Trouble in open access paradise?

[owlsroost]

I also reject the notion that only passenger operators can run passenger trains, and only freight operators can operate freight trains.  Again, putting aside the legal directives, why from a practical standpoint can't the freight operators also participate in running passenger trains, and vis versa?  An OA company should not be limited in what it can haul. In the US of yore, freight cross subsidized the passenger trains, so why can't UK passenger operators add freight to their repetoire?

There is nothing to stop them, and it has happened - GB Railfreight (GBRf) was originally started up by GB Railways which also ran a passenger franchise. GB Railways was recently bought by First Group (a large bus and passenger franchise operator), so First is in both the passenger and freight business. It also owns Hull Trains (ex-GB Railways), the first OA passenger operator in the UK.

EWS has a nationwide passenger operating licence (and a small fleet of 125mph  diesel locos), but it's only ever used it to haul charter and other special passenger trains as far as I'm aware.

From this decription, it makes it appear that EWS and Freightliner are not open access operators, since the online encyclopedia goes to the length of describing the other two freight operators as being "open access".  The inference from this and this thread is that EWS and FHH were franchisee's, while DRS and GBR were the OA operators.  Since you have deemed this as incorrect, we'll just go with your interpretation from here on out that all freight operators are OA operators.

BTW - wouldn't you consider the TAA as a sort of franchise agreement?  And don't the OA operators have to bid for a TAA?

Beaulieu is correct - all rail freight operators in the UK operate under OA arrangments. The constituent parts of EWS and Freightliner were ex-BR freight operations, so they inherited the timetable slots, customer contracts etc (as you would expect when buying a business as a 'going concern') but after the sale they became OA operators.

DRS, GBRf and (most recently) Fastline were started from the ground up, but DRS and Fastline were kick-started with existing business from their parent companies, and GBRf started up with a large contract for engineering train haulage from Railtrack/Network Rail - so they were all helped into the business by much larger companies. There hasn't yet been a true 'ground up' freight operator start-up in the UK since privatisation - does that suggest anything about the profits (or not) to be made hauling rail freight here ?

The operators don't have to bid for a TAA - the TAA gives you the right to access the tracks in return for payment to Network Rail, but getting paths on a particular route is a separate (no payment) bidding process managed by Network Rail. It's overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, to which an operator can appeal if it thinks it's not being fairly treated in the process.

Tony

[martin.knoepfel]

I might add an opinion from a different, but European, perspectice.

Recently, the general-manager of Hupac, a large Swiss freight-operator (containers and trailers only) wrote on his experience with open-acces. Hupac owns some engines, but they are by far not numerous enough to pull its trains. so, for most of their trains, they rely on railroads, mostly the former government-owned railroads. IIRC, last year, Hupac put the traction of their trains to an open bidding-process. They soon noted how the railroads attitudes changed. The former government-owned railroads suddenly realized, there is a customer they might lose to another operator. Finally, they got the big-share of the new hauling-contracts. Details of the new contracts were not published, of course.

By a strange coincidence, on-time-performance of the Trenitalias freight-trains on the Italian-Austrian Brenner-Route improved significantly, after a new OA operator competed with Trenitalia, the freight-division of Italy's former government-owned railroad.

Here in Switzerland, one can see new products (trains for containers and trailers) appearing on the market. Some disappear again after a short period, but some remain. This leads me to the conclusion that the market works. Whether you are for or against OA, seems to have to do with your perspective. The question is whether you are on the side of the large group of customers (shippers) or on the side of the minority of producers. That's always the case if it is about free market vs. protection. You can substitute railroads for imported cars, or selling electricity, telecom-services or natural gas.

[Hugh Jampton]

I had a look round the facilities at the Hupac terminal in Domodossola a couple of years ago and I was most impressed. They got a good operation and I hope they make a go of it.

[Anonymous]

 It seems when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to personal attacks, much like FM. 

Bert, this is an outright lie on your part.  I have never attacked anyone simply because there is disagreement.  I have responded to personal attacks on me in kind at times.  You on the other hand seem to do nothing but engage in personal attacks, as witnessed in the above lie you have posted.

[Anonymous]

If you'll beg my pardon, it just seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that you Brits made things much more complex than need be, e.g. the initial breakup of BR into 100 or so entities.  Wouldn't things have been a lot more simplified if you had either reverted back to the original four integrated private rail operators e.g pre-nationalization, or (in compliance with the EU directive) at least kept the entire infrastructure under public control and just let out the train operations to private entities in true open access mode? 

    The operators don't have to bid for a TAA - the TAA gives you the right to access the tracks in return for payment to Network Rail, but getting paths on a particular route is a separate (no payment) bidding process managed by Network Rail. It's overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, to which an operator can appeal if it thinks it's not being fairly treated in the process.

So is the process of obtaining paths done by lottery, or does the ORR use a subjective analysis to determine who gets what?

[Hugh Jampton]

If you'll beg my pardon, it just seems to me (and feel free to correct me if I am wrong) that you Brits made things much more complex than need be, e.g. the initial breakup of BR into 100 or so entities.  Wouldn't things have been a lot more simplified if you had either reverted back to the original four integrated private rail operators e.g pre-nationalization, or (in compliance with the EU directive) at least kept the entire infrastructure under public control and just let out the train operations to private entities in true open access mode? 

    The operators don't have to bid for a TAA - the TAA gives you the right to access the tracks in return for payment to Network Rail, but getting paths on a particular route is a separate (no payment) bidding process managed by Network Rail. It's overseen by the Office of Rail Regulation, to which an operator can appeal if it thinks it's not being fairly treated in the process.

So is the process of obtaining paths done by lottery, or does the ORR use a subjective analysis to determine who gets what?

The railway had to be split between operations and infrastructure as per the EU directive. The crux of it is, the EU directs and the member countries must impliment those directives in their own laws. So we had no real say in it.
yes, they did go over the top by privatising it all into so many different companies, but that was the best way to get the most money out of it all (the EU directive only specified that the accounting had to be seperated, but as Maggie was selling off all of the family silver anyway she decided that BR would go the same way).
Once Railtrack went bust it was taken over by Network Rail which is a private company limited by guarantee (effectivly a government owned not for profit company). Since then they have cancelled the maintenance contracts and taken it back in house, and now signalling design is also to be taken back.

The timetabling process is controlled by the ORR and each year all the TOCs put their requirements into them. They have loads of heated meetings and in the end the ORR makes the final decision based on what's best for the railway and the country as a whole. The way the access agreements were drawn up the marginal cost per path for the franchisees is vitrually nil (this was originally done to incentivise the operators to run more trains) But it backfired on them when the operators took advantage of this offer and used up all of the available capacity, in some cases as much as 95%.

[jeaton]

The following appeared in The National Corridors Initiative E-zine for July 31.

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df07312006.shtml#German

German TV:

British privatization model costs English
taxpayers $780 million/year for just one
route in national system

By David Beale
NCI European Correspondent

According to Bahn TV [Germany], the British Rail system privatization undertaken by the Conservative Government of John Major a decade ago cost the British taxpayers three times as much public funding during the seven years after full privatization as the preceding seven years with the government-owned, fully-integrated British Rail corporation.

Bahn TV stated that a group of long distance routes formerly operated by BR Intercity and which is today operated by Virgin Trains (http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/) requires an annual operating subsidy from the British government of £400 million (US$ 780 million). A decade ago, according to Bahn TV, those same routes generated a small operating profit for British Rail.

Bahn TV added, that a similar plan to the British concept of complete separation of the track/infrastructure from operations here in Germany has been recently taken off the table and will not be pursued. Deutsche Bahn as well as several rail labor unions have been against this proposal for years.

Bahn TV’s news anchor, Monika Jones, wound up the story regarding the now-shelved plan to remove track / infrastructure from operations within Germany, as executed in Britain, as similar to dividing a restaurant from its kitchen into separate business units with separate management and “expecting the restaurant to still function”.

I can't verify the accuracy of any of the statements reported.  Perhaps our European friends can add more.

[owlsroost]

but as Maggie was selling off all of the family silver anyway she decided that BR would go the same way

Actually it was John Major who decided to privatise BR - Maggie put it in the 'too difficult'/not worth the hassle' category.

Tony

[n012944]

 It seems when someone doesn't agree with you, you resort to personal attacks, much like FM. 

Bert, this is an outright lie on your part.  I have never attacked anyone simply because there is disagreement. 

I think there might be a couple of people who dissagree with that statement.

 

Bert

[MStLfan]

How I missed these discussions during my weeklong stay on Helgoland!

Well, back to the subject.

If I remember correctly Britain (and Sweden) were in the forefront of privatisation / open access.

They had to figure out a lot of things and the other EU countries are all learning and doing things slightly different (or not for as long as possible). We all love these EU directives that tell us to go there and then let each of us to figure out how to get there from here.

Now, about slot bidding. Let me see if I understand this thing that is supposed to be wonderfull.

Take the Netherlands, I know somthing about its railway system of about 3000 km's as I travel a lot on it because I don't have a drivers license (deliberately too). There are 5000 trains a day and 1 million passengers per (work)day. The country has 16.3 million inhabitants.

Let us focus on the city of Amersfoort, located to the east of Amsterdam. It is the northeast corner of an area we call Randstad Holland (were half the population lives on 20 % of the land, with a big empty hole in the middle too). It is a major junction for railtraffic from the (south)west to the east and north of the country. The intercity services that cross here are a major part of the railsystem and can reasonably isolated from other services.

Basic intercity service is on the hour a train from Amsterdam to Enschede to the east ans across the platform a train from Rotterdam and The Hague by way of Utrecht to the north (Zwolle and then on to Groningen and Leewarden). About half the people onboard the trains change trains across the platform or get off. A half hour later the pattern is Amsterdam to the north and Rotterdam / The Hague / Utrecht to Enschede.

So FM, how can we use the system of slot bidding on these trains?

Do we put out for bidding only the trains from Amsterdam to Enschede? And then Rotterdam/The Hague/ Utrecht to Zwolle/Groningen/Leeuwarden on another bid?

Or do we put out for bidding the service on the hour on one contract and the service on the half hour on another?

Or do you have better solutions?

Sincerely waiting for your reply,

Marc Immeker

 

 

[Anonymous]

How I missed these discussions during my weeklong stay on Helgoland!

Well, back to the subject.

If I remember correctly Britain (and Sweden) were in the forefront of privatisation / open access.

They had to figure out a lot of things and the other EU countries are all learning and doing things slightly different (or not for as long as possible). We all love these EU directives that tell us to go there and then let each of us to figure out how to get there from here.

Now, about slot bidding. Let me see if I understand this thing that is supposed to be wonderfull.

Take the Netherlands, I know somthing about its railway system of about 3000 km's as I travel a lot on it because I don't have a drivers license (deliberately too). There are 5000 trains a day and 1 million passengers per (work)day. The country has 16.3 million inhabitants.

Let us focus on the city of Amersfoort, located to the east of Amsterdam. It is the northeast corner of an area we call Randstad Holland (were half the population lives on 20 % of the land, with a big empty hole in the middle too). It is a major junction for railtraffic from the (south)west to the east and north of the country. The intercity services that cross here are a major part of the railsystem and can reasonably isolated from other services.

Basic intercity service is on the hour a train from Amsterdam to Enschede to the east ans across the platform a train from Rotterdam and The Hague by way of Utrecht to the north (Zwolle and then on to Groningen and Leewarden). About half the people onboard the trains change trains across the platform or get off. A half hour later the pattern is Amsterdam to the north and Rotterdam / The Hague / Utrecht to Enschede.

So FM, how can we use the system of slot bidding on these trains?

Do we put out for bidding only the trains from Amsterdam to Enschede? And then Rotterdam/The Hague/ Utrecht to Zwolle/Groningen/Leeuwarden on another bid?

Or do we put out for bidding the service on the hour on one contract and the service on the half hour on another?

Or do you have better solutions?

Sincerely waiting for your reply,

Marc Immeker

Marc,

First question:  Do these trains make an actual profit or not, e.g. do they take in more revenue than what they get in subsidy and road tax manipulation?

Second question:  Is it possible for current changeover areas to be converted to run through trains, e.g. keep the patrons on one train from origin to destination?

Third question:  How much cross border train traffic is there, both passenger and freight?

Fourth question:  If something happened to change the current status quo, in that patrons shifted to other modes for their travel needs, how hard would it be for such patrons to make that adjustment?

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Somebody avoided answering the questions he was asked since the questions challenge his world-saving doctrine.

[MStLfan]

FM,

First answer: I don't have details for every train. Not even for the various businessgroups. This link shows the 2005 annual figures for NS groep as a whole. Remember, there are now several operations bij NS outside the Netherlands, the international trains are run together with partners, food stands etc are almost all run by NS (high prices too) and the granddaddy: NS managed to retain most land not directly needed for railoperations. Much profit in recent years has come from real estate development, or so it is reported.

http://www.ns.nl/servlet/Satellite?cid=1115717620663&pagename=www.ns.nl%2FPage%2FArtikelPage_www.ns.nl&lang=en&c=Page

The main network is not subsidized. Some secondary routes are subsidized, if the relevant authorities decide to put those lines out to tender NS doesn't get those lines. Witness recent tenders for local services in Limburg (including bus) and Amersfoort - Ede-Wageningen.

However, then a whole line or group of lines are on offer. No slot bidding on individual slots.

Taxes on fuel, cars etc. all go to the coffers of the finance minister from which he does his level best not to give anything to anybody, unless it is election time or favors are bought and sold.

second answer: not sure what you mean exactly. Amersfoort is a typical example. If you travel from Rotterdam to say, Enschede, you have the option to take the direct train or half an hour later a train to Groningen/Leeuwarden and then change in Amersfoort, as I described.

There are alternative routes but then you have to change trains frequently. E.G. Rotterdam - Enschede: take the train to Arnhem (leaves 15 minutes after the trains to Amersfoort), change there to Zutphen, there to Hengelo and there to Enschede. Or Arnhem to Deventer (past Zutphen and then in the same service as directly to Amersfoort) and then via Hengelo (no change) to Enschede. Or go from Rotterdam on the train to Amsterdam and change at Schiphol airport for the direct train to Enschede via Amersfoort (and Deventer, Hengelo). These alternatives are however slower.

The longest train ride in the Netherlands is 4 hours I think, 5 max. Of course if you go from one extreme to another that can double because you have several connections to catch.

Basically, the intercity service follows the major travelroutes with direct trains, in staggered patterns if necessary. The vast majority during weekday rushhour however make shorter trips. Non work related travel tends to be longer as do students. So local services are shorter in length, Rotterdam - Gouda- Utrecht, The Hague - Gouda, Utrecht - Amersfoort- Zwolle and Zwolle - Groningen or Zwolle - Leeuwarden on the route I used as an example Rotterdam/ the Hague - (Gouda) - Utrecht - Amersfoort - Zwolle - Groningen/Leeuwarden.

third answer: if we take Amersfoort only: there are several trains Schiphol airport - Amsterdam - Amersfoort - Hengelo - Germany (mostly Hannover or Berlin). Currently they run outside the formal pattern, this may change come december with the new timetable.

As for freight: trains from Rotterdam via Gouda - then to the Utrecht-Amsterdam line then just along the southeast of that city and on to Amersfoort - Hengelo - Germany/Scandinavia/Poland and Russia.

Other freight goes via Venlo in the southeast (on to Cologne and the Rhine valley - Alps - Italy) or Emmerich (border station just past Arnhem as mentioned above). With the new Betuwe route (freight only, supposed to open next year) most freight trains are supposed to take that route to Emmerich and no longer via Venlo.

fourth answer: depends on what you want to take on. 1 million people, even carpooling, cannot be accomodated on our motorways. There is no room for more lanes around the cities. No parking space in the cities (Amsterdam particularly). Nor do we want to suffer from vastly more pollution. Due to the EU tightening its anti-pollution policy it is now almost inpossible to build close to a motorway because of pollution by small particles. Anytime the tech gurus come up with new tech to battle with pollution we travel more and more, negating the results of the new tech.

Hope this answers your questions. If necessary, drop me an email and I will try to get you an map or a timetable of the railways.

greetings,

Marc Immeker

[beaulieu]

The following appeared in The National Corridors Initiative E-zine for July 31.

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df/df07312006.shtml#German

German TV:

British privatization model costs English
taxpayers $780 million/year for just one
route in national system

By David Beale
NCI European Correspondent

According to Bahn TV [Germany], the British Rail system privatization undertaken by the

<snipped>

Jay, you have to treat this like the propaganda that it is. Bahn TV is a branch of the Deutsche Bundesbahn, the German National Railway. They have a particular viewpoint and uses Bahn TV as another way of putting it out to the public. They do not want their Infrastructure separated from the operations. The private freight operators very much want the separation as they have caught the DB cheating by charging different rates for Railion (DB Cargo) for electricity than they were charged, they have been told that paths are not available when they were, and when they applied for paths to operate trains for a particular customer, the customer suddenly gets a call from the DB freight operator. DB has lost in court over this, but they seem to be trying to wear down the opposition by delaying tactics.

     There is quite a bit of truth to the story, but like everything else you can portray things like you want (Spin).

BTW - If you have a fast Internet connection you can watch Bahn-TV over the Internet here;
Bahn-TV

John Beaulieu

[beaulieu]

Marc,

First question:  Do these trains make an actual profit or not, e.g. do they take in more revenue than what they get in subsidy and road tax manipulation?

Dave, they cover operating costs, and they maintain the infrastructure. But, if you consider the new High Speed Line to Belgium, they will not be able to repay the principal and interest that the line will cost. The situation is the same with the new freight line, the Betuweroute. It will never repay the building cost. For one thing costs are very high in the Netherlands

Second question:  Is it possible for current changeover areas to be converted to run through trains, e.g. keep the patrons on one train from origin to destination?

For most of the day it is not possible, there are not enough spare paths (spare capacity)

Third question:  How much cross border train traffic is there, both passenger and freight?

I am not sure of the exact numbers for passenger, but connecting services are at least hourly on the main routes through Emmerich and Venlo, a bit less through Bad Bentheim to Germany. I am not really sure at all about the services to Belgium. I would guess at least twice per hour through the main crossing at Roosendaal, plus the Thalys.

For freight however I do have the figures. The average number of freight trains crossing Dutch borders in late 2006 was 866 per week. About 700 per week crossed the border into Germany, the rest into Belgium. The figures for 1999 were 640 total per week, of which 276 went to Germany.

Fourth question:  If something happened to change the current status quo, in that patrons shifted to other modes for their travel needs, how hard would it be for such patrons to make that adjustment?

Dave, in the Netherlands, if the Railway goes on strike, unless you are police, fire, or hospital you take the day off or take your bicycle. They do not have enough cars, highways, or parking for the people to drive.

[MichaelSol]

"Parking Lot" at the Train Station in Eindhoven, Netherlands when I went home for a visit in 2002:
.

[Anonymous]

Marc,

Based on the information you provided, several thoughts come to mind.

The longest train ride in the Netherlands is 4 hours I think, 5 max.

Can I assume that passenger operations occur mostly during daylight hours, e.g. no overnight passenger operations?  If so, then the extra capacity needed to be able to bid out slots for cross border freights would be available at night.  The key here is if intercontinental freights in and out of the Netherlands can achieve their objectives by utilizing Dutch tracks at night and the German, et al, tracks during daylight hours.  Otherwise, if the situation is the same thoughout Europe regarding passenger train saturation during daylight hours, freights would be parked during daylight hours until the tracks cleared after twilight.

As I mentioned before, daylight operations of freights over passenger dominated tracks is tricky, but can be done if the freights can be squeezed in as second sections of passenger trains between terminals.  Waiting time in sidings for opposing traffic would increase slightly, but not to any dramatic effect.

The other factor is in the cultural expectations most European citizens expect of their passenger rail system.  You could take all the passenger trains currently operating in Europe and bid them all out for privatization/tax revenue.  The problem is that the spector of massive disruption of people's daily routines may be too much, in that the gain in tax revenue from taxing the highest privatized bidder would be offset by the social disruption that might ensue.  Freight can handle such disruptions, passengers cannot.

To sum up, I envision slot bidding for freights as workable, but for current passenger operations potentially disruptive.

[Anonymous]

Marc,

First question:  Do these trains make an actual profit or not, e.g. do they take in more revenue than what they get in subsidy and road tax manipulation?

Dave, they cover operating costs, and they maintain the infrastructure. But, if you consider the new High Speed Line to Belgium, they will not be able to repay the principal and interest that the line will cost. The situation is the same with the new freight line, the Betuweroute. It will never repay the building cost. For one thing costs are very high in the Netherlands

What is your bet that the new freight line will eventually host passenger operations?

[Hugh Jampton]

Marc,

First question:  Do these trains make an actual profit or not, e.g. do they take in more revenue than what they get in subsidy and road tax manipulation?

Dave, they cover operating costs, and they maintain the infrastructure. But, if you consider the new High Speed Line to Belgium, they will not be able to repay the principal and interest that the line will cost. The situation is the same with the new freight line, the Betuweroute. It will never repay the building cost. For one thing costs are very high in the Netherlands

What is your bet that the new freight line will eventually host passenger operations?

I suspect it won't. If you look at this map
http://en.betuweroute.nl/files/tracekaart_Betuweroute.pdf
 you can see it pretty well follows passenger routes (the dashed lines) all the way.

[owlsroost]

Can I assume that passenger operations occur mostly during daylight hours, e.g. no overnight passenger operations?  If so, then the extra capacity needed to be able to bid out slots for cross border freights would be available at night.  The key here is if intercontinental freights in and out of the Netherlands can achieve their objectives by utilizing Dutch tracks at night and the German, et al, tracks during daylight hours.  Otherwise, if the situation is the same thoughout Europe regarding passenger train saturation during daylight hours, freights would be parked during daylight hours until the tracks cleared after twilight.

Quite a lot of rail and road freight does move at night in Europe because of daytime congestion/capacity problems on both rail and road systems. Unfortunately because of the intensity of train services during the day (and we're talking about passenger services from 5am - midnight or beyond), track inspection and maintenance has to be done mostly at night, so some routes aren't neccesarily open for 24hrs every day.

As I mentioned before, daylight operations of freights over passenger dominated tracks is tricky, but can be done if the freights can be squeezed in as second sections of passenger trains between terminals.  Waiting time in sidings for opposing traffic would increase slightly, but not to any dramatic effect.

FM, you're still thinking with a US 'out in the sticks' view of how trains run. Most European mainlines are double track (or quadruple if really busy) with full block signalling, using short block lengths to maximise capacity (full braking distance may be spread over more than one block). Whereas a busy single-track line in the US might have 20 trains per DAY (counting both directions), a busy double-track line here could easily have 20 trains per HOUR or more for a large part of the day. Also the speed differential between fast passenger and freight trains e.g 125mph<->75mph or 100mph<->60mph means you could probably run two passenger trains in the track space/time used by a freight train (thus making the daytime freight slots even more expensive compared to passenger slots if you have a 'level playing field').

Tony

[beaulieu]

Marc,

First question:  Do these trains make an actual profit or not, e.g. do they take in more revenue than what they get in subsidy and road tax manipulation?

Dave, they cover operating costs, and they maintain the infrastructure. But, if you consider the new High Speed Line to Belgium, they will not be able to repay the principal and interest that the line will cost. The situation is the same with the new freight line, the Betuweroute. It will never repay the building cost. For one thing costs are very high in the Netherlands

What is your bet that the new freight line will eventually host passenger operations?

Not too likely. Where the route follows the Right of Way of the existing line and the high-speed line there are nine tracks wide, 3 for freight, 4 for local passenger, and 2 for high-speed passenger. When the line turns east for the German border it follows the old passenger line reasonably well, but it avoids all the towns, and is right alongside a freeway. In the Netherlands the Port of Rotterdam is judged to provide 10 percent of the whole country's GDP. Because of this the Dutch don't tend to fool around with things that might affect the competitiveness of Rotterdam vis a vie other Ports like Antwerp and Hamburg. The bottleneck for this route is in Germany, It begins right in the border town of Emmerich, and continues to the beginning of the Ruhr at Krefeld. The Germans have agreed to add a third track with sidings (four tracks would be much better), but I haven't heard of any actual construction yet.

[Anonymous]

Can I assume that passenger operations occur mostly during daylight hours, e.g. no overnight passenger operations?  If so, then the extra capacity needed to be able to bid out slots for cross border freights would be available at night.  The key here is if intercontinental freights in and out of the Netherlands can achieve their objectives by utilizing Dutch tracks at night and the German, et al, tracks during daylight hours.  Otherwise, if the situation is the same thoughout Europe regarding passenger train saturation during daylight hours, freights would be parked during daylight hours until the tracks cleared after twilight.

Quite a lot of rail and road freight does move at night in Europe because of daytime congestion/capacity problems on both rail and road systems. Unfortunately because of the intensity of train services during the day (and we're talking about passenger services from 5am - midnight or beyond), track inspection and maintenance has to be done mostly at night, so some routes aren't neccesarily open for 24hrs every day.

As I mentioned before, daylight operations of freights over passenger dominated tracks is tricky, but can be done if the freights can be squeezed in as second sections of passenger trains between terminals.  Waiting time in sidings for opposing traffic would increase slightly, but not to any dramatic effect.

FM, you're still thinking with a US 'out in the sticks' view of how trains run.

Well, I gis I'll just have to shut down the still for a spell, hitch up the horse 'n buggy, an' go have a looksee fer meself.

 Most European mainlines are double track (or quadruple if really busy) with full block signalling, using short block lengths to maximise capacity (full braking distance may be spread over more than one block). Whereas a busy single-track line in the US might have 20 trains per DAY (counting both directions).....

Actually more like 80 to 100, but I digress

....., a busy double-track line here could easily have 20 trains per HOUR or more for a large part of the day.

So you're saying even a second section slot is already taken?

 Also the speed differential between fast passenger and freight trains e.g 125mph<->75mph or 100mph<->60mph means you could probably run two passenger trains in the track space/time used by a freight train (thus making the daytime freight slots even more expensive compared to passenger slots if you have a 'level playing field').

This gets into yet another critique of the rail vs all other modes debate, whether in NA or the Old Country.  On highways, all traffic moves at the same relative speed for the most part sans any significant grades, doens't matter if it's cars, buses, LTL, grain trucks, et al.  On waterways, most barges and riverboats run at the same nautical speed.  Air freight moves at the same speed as passenger jets.

Why can't all rail consists move at the same speed?  More to the point, why not make all rail traffic move at the same speed, to avoid unidirectional congestion?  I know part of it is to optimize fuel economy on tonnage moves, but even with lower fuel economy by having to increase the hp to t ratio, it's still preferable to not moving the tonnage by rail at all, e.g. back on the mode of last resort aka trucks nee lorries.

BTW - Is  there much in the way of directional running on European rails, or is most of it bi-directional?

[owlsroost]

BTW - Is  there much in the way of directional running on European rails, or is most of it bi-directional?

It's mostly uni-directional. When traffic in both directions is heavy, opportunities for switching trains to the 'other' track for overtaking are very limited in practice, so spending money on full-blown bi-directional signalling is often not considered worthwhile (certainly that's the case in the UK - we have simplified, lower capacity, bi-directional signalling on some mainlines for use when one line is blocked by engineering works etc, but it's not used for normal running). It's fairly common to have bi-directional running on the approaches to major stations and junctions, but otherwise the normal layout is to have holding loops at intervals along a double-track route to allow faster trains to overtake slower ones, so when it's busy freight trains tend to hop from one loop to the next whenever there's a long enough gap between passenger trains.

So you're saying even a second section slot is already taken?

There isn't really a concept of train sections - it's just trains controlled by a block signal system (remember we're mainly talking about directional double-track lines, with trains running a few minutes apart on both lines when it's busy). Of the places I've linesided in the US, the nearest comparison I can think of as a mixed-traffic line is the BNSF 'racetrack' westwards from Chicago at peak commuter time.

Tony

[TomDiehl]

This gets into yet another critique of the rail vs all other modes debate, whether in NA or the Old Country.  On highways, all traffic moves at the same relative speed for the most part sans any significant grades, doens't matter if it's cars, buses, LTL, grain trucks, et al.  On waterways, most barges and riverboats run at the same nautical speed.  Air freight moves at the same speed as passenger jets.

Why can't all rail consists move at the same speed?  More to the point, why not make all rail traffic move at the same speed, to avoid unidirectional congestion?  I know part of it is to optimize fuel economy on tonnage moves, but even with lower fuel economy by having to increase the hp to t ratio, it's still preferable to not moving the tonnage by rail at all, e.g. back on the mode of last resort aka trucks nee lorries.

BTW - Is  there much in the way of directional running on European rails, or is most of it bi-directional?

On railroads, they do move at the same relative speed in a given section. All highway traffic does not move at the same speed all over the country. The speed varies depending on road and traffic conditions (sounds suspiciously like the situation of the railroads). The only place there's a significant difference in speed of freight vs. passenger trains is in passenger corridors like the NEC, but freight is only a small percentage of that traffic. I can almost guarantee that loading freight on the Acela will push the costs to consumer up to a point that trucks will be cheaper.

Again, living in your own little world, you've overlooked the problem itself, and think you can give Gestapo like orders to the railroads to run the trains at higher speeds. The resulting pile-ups will make the latest UP takeover standstill look like a picnic. Until the real problem is addressed and corrected, the congestion will continue to causing lower average railroad speeds, just like on the highways. Try driving around a major city at rush hour is you doubt this exists.

[beaulieu]

Can I assume that passenger operations occur mostly during daylight hours, e.g. no overnight passenger operations?  If so, then the extra capacity needed to be able to bid out slots for cross border freights would be available at night.  The key here is if intercontinental freights in and out of the Netherlands can achieve their objectives by utilizing Dutch tracks at night and the German, et al, tracks during daylight hours.  Otherwise, if the situation is the same thoughout Europe regarding passenger train saturation during daylight hours, freights would be parked during daylight hours until the tracks cleared after twilight.

Quite a lot of rail and road freight does move at night in Europe because of daytime congestion/capacity problems on both rail and road systems. Unfortunately because of the intensity of train services during the day (and we're talking about passenger services from 5am - midnight or beyond), track inspection and maintenance has to be done mostly at night, so some routes aren't neccesarily open for 24hrs every day.

As I mentioned before, daylight operations of freights over passenger dominated tracks is tricky, but can be done if the freights can be squeezed in as second sections of passenger trains between terminals.  Waiting time in sidings for opposing traffic would increase slightly, but not to any dramatic effect.

FM, you're still thinking with a US 'out in the sticks' view of how trains run.

Well, I gis I'll just have to shut down the still for a spell, hitch up the horse 'n buggy, an' go have a looksee fer meself.

 Most European mainlines are double track (or quadruple if really busy) with full block signalling, using short block lengths to maximise capacity (full braking distance may be spread over more than one block). Whereas a busy single-track line in the US might have 20 trains per DAY (counting both directions).....

Actually more like 80 to 100, but I digress

....., a busy double-track line here could easily have 20 trains per HOUR or more for a large part of the day.

So you're saying even a second section slot is already taken?

 Also the speed differential between fast passenger and freight trains e.g 125mph<->75mph or 100mph<->60mph means you could probably run two passenger trains in the track space/time used by a freight train (thus making the daytime freight slots even more expensive compared to passenger slots if you have a 'level playing field').

This gets into yet another critique of the rail vs all other modes debate, whether in NA or the Old Country.  On highways, all traffic moves at the same relative speed for the most part sans any significant grades, doens't matter if it's cars, buses, LTL, grain trucks, et al.  On waterways, most barges and riverboats run at the same nautical speed.  Air freight moves at the same speed as passenger jets.

Why can't all rail consists move at the same speed?  More to the point, why not make all rail traffic move at the same speed, to avoid unidirectional congestion?  I know part of it is to optimize fuel economy on tonnage moves, but even with lower fuel economy by having to increase the hp to t ratio, it's still preferable to not moving the tonnage by rail at all, e.g. back on the mode of last resort aka trucks nee lorries.

BTW - Is  there much in the way of directional running on European rails, or is most of it bi-directional?

The UK has very little bi-directional signalling, the most important mainline the West Coast Main Line (WCML for short) is 4 tracked for much of its distance. The Netherlands are a bit different, as are Germany, and Switzerland. These countries are mostly bi-directionally signalled, even with this though, the opportunity to use the other track for passing is just not there. When it is desireable for a fast passenger train to pass a slower all stop local passanger train, it is planned to happen while the local is making a station stop that the fast train does not make. Most passenger stations have extra tracks for this purpose.

Let me explain how it works on an important freight route. The Gotthard Pass  is the most important route across the Alps in Europe. The line is double tracked over the central core from Erstfeld on the north to Biasca on the south. This section of track handled about 41 million US tons in 2004. The ruling grade both northbound and southbound is 2.8 percent, and the grade except in the summit tunnel is never less than 2.6 percent. Because of track curvature both passenger and freight trains, except for the Cisalpino, are limited to 80 kph.(52 mph). During the 6 late night hours slower moving trains like rail trains, and ballast trains can run. Trains are limited to about 1500 tons without a helper and 2100 tons with a helper. For southbound trains the hard climb is 18 miles from Erstfeld to Goschenen, while northbounds face 28.5 miles from Biasca to Airolo, the 9.3 mile long summit tunnel is between Goschenen and Airolo. The required power to weight ratio for freight trains is 10hp per trailing ton.
(For comparison BNSF runs Z trains at 3 to 4.5 hp per ton, regular Intermodal 2 to 3 hp per ton, and manifests and unit trains at lower figures.) Freights stop to cut off helpers and make brake tests at Goschenen and are usually passed by passenger trains while doing this. Overtakes can also be done at Airolo and a couple of other locations on the south side in the event of problems. Capacity is figured as 240 trains per day, actual trains were running about 200 to 210 per day late in the week, in summer 2005. Of course some of the spare capacity is lost to tracks being out of service for maintenance. The line is fully bi-directionally signalled with frequent crossovers. There is a nice double horseshoe curve section and one spiral tunnel on the north ramp, and two pairs of spiral tunnels on the south ramp. Figure 2 passenger trains per hour in each direction during prime time, and 1 to 2 outside of then, with about a 6 hour break overnight. The passenger trains run as a pair, southbound the Intercity starts out running about 10 minutes ahead of the InterRegio which makes 3 extra stops and arrives 20 minutes after the Express. Northbound the InterRegio departs about 24 minutes ahead of the Intercity and arrives a few minutes before the Intercity.

[owlsroost]

Why can't all rail consists move at the same speed?  More to the point, why not make all rail traffic move at the same speed, to avoid unidirectional congestion?  I know part of it is to optimize fuel economy on tonnage moves, but even with lower fuel economy by having to increase the hp to t ratio, it's still preferable to not moving the tonnage by rail at all, e.g. back on the mode of last resort aka trucks nee lorries.

In Europe, this would basically mean having freight trains with the performance of passenger trains - it's possible, but the extra equipment and energy costs would push up rail freight rates to the point where the truckers would be laughing all the way to the bank. A few shippers might be willing to pay the extra for few hours off the transit time, but most wouldn't (over the short distances - up to a few hundred miles - that most freight moves in Europe, trucking is already faster and cheaper door-to-door in many cases).

Tony

[beaulieu]

Why can't all rail consists move at the same speed?  More to the point, why not make all rail traffic move at the same speed, to avoid unidirectional congestion?  I know part of it is to optimize fuel economy on tonnage moves, but even with lower fuel economy by having to increase the hp to t ratio, it's still preferable to not moving the tonnage by rail at all, e.g. back on the mode of last resort aka trucks nee lorries.

In Europe, this would basically mean having freight trains with the performance of passenger trains - it's possible, but the extra equipment and energy costs would push up rail freight rates to the point where the truckers would be laughing all the way to the bank. A few shippers might be willing to pay the extra for few hours off the transit time, but most wouldn't (over the short distances - up to a few hundred miles - that most freight moves in Europe, trucking is already faster and cheaper door-to-door in many cases).

Tony

Tony, I think for the purposes of this dicussion we have to separate the UK situation from that of the Continental part of Europe. The part of the about the short distances is quite correct with regards to the UK but is not so true on the Continent. Even on the Continent you have to separate France, Spain, and Portugal of the Old EU plus many of the new members, from Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy which are seeing the growth of rail traffic. Indeed in 2005 Railion Nederland reported a new record of 29.2 million tonnes of cargo, and this inspite of their steadily declining share of the railfreight market. Some where on the web I saw a quote that on the Continent in the countries that have accepted Open Access the average freight haul distance had increased by 200 km. That is a significant number because as distances increase the relative advantages of rail over trucks also increase. In the UK such an increase is physically impossible except via the Channel Tunnel.

John Beaulieu

[owlsroost]

A couple of reports I found might be of interest - http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldeucom/52/52.pdf and http://www.cer.be/files/Rotterdam_Genova-174323A.pdf

There is also an interesting graph of transport modes versus distance in the EU here - http://www.nea.nl/neac/appl_tonkm_eu15.htm (although it's based on 1999 information)

According to the CER report on the Rotterdam - Genoa corridor, rail only has a 22% share of the over-1000km market (road 75%) in that corridor.

I agree that the long-distance freight market in Europe is growing, and that rail ought to have a competitive advantage on the longer hauls (and I hope it increases it's market share), but the NEA graph supports my comment that most freight traffic is short-haul - the big peak on the graph is around 200km.

Tony

[beaulieu]

A couple of reports I found might be of interest - http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200405/ldselect/ldeucom/52/52.pdf and http://www.cer.be/files/Rotterdam_Genova-174323A.pdf

There is also an interesting graph of transport modes versus distance in the EU here - http://www.nea.nl/neac/appl_tonkm_eu15.htm (although it's based on 1999 information)

According to the CER report on the Rotterdam - Genoa corridor, rail only has a 22% share of the over-1000km market (road 75%) in that corridor.

I agree that the long-distance freight market in Europe is growing, and that rail ought to have a competitive advantage on the longer hauls (and I hope it increases it's market share), but the NEA graph supports my comment that most freight traffic is short-haul - the big peak on the graph is around 200km.

Tony

Tony , the chart seems to ignore any shipment originating or terminating outside the EU, since the highest distance is <6000 kilometers. How many containers entered the UK in 1999 versus 2006 and what about the same comparison for the rest of Europe.Think about how many of the products you buy that used to be made in the UK and are now made elsewhere.  Now consider the bottom end, the dataset only considers interregional transportation, useful to eliminate things like the truck that delivers the washing machine from the store to your home. But it also would ignore the coal moved from Gascoigne Wood loadout in Yorkshire to Drax power station.  Note also that Gascoigne Wood has closed but Drax hasn't, and the coal moves very long distances now, perhaps from Scotland, and also from South Africa. where were the new autos sold in the UK built in 1999, where are the majority built now? Etc.
How do they handle something like Intermodal (Piggyback) It probably was statistically an insignificant mode in 1999, but is much more important now, is it rail, or truck, or would it be a new category. How do they handle maritime containers?  Questions, questions, and not many answers.

[Anonymous]

Why can't all rail consists move at the same speed?  More to the point, why not make all rail traffic move at the same speed, to avoid unidirectional congestion?  I know part of it is to optimize fuel economy on tonnage moves, but even with lower fuel economy by having to increase the hp to t ratio, it's still preferable to not moving the tonnage by rail at all, e.g. back on the mode of last resort aka trucks nee lorries.

In Europe, this would basically mean having freight trains with the performance of passenger trains - it's possible, but the extra equipment and energy costs would push up rail freight rates to the point where the truckers would be laughing all the way to the bank. A few shippers might be willing to pay the extra for few hours off the transit time, but most wouldn't (over the short distances - up to a few hundred miles - that most freight moves in Europe, trucking is already faster and cheaper door-to-door in many cases).

That's an interesting take.  In most cases, the ability of a railroad to increase it's average train speed is the key in drawing freight off the roads.  The only real advantage trucks have over rail is the ability to go dock to dock, whilst railroads need to transload between rail cars and trucks at terminals, or add/remove trailers or containers at the terminal, e.g. an inherent time cost.  Thus, the usual approach is to focus on trip length, because the longer the haul, the greater ability of the railroads to overcome the inherent terminal delay as the impact of the time differential is diminished.  By increasing train speed, preferably to a significant degree over corresponding road trip times, the terminal time cost is overcome at some distance threshold, a break-even point if you will where the trip length turns from the trucker's favor to the railroad's.  The faster the rail trip, the shorter the distance threshold.  Therefore, it is possible for mostly short haul country like Great Britain to move certain types of freight by rail within the nation's borders, if that inherent terminal delay can be overcome by raw speed to a point where it is faster yet still more economical to ship a container or trailer by rail than by over the road.  The economies of scale germaine to railroad technology should still be enough to outweigh a surmised increase in costs associated with freight moving at passenger speeds and overcome over the road shipper.

It should be noted that in the US and Canada there is a healthy TOFC and domestic COFC trade over the long haul, but because of the North American railroads's embarrassing average velocity numbers (even for intermodal) our railroads are way behind the curve in drawing freight off the roads for the medium and short haul corridors as well as those time sensitive long hauls.