connection.

SkyscraperCity Discussion - Port of Rotterdam
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 6:36 AM
 marcimmeker wrote:

By the way, if any of you are in the Netherlands during the weekend of september 1, 2 and 3 come visit the world port days and you can check out the operations at Maasvlakte and elsewhere for yourself. You can even get there by steam train! Or visit a refinery, or a container terminal or...

greetings,

Marc Immeker

http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/home/

http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news/events/events/worldportday.jsp?query=&event_date_month=2006-09-08&event_specification_type=Recreation

 



Sounds interesting, don't know if I can make it though.
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 6:33 AM
 nanaimo73 wrote:
What is the tidal range for the port at Rotterdam ?


The tidal range along that coast of the North Sea is around 12 - 15 feet at spring tides.
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: NL
  • 614 posts
Posted by MStLfan on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 6:04 AM

The maximum draught is 22.55 meters. I presume this is at high water.

See the website www.portofrotterdem.com/

greetings,

Marc Immeker

For whom the Bell Tolls John Donne From Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1623), XVII: Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris - PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that.
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 1:08 AM
What is the tidal range for the port at Rotterdam ?
Dale
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, August 9, 2006 12:31 AM
 marcimmeker wrote:

Dave,

Some figures on rail operations at Rotterdam Maasvlakte based on a recent article in Railmagazine, a Dutch railfan magazine with lots of prototype info ((De Maasvlakte anno 2006, meeuwen, wind en steeds meer containers,Railmagazine 234 pages 44-49).

The operators of the container terminals own the tracks on their property or, if not them, then it is the port of Rotterdam as the owner of the harbor.

Furthermore, one of the terminal operators, ECT (Europe Combined Terminals) grants access to its own terminals, not Pro Rail, the owner of the rest of the tracks. So, it decides if a train goes to the ORT (Oostelijke rail terminal or eastern rail terminal) or RTW (rail terminal west). ORT has 4 tracks but none dockside for direct discharge and a runaround. From a ship the container goes to storage, or on a MTS (multi-trailer-system, 5 chassis coupled together and moved by computer, 10 TEU total capacity). Then it goes to ORT or RTW. Usually the MTS's move close together and a train is (un)loaded quickly. RTW has 7 single end tracks.

The MTSs are not computer controlled, the ACVs are the robots. What Dave doesn't understand is that they looked at direct on dock and rejected the idea as inefficient. The newest idea is called "High Quay" Were the main dock surface is about at the level of the ship's main deck. The idea is to reduce the distance that the container spreader has to move. This is also why they have rejected the idea of direct rail loading, they do not want the spreader having to move that far in traverse.


The original yard Maasvlakte (or MVT) is used exclusively for coal and ore trains these days. On an avarage day 6 ore, 4 coal 23 container and 1 carload trains leave Maasvlakte. 203 trans in a week. Because almost no trains operate during saturdaynight, trainlength tracks are at a premium then.

West of MVT is the N15 road and west of that is the new container train yard with 18 tracks, MVTW (or Maasvlakte west, Dutch station names generally are shortened by using the first letter of each syllable). Connecting to this track is ORT (reached via a double track below the N15) and RTW and also a new track going further north to Lyondell Bayer (chemical company), DFDS Tor Line (ferry company). In future this line will reach the new Euro Max terminal The APM (Maersk) terminal is reached by MTS from RTW.

Number of containers moved by rail: 1998: 200.000; 2005: 315.000 or an icrease of nearly 60%. It is actually 43% since 2002.

Distribution of market share: rail from 10% to 16%, barge 25 % to 35 % and road 65% to 48%.

Note: if a train is unloaded but will not be loaded at the same time then it is moved to MVTW for storage.

Other customers:

Lyondell Bayer: 5-10 tankcars styrene monomeer (english word for that?) and propyleneoxide.

its monomer, drop the extra "e" in English


DFDS Torline: one train (Rail4chem) from Brescia Italy with mostly swap bodies. Ferries to Immingham near Hull England (6/week), Oslo Norway (2/week)

EMO: the ore and coal transloading company transloads about 33 million tons metric. It has one loader for ore trains which means 6 trains (to Dillingen, Saarland, Germany) a day max and 6 million tons a year. Ore is decreasing but coal increasing (closing of steelworks in Europe and closing of coal mines in Germany). There are 4 coal trains a day or 4 million tons a year. A new loader should increase the number of coal trains. The rest moves by barge on the Rhine.

Sources:

www.rolandrail.net

www.dfds.com

www.ect.nl

www.emo.nl

greetings,

Marc Immeker

 

  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: NL
  • 614 posts
Posted by MStLfan on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 4:01 PM

By the way, if any of you are in the Netherlands during the weekend of september 1, 2 and 3 come visit the world port days and you can check out the operations at Maasvlakte and elsewhere for yourself. You can even get there by steam train! Or visit a refinery, or a container terminal or...

greetings,

Marc Immeker

http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/home/

http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/news/events/events/worldportday.jsp?query=&event_date_month=2006-09-08&event_specification_type=Recreation

 

For whom the Bell Tolls John Donne From Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1623), XVII: Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris - PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that.
  • Member since
    November 2002
  • From: NL
  • 614 posts
Posted by MStLfan on Tuesday, August 8, 2006 3:48 PM

Dave,

Some figures on rail operations at Rotterdam Maasvlakte based on a recent article in Railmagazine, a Dutch railfan magazine with lots of prototype info ((De Maasvlakte anno 2006, meeuwen, wind en steeds meer containers,Railmagazine 234 pages 44-49).

The operators of the container terminals own the tracks on their property or, if not them, then it is the port of Rotterdam as the owner of the harbor.

Furthermore, one of the terminal operators, ECT (Europe Combined Terminals) grants access to its own terminals, not Pro Rail, the owner of the rest of the tracks. So, it decides if a train goes to the ORT (Oostelijke rail terminal or eastern rail terminal) or RTW (rail terminal west). ORT has 4 tracks but none dockside for direct discharge and a runaround. From a ship the container goes to storage, or on a MTS (multi-trailer-system, 5 chassis coupled together and moved by computer, 10 TEU total capacity). Then it goes to ORT or RTW. Usually the MTS's move close together and a train is (un)loaded quickly. RTW has 7 single end tracks.

The original yard Maasvlakte (or MVT) is used exclusively for coal and ore trains these days. On an avarage day 6 ore, 4 coal 23 container and 1 carload trains leave Maasvlakte. 203 trans in a week. Because almost no trains operate during saturdaynight, trainlength tracks are at a premium then.

West of MVT is the N15 road and west of that is the new container train yard with 18 tracks, MVTW (or Maasvlakte west, Dutch station names generally are shortened by using the first letter of each syllable). Connecting to this track is ORT (reached via a double track below the N15) and RTW and also a new track going further north to Lyondell Bayer (chemical company), DFDS Tor Line (ferry company). In future this line will reach the new Euro Max terminal The APM (Maersk) terminal is reached by MTS from RTW.

Number of containers moved by rail: 1998: 200.000; 2005: 315.000 or an icrease of nearly 60%. It is actually 43% since 2002.

Distribution of market share: rail from 10% to 16%, barge 25 % to 35 % and road 65% to 48%.

Note: if a train is unloaded but will not be loaded at the same time then it is moved to MVTW for storage.

Other customers:

Lyondell Bayer: 5-10 tankcars styrene monomeer (english word for that?) and propyleneoxide.

DFDS Torline: one train (Rail4chem) from Brescia Italy with mostly swap bodies. Ferries to Immingham near Hull England (6/week), Oslo Norway (2/week)

EMO: the ore and coal transloading company transloads about 33 million tons metric. It has one loader for ore trains which means 6 trains (to Dillingen, Saarland, Germany) a day max and 6 million tons a year. Ore is decreasing but coal increasing (closing of steelworks in Europe and closing of coal mines in Germany). There are 4 coal trains a day or 4 million tons a year. A new loader should increase the number of coal trains. The rest moves by barge on the Rhine.

Sources:

www.rolandrail.net

www.dfds.com

www.ect.nl

www.emo.nl

greetings,

Marc Immeker

 

For whom the Bell Tolls John Donne From Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1623), XVII: Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris - PERCHANCE he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Monday, August 7, 2006 11:07 PM
 futuremodal wrote:


So are you saying you are opposed to the concept of direct ship to rail unloading?  That's fine.  But if you are insinuating that it's logistically impossible, guess again.  This concept has been discussed in recent times in JOC, LT, TW, et al.......


It's not what I think its what the port does that counts. From preliminary diagrams the railterminal for Maasvlakte 2 will be just like Maasvlakte 1 separate from the port terminal.


"Direct discharge from vessel onto railroad car, road vehicle or barge with the purpose of immediate transport from the port area."

.....and like all new ideas will probably eventually find a modification that is applicable in practice.

The railroad operators have zero say in the matter, I don't think any were consulted. All decisions were made by the Port of Rotterdam Authority, and the terminal operator, MPA a subsidiary of Maersk Sealand, soon to be just Maersk.


In your example, how long are the 4 dock side tracks?  Are they loops or spurs?  If each single stack container train is 80 containers max, that's no more than 4,000 ft of train, so if the loop tracks are at least 16,000 ft, you can actually load 8 trains at a time, with two trains sharing each track.  And even if you are loading direct from ship to rail, that doesn't preclude standard dockside operations to move around all the containers not bound for immediate outbound rail, e.g. it's not an all or none proposition.

Tracks are dead-end spurs so that electric locomotives can pull out the trains without the cantenary blocking the loading.

trains are only 700 metres, 2300 ft. the maximum allowed in most of Europe, France and Italy are shorter. Couplings could probably take two sets coupled, depending on the loaded weight. I won't preclude the operators eventually going to better couplers but it isn't a panacea, and no operator is likely to have more than one set at the port at one time.



Not sure what your "sulk" comment relates to, but if you think direct container discharge is incompatible as a subject matter for an OA discussion, well it is my belief that direct discharge is one area where competition between rail transporters would spark innovation, and direct discharge is one logical avenue by which a transporter can get a leg up on a competitor.



Transporter can't get any thing up on anybody else cause all he owns is the trains. The terminals are owned by somebody else. This is OA remember.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Monday, August 7, 2006 8:13 PM
 owlsroost wrote:
 martin.knoepfel wrote:

Two types of bimodal equipment have been tested in Europe: Combitrailer and Road-Railer. AFAIK, neither has been a breakthrough. Perhaps, that is due to the European railroads inability to adopt one technology. Combitrailers and Road-Railers are not compatible.

I suspect it has more to do with the specialist (=expensive) equipment compared to using standard container flats(rail)/skeletal semi-trailers(road) carrying swap-bodies (lightweight containers) for the same traffic. The extra terminal equipment to handle containers compared to bimodal only really amounts to a mobile container crane - basically an oversized fork-lift truck - at it's simplest.

I am not familiar with the Combitrailer, the links from a web search either don't work or give sparse information.  But the RoadRailers are not container haulers but dry vans and reefers, at least in NA, although there was a Chinese version of RoadRailer called ContainerRailer that was tried out a while back.  The RailRunner system is simpler and superior to the RoadRailer technology for moving containers in a bi-modal fashion, and could move swapbodies (the European version of US-style domestic containers?) as easily as ISO containers.  The biggest advantage of a RailRunner system in Europe is the ability to create an independent dispersion terminal on the cheap outside the constraints of established inland terminals, so a 3rd party OA operator would not have to conform to any potential restrictions of the public inland terminal.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Cambridge, UK
  • 419 posts
Posted by owlsroost on Monday, August 7, 2006 6:16 PM
 martin.knoepfel wrote:

Two types of bimodal equipment have been tested in Europe: Combitrailer and Road-Railer. AFAIK, neither has been a breakthrough. Perhaps, that is due to the European railroads inability to adopt one technology. Combitrailers and Road-Railers are not compatible.

I suspect it has more to do with the specialist (=expensive) equipment compared to using standard container flats(rail)/skeletal semi-trailers(road) carrying swap-bodies (lightweight containers) for the same traffic. The extra terminal equipment to handle containers compared to bimodal only really amounts to a mobile container crane - basically an oversized fork-lift truck - at it's simplest.

Tony

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Monday, August 7, 2006 1:53 PM
 nanaimo73 wrote:

John,

Thanks for that post. Are there any double stacks at all on the Continent ? Are the wagons all single-well, or are there any 3 and 5 unit wagons like the cars over here ?



Finland, has doublestack, it operates from the port of Helsinki, to one single inland terminal, I can't think of the name right now. Its the only terminal where volume and clearances make it worthwhile. Not much point in using doublestack if for example the terminal is only going to receive 5 or 6 containers per day.
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Monday, August 7, 2006 6:17 AM
There's no double stack operations in Europe, apart fom clearances in general there's also the OLE to contend with.
We have semi-permanantly coupled rakes (rigid bar coupling instead of other types), but they don't have shared trucks. Poke around Wagons on the Web for pictures.
http://www.garethbayer.co.uk/wotw/
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    December 2003
  • 400 posts
Posted by martin.knoepfel on Monday, August 7, 2006 5:42 AM
In Western Continental Europe, double-stack-trains are impossible because of restricitve loading gauges. I don't know about Spain, Scandinavia and the former Soviet Un ion, which have larger leading gauges , but I have never heard ot double-stack-trains there, too.

There are articulated six-axle-flat-cars for containers with a central Jacobs-truck. They can haul two 40 feet  containers. Four-axle-containers-cars have space for a 40 and a 20 feet container or for three 20 feet containers. Two axle cars have space for one 40 or two 20 feet containers.
  • Member since
    April 2005
  • From: Nanaimo BC Canada
  • 4,117 posts
Posted by nanaimo73 on Sunday, August 6, 2006 11:40 PM

John,

Thanks for that post. Are there any double stacks at all on the Continent ? Are the wagons all single-well, or are there any 3 and 5 unit wagons like the cars over here ?

Dale
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, August 6, 2006 11:07 PM

 beaulieu wrote:
 daveklepper wrote:
Are not their any ports with tracks on the docks allowing direct to rail movement of containers?  It would seem the a ship unloading to a dock filled with flat cars and locomotives to pull one string out and replace with additional empties anbd then to replace it with the loads intended for the ship would be a great way to reduce port time for ships.  Is anybody doing this outside of one port in Israel?


Let's take a large 6,000 TEU container ship arriving at Rotterdam Maasvlakte terminal. It left Asia with a full load, stopped at Antwerp and unloaded 1000 containers, and loaded 500 empties.  Lets say it plans on unloading 2,000 of those containers here at Rotterdam. Of those containers  300 are for various destinations in the Netherlands, 800 for locations in Germany, 200 for Poland, 300, for Austria, 100 for Switzerland,  and 300 for Italy. Lightest containers are on top, heaviest on the bottom,some of the Antwerp empties will have to be unloaded then reloaded.  The container train can take 80 TEU, and you have 4 tracks holding 4 such trains under the cranes. The 4 trains will serve say 6 inland terminals. What are the odds that the first 320 loaded containers off the ship will fill any of the trains, near zero, and since the trains belong to different companies you can't sort the cars, takes too long anyway, much easier to sort the containers. The ship has to be kept in balance so it must be unloaded evenly, also some containers will have to be unloaded and then reloaded to reach the lower containers remember 3,500 containers are not getting off here, but lightest must be on top, very embarassing if the ship capsizes. The cranes movements are carefully planned, even the pile of containers stacked on the ground must be planned so that they can be reloaded in the right order and of course the opportunity is taken to load some containers while others are being unloaded. So even a large port like this does not load directly to train. They use unmanned robots to haul the containers away from the port cranes to holding piles, which correspond to the correct train load or for the  trucking companies. In the case of the trains, they use dedicated road-trains consisting of a special tractor pulling 5 trailers each capable of handling 1 40ft. or 2 20ft. containers to get the containers from the holding area to the rail loading terminal. These run over dedicated roadways to the rail terminal, where two Portal cranes load the trains. The ground storage is also necessary because ships are frequently late, and time for the ship alongside the quay is more precious than loading tracks for the trains.

So are you saying you are opposed to the concept of direct ship to rail unloading?  That's fine.  But if you are insinuating that it's logistically impossible, guess again.  This concept has been discussed in recent times in JOC, LT, TW, et al.......

"Direct discharge from vessel onto railroad car, road vehicle or barge with the purpose of immediate transport from the port area."

.....and like all new ideas will probably eventually find a modification that is applicable in practice.

In your example, how long are the 4 dock side tracks?  Are they loops or spurs?  If each single stack container train is 80 containers max, that's no more than 4,000 ft of train, so if the loop tracks are at least 16,000 ft, you can actually load 8 trains at a time, with two trains sharing each track.  And even if you are loading direct from ship to rail, that doesn't preclude standard dockside operations to move around all the containers not bound for immediate outbound rail, e.g. it's not an all or none proposition.

Not sure what your "sulk" comment relates to, but if you think direct container discharge is incompatible as a subject matter for an OA discussion, well it is my belief that direct discharge is one area where competition between rail transporters would spark innovation, and direct discharge is one logical avenue by which a transporter can get a leg up on a competitor.

  • Member since
    December 2003
  • 400 posts
Posted by martin.knoepfel on Sunday, August 6, 2006 5:56 PM

Two types of bimodal equipment have been tested in Europe: Combitrailer and Road-Railer. AFAIK, neither has been a breakthrough. Perhaps, that is due to the European railroads inability to adopt one technology. Combitrailers and Road-Railers are not compatible.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,283 posts
Posted by n012944 on Sunday, August 6, 2006 5:54 PM
 Simon Reed wrote:

What needs to be understood is the population density, a consideration sadly lacking from this this thread.

 

I tried to bring it into play, but someone jumped all over me for it.

 

Bert

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: NW Wisconsin
  • 3,857 posts
Posted by beaulieu on Sunday, August 6, 2006 5:50 PM
 Simon Reed wrote:

Beaulieu - It's no good, my friend.

I more or less explained this to FM on the BR operations thread several months ago, but still the arguement appears.

I've been keeping out of this until now (so has Hugh Jampton, who is very qualified to provide compelling arguments.)

 Folks - the pivotal point is SCALE.

 I am an unabashed Socialist. I would have found myself in prison in 50's America but I believe in open access in Europe because IT WORKS.

What needs to be understood is the population density, a consideration sadly lacking from this this thread. My postcode (zipcode) is BD2 1EA. Look it up on Google Earth.

Now - the closest station to me is Frizinghall - about .75 of a mile away. Have a look, if you would, at all the industries you can see, as well as residential property, within a two mile radius of my home.

Britain - and virtually everywhere else in Europe - can provide an intensive and cost effective passenger rail network because of the sheer number of people who turn to mass transportation, either through socio -economic necessity or to avoid the congestion that you can doubtless imagine on the road network.

Surely the very best way to serve such a large and willing market is to present them with a choice of transportation providers so that the consumer can make an informed decision. OK, we have'nt got to that stage nationally yet but there is the principle. 

My local station sees six trains an hour, all day until the dead of night. Market economies say that this MUST be a viable station - who would provide such a frequency for a dead loss.      



Interesting -Simon, are you suggesting Open Access passenger as well as freight? Dave, can you please go find a corner and sulk for a week or two. This looks like a much more interesting dicussion.
Simon, are you thinking of full blown OA for passengers or something of a hybrid? Unlike with Dave I think we need to frame out the discussion, how in the heck would you control pathing and interconnectivity? I thought you would prefer moving back to BR with investment to try and emulate the Swiss.

I eagerly await your response.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy