The following excerpt was taken from the Worldbank website, found in a note explaining differences in the world's railroads (dated October 1993):
"Perhaps the most significant distinguishing characteristic of the typical railway is the type of traffic it carries. This is important in several dimensions.
"First, the mix of freight carried determines the ability of the railway to capture a number of production economies which have emerged over the last two decades: railways carrying large amounts of bulk traffic between a limited number of origins and destinations (especially coal and grain) can operate unit trains which permit extremely high productivity of both labor and equipment, whereas railways carrying mostly wagonload (or smaller) amounts of merchandise traffic are highly constrained.
"More critical, certain railways (e.g., the US, FSU, China, and Mexico) carry mostly freight which permits higher productivity and which, at least in principle, permits a "commercial" approach to prices and services. Other railways (e.g., Sri Lanka, India, and most of the Western European railways) carry much more passenger service than freight, which constrains productivity, raises cost, and invites political interference in operations and pricing.
"Finally, the passenger problem is aggravated where, as in the case of India and the Western European railways (and Russia), a significant part of the passenger activity is suburban commuting which is both the most costly and the least remunerative of all."
That report is now 13 years old and as true today as it was then, and true to 150 years ago, too. The basic technology matured a long time ago.
You can build a good railway for passenger, or you can build one for freight, but it is difficult to do both if cost control is an objective. Historically railroads did both but in an environment where cost of inputs was low and cost of service was high. Today the situation is reversed.
Operating trains of different speeds on the same track results in lower realized capacity than if all trains are the same speed. Methods for solving this problem all increase the cost of input (e.g., increasing hp/ton ratios on freight trains).
S. Hadid
That was as interesting read.
A question: out of the coutries (regions) listed in the article, how many have successful private railroad ccompanies? Out of those companies how many are passenger only vs. freight only? Some figures in that area may indicate which business models are success. Does another country have a program similar to Amtrak (by this I mean a passenger rail network spread out over a similar amount of miles and similar trains) that is successful?
solzrules wrote:That was as interesting read. A question: out of the coutries (regions) listed in the article, how many have successful private railroad ccompanies? Out of those companies how many are passenger only vs. freight only? Some figures in that area may indicate which business models are success. Does another country have a program similar to Amtrak (by this I mean a passenger rail network spread out over a similar amount of miles and similar trains) that is successful?
Very good questions and not easy to answer. "Private" in the U.S. is not even quite the same as "private" in Canada, more different in Western Europe, which is different in Eastern Europe, and so forth. "Success" is not on similar terms either.
VIA is the only passenger service that has similarities to the U.S. (of which I'm aware), and it's success is measured on different terms. From a Canadian perspective, my Canadian railroad friends I think are happier with VIA's outcome than we are with Amtrak's outcome, but all that means is that VIA has a narrower gap between expectations and reality in Canada, than Amtrak in the U.S. For example, if we supposed that VIA had a higher subsidy per passenger-mile it wouldn't necessarily mean it was less successful, as the value of the subsidy means different things in Canada than it does in the U.S., just like I rebel on spending $5 on a three-bite appetizer at a restaurant whereas my wife thinks it adds meaning to the meal.
Having spent some of my career in railroads overseas I relish the differences and have learned a lot from my railwaymen friends at foreign railroads, but I've never tried to imagine either that "we're better" or "they should use our practices." One has to be very careful importing practices and ideas to be sure that they really do fit with the culture and organization, and importing anything as profound as a different definition of "success" is fraught with peril.
It seems near term "sucess" would be measured by a railroad's budget. Does anyone have a sense if railroads around the world have gotten better at managing to financial measures? It seems forty years ago most nationalized railroads functioned as the employer of last resort and ignored the cost.
The actual data is broken down only to the country level (with a few breakouts for US and Canada, such as Class 1 and Amtrak). There is no information that indicates privatization levels.
Passenger data for the US is broken down to three categories: Amtrak, Suburban, and Heavy Rail.
Country Passengers Passenger-kms Track (in km) US (AMTRAK) 20,200,000 8,314,000,000 40,234 US (Suburban) 382,000,000 14,035,000,000 10,425 US (Heavy Rail) 2,393,000,000 19,781,000,000 2,488
Canada (Via Rail) 3,586,000 1,341,000,000 13,490
Germany 1,698,310,000 72,543,000,000 37,477
Japan 8,797,700,000 240,877,000,000 20,161
India 4,411,000,000 403,884,000,000 63,506
China 977,000,000 404,627,000,000 60,000
Russia 1,337,500,000 141,042,000,000 86,000
This study may be another candidate for the "Duh!" file. Kind of like those studies we read of from time to time that confirm what we already know, aka a 5 year research effort on the sex lives of canines, only to find out that, yes, they DO do it "doggy"-style!
One needs only to refer back to the "British Railway Operations" and the "Continental Railway Operations" threads to confirm the odd (to us North Americans) conundrum of the European transportation system, where the railroads are clogged with passenger trains while the roads are clogged with freight. I asked it then, and I'll ask it again: Wouldn't it be more productive if it was the other way around?
They did not have amtrack in 1850 and did just fine.
In world war one and two everyone used the passenger train to get around.
Kill the mail contracts, kill the passenger service.
Revive today's passenger service in say... small town 50 miles away on a dual track mainline to downtown? No way. That will choke the freight traffic to a halt. They have underground things in tubes called subways for that work.
1435mm wrote: solzrules wrote: That was as interesting read. A question: out of the coutries (regions) listed in the article, how many have successful private railroad ccompanies? Out of those companies how many are passenger only vs. freight only? Some figures in that area may indicate which business models are success. Does another country have a program similar to Amtrak (by this I mean a passenger rail network spread out over a similar amount of miles and similar trains) that is successful? Very good questions and not easy to answer. "Private" in the U.S. is not even quite the same as "private" in Canada, more different in Western Europe, which is different in Eastern Europe, and so forth. "Success" is not on similar terms either. VIA is the only passenger service that has similarities to the U.S. (of which I'm aware), and it's success is measured on different terms. From a Canadian perspective, my Canadian railroad friends I think are happier with VIA's outcome than we are with Amtrak's outcome, but all that means is that VIA has a narrower gap between expectations and reality in Canada, than Amtrak in the U.S. For example, if we supposed that VIA had a higher subsidy per passenger-mile it wouldn't necessarily mean it was less successful, as the value of the subsidy means different things in Canada than it does in the U.S., just like I rebel on spending $5 on a three-bite appetizer at a restaurant whereas my wife thinks it adds meaning to the meal.Having spent some of my career in railroads overseas I relish the differences and have learned a lot from my railwaymen friends at foreign railroads, but I've never tried to imagine either that "we're better" or "they should use our practices." One has to be very careful importing practices and ideas to be sure that they really do fit with the culture and organization, and importing anything as profound as a different definition of "success" is fraught with peril.S. Hadid
solzrules wrote: That was as interesting read. A question: out of the coutries (regions) listed in the article, how many have successful private railroad ccompanies? Out of those companies how many are passenger only vs. freight only? Some figures in that area may indicate which business models are success. Does another country have a program similar to Amtrak (by this I mean a passenger rail network spread out over a similar amount of miles and similar trains) that is successful?
I guess it is a matter of priorities as much as it is a matter of success. For example, I am sure that if we funded Amtrak to the degree that the Japanese rail system is, the railroad may be considered more of a success. I agree wholeheartedly with your point regarding differences of application - in a country were few people have cars (like China) a national passenger rail system makes sense and would be a considered successful (irrespective of funding). In the US, such a system wouldn't hold a candle to the Chinese because most people own cars. Whereas in China and other parts of the world people form their working habits around the ability to get to work, so in the US have people adapted to the use of a car to get to work.
Fascinating discussion, either way.
Not really anything that Al Perlman didn't figure out 50 years ago.
Those obsessed with the nurture of sacred cows will never accept it, but that's life.
1435mm wrote: That report is now 13 years old and as true today as it was then, and true to 150 years ago, too. The basic technology matured a long time ago.You can build a good railway for passenger, or you can build one for freight, but it is difficult to do both if cost control is an objective. Historically railroads did both but in an environment where cost of inputs was low and cost of service was high. Today the situation is reversed. Operating trains of different speeds on the same track results in lower realized capacity than if all trains are the same speed. Methods for solving this problem all increase the cost of input (e.g., increasing hp/ton ratios on freight trains). S. Hadid
In our world today, there are basicly only some lines that will be needed for passenger train operations. As we know many lines are underutilized as far as total capacity.
Could not a schedule be created in which there were say passenger train movements at night, to allow travel and sleep to coincide? Move the freight in smaller blocks of cars, but on faster velocities across the lines terminal to terminal, in 'day' schedules. Hot shots would be in a special class and on a case by case basis for their time schedule schedule.
Maximize the utilization, the owning railroad could charge premium for utilization of its capacity. Ok, So it would be 'Open Access.' [which will send all but FM screaming for the exits]. At some point there would have to be an operating entity, to control the ebb and flow and keep the freight moving. Might be an authority operating as an adjunct to a current organization like the AAR, operating in a national environment, with GPS positive location control. Make the system work as a single entity, rather than like it is now, herding cats.
futuremodal wrote: One needs only to refer back to the "British Railway Operations" and the "Continental Railway Operations" threads to confirm the odd (to us North Americans) conundrum of the European transportation system, where the railroads are clogged with passenger trains while the roads are clogged with freight. I asked it then, and I'll ask it again: Wouldn't it be more productive if it was the other way around?
One can wish but it won't happen during daytime...
Just the other week an accident on a motorway going away from Rotterdam here in the Netherlands resulted in over 100 km of gridlock (in this caser literally meaning standing still for a long time). Just in and around Rotterdam and not only on alternative routes out of town.
Now, how do you propose to get 1 million travellers a day in 5000+ trains onto motorways where there isn't room to increase the number of lanes? Not to mention how to deal with the cars once they are at the citylimit? We don't even throw into the discussion the plans to go to 1.5 million passengers a day or the nimby's and the more extreme green loonies. If you have the solution to stop suburbanization and return that trend I would like to here it. Commuting, by car and train, is fast increasing in distance, more than 100 km one way is nothing these days.... I know, I do it 5 days a week.
Historically, here in the Netherlands, most freight moved overnight using locomotive that where not needed during daytimes for passenger traffic.
Freight came in two varieties: coal and carload. Carload was gathered by locals during the afternoon / early evening, was switched at humpyards, moved in trains that moved from hump yard to hump yard during the night, got sorted again in early morning and then moved in locals to their destination.
Coal moved from the south of the country and from ports and neighbouring countries in trainloads to the various regions. There the cars were humped and put in those locals. About half the traffic was coal, especially for home heating. Then came the natural gas sfind in the north of our country and 15 years later coal traffic for heating homes was gone and so were most freight trains and a great number of freight only lines.
And now we have mostly, but not exclusively, unit trains operating almost around the clock from the harbor here in Rotterdam. During daytime they get in the way of passenger trains and vice versa.
The new Betuweroute should give some breathing space.
The overall timetable is difficult to balance. Think about those perfomers trying to keep all those plates spinning on top of those skinny poles.
Elsewhere in Europe it is not much different, there is just more room between the big population centers aka wiggle room for certain types of trains.
This does not take into account that other not to be forgotten thing: the river Rhine. It comes from the places where freigth is going to...
Hope this overview from the Netherlands helps, the World Bank is not always right and from time to time it does have a narrow view of economics. I haven't touched such subjects as the quality of living.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
marcimmeker wrote: futuremodal wrote: One needs only to refer back to the "British Railway Operations" and the "Continental Railway Operations" threads to confirm the odd (to us North Americans) conundrum of the European transportation system, where the railroads are clogged with passenger trains while the roads are clogged with freight. I asked it then, and I'll ask it again: Wouldn't it be more productive if it was the other way around?One can wish but it won't happen during daytime...Just the other week an accident on a motorway going away from Rotterdam here in the Netherlands resulted in over 100 km of gridlock (in this caser literally meaning standing still for a long time). Just in and around Rotterdam and not only on alternative routes out of town.Now, how do you propose to get 1 million travellers a day in 5000+ trains onto motorways where there isn't room to increase the number of lanes? Not to mention how to deal with the cars once they are at the citylimit? We don't even throw into the discussion the plans to go to 1.5 million passengers a day or the nimby's and the more extreme green loonies. If you have the solution to stop suburbanization and return that trend I would like to here it. Commuting, by car and train, is fast increasing in distance, more than 100 km one way is nothing these days.... I know, I do it 5 days a week.Historically, here in the Netherlands, most freight moved overnight using locomotive that where not needed during daytimes for passenger traffic.Freight came in two varieties: coal and carload. Carload was gathered by locals during the afternoon / early evening, was switched at humpyards, moved in trains that moved from hump yard to hump yard during the night, got sorted again in early morning and then moved in locals to their destination.Coal moved from the south of the country and from ports and neighbouring countries in trainloads to the various regions. There the cars were humped and put in those locals. About half the traffic was coal, especially for home heating. Then came the natural gas sfind in the north of our country and 15 years later coal traffic for heating homes was gone and so were most freight trains and a great number of freight only lines.And now we have mostly, but not exclusively, unit trains operating almost around the clock from the harbor here in Rotterdam. During daytime they get in the way of passenger trains and vice versa.The new Betuweroute should give some breathing space.The overall timetable is difficult to balance. Think about those perfomers trying to keep all those plates spinning on top of those skinny poles.Elsewhere in Europe it is not much different, there is just more room between the big population centers aka wiggle room for certain types of trains.This does not take into account that other not to be forgotten thing: the river Rhine. It comes from the places where freigth is going to...Hope this overview from the Netherlands helps, the World Bank is not always right and from time to time it does have a narrow view of economics. I haven't touched such subjects as the quality of living.greetings,Marc Immeker
You will have short haul congestion no matter what the mode in overly urbanized areas. Highway planners over the years, no matter if they're from NA or Europe, seem to have been stuck on the concept of consolidating road traffic onto one or two main arterials, rather than dispersing highway traffic onto multiply dispersed route options. Congestion takes place quite simply due to the fact that overflow options were not considered in the long term urban transportion plans. That's why some commuter rail lines can actually make sense, since the aggregation factor is already built into the societal mindset.
Otherwise, it is counterintuitive to force a mass of supposedly independent individuals onto the bulk transport mode while conversely forcing the non-complaining mass of freight onto the individualized transport mode. This is most apparent in the intercity travel, where the people are less amassed, ergo the double switch of freight to rail and people to road would have a better chance of working.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.