News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

crs1026 said:
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
Click to expand...

The reason our freight trains are so long is we let them go that long. Part of it is the fact that so few passenger trains share those lines, they can run over siding trains without worrying about a passenger train getting in the way. The other thing is governments here will bend easier to the railways to allow them to do something if it is not going to get someone killed. Most regulations are based on the goal of preventing deaths.

The fact that EU trains are limited to siding length is why they can have a more robust passenger service. If the passenger train is going to run late for that freight, the freight will fit in the siding. It is a simple situation and a great solution. The problem is, it limits train length.

The solution there, and here is the same, if we want a robust passenger service - longer sidings/double track. If the regulation was that all trains, regardless of type must fit in every siding between terminals,then either the length of freight trains would need to be shorter, or the sidings would need to be longer. Double track can make that moot if it is set up with crossovers to allow virtually the same thing. With the lawsuit between Via and CN, we may see some changes in either train length, or siding length.

Overall, I feel that we should have even more fright go by rail. The amount of truck traffic on most major highways seems to have increased to such a point where it seems unsustainable. If you use a simple number of 40 trucks, to move them by the highway, you need 40 people. By rail, you need 2. With the number of trucking companies still crying for drivers, rail is the solution.

roger1818 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can you share a chart that shows the same things for EU and Canada/NA? Then we can compare Macintosh to Gala.
 
roger1818 said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...
All my figures cam from Euro Stat reports. They publish a series of general reports on Rail (freight and passenger) and Maritime traffic levels yearly.
 
Bojaxs said:
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.


www.bbc.com

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 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.
Click to expand...
Somewhere there is an article, which I cannot find currently, that talks about these comparisons as well. The lack of, or restrictions to double stacking, and the volumes and frequencies of passenger rail that hinder the movement of freight (and also passenger service in some areas). It also talked about the differences in tonnage capacities that can be hauled by any one train - I think due to rail load restrictions, which in turn lead to lower tonnage capabilities by individual rail cars etc. I am sure someone with more rail expertise can explain those differences, and why they exist. I would think the age and capabilities of some of the infrastructure would be one reason.

Europe is blessed with an amazing network of canals suitable for moving freight and beginning since at least the middle 1800's on a larger scale. European counties have been adding to the network and standardizing capabilities since the 1700's. In the late 1800's the standard load in France was set at 350 tonnes. By 1899 Germany had established a standard of 1,000 tonnes. Today barges and self propelled canal boats can transport up to 3,500 tonnes, although that is not a standard to every canal. Bulk goods to containers move by river and canal. But then again, Europe features much more population and urban density on a smaller scale. A canal network similar to Europe's would not then or now, make the same economic sense here in North America. Although in strategic areas, North America makes use of major canal systems (St Lawrence Seaway, The Mississippi River and major tributaries to name a couple)
 
The CNN Headline is: Britain is building one the the worlds most expensive railways....an interesting read, especially with our ongoing experiences with Metrolinx.

With its first — and now only — phase currently costed at between $58.4 billion and $70 billion by the UK government, Britain’s High Speed 2 (HS2) rail project now costs an eye watering $416 million per mile.

It’s a metric that gives it the dubious honor of being the world‘s most expensive railway project.

Only the equally troubled $128-billion California High Speed Rail project in the United States comes close to matching HS2’s soaring costs, with some estimates suggesting that it could top out at $200 million per mile.

For comparison, the Tours-Bordeaux TGV line in France cost around $32-$40 million per mile in the mid-2010s — although much of that line runs through sparsely populated agricultural regions.
Balance of the article is here: https://www.cnn.com/travel/hs2-britain-expensive-high-speed-railway/index.html
 
micheal_can said:
Without anything in Canada to compare with it, we don't have any context.
Click to expand...
Stats Can reports, but uses a different reporting methodology, as does the AAR in the USA. I believe there has been some comment previously about looking for stats that would use similar methodology to report on results. Not sure we have found that yet, or had the time to drill down into what is reported for other details. Working for a living is a bit of a drag sometimes.
 
micheal_can said:
The reason our freight trains are so long is we let them go that long. Part of it is the fact that so few passenger trains share those lines, they can run over siding trains without worrying about a passenger train getting in the way. The other thing is governments here will bend easier to the railways to allow them to do something if it is not going to get someone killed. Most regulations are based on the goal of preventing deaths.

The fact that EU trains are limited to siding length is why they can have a more robust passenger service. If the passenger train is going to run late for that freight, the freight will fit in the siding. It is a simple situation and a great solution. The problem is, it limits train length.

The solution there, and here is the same, if we want a robust passenger service - longer sidings/double track. If the regulation was that all trains, regardless of type must fit in every siding between terminals,then either the length of freight trains would need to be shorter, or the sidings would need to be longer. Double track can make that moot if it is set up with crossovers to allow virtually the same thing. With the lawsuit between Via and CN, we may see some changes in either train length, or siding length.

Overall, I feel that we should have even more fright go by rail. The amount of truck traffic on most major highways seems to have increased to such a point where it seems unsustainable. If you use a simple number of 40 trucks, to move them by the highway, you need 40 people. By rail, you need 2. With the number of trucking companies still crying for drivers, rail is the solution.
Click to expand...
Does any country with privately owned rail networks regulate train length for any reason other than safety or operational reasons?

Our main competitor in terms of freight movement is the US, not Europe. Making our rail network less competitive has the potential to drive more traffic to the US. Grain coming out of the prairies destined for overseas can just as easily go south and to a US port.

The federal government can get VIA better priority or create conditions for better on-time performance by paying the host railways for it. Achieving it by placing artificial restrictions on them is counter-productive; the government's role is to encourage and support commerce.
 
lenaitch said:
Does any country with privately owned rail networks regulate train length for any reason other than safety or operational reasons?

Our main competitor in terms of freight movement is the US, not Europe. Making our rail network less competitive has the potential to drive more traffic to the US. Grain coming out of the prairies destined for overseas can just as easily go south and to a US port.

The federal government can get VIA better priority or create conditions for better on-time performance by paying the host railways for it. Achieving it by placing artificial restrictions on them is counter-productive; the government's role is to encourage and support commerce.
Click to expand...

I know that what dictates what we do has more to do with what the USA does than much else.
I am not suggesting artificial restrictions.Unless, bu that you mean that the government fines the host railway enough that it is not 'part of doing business' to let Via be late. If that is artificial, than make them artificial. A scheduled train being late when there is nothing mechanically wrong with it is most likely due to the host railway not properly scheduling their trains. It takes special skills to schedule everything, especially where it is single track.

So, the question is how do we get it so that Via does not need all of its own ROW to stay on time?
 
Bojaxs said:
You suck it up and play by CN's rules. I know that's not the answer you're looking for, but it's the answer you're going to have to accept. Even if you don't like it.
Click to expand...
That is the current way of doing things. Should it just be that no Via train can stay on time? If that is the case, why bother with a schedule?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top