[urbancog]

Europe seems to realize that there'll need to be a shift to rail freight to meet environmental targets and improve road safety. There's an industry group pushing to increase rail's modal share from 18% in 2023 to 30% by 2030. https://www.railfreightforward.eu/

I couldn't find evidence that this is official EU policy but the previous UK Govt was pitching a 75% increase in rail freight by 2050, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...us-target-to-grow-rail-freight-by-at-least-75

 

[nfitz]

I'm quite bearish when it comes to using batteries as a prime mover for long haul freight unless we can see significant gains in the energy density of batteries (energy per unit volume).

We certainly aren't there yet. But the whole thing isn't as absurd as it would have sounded 20 years ago.

I did say decades away in my original post. My point was it would take some world-changing technology change - like how engines advanced to the point that diesel displaced coal.

I don't know what that technology would be. Batteries was an example. Another could be a significant drop in charging time, where the overhead only existed at waystations. I'm sure a better futurist than me would see other options.

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

 

[micheal_can]

Is Europe similarly "Embarrassed" because rail represents such a small minority of their freight transport?

Note Maritime is different from Inland waterway.

Would have been nice if you showed a similar graph of Canada.

I think if anything, Europe is envious of how much freight is moved by rail in Canada and the USA.

 

[dowlingm]

Sure, but that's cheap and stupid and we should be embarrassed at how far Canada has fallen when it comes to railways.

Agreed. The problem is that newer is not necessarily reliable as we are seeing with some of the Tier 3 /4 stuff.

I see comments above about how electrification of the rail network generally is impractical / uneconomic. I suppose it depends on what your imperatives are and where they are going to be. India went out and designed new pantographs so they could have double stack under wire. Norway run electric freight north of 60N. If fuel prices doubled or tripled in the next decade or so, I daresay CN and CP would find a deep interest in rail freight electrification, and how the Canadian taxpayer should pay for much of it.

Is Europe similarly "Embarrassed" because rail represents such a small minority of their freight transport?

Note Maritime is different from Inland waterway.

i would argue that yes, they are, and that’s why programs like TEN-T, and the multiple transalpine projects, and the funding of conversion of East Bloc train networks to standard gauge are happening. What happens when Europe brings all of the work on line and Canada is stuck with whatever CP and CN shareholders are content to leave in place?

 

[innsertnamehere]

I mean don't the railroads in NA have far larger market shares already anyway than European freight railroads? It's Europe catching up to North America in this sense, not the other way around.

 

[micheal_can]

Is Europe similarly "Embarrassed" because rail represents such a small minority of their freight transport?

Note Maritime is different from Inland waterway.

I dive into Canada's split.

Road Transportation: Heavyweight of the Canadian Economy

Rail is 11.4% in Canada. So, about double.Truck is the largest at 28%

 

[drum118]

I mean don't the railroads in NA have far larger market shares already anyway than European freight railroads? It's Europe catching up to North America in this sense, not the other way around.

Europe is behind NA for moving freight by rail and with the push to reduced truck traffic and the need for more rail service. At the same time, freight trains are limited by their length compare to NA as well steeper grades. The use of double stack trains is limited to very few areas that have no tunnels, height of bridges and other structures to do so. Then there is the requirement to fit them in between high speed trains or have sidings to allow the HS trains to past them.

Back in 2012, I saw a large amount of freight equipment using single axles compared double in NA that reduced the amount of goods those cars could carry. Visiting a few places that build both passenger and freight cars, they were building newer cars to meet the requirements to carry heavier loads both truck and frame wise along NA standards.

The locomotives were both electric and diesel as well long in the tooth. 2022 saw a lot more modern day power for both types that could haul heavier trains as well at higher speed.

Seeing my first freight train in London UK was an eye opener in 2012 that flew through the station with only 35 cars on it and it was the norm for the rest of my trip. 2022 saw a few 40 cars trains, but most were shorter.

Europe truck traffic has to deal with steep grades and sharp turns compared to NA as well tunnels.

Saw a lot of goods been moved by the boats/barges than I have seen on the Mississippi and other river routes.

NA RR lost a lot of freight to trucks as RR unions were not prepared to reduce crew size as new technology came along that keep operating cost higher than they should be. Then there was the delay in shipping goods as it had to be hand over to another RR and so to be sorted and made up on until it reached the end. Today, trains can travel coast to coast unbroken with crew changes or sections drop off/pickup a lot faster than the past. At the same time, train length have increase to the point that 1-4 trains are not needed to move that train these days and some thing Europe cannot do.

 

[roger1818]

I dive into Canada's split.

Road Transportation: Heavyweight of the Canadian Economy

Rail is 11.4% in Canada. So, about double.Truck is the largest at 28%

That chart says that Goods transported by Rail represents 11.4% of Canada's GDP (not tonne-kilometers of goods), so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. It is no surprise that a higher percentage of high value low weight goods are transported by truck. You get a clue that the chart is meaningless when it includes "Warehousing and Storage." I don't know of many warehouses that are able to move goods any great distance.

According this article, "around 70 per cent of all intercity surface freight and half of Canada’s exports are moved by rail." It is not clear what metric they are using, but I would guess it is measured in tonne-kilometers.

 

[just east of the creek]

Europe is behind NA for moving freight by rail and with the push to reduced truck traffic and the need for more rail service. At the same time, freight trains are limited by their length compare to NA as well steeper grades. The use of double stack trains is limited to very few areas that have no tunnels, height of bridges and other structures to do so. Then there is the requirement to fit them in between high speed trains or have sidings to allow the HS trains to past them.

Back in 2012, I saw a large amount of freight equipment using single axles compared double in NA that reduced the amount of goods those cars could carry. Visiting a few places that build both passenger and freight cars, they were building newer cars to meet the requirements to carry heavier loads both truck and frame wise along NA standards.

The locomotives were both electric and diesel as well long in the tooth. 2022 saw a lot more modern day power for both types that could haul heavier trains as well at higher speed.

Seeing my first freight train in London UK was an eye opener in 2012 that flew through the station with only 35 cars on it and it was the norm for the rest of my trip. 2022 saw a few 40 cars trains, but most were shorter.

Europe truck traffic has to deal with steep grades and sharp turns compared to NA as well tunnels.

Saw a lot of goods been moved by the boats/barges than I have seen on the Mississippi and other river routes.

NA RR lost a lot of freight to trucks as RR unions were not prepared to reduce crew size as new technology came along that keep operating cost higher than they should be. Then there was the delay in shipping goods as it had to be hand over to another RR and so to be sorted and made up on until it reached the end. Today, trains can travel coast to coast unbroken with crew changes or sections drop off/pickup a lot faster than the past. At the same time, train length have increase to the point that 1-4 trains are not needed to move that train these days and some thing Europe cannot do.

Comparing the movement of goods and services in the EU vs NAM is a little like comparing two similar fruits - similar, but not the same. Nevertheless, what Drum has mentioned above, bears a lot of truths. Europe moves over 120 billion tonne kilometers by inland waterway transport through a number of major canal networks.

In the EU freight tonnage peaked just before COVID at 410 billion tonne kilometers. trending upwards from 2012's figure of about 370 billion. However, since COVID, tonnage has slipped and sits at about 380 billion. All EU countries excluding Germany, Poland, Luxembourg and Portugal recorded drops in tonnage.

(By comparison EU data shows that passenger volumes measured in billion passenger kilometers has fully recovered from COVID impacts and has reached new levels at 429 billion passenger kilometers in 2023)

Source Eurostat

The UK is not part of the EU anymore. The UK reports moving 15.6 billion tonnne kilometers in the 12 month period ended March 2024. And this appears to be modestly trending upwards. Locally, there has been more emphasis in moving goods by rail as the road network is strained in many areas and Doug Ford would find it harder to ram through 400 series highways wherever his fancy takes him

Source: ORR Office of Rail and Road

By comparison the AAR reported that (figures to 2021) USA operating railroads moved 1.50 billion tons in 27,885,000 carloads

Stats Canada reported on the following: The total annual rail freight carried in Canada during 2023 was 375.1 million tonnes, up 2.4% from 2022 levels, with most gains in tonnage generated in the early part of the year.Feb 22, 2024

When comparing there are obviously differences in how the movement in freight is measured, in how railway operations are carried out, and in the tonnages that can be carried by carload and trainload depending on the operators.

It is interesting the differing styles of transport driven so often by geography and the natural resources you have been given. I can vividly recall sitting in an office overlooking the Meuse River in Holland and watching the canal barges passing by while we loaded containers for sea shipment through Rotterdam.

 

[drum118]

CPKC’s hydrogen fuelling stations for locomotives now up and running, railway says​

 

[micheal_can]

That chart says that Goods transported by Rail represents 11.4% of Canada's GDP (not tonne-kilometers of goods), so it isn't an apples to apples comparison. It is no surprise that a higher percentage of high value low weight goods are transported by truck. You get a clue that the chart is meaningless when it includes "Warehousing and Storage." I don't know of many warehouses that are able to move goods any great distance.

According this article, "around 70 per cent of all intercity surface freight and half of Canada’s exports are moved by rail." It is not clear what metric they are using, but I would guess it is measured in tonne-kilometers.

This is why if we are comparing NA to EU, we need the same metrics to be shown. Can you find one that shows what it is using the EU metrics? Or the reverse?

 

[Bojaxs]

Europe moves over 120 billion tonne kilometers by inland waterway transport through a number of major canal networks.

Canadians need to realise our country wasn't blessed with canals fit for shipping like the U.S. has with the Mississippi or the E.U. has with the Rhine. Closest thing we have is maybe the Fraser River in B.C.? Regardless, because of this, we're heavily reliant on the railroads to move our freight.

The UK is not part of the EU anymore. The UK reports moving 15.6 billion tonnne kilometers in the 12 month period ended March 2024. And this appears to be modestly trending upwards.

Rail freight scheme sees 64,000 less lorry journeys in first year

A year ago, only one container in five left Southampton docks by rail now it is almost one in three.

www.bbc.com

Problem for the U.K. and Europe is their tunnels are too small and bridges too low to accommodate double stacking containers.
Being able to double stack containers is what makes freight in N.A. so profitable. Someone at CN told me that, we break even on a train once it's "bottomed out". Afterwards, every container we put on top is pure profit.

The U.K.'s other problem is that thier freight trains are too short. Therefore they don't generate as much profit. If any at all. Freight trains can only be as long as their passing tracks. U.K. has small passing tracks so therefore they have small freight trains.

Just so you guys are aware, the footage of a train determines how many "slots" will be available for containers. By "slot" I'm referring to a spot on the train for a container. CN's customers can reserve slots on a train. The longer, or more footage a train, the more slots are available for our customers. CN & CPKC charges for each slot. The value of the load doesn't matter (for Intermodal). So this is why freight companies in N.A. keep making their trains longer. To increase the amount of slots, and therefore making the train more profitable. And labour costs don't go up if you make the train longer, because at the end of the day it's still a "two man" crew moving the train.

Because of Europe's smaller, "passenger focused" rail infrastructure, they can't make freight trains as long as N.A. freight trains. And so freight rail struggles in Europe, because their rail infrastructure limits how many slots they can have on a train.

 

[nfitz]

Canadians need to realise our country wasn't blessed with canals fit for shipping like the U.S. has with the Mississippi or the E.U. has with the Rhine. Closest thing we have is maybe the Fraser River in B.C.?

I guess the USA was lucky that the glaciers carved out those canals for them.

If only we had a waterway that stretched from Chicago one way, to the Atlantic Ocean near Halifax the other way, connecting to most of the major cities in Central Canada.

 

[crs1026]

Because of Europe's smaller, "passenger focused" rail infrastructure, they can't make freight trains as long as N.A. freight trains. And so freight rail struggles in Europe, because their rail infrastructure limits how many slots they can have on a train.

The length thing is certainly a valid observation, but I’m not sure that Europe can or should imitate the North American model of extra long trains. Making them longer than passenger trains, sure, but the optimal length may be much shorter than in this country.

The European system has the advantage of having a highly capitalised, high speed high frequency track infrastructure which can accommodate a much greater number of routings and discrete movements. Whereas we have a much more limited network of rail lines that go fewer places and are built for a much lower number of movements per day/hour, with more directional constraints ie much more single track working. And speeds that are not highway competitive. And shipments of different volumes - trucking handles single container loads well, but not 15,000 tons of a bulk commodity. And a very limited number of transload points, ie large high volumes intermodal terminals such as BIT and VIT.

What North America needs is a whole new network that can match highways for speed while offering an infinite variety of routings and sizes of shipments. I can’t see the existing rail system being made compatible with this need.

Shipment distance is a big consideration. Look at Belgium - they have a critical need to shift (an ever growing volume of ) container traffic through their major ports away from highway, but even with really good rail infrastructure, the idea of putting containers on a train for the short "last mile" trip to the inland origins/destinations is not cost effective because the line haul revenue is short and the road network can offer direct delivery to more places much faster. The cost of investment in inland container terminals exceeds the cost of expanding roads.

North American railways have faced a similar challenge when trying to compete with trucks for NAFTA auto business - a huge number of trucks move between Ontario and the states carrying auto parts, but the plants are so distributed at both ends that there is no potential for a "main line" to connect them, especially with the Windsor/Detroit border crossing acting as a choke point in the middle. I-75 and 401 win the business.

My fantasy highway competitive distribution system looks much more like the people movers at airports, linked to distribution centers and many local transload hubs. Launch a shipment somewhere, and it travels in an automated manner, never being coupled to other shipments or shunted. In essence, dropping off a container looks a lot like mailing a letter that is delivered by public transit thru a SRT-like fixed guideway system.

In the GTA, such a fixed guideway system would logically begin by linking the major rail container yards with the large logistics hubs, replacing local drayage of containers. Next would be an extension to industrial towns and facilities and a connection to the USA that competes with I-75. There would be an infiinite number of drop off/pickup locations - much like the number of mailboxes and mail pickup boxes.

Fantasy perhaps - but it illustrates why highway has worked well on both sides of the Atlantic. We could simply automate and electrify trucking, but at some point the energy benefits of steel wheel on rail over rubber tire on ashphalt, plus the safery benefits of segregating trucking from small vehicle passenger transportation on fixed guideways, might be material. Someone with lots of money and an entrepreneurial spirit may eventually design a technology that fills this need. (Elon, are you out there?)

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

This is why if we are comparing NA to EU, we need the same metrics to be shown. Can you find one that shows what it is using the EU metrics? Or the reverse?

The chart I shared clearly states that, the "% based on tonne-kilometers." Your chart clearly states that the percentage of the "Share of Canada's Gross Domestic Product, 2021." Very much apples and oranges.

Comparing the movement of goods and services in the EU vs NAM is a little like comparing two similar fruits - similar, but not the same. Nevertheless, what Drum has mentioned above, bears a lot of truths. Europe moves over 120 billion tonne kilometers by inland waterway transport through a number of major canal networks.

In the EU freight tonnage peaked just before COVID at 410 billion tonne kilometers. trending upwards from 2012's figure of about 370 billion. However, since COVID, tonnage has slipped and sits at about 380 billion. All EU countries excluding Germany, Poland, Luxembourg and Portugal recorded drops in tonnage.

Can you quote your source? The chart I provided says that Inland Waterways transport 0.2% and Rail is 5.5%. I'm guessing your figures also include Maritime, which is 67.8%. All ore based on tonne-kilometers, as I said above.