# MISC | Difference between USA and EUROPE railnetwork?



## zo1D (Dec 5, 2009)

Hi everyone,

I'm a civil engineering student from Belgium. For a project me and a colleague need to make a big "paper" about the difference between the rail network in Europe and the USA (why is there so much more freight transport via rail in the USA?)

Now we have allready found some obvious reasons:

- location: Europe is surrounded by sea, the land area in the USA is much bigger. So one would expect more transport over water in Europe. 

- terrain: Europe has more mountains, USA has more wide open spaces = easyer for railtransport. USA = bigger distance => more efficient for rail

- infrastructure: they use different kinds of railways, different stations, off loading methods?

- function of the railnetwork: in Europe, passenger transport and freight transport occurs on the same lines. There are high frequencies for passenger train transport, ...?

- types of trains: mostly Diesel in USA vs mostly electric in Europe, double stacks in USA, better system to attach wagons to eachother (= longer trains)? ...

- Politics: Europe = lot's of countries with different types of infrastructure, different rules = makes international transport slower. Taxes in europe on train freight transport are different? Infrastructure is public or private.


*Now my question is: what are your opinions about this topic? Are there more reasons why rail freight transport in the USA is more efficient? Are some of my reasons wrong? *

Thank you in advance

ps: if it's possible, please put a link to the source you use when u want to say something usefull


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

- infrastructure: the USA have a single track gauge (1435 mm), in Europe there are five (1000-1435-1520-1600-1668, but two of them on isolated networks), plus dozens of different signalling systems and rules thad makes international traffic more difficult
- function of the railnetwork: USA mainly for freight, Europe mixed (but passengers are usually prevalent)
- types of trains: USA diesel with very good couplers, Europe mainlines are usually electric and couplers very weak (this prevents heavy trains)
- USA: railway infrastructure and trains are usually private, usually the regional/national government pay to use them, Europe: railways are public, but private companies pay to run their own trains (and aeven then, the greatest part of trains are run by the governments)
- USA: railways nearly dedicated to freight, Europe: mixed traffic with priority to passenger and a strict timetable (also for freight trains)



> Are there more reasons why rail freight transport in the USA is more efficient?


All of those me and you have written.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Most of the railroads in the U.S. are privately owned by railroad companies. The federal government has to pay these railroad companies to run passenger trains on them.

Thus freight is given preference over passenger transport, meaning intercity rail in the U.S. sucks . 

But there are serious bottlenecks in the railroad network in the U.S, especially around CHicago. The railroad companies are only interested in short-term profits to appease shareholders and thus haven't put much money into expanding and upgrading track.

The federal government keeps pumping billions into the freeways but hardly anything into rail, so the disparity grows. Maybe the U.S. government should make trucking companies have to pay for the upkeep of the interstate highway system, that would level the playing field between truck and rail as a means to move goods.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Whilst I can't speak for the whole of Europe. I can for places I have been. The UK, France, and Spain all have very large and dense networks. The lowest normal frequency is 1tph. There are very few if any 'one train a day long distance' services like in the US. 

Trains are smaller in scale, no houses size locos lol. the top speed is much higher. France and Spain have a large high speed rail network, the UK as a bit of one in the south east, but also has a lot of 125Mph tracks all over the places.

And also in Europe taking the train is in 99% of cases faster and better than taking the car, so thats why its used more aswell.


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

And then there's also the history that comes into play, as far as I'm aware.

In the USA, several corridors of land were made available to companies to lay their tracks in. Because hauling freight was much more profitable than passengers (no high-speed rail to connect those long distances in an acceptable time frame), the companies that invested in rail went for freight. Later on companies like Amtrak came who also provided passenger transportation on those lines, but due to the security regulations for passenger trains on shared tracks, these had to be very bulky (= strong in collisions, they reasoned at that time) and as such didn't accelerate very fast (huge disadvantage for commuter trains). Also, their speed was limited by the freight trains who use the same tracks and are given priority by the rail owner.

The main difference is obviously the big distance between cities, which not until recently meant trains couldn't compete with the airlines, which American people had already gotten used to by the time high speeds could be achieved on rails. For freight, trains are a perfect solution, because hauling it all by plane isn't cost-effective.

Do make sure you can find references for these statements though. I can only say what I remember from seeing elsewhere and keep in mind that "someone said that on a forum" isn't much of a reference 

Veel succes met de paper!
Beaucoup de succès avec l'essai!

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## zo1D (Dec 5, 2009)

Thank you very much for the replies. 

I won't use this forum as a direct source off course. But your comments are very helpful to find new inspiration and new directions to look for.

So keep em coming 

Thanks (Bedankt)


----------



## octopusop (Feb 10, 2009)

Europe: fast and light.
feight trains are running at 120km/h and weight 2000 tons. axle load 20~22 tons, so the rail condition is pretty well.

USA: slow and heavy.
feight trains are running at 80km/h and weight 10000 tons and more. axle load 32~35 tons, so the rail condition is poor.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Well, people pretty much gave insights, but I'd never cease to emphasize that the fundamental difference is that US rail system is direct to transport freight, therefore optimized for that - which, I think, makes a lot of sense.



> feight trains are running at 80km/h and weight 10000 tons and more. axle load 32~35 tons, so the rail condition is poor


I would disagree. Railway companies in US have updated their tracks to bear those loads.



> Thus freight is given preference over passenger transport, meaning intercity rail in the U.S. sucks .


As unintended consquence of the demise of passenger rail transport in US was that its network was optimized for freight.

*It would be impossible for European rail companies to run a barely as-near-as efficient freight operation like in US when they have to clear the way for passenger traffic, are restricted in regard of size of trains etc.* It is simply not compatible: you can have a good passenger operation, or a good freight operation, but you cannot have both running in the same tracks. Passenger trains are very disruptive for freight: they have defined scheduled, they cannot be hold at intermediate stations or signal posts, and so on. 

Moreover, US is decades ahead of European network in respect of security requirements for passenger trains. US passenger cars are almost "armoured" vehicles that can withstand a collision or derailment with far less casualities or damage than their European counterparts. Europe should learn about rail safety with US, and adopt some of its standards to reduce accidents.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

andrelot said:


> Moreover, US is decades ahead of European network in respect of security requirements for passenger trains. US passenger cars are almost "armoured" vehicles that can withstand a collision or derailment with far less casualities or damage than their European counterparts. Europe should learn about rail safety with US, and adopt some of its standards to reduce accidents.


This is incorrect. The USA does not have a better safety record than Europe. If Europe learned from the USA it wouldn't have the passenger infrastructure that it has. Running the amount of trains we do, and at the speeds we do, would be difficult to do economically if the trains weighed as much as US safety rules require.

A quick scan over recent rail crashes in Europe shows that modern passenger cars are very safe. The pendolino crash in Cumbria as an example, the train came of the track at 110mph and rolled down an embankment, but the vehicle did not breach. A passenger car cannot get any safer than that, unless the passengers are all strapped in to their chairs.

That trains need to be built like tanks to be safe is a misapprehension.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

andrelot said:


> *It would be impossible for European rail companies to run a barely as-near-as efficient freight operation like in US when they have to clear the way for passenger traffic, are restricted in regard of size of trains etc.* It is simply not compatible: you can have a good passenger operation, or a good freight operation, but you cannot have both running in the same tracks. Passenger trains are very disruptive for freight: they have defined scheduled, they cannot be hold at intermediate stations or signal posts, and so on.


Any mix of traffic is a problem, not just freight vs passenger. On any railway the most efficient operation is one where all the vehicles have a similar performance and timetable/speed. Mixing local passenger trains and high speed ones is as much a cause of inefficiency as mixing passenger and freight.

Though you are correct, that as long as Europe intends to run passenger trains on the same tracks as freight it will not be as efficient as the US. But Europe is trying to operate more freight, and likewise the US is seemingly trying to operate more passengers. For both a solution will be needed, and I feel that both will start to duplicate the infrastructure to avoid the inefficiencies, such as the freight only line from Europoort in Holland to Germany.


----------



## octopusop (Feb 10, 2009)

Terrible facts are running in China, Euro speed + American load.

Change of China without sound.


----------



## hans280 (Jun 13, 2008)

Sorry if I say something stupid - I'm neither an engineer nor an expert on US railways - but isn't there a linkage beteen design speed and the exact nature of safety requirements? I mean, requirements that a train must be strong like a tank must be based mainly on the assumption that accidents take the form of (1) collisions or rear-endings; with (2) low to medium speed. It's like rolling quietly in your car: if you bump into something while turning out from the mall then it's much nicer to be in a Range Rover than in a Fiat Ritmo. 

Conversely, if trains travel at, say, 150 km/h and bumps into something then I'd rather have a soft snout which folds up and absorbs much of the shock. (That's a French preference, I admit.) Similarly, if a train runs off track then the most important thing (as Makita alluded) IMO that the cars are solid and the lenght of the train rigid. We've had some awful derailments in India because the cars were made of soft iron that imploded, and some awful accidents in Germany because the length of the train - whilst made of strong metal - folded up like an accordion. 

At least in high-speed service we need not worry about that. If a train travelling at 300+ km/h hits something then... mostly it doesn't matter how strong its construction is. The passengers just fly through the air at high-speed. hno:


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

Many American Railways are in good condition , some aren't , we may not have a great Intercity Rail system , but many states are adding passenger Rail to the Freight lines , like New Mexico, Tennessee , Minnesota , Washington , Oregon ,Texas , Oklahoma , Ohio , Conneticut. By 2020 our Network should be bigger then now , and more Electric, alot of East Coast projects are looking more toward Electric lines then Diesel. As for Freight maybe Electric isn't that far down the Road. I think our Rail network is safer then Europe, high standards.

*Some Rail videos

2 Union Pacific Freight in Cedar Rapids, Iowa*






*CN Rail , in Rural Illinois *






*Rahway Station : Rahway ,NJ Amtrak & NJT Transit *






*New Mexico Rail Runner Express , with one of the last remaining semaphore signals left on the US Rail Network*






*Morrisville , PA NJT , Septa , AMTRAK , ACES , Acelas*






*Amtrak Keystone line , Amish country part of PA*






*Seattle Metro Freight & Passenger Rail

China seems to always try to break or damage something* :lol:






*Cascades Train
Cascades line , Portland , Oregon to Vancouver , Canada
it also tilts , with Talgo cars*






*Thats all i have for now , i'll dig up some more later , form my many Rail Fanning Contacts

~Corey*


----------



## Oponopono (Aug 26, 2009)

If someone asked me to resume the differences between US and European railways (and I know both in deep) in one sentence I'd say: "While in the United States the primary concerns go towards simplicity and eficiency, in Europe they move to technology and beauty".

Besides what others said here regarding the different focus in freight in the US and passenger transport in Europe, these different philosophies reflect themselves in several differences. Infrastructure is different, even in philosophy causing American tracks and infrastructure in general to be simpler and cheaper to maintain than its European counterpart. The trains themselves are different. In the United States trains are usually simple, reliable, easy and cheap to maintain. True work-horses suited for working under a different set of conditions with minimal care. In Europe trains tend to be technologically advanced and more prone to glitches than in the United States.

Someone mentioned above the new freight line between the Netherlands and Germany, the Betuweroute. This line is a fine example of the added complexity which exists in Europe. Please remember that this is a freight line. However, even so, it is fitted with ERTMS 2. Also, it was designed for a maximum load per axle of only 25t... even though it is prepared for double-stackers in the future. 

In the United States the goal is having an efficient freight railway and hi-tech is used only where it improves efficiency. In Europe the goal is having a technologically advanced railway which serves primarily the passenger transport purpose.


There are, then, of course, a lot of differences in what compatibility of different systems, railway organization and government oversight are concerned which affects the way both systems work. The European (except Switzerland) and Americam railway models are very, very different and distinct.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

andrelot said:


> ...
> 
> Moreover, US is decades ahead of European network in respect of security requirements for passenger trains. US passenger cars are almost "armoured" vehicles that can withstand a collision or derailment with far less casualities or damage than their European counterparts. Europe should learn about rail safety with US, and adopt some of its standards to reduce accidents.


While I agree with most of your points, this I can't agree with. I can't agree at all. 

The US is not decades ahead in this regard, it got caught in the last century with it. Those US "safety" regulations are more than excessive and I think those in the business of train design would rather agree with me than with you. You would not mandate planes to be constructed in a way to survive a full scale crash either, would you? No you rather create a safety system that makes such a crash extremely unlikely. 

Its pure madness to mandate "Tanks on rail". I think the safety record of the TGV is fairly good, but when the US wanted what became the Acela they had to make it about 2 times heavier than the normal TGV would be, because these safety regulations demand it. This is not only madness in terms of energy efficiency it is also madness in terms of damage the train does to the tracks due to its weight and relatively high speeds. 

The US should seriously think about these regulations again. If it should not do so it will be even much harder to ever create a feasible HSL system more than it is anyway.



Oponopono said:


> If someone asked me to resume the differences between US and European railways (and I know both in deep) in one sentence I'd say: "While in the United States the primary concerns go towards simplicity and eficiency, in Europe they move to technology and beauty".
> 
> Besides what others said here regarding the different focus in freight in the US and passenger transport in Europe, these different philosophies reflect themselves in several differences. Infrastructure is different, even in philosophy causing American tracks and infrastructure in general to be simpler and cheaper to maintain than its European counterpart. The trains themselves are different. In the United States trains are usually simple, reliable, easy and cheap to maintain. True work-horses suited for working under a different set of conditions with minimal care. In Europe trains tend to be technologically advanced and more prone to glitches than in the United States.
> 
> ...


Where exactly are diesel trains simpler than electric trains? Diesel Trains are more difficult to maintain than their counterparts as they have more moving parts and a diesel electric train for example is also considerably more complex than an electric train. I think your labeling "simple vs fancy/complex" is an unjustified oversimplification. Your implication that Europe is not interested in an efficient rail system is a pretty heavy insult which is also doubtable. After all, this longing for efficiency certainly does not seem to extend to passenger rail, or why would the US demand passenger trains to be nearly tank like?

I have also seen a number of freight rail tracks myself in the US and more often than not they looked rotten or even worse, at least on the east coast. They companies are clearly consuming the rail infrastructure heritage there, but while freight transport does not need so well maintained tracks, it looked like at a certain point the companies will be confronted with the need to do massive and large scale investments or to completely give up service on a lot of tracks, even if the aim is using it only for very low speed freight cargo.


----------



## Oponopono (Aug 26, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> The US should seriously think about these regulations again. If it should not do so it will be even much harder to ever create a feasible HSL system more than it is anyway.


When the time comes, I am sure, the appropriate set of rules will be added to the federal regulations regarding all aspects of high speed railway construction and operation.

Nowadays the standards concern primarily freight operations and passenger trains adapt themselves to it. That, necessarily, has to change in order to have high speed rail.


----------



## Oponopono (Aug 26, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> Where exactly are diesel trains simpler than electric trains? Diesel Trains are more difficult to maintain than their counterparts as they have more moving parts and a diesel electric train for example is also considerably more complex than an electric train. I think your labeling "simple vs fancy/complex" is an unjustified oversimplification.


It hasn't to do specifically with diesel versus electric but with which diesel versus which electric. Trains in the US use only proven technology for which they are very well suited and rarely move forward in the tech scale without the need to do so, be it mandatory regulations or efficiency demonstrations. The technology used in US trains tends to be as simple as possible so as to keep maintenance costs low and keep doing it the way they are used to do without need to train workers or buy expensive maintenance equipaments. In Europe we have a special taste for using high-tech, sometimes only for the sake of it. In general, train operation and maintenance in the US is much, much cheaper than in Europe.




Slartibartfas said:


> Your implication that Europe is not interested in an efficient rail system is a pretty heavy insult which is also doubtable. After all, this longing for efficiency certainly does not seem to extend to passenger rail, or why would the US demand passenger trains to be nearly tank like?


I gave the example of a freight line, right? That is where I compared efficiency: apples with apples. I also said that the US system is tailored for freight trains with all rules and regs made for them and passenger trains having to adapt to these existing rules. And the fact is that when you compare a freight route in the United States with a freight line in Europe, the American one delivers the most efficient trains.

I don't mean to insult anyone or any country whatsoever. I am only concerned about numbers and comparisions. Other than that I don't really care.




Slartibartfas said:


> I have also seen a number of freight rail tracks myself in the US and more often than not they looked rotten or even worse, at least on the east coast. They companies are clearly consuming the rail infrastructure heritage there, but while freight transport does not need so well maintained tracks, it looked like at a certain point the companies will be confronted with the need to do massive and large scale investments or to completely give up service on a lot of tracks, even if the aim is using it only for very low speed freight cargo.


It depends on which lines are you talking about. One thing I can assure you: if the requirements call for a line capable of handling fregith trains at only 40 mph, then I assure you that the owner will keep it at Class 3 and won't incur the expense of doing the maintenance with the parameters for Class 4.

This being, the tracks are kept at what they are needed for and not an inch above that.


----------



## JoKo65 (Feb 28, 2007)

zo1D said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'm a civil engineering student from Belgium. For a project me and a colleague need to make a big "paper" about the difference between the rail network in Europe and the USA (why is there so much more freight transport via rail in the USA?)
> 
> ...


You make the mistake that you are speaking about Europe as one area. But this isn't reality. The differences within Europe are very big, think about the difference between France and Russia, between the UK and the Ukraine for example.
So a comparison USA vs. whole Europe makes no sense at all.


----------



## Oponopono (Aug 26, 2009)

JoKo65 said:


> You make the mistake that you are speaking about Europe as one area. But this isn't reality. The differences within Europe are very big, think about the difference between France and Russia, between the UK and the Ukraine for example.
> So a comparison USA vs. whole Europe makes no sense at all.


Hmmm, I assumed that his question concerned only Western Europe. Did I make the wrong assumption?

Even if we speak only about western Europe there are differences, yes but it is manageable to speak about them in terms of being similar ways of operating railways. Now, if he meant all of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals that is a whole different thing and we'd have to start by exposing the differences between countries in Europe and only then move to compare with the US.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Oponopono said:


> When the time comes, I am sure, the appropriate set of rules will be added to the federal regulations regarding all aspects of high speed railway construction and operation.
> 
> Nowadays the standards concern primarily freight operations and passenger trains adapt themselves to it. That, necessarily, has to change in order to have high speed rail.


There are specific HSL projects already in the pipeline. The sooner they could rely on reasonable and feasible regulations the better it would be for them. I mean if you have to plan a high speed line, you'd better know the details. I can't see what the benefit of waiting here would be. 

I know that rail is mostly about freight nowadays in the US, but that does not mean one should simply ignore the rest. Acela is already a victim of turning a blind eye to this question, it would be irresponsible to force a second project into a similar fate. 



Oponopono said:


> It hasn't to do specifically with diesel versus electric but with which diesel versus which electric. Trains in the US use only proven technology for which they are very well suited and rarely move forward in the tech scale without the need to do so, be it mandatory regulations or efficiency demonstrations. The technology used in US trains tends to be as simple as possible so as to keep maintenance costs low and keep doing it the way they are used to do without need to train workers or buy expensive maintenance equipaments. In Europe we have a special taste for using high-tech, sometimes only for the sake of it. In general, train operation and maintenance in the US is much, much cheaper than in Europe.


When I read your lines, it would almost look like technological progress would be done for the sheer fun of it by some weirdos. Thats simply not the case normally, also when it comes to freight rail. 

The Austrian railways for example used its locomotives pretty much as long as it was justifiable (actually even a bit longer). They were well established reliable and simple quality. The new locomotives were chosen according to cost effectiveness as well, its no accident that the locomotive class it belongs to can be found in various European countries nowadays. I doubt that they are fancy trains, but rather straight forward work horses and as no one would even try to claim that a plane from the 50's could be nearly as efficient as a new plane, I think its quite courageous trying to claim that this is not the case at all with trains. Of course, you may have a better insight into the European railway companies than I have, I don't know. 

Where European locomotives are indeed more complex is when they are capable of using more than one electricity network and more than one signaling system. This is indeed a disadvantage but its a direct consequence of the fractured nature of the European railway system. The US has indeed a vast advantage in this regard but there is little Europe can do about it. It is working on making the railway networks more compatible but thats another story. 



> It depends on which lines are you talking about. One thing I can assure you: if the requirements call for a line capable of handling fregith trains at only 40 mph, then I assure you that the owner will keep it at Class 3 and won't incur the expense of doing the maintenance with the parameters for Class 4.
> 
> This being, the tracks are kept at what they are needed for and not an inch above that.


If you say so. You may know more about it all, but as far as I know even if your goal is to keep a track only on a very low maintenance level, at some point you simply will need to do a major overhaul and that will be necessarily a major investment, and it won't become a smaller one if the track was maintained only very negligently, even if that was on purpose because it was not deemed necessarily to keep it in a better shape. 


PS:
I fully realize that the American system and the European system are hard to compare in first place. Distances tend to be much shorter in Europe than in the US on average, which makes it much harder for railway companies to be competible in freight service. I guess it also makes it harder to even think about those huge freight trains the US knows and this would be even the case if there were no passenger rail in first place. Europe could not aspire in its wildest dreams to catch up with the US in the freight rail share, but it should be able to considerably improve its pretty low share if the will is there.


----------



## Oponopono (Aug 26, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> Very few, but on the same tracks there are hundreds of faster passenger trains...


That is exactly why I used a freight-only line to compare with American infrastructure. So that we didn't have the passenger trains to worry about.

Now, of course, we could go in deep about the specialized infrastructure subject and its effects on overall efficiency along with the two different approaches to it in Europe and the US.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

Oponopono said:


> That is exactly why I used a freight-only line to compare with American infrastructure. So that we didn't have the passenger trains to worry about.
> 
> Now, of course, we could go in deep about the specialized infrastructure subject and its effects on overall efficiency along with the two different approaches to it in Europe and the US.


I think this is it must be a deeper discussion, because there are not really any freight only routes in Europe. Whilst there are sections, and some of them quite long, where freight in the only traffic, nearly every freight train is going to or coming from a mixed traffic area.

Otherwise we aren't comparing apples with oranges, but horses and unicorns (one exists the other doesn't) and making false comparisons.

I agree with what you say in your previous post regarding insurance premiums etc, but I imagine it is precisely this which causes the European approach, rather than it being done for its own sake.


----------



## jayOOfoshO (May 28, 2007)

The difference between American and European railroad networks is that they have one and we don't.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

That's not true nor fair. If you look into stats, you're goint to see that American railways carries n-fold times more freight tonage per year than Europe. The difference is really huge, I just don't have the number right now. On the other side, they carry passengers and clog their freeways with trucks. Less than 15% of total freight tonXdistance freight travels go through rail there, in US this proportion is 38% - and distances are far greater than in Europe.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ your last line is the key to the difference. The distances for freight traffic are much greater. Trucks are just so much more competitive in Europe, because the network is much denser and distances tend to be considerably shorter on average. Thats not the sole reason of course, but a structural reason that would make it extremely hard for Europe to catch up with the US on freight rail shares. Improving the share in Europe should be a priority and also a realistic option however.


----------



## zo1D (Dec 5, 2009)

again, thx for all the input

just to be clear: I'm going to limit the comparison to USA vs WEST-Europe


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

The most rail dependent industry in US are coal powerplants. It's nearly impossible to conceive the present geographical dispersion of coal powerplants without availability of cheap and reliable rail freight. Can you imagine: trucks hauling coal from Appalachian Mountains all the way to Nebraska, for instance? Impossible.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

The US needs some smaller, longer, lighter and faster trains...and decent tracks to run em on...


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

We are getting Smaller Alex , i like how you criticize us , i think ur jealous. Its getting annoying.hno:hno:

San Diego Sprinter











Raritan Valley Line - NJT






North Jersey Coastal Line - NJT






Keystone Line - Amtrak






Southern Pittsburgh Line - Amtrak & NS






~Corey


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

andrelot said:


> The most rail dependent industry in US are coal powerplants. It's nearly impossible to conceive the present geographical dispersion of coal powerplants without availability of cheap and reliable rail freight. Can you imagine: trucks hauling coal from Appalachian Mountains all the way to Nebraska, for instance? Impossible.


I think this is the same in Europe. Certainly in the UK most coal goes by rail.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Nexis said:


> We are getting Smaller Alex , i like how you criticize us , i think ur jealous. Its getting annoying.hno:hno:


I'm not being mean, just honest...anyway the NEC is fine, its just the rest which has suffered neglect...

they dnt even need to waste time on electrifying lines...(ignore the wires lol) the train is a diesel.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

makita09 said:


> I think this is the same in Europe. Certainly in the UK most coal goes by rail.


Regarding coal I think the only feasible alternative to rail would be by ship. It does not have to be a sea harbor for that, a shippable river is enough.


----------



## Eddard Stark (Mar 31, 2008)

Nexis said:


> We are getting Smaller Alex , i like how you criticize us , i think ur jealous. Its getting annoying.hno:hno:
> 
> San Diego Sprinter
> 
> ...


Are you really saying that a continent where most people have never set a foot on a train can compare to a continent that travels continously on trains and has HSR lines all over with travelling speed at 300 km/h?

It's nice to have freight trains, if you use your lines (in a poor dismal state let me add: no electricity, old materials, lots of street crossing - without lights often!) for freight that's very good...however here we use it for everything...and the system is far denser and more complex than in the US


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

Your study should really be between USA and Russia. russian railway network is unified. Russia is 4th country in the world for number of passengers annually, coming after dense countries like India/China/Japan... meaning that overall, european countries always give great importance to passenger networks... without talking that in period of wars, trains were very useful to move military troops.

But where it's impressive, it's that Russia comes second to USA for railway length and and it absorbs 40% of russia’s freight traffic (the 3rd of the world)... meaning that distances are well an important factor in freight traffic, and final costs to transport a product from one point to another.


----------



## Mekky II (Oct 29, 2003)

"The volume of traffic in Germany, especially goods transportation, is at a very high level due to its central location in Europe. In the past few decades, much of the freight traffic shifted from rail to road, which led the Federal Government to introduce a motor toll for trucks in 2005"

Now it can be an absolute answer : money 

It surely costs more money for companies in Europe to transport by trains that in US.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Russia doesn't have a truly freeway system to compete and complete the railways.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

andrelot said:


> Well, people pretty much gave insights, but I'd never cease to emphasize that the fundamental difference is that US rail system is direct to transport freight, therefore optimized for that - which, I think, makes a lot of sense.
> 
> 
> I would disagree. Railway companies in US have updated their tracks to bear those loads.
> ...


2 faulse assumptions.


Bulkier does not equal safer.

If passenger trains were run in american railways in the same intensity that they are run in weuropean rails we would see news about large death tolls in american rails everyday. hno:

dedicated freight and passenger networks are much less efficient than a mixed traffic network ... vast examples exist in europe where a mixed network can cope efficiently with vast amounts of traffic that in the USA one would never even dream of seying.

A small scale example ... over here (portugal) we have a small (almost entirely single track) network (not even near the top european networks) 

On my neighbourhood we have 1 major auto factory , some steel mills , oil refineries and a lot of other major industrial enterprises ... major freight traffic is as follow:

Auto trains (2 , 3 or more each day) run about 50km factory-harbour.center
Coal trains (2200ton each) run harbour.south-north.powerplant 3 times a day each direction 
copper trains (2,3 times a day) run south-harbour.center 
container traffic averages a couple of million TEU's 
wood and paper pulp trains are in the dozens daily
add dozens of trains loaded with jet fuel , cement , dangerous materials , ashes , cattle food , cereal , pesticides and many many other stuff 

And this runs in a timetable manner in mostly single track routes ... 




did I even mentioned that this all runs mixed up with express 220km/h tilting trains , fast intercity and a variety of commuter and regional trains ??? 

If one thinks about it ... the NEC area of influence (east coast Washington-boston in the USA) has probably the same amount of freight and passenger trains that my local backyard ... or even less. :dunno: 


the main differences being preciselly that is has about 5/10 times as much population and that it serves as a direct feeder/destination for the majority of the traffic that goes into the interland ... compared to the east coast we don't have nothing to do with our fellow europeans who live in our_ "interland"_.

Another random example:

Our local auto factory has direct auto-trains full of auto parts to/from so far away as poland ... it's a logistic nightmare 2700km long (at least 5 different antional railways involved and god knows how many different track,signaling,electric systems).

A similar train in the USA would be just handed over to UP o BNSF. :dunno: 

this is a very good example of HOW DIFFERENT both networks are.

EDIT: on an aftertought ... europeans tend to favour road haualge because most transporte is just door to next door and a simple lorry/truck can deal with that kind of traffic ... thats' the same principle that is being aplied to the rail entworks where newer companies just enter the amrket and buy a single loco (or a couple of them at most) and start to operate door to door services.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

Mekky II said:


> "The volume of traffic in Germany, especially goods transportation, is at a very high level due to its central location in Europe. In the past few decades, much of the freight traffic shifted from rail to road, which led the Federal Government to introduce a motor toll for trucks in 2005"
> 
> Now it can be an absolute answer : money
> 
> It surely costs more money for companies in Europe to transport by trains that in US.



It certainly does cost more. 

However much of the reluctance of shippers in Europe to divert cargo traffic to conventional rail freight services and/or intermodal road/rail systems stems from the reliability issues that have long been a feature of the European rail system. 

It's true there have been great improvements in Europe in recent years, to the extent that some rail freight operations bear no resemblance to the patchwork quilt of nation states that make up the Continent and instead resemble logical trade routes or geographical areas.

An example of this is the small, yet fast-growing company known as Hector Rail, which happily works across Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Germany without the company employees having a nervous breakdown. 

On the other hand, Europe’s trade unions still enjoy throwing spanners in the works of the traditional state-owned railway operators, such as DB Schenker, and then there are still a vast array of working practices, and other issues that can delay pan-European train journeys. 

This is where Europe can be jealous of North America, where the 'rail road' system operates on a logical basis, based around corridors, regions and networks that all link together.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Not only are railroads (other than for non-connected tram and LRT lines) fully standardized in the USA, but they are also 100% compatible with the railroads in both Canada and Mexico and the three countries regularly interchange a LOT of rail freight traffic between them.

Also, besides the far stronger couplers used here in North America (China and Australia plus a few other countries also use North American rail standards) - stronger than those used in Europe by a factor of eight - but also loading gauges in North America are far more generous than those of Europe. Note that in those above video clips that North American railroads can easily handle double-stacked containers while some railroads in Europe have such *TINY* tunnel bores that specialized 'low floor' cars are needed to be able to run *single* stacked containers on them. When double-stacked containers became common here (1980s), all that some railroads had to do to be able to handle them was to cut small 'notches' into the upper corners of some tunnels.

It would cast a real fortune to rebuild most European lines to be able to clear the same freight and some passenger trains that can run here in North America - think of the cost and hassles of adopting North American couplers, beefing up the electrical power systems and track structures and then lengthening yard tracks and passing sidings to be able to handle those much longer, bigger and heavier trains. North American railroads often run those double-stacked container trains up to 3 km long and full coal trains will easily reach 15.000t.

Mike


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

The irony about the US rail system is that the region that has the most passenger usage (Northeast US) has the weakest freight infrastructure.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Xusein said:


> The irony about the US rail system is that the region that has the most passenger usage (Northeast US) has the weakest freight infrastructure.


Agreed - NYC is the 'poster child' of this as something like 90% of all freight that moves into and out of NYC and Long Island has to travel by truck. There has been some top-level discussion of building a double-track freight railroad tunnel, big enough to clear double-stacked containers, under the NYC harbor between New Jersey (the Middletown area?) and Brooklyn as a way of removing some of that crushing load of truck traffic from NYC area bridges, tunnels, expressways and surface streets, but I have not heard much about that idea in the last few years.

Right now, the southernmost place where a standard-sized North American freight railroad car can cross the Hudson River is just south of Albany, NY, using a bridge that is parallel and adjacent to the New York State Thruway's Berkshire Extension crossing.

Mike


----------



## OakRidge (Mar 9, 2007)

A few examples of the fairly new General Electric Evolution series of diesel locomotives. As of 2009 over 3500 are in operation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Evolution_Series









*SP8254 @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sp8254/1364524336/*








*El Cobrador @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/3661412597/*








*Harry Gaydosz @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/harrygaydosz/2673043114/*








*rockislandlines @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/rockislandlines/4161635950/in/set-72157603635464743/*


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

*Northeast everything , is greater then the rest of the country, Roads , Rails , Seaports , Cities , there just better and maintained better , we may not be a Europe Network , but were getting there. Although None of New York states cities have a Light Rail line except the small Buffalo line, New York state is also the only state that i can't seem to find 2030 plans. The Focus here is restoration of old Passenger Rail lines and converting some freight lines into Passenger service. A Major Restoration project is the Lackawanna Cutoff here in Western Jersey & Eastern PA , starts in Andover,NJ , runs into PA via the Delaware Water Gap , goes past college towns and a resort town & Ends up in the City of Scranton a major Northeastern PA city , with future possible extensions to Binghamton,NY This project will open in 2021 or 25 , its waiting like the rest of the NE projects for the ARC project to open. The New Tunnel & Station form NJ to NY. Another project is extending Raritan Valley line back to Philpsburgh,NJ , Easton,PA , Bethlehem , PA , & Allentown ,PA major cities that are served only by I-78 to NYC & have alot of Super commuters. Septa wants to restore service to Bethlehem , due to the new Casino that just opened there. Septa also wants to restore service to Reading,PA. Metro Harrisburg , wants to Add a commuter Rail line to the keystone corridor between Harrisburg & Lancaster due too growing population & possibly a line to Hershey's , Lebanon , & Reading. Since HSR is unofficial dead in the NE , and High Speed Commuter lines are in because there cheaper, and attract more people. as for Freight i think its time it went electric in the Northeast, and they need to stop hogging the network, and work together.*

*Heres some more videos

Northeast Corridor , Woodbourne,PA*






*Tour of the Acela Express , on National Train Day*






*Secacuse JCT , Hoboken Terminal & Newark Penn Station, NJ's 3 busiest stations*






*~Corey*


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

mgk920 said:


> Not only are railroads (other than for non-connected tram and LRT lines) fully standardized in the USA, but they are also 100% compatible with the railroads in both Canada and Mexico and the three countries regularly interchange a LOT of rail freight traffic between them.
> 
> Also, besides the far stronger couplers used here in North America (China and Australia plus a few other countries also use North American rail standards) - stronger than those used in Europe by a factor of eight - but also loading gauges in North America are far more generous than those of Europe. Note that in those above video clips that North American railroads can easily handle double-stacked containers while some railroads in Europe have such *TINY* tunnel bores that specialized 'low floor' cars are needed to be able to run *single* stacked containers on them. When double-stacked containers became common here (1980s), all that some railroads had to do to be able to handle them was to cut small 'notches' into the upper corners of some tunnels.
> 
> ...


:lol:


Here we run some 10.000 tons of coal every day and that means mixing coal trains at 100km/h with all the other traffic ... what use would a single 10.000ton coal train have if it meant that the railway would be ocupied by a slowish freighter ???

A long roundabound route filled with a couple of 400m long coal trains (2500ton each) are suficient to maintain the power plants operating ... no need for those long and ultra-heavy trains.
sidenotice: coal trains over here use american couplers and electric lomomotives (a pair of CP5600 has some 14.400hp)


In the same manner a Post-Panamax container transport can be loaded/unloaded in a timely manner and all cargo transported to intermodal terminals hundreds of quilometers away without the need for double stackers. :dunno:

This mixed with faster passenger trains ... the bottom line is that nowhere in europe is there a need for mile-long trins ... the big haulage dispute is between single-truck transport and small door-to-door rail transport. :cheers:

Heres some examples:














































hno:


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

I think the biggest factor is that there is no demand for passenger services in the US. If the population suddenly decided to use trains more frequently, the railway network of the US would be as good or better than in Europe.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

poshbakerloo said:


> I'm not being mean, just honest...anyway the NEC is fine, its just the rest which has suffered neglect...


That isn't true. The NEC in the U.S. is mediocre by British standards, and Britain has the worst rail network of any major western European nation. In Britais the main rail lines are capable of handling trains going up to 125-140 mph. The NEC can only do that in a couple of short stretches.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

DanielFigFoz said:


> I think the biggest factor is that there is no demand for passenger services in the US. If the population suddenly decided to use trains more frequently, the railway network of the US would be as good or better than in Europe.


How can the population "decide" to use trains when most communities are either not served or are severely under served by rail?

Should I stand next to the lone rail line that runs through my town and hop on the next coal train that passes by?

When the U.S. government spends 10X as much money on roads as it does rail transit, what do you expect people to use? U.S. transportation policy has catered to the car for fifty five years-what do you expect people to use.

And prior to the recession, which caused all forms of travel to decline. Amtrak was posting record ridership numbers. People are using trains where they are available. And even more would use them if they went faster and to more places.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

In Europe, passenger rail accounts for less than 20% of overall passenger traffic don neither by walink or cycling.


----------



## Glodenox (Mar 26, 2007)

I'd love to compare the percentage when talking about the peak hours. I'm fairly certain that in most urban areas the percentage of people using the train over a car would be around or over 40%... But that's not a discussion we need here since we're comparing RAILnetworks.

I can't think of any other big differences for now...

Greetings,
Glodenox


----------



## Nexis (Aug 7, 2007)

DanielFigeryFoz : Thats not true , where do you get those facts , Theres Very high demand here in Northeast , there restoring alot of old lines & Taking Advantage of Freight Company sell offs of Right Aways , At least 20-40 lines over the next 2 decades will be built or restored for Commuter or Light Rail use. Outside the NE , i can't speak.

hoosier : The NEC is slowly getting upgraded to withstand 150-170mph trains the entire length , NYC & CT need massive upgrades , like Bridge replacement & and Track realignment , CT Rail network is growing , since it feeds into the NEC eventually , i think the Tracks need to get double to 4 Tracks not 2 , but this would be hard , because theres almost no space. NYC is just plain old , but i think if done right u can upgrade the 2 Tunnels that feed into Manhattan , NJT is , but i don't think Amtrak will Use them. But when the New NJT tunnel is completed Amtrak will have more space since the current tunnels are maxed out. 

Overall Transit & Rail will get better , you should look at the 2030 plans for most Transit System , already 7 of NJT and 5 of Septa Projects have been completed

~Corey


----------



## Teach (Apr 17, 2009)

> I think the biggest factor is that there is no demand for passenger services in the US. If the population suddenly decided to use trains more frequently, the railway network of the US would be as good or better than in Europe.


It's rather the other way around: the reason not more people travel is not because they don't want to, but because the service and network are so bad.


----------



## Ternarydaemon (Jun 6, 2009)

Teach said:


> It's rather the other way around: the reason not more people travel is not because they don't want to, but because the service and network are so bad.


Not only that, but the sub-urban nature of the US, enormous distances, and lower population density than europe make it economically unfeasible to build long-range HSR networks. Even at 380 kph going from NY lo LA is as ridiculous as taking a HS train from London to Istambul.

That is no to say about the market for state and regional trains.


----------



## andrelot (Aug 6, 2008)

Land area:

US lower 48 > Portugal + Spain + France + Italy + Germany + Switzerland + Austria + Netherlands + Belgium + Poland + Checz + Slovakia + Hungay + Bulgary + Croatia + Slovenia + Romania + Liechtenstein + Monaco + San Marino + Andorra + Luxembourg


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Ternarydaemon said:


> Not only that, but the sub-urban nature of the US, enormous distances, and lower population density than europe make it economically unfeasible to build long-range HSR networks. Even at 380 kph going from NY lo LA is as ridiculous as taking a HS train from London to Istambul.
> 
> That is no to say about the market for state and regional trains.


The suburban nature is indeed a (homemade) problem, after all the US orginally came from a situation where everything was oriented towards rail only 100 year ago, while new towns and cities may not be affected by this most of the big urban centres are. 

The distances argument is just lame however. No one is suggesting that rail for the trip NY - LA makes any sense, you have aviation for that. Fact is however, that the US has huge agglomarations where a considerable number of its citizens live. The east coast is an example. There exists a massive mobility demand there with distances well below 1500 km and countless major urban centres with lots of people. The East Coast is by far not the only example. The US could have a lot of feasible passenger rail corridors if it chose to have them. Geography is not the obstacle. 

Distances maybe up to NYC-Chicago could be perfectly feasible with a really fast high speed rail.


----------



## streetquark (May 22, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> The suburban nature is indeed a (homemade) problem, after all the US orginally came from a situation where everything was oriented towards rail only 100 year ago, while new towns and cities may not be affected by this most of the big urban centres are.
> 
> The distances argument is just lame however. No one is suggesting that rail for the trip NY - LA makes any sense, you have aviation for that. Fact is however, that the US has huge agglomarations where a considerable number of its citizens live. The east coast is an example. There exists a massive mobility demand there with distances well below 1500 km and countless major urban centres with lots of people. The East Coast is by far not the only example. The US could have a lot of feasible passenger rail corridors if it chose to have them. Geography is not the obstacle.
> 
> Distances maybe up to NYC-Chicago could be perfectly feasible with a really fast high speed rail.


Two thirds or more of the US population lives east of the Mississippi and Texas which is I think less than half the area of the lower 48. That's comparable to Western Europe, but still a lot lower density overall. The economics aren't as good as in Europe but there's still a case for HST.

The lower density suburbs of the US are more a consequence of moving from rail to car. The US rail network was quite extensive, always oriented to freight, and with passenger services able to go to the heart of cities. People have to want to live in low density suburbs too, and there has to be the space for them. Some people also like to live in high density areas and the US has them too, where there were urban railways. Inner New York is high density. but the outer suburbs are very low density - outer NYC is like LA is throughout. It's a cultural thing too - most countries outside the US have high density cities and fairly high density suburbs, with only a few like Australia and the UK preferring suburbs. If the US is to move more to commuter and urban rail it will need to take into account these factors.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Ternarydaemon said:


> Not only that, but the sub-urban nature of the US, enormous distances, and lower population density than europe make it economically unfeasible to build long-range HSR networks. Even at 380 kph going from NY lo LA is as ridiculous as taking a HS train from London to Istambul.
> 
> That is no to say about the market for state and regional trains.



Corunha-Porto-Lisboa-Sevilla = 1000km of HSR built planned
Cadis-Sevilla-Madrid-bilbao = 850km of HSr built or in construction 

Lisboa-Salamanca-Bordeus-Paris-Brussels-Amesterdam = 2000Km of HSL

Lisboa-Madrid-Barcelona-Lyon-Paris-London-birmingham-Manchester-York-Edimburg-Glasgow = 3500km of HSL build or in construction/planned


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Ternarydaemon said:


> Not only that, but the sub-urban nature of the US, enormous distances, and lower population density than europe make it economically unfeasible to build long-range HSR networks. Even at 380 kph going from NY lo LA is as ridiculous as taking a HS train from London to Istambul.


There are absolutely no proposals for a national HSR network. All are either interregional or intrastate, which are entirely feasible.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Ternarydaemon said:


> Not only that, but the sub-urban nature of the US, enormous distances, and lower population density than europe make it economically unfeasible to build long-range HSR networks. Even at 380 kph going from NY lo LA is as ridiculous as taking a HS train from London to Istambul.
> 
> That is no to say about the market for state and regional trains.


the 3 main reasons to ACTUALLY build any kind of HSRnetwork are ALL against your kind of argumentation.


1- park-and-ride stations favour large and disperse urban areas ...
2- airports are very well served with park-and-ride stil HSR stations ...
3- comute-away cities are better served by medium haul HSR than by air ... 
4- Major HUB congestion could be aliviated by creating regional rail around it ... 


Some examples:

1- Atlanta (Georgia) = clear win/win situation with a station in the airport
Atlanta-Columbus HSL diverging to serve Montgomery-Mobile-NewOrleans and northwest florida 
The same in each and every other direction ... :dunno:

Easy Rule of thumb:

1- If a large metropolitan area (over 1 million people) is less than 200miles away from another start to BUILD a DEDICATED +200mph HSR IMEDIATELY
2- If a medium sized city is less than 200 miles away from one of the above start to plan for 125/200mph HSR as soon as possible
3- If two medium sized cities are 100miles away build a 100/125mph railway ASAP

If you start to draw lines on the map you end up drawing a LOT of routes ... almost entirely recreating the actual railroad map of america. :lol:

Add to these 3 basic premises these other 3:

1- Any town where you NEED to drive por more than 15 minutes to go from one side to the other would have NEEDED a RapidTransit system 50 years ago ... build it if it doesn't already exist. 
2- if there are more than enough small towns scatered around a city then build a comuter service to link them together in a dense network
3- most airports would benefit from being connected to the rail networ and would benefit from direct acess to town centers by rail.


Another rant about random examples:

Atlanta(airport) could serve as a MAJOR HSR hub with connections to any major/medium city in a 400 mile range ... that means central florida , indianapolis , washington , st.louis , houston and others are on the limit of it's reach ... anything over that would still benefit from the AIR HUB located there ... nonetheless all of the above (and eveything in between) would benefit from such a service.


(cont.)


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Malmbanan = dual-body electric locos hauling 8000ton ore trains


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

*Union Pacific dispatches company record long train*

A nearly 5.5 km long test train was dispatched by Union Pacific a few days ago, it ran from the Dallas, TX area to the port of Long Beach, CA, carrying over 600 containers of USA-made goods for export.






(video shot in Montebello, CA)

Enjoy!

:cheers1:

Mike


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

^^

The TEN corridors are few in number, and are only covering core routes. 

Europe needs many tweaks across many parts of the rail network, hence why I wrote what I wrote.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

TedStriker said:


> I don't think we ought to be too harsh with our comments about the freight capabilities of the European network.
> 
> The fact that North American-style freights cannot be run in Europe does not mean there is something wrong with Europe's railways.
> 
> ...


Why not ??? 


The 5km long freight trains are so much of a rarity in the USA as 350km/h AVE HS trains in spain. :nuts: (just kidding)


The major difference is that in most of the main corridors in europe you can shuffle an enormous amount of freight all running at 100-140km/h in the period between 20h (8pm) and 6h(6am) that in the USA with their deferred maintenance freight-only carriers could only dream of. 

As an example in a perfectly conventional double track route with 300km over here we can send a 780m long freight train in any direction ... and then another one after the other ... the only limiting factor in capacity is mainly dictated by spacing the signaling system allows between trains (with ATP systems mandatory it is almost impossible to overrun a red signal so we operate with a-train-per-signalblock here). 

While an oversized american train has a heavy tail the european freight trains are run almost as if they were passenger trains. :dunno:

To the american railfans ... some american freight videos: 





Carrying Sand in one direction and copper in the other ... a happy merry-go-round
Notice that the railway is _"engineered"_ to allow running of tilting trains at speeds of 250km/h. :cheers:













omg hno:
















I wont post any american video due to myself being in "the program" to quit addiction (last time I browsed the UP videos I spent the entire weekend looking at the chalengers). :cheers:


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

^^

I'm not sure if you're being critical of Europe, North America, or not being critical at all and just simply observing the facts. 

But in any case, you're right. In North America, the rail system is mainly a freight one, where long, very long in some cases, trains are the norm, and these trains are less frequent in nature than what one sees across the main lines of Europe. 

It is true that in Europe freight trains - the intermodal trains certainly - almost operate in the same way that passenger trains do, running within tight schedules and sometimes one after the other. 

And yes, many operate during the night hours, although there is a lot of day time running as well. The 'passing loop' plays a huge role in adding the flexibility into the European network.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

It's as someone as said before.


where the american urban sprawl is similar to europe they have plenty of passenger rail services (norteast)... where NEWER comunities were created after the railways emerged people just moved along to the air+car since they never were given the choice of thinking about railways as a _"new thing"_ that could have positive advantages (it was just the old and noisy obnoxious thing). :dunno:


Extra long Freight in the _"desert"_ is just a consequence of not enough shipping in the mainland. :lol:


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

But Los Angeles for example was already a mentionworthy city 100 years ago (even though it was not a metropolis it featured a nice PT infrastructure), yet a few decades ago its rail services were pretty much totally annihilated. 

I think your argument is a bit too simplistic.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

sotavento said:


> Why not ???
> 
> 
> The 5km long freight trains are so much of a rarity in the USA as 350km/h AVE HS trains in spain. :nuts: (just kidding)
> ...


Fixed.

For the record, several issues come to mind when contrasting American and European rail. Two particularly stand out, one as a result of tradition, and the other a result of postwar choices.

1. The inability of the European chain-and-buffers coupling system to handle freight drags the length and weight which the motive power is capable of pulling (for example, the toaster-box AEM7, developed from the Swedish Rc4, is capable of developing _7,000_ horsepower--more than the mighty SD90MAC or AC6000CW were ever capable of!). The European coupling system is a throwback, effectively, which did not disappear when the similar systems elsewhere around the world were phased out due to it having certain advantages that through most of the history of railroading kept it alive (simplicity in switching, primarily, as well as the expense of conversion and the tradition of the system). But in the new era of railroading, when the efficiencies needed to make money in freight rail _demand_ utilizing all the horsepower your motive power is capable of, the fact that the old couplers cannot take the strains a mile-long coal drag (or an anything-else drag, really) that the engine or motor is _clearly_ capable of pulling (again, It's Done In America) is a major detriment to the length of a typical European freight train, and thus how much cargo can be hauled by a single locomotive, and thus how much money a carload can make for the railroad. This is even admitted as much in Europe, where (AFAIK) the coal unit trains are specifically equipped with knuckle or Russian couplers!

2. Postwar changes in mentality. In the US, after WWII, with the blossoming of the suburbs and the building of the Interstates diverting half or more (look, Pa! It's _shiny!_ And _new!_) of both freight and passenger traffic away from the railroads, the companies decided to focus on the black bits in their ledgers to the exclusion of all those giant swaths of red. The fact that the black bits got smaller and smaller every year was what drove the railroads to merge, and merge again, and then merge some more, until you got the network of exactly *five* Class I freight carriers based somewhere between the Rio Grande and the 49th Parallel. By expanding their systems (through mergers), applying economies of scale, and pawning off their old passenger operations to the Feds, the freight railroads have gotten massively efficient--and profitable. Since efficiency (not necessarily speed, although that's a bonus) is the name of the game in freight railroading, the American (and Canadian, since they essentially followed the same business model) freight railroads have become, by virtue of their efficiency, among the very best in the world. Of course, it helps that a higher tonnage per train is transported here than in Europe--and that's the key efficiency that makes US railfreight so danged good.

Europe in 1945 had a drastically different problem. There were craters were yards should be, bridges were ten feet down in the middle of the river, stations had been ripped to smithereens, equipment mangled...it was a mess. There was no way in Hell that the private companies could Fix It All Up, so the governments nationalized the railroads and spent public monies getting the trains to run again. The focus--it being a national endeavor now--was on providing top-notch service to the most visible customers. Passengers.

So rail projects in Europe, once the basic infrastructure was up and running again, were primarily directed at bettering the passenger experience (although in some cases, like Euston, this has been decidedly lackluster). When the improvements helped freight run better--well, that was a bonus. This drive for the best passenger service was what led to the development of the TGV, of the APT and its successors the Pendolini, and of the ICE, and most importantly, what led to the construction of a fully grade-separated function-separated HSR system--_tracks for the running of fast trains only_. Only now, as the HSR system has gotten more and more complete to the point where it's basically become Europe's main mode of intercity travel, can enough intercity trains be removed from the traditional lines to provide necessary free track for efficient freight operations.

Or: to summarize: in the U.S. the railroads killed off the passenger trains. In Europe, the government railways improved passenger trains to the point where they no longer needed to run on the freight mains. So now the Europeans can finally have freight rail that's flexible, efficient, and profitable.* **

__________________
* Another issue in Europe has been the crossing of Customs every 200 f--ing miles. With the Schengen Agreement in place, though, this issue is by and large eliminated. However, since freight railroads throughout Europe have been poorly privatized, if at all, and there is little current run-through operational ability, the separate, inward-looking national systems of the constituent countries still provide a barrier to the type of long-distance efficiency that makes North American railfreight so good.

**Please remember that there is some exaggeration for the sake of humor. You do need to have fun reading, too!


----------



## WatcherZero (Jul 2, 2009)

There is a Standard agreed for a future European coupler C-AK but they havent agreed when to bring it in yet. Its based on the Russian SA-3 coupler with a modification to prevent riding up but also has automatic connections of brakes, electrical power, air and mixed air and mechanical power from european autocoupler designs as well as legacy support for British style buffer plates and chains.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Is it comaptible with the Russian coupler?

The wagons and coaches exchanged between Western Eruope and Russian-style neworks must not only change bogies because of the different gauge, but also the couplers, SA-3 with chain.

Another problem in Europe are also the 5 different main gauges.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Coccodrillo said:


> Is it comaptible with the Russian coupler?


It supposedly is.



> The wagons and coaches exchanged between Western Eruope and Russian-style neworks must not only change bogies because of the different gauge, but also the couplers, SA-3 with chain.


For freight I think they nowadays mostly just transload the containers. For passenger cars I thought they kept the screw couplers. (We're only talking about a handful of trains here...)


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

The biggest reason for the diferences is simply geography.

The km long container trains in the US exist because China faces the West Coast, but most of the population lives East. The consequence is a large flow of goods between both coasts.

We don't have good flows in Europe that require such monster trains, which is why there really is no need for them. Europe is all "on the same coast", and the large flows of goods terminate at one of the main harbors. Freight traffic within Europe does not consist of large flows, but is part of the final distribution phase of logistics.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

K_ said:


> (We're only talking about a handful of trains here...)


Yes, because the difference of gauge...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Coccodrillo said:


> Yes, because the difference of gauge...


Not really. 

There is a break of gauge between Zürich and st. Moritz. Nevertheless you can travel between both places every hour...
A break of gauge is not an obstacle to a frequent service.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

I was thinking also to freight trains that have to exchange bogies or tranship the goods.


----------



## Oponopono (Aug 26, 2009)

Very nice post, hammersklavier, very nice indeed!



hammersklavier said:


> 1. The inability of the European chain-and-buffers coupling system to handle freight drags the length and weight which the motive power is capable of pulling (for example, the toaster-box AEM7, developed from the Swedish Rc4, is capable of developing _7,000_ horsepower--more than the mighty SD90MAC or AC6000CW were ever capable of!).


Quite right here and this led to another issue which became a major difference between European and US networks, infrastructure and the way it is used. Infrastructure in the US is built to heavy-duty standards that can sustain those high tonnages per train, yes, but more important, high axle loads which in Europe can only be dreamt of keeping it at the same time very basic and simple which makes it cheap to build and maintain. At the same time, rail signalling and safety are designed for low speeds, not, at all, prepared for high speed.




hammersklavier said:


> Since efficiency (not necessarily speed, although that's a bonus) is the name of the game in freight railroading, the American (and Canadian, since they essentially followed the same business model) freight railroads have become, by virtue of their efficiency, among the very best in the world. Of course, it helps that a higher tonnage per train is transported here than in Europe--and that's the key efficiency that makes US railfreight so danged good.


This is so obvious and yet so hard to explain and make it understandable. The efficiency obtained thru economies of scale which make freight transport much cheaper (and consequently attractive) in the US than in Europe.


I really enjoyed reading your post!


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

The gauges are not the biggest problem as the largest part of the network in the EU at least shares one gauge. A major exception is of course the Iberic Peninsula but even there, the new high speed network is built in the predominant European gauge.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

The problem is mainly between the 1435 and 1524 mm networks, that is, western and eastern Europe.

And only 4% of goods cross the land border between Spain (1668 mm) and France by rail, that is about 3 million net tonnes per year.

The other gauges are 1600 mm in Ireland and 1000 mm on other lines here and there.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Coccodrillo said:


> The problem is mainly between the 1435 and 1524 mm networks, that is, western and eastern Europe.
> 
> And only 4% of goods cross the land border between Spain (1668 mm) and France by rail, that is about 3 million net tonnes per year.
> 
> The other gauges are 1600 mm in Ireland and 1000 mm on other lines here and there.


Didn't Spain recently begin a project to regauge its 1668 mm network to 1435 mm?

Anyways, I am aware that some of the trains that cross between France and Spain have 'switch on the fly' dual-gauge wheelsets. I wonder why that isn't done between the 1435 mm and 1520 mm networks.

Mike


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

I wonder...

1) Are the on-the-fly gauge changing stations in Iberia only possible because of the unique nature of the Talgo trucks* on which Iberian trains run? That is, is it possible to build those types of stations at gauge changes between standard and Russian gauges where Talgo trucks predominate on neither side?

2) Another issue would be the construction of new standard-gauge lines throughout the portions of Eastern Europe where Russian gauge currently prevails. For example, there has been enormous debate involving the gauge of the planned TEN-T line from Tallinn to Warsaw, a freight axis which is supposed to connect these nations (Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia) into the Western European rail network. How are these nations (and in due time, Finland) to resolve the conflicting needs caused by being in the buffer zone between the Western European standard gauge and the Eastern European Russian gauge? Furthermore, there have, for a long time, been proposals** floated, on and off, for a new standard-gauge freight main across Kazakhstan linking the Chinese and European networks together. _Sooner or later_ something's going to come of these proposals since the Kosice-Zaporozhye-Donetsk-Astrakhan-Aralsk-Urumqi via the northern coast of Lake Balkhash is a natural long-distance rail axis traversing the same type of terrain as the North American Great Plains, and if the couplers aren't of the same standard that's only going to make transcontinental transshipments more complicated and hence less efficient (and thus less profitable).***

* The unique nature being not so much the trucks themselves as the way the wheelset is integrated into a bogie to create a truck (or something like that). In North American railroading, the wheels and axles are effectively cast as single pieces (either physically being cast that way or being three pieces locked together to function as such) and connected to the freight car itself through an assembly of springs and bearings we call a _truck_ (and the Brits _bogies_). In most of Europe, freight equipment only has four axles which are connected to the wagon through a very different truck setup; however, the wheelset (the two wheels and axle connecting the two) still functions the same way: as a single piece. In the Talgo unit, on the other hand, the wheels _aren't_ permanently connected to one another on the axle; in fact, the suspension and bearings and such are duplicated--once on one side of the car and once on the other and there is no axle; this allows the wheels to slide between different gauges more readily.

** If you think this sentence is ungrammatical: _proposals_, a plural, is the subject of this sentence.

*** Is this a pie in the sky at the moment? Sure it is: construction of new rail mains is enormously expensive, due in no small part to the incredibly precise nature of rail grading. But this line traverses the flattest--and hence cheapest--crossing of Central Asia, avoiding the money sink of the Caucasus, and China's already been kind enough to extend a standard-gauge railroad from Urumqi to the Kazakh border, making the traversal of the gap between the Tien Shan and Altai that much less expensive and more doable. Don't forget that the American rail barons of the Victorian era _also_ had to sink massive amounts of funds into their main lines before they could start making massive profits.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

WatcherZero said:


> There is a Standard agreed for a future European coupler C-AK but they havent agreed when to bring it in yet.


I do not believe it will ever happen.

First of all, because it is not needed. This kind of coupler is useful for two 
things : to run heavy trains, and to make trains sorting easier. As someone 
else mentioned already, we in Europe do not need heavy trains : what travels
by heavy train in the US travels in Europe by sea. Trains only provide the
end transportation between seaport and final user. As most final users are
not connected to the rail system, a truck is also needed. When the end
transportation is not long enough to justify one more trans-shipment, a truck
does the whole job and the train part is just omitted. This is why heavier
trains won't help increasing the modal part of railways for the goods transport
in Europe.

The sorting part can be completely forgotten now since most marshalling
yards have already disappeared, with more to follow. In Belgium we used
to have about 20 of them, we're now back to 4, and we have a plan to
close 3 of them. It's the same in other countries. It does not go very fast
because it is a social problem : closing a marshalling yard usually means the
loss of quite many jobs. So it's done progressively. But most freight trains
in Europe are now direct origin-destination, with no sorting in between.
Almost all surviving European marshalling yards operate now way below their
maximum capacity, often below 50% of it.

The second reason is that we couldn't use it anyway. The European rail
system is too loaded with passenger trains - even France is now moving
towards cadenced schedules, go figure ! - to be able to operate mile long
freight trains at 40 mph. What trains need in Europe to increase their modal
part is increase their speed of delivery. This is only going to happen if they
can cope with the speed of passenger trains, so they must stay light. Otherwise they get sidelined all the time to let faster passenger trains pass. 
The emergence of high speed lines reserved for passenger trafic did not help
at all : all the capacity made free is being re-used for passenger regional
traffic, for which the demand is currently increasing year after year. The
7000 Hp of freight locos will not be used to drag mile long trains, but well
to accelerate 800m long freight trains like an EMU.

And, by the way, European rail networks were all nationalized way before
the end of WW2.


----------



## wayneyoung (Jan 26, 2010)

Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, those seven stan country plan to link Iran and China for different reason but their need it indeed. For example, central Asia need the closest seaport in Iran, Pakistan, also sell resources to Chinese exchange their goods. These behavior also change the world's transport background make the world economic more and far globalization.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

hammersklavier said:


> *Wrong.* Ever heard of Pacific Electric? One of the best interurban railways in the country, entirely dismantled by 1960.


Indeed I did hear from them ... long live (now defunct) GM and it's moronic economic practices. :cheers:



> Both right and wrong. For passenger trains there might be more couplers than anyone can count, but with freight equipment, where the issues of standardization count, there are effectively only three systems--buffer-and-chains, which are used on most freights; and knuckles and Russian couplers, both of which are primarily used on coal drags and other heavy unit trains. That heavy trains have _two_ different styles of couplers bespeaks to the general tonnage-moving inefficiency of the European network--due to the inefficiencies of the traditional mainline couplers and the lack of desire to standardize across the entire freight system. (Gauge issues are also a problem, Ireland's equipment's all isolates and the difference between Finnish and Russian gauge is but a paper difference, rendering the difference between standard and Iberian gauge the only one that really counts.) This inability to standardize, I'm afraid, will only be cured by a catalyst of some sort, and so far, the EU design has failed to be that.


A lot of things happened in Europe and in The USA ... you have good and bad examples in BOTH sides of the atlantic. 

There was NEVER a real need for standartization of couplings to begin with ... services are RUN by specific equipment wich is indeed built for that purpose. 

You missed the most important kind of coupling used in european freight trains ... 

For example we use standard (old standards actually) AAR couplings here in portugal to pull heavy (2200/2500ton) coal trains in the mainlines:


















^^ do you notice the boxes underneat the frame ??? they are the Convel (EBICAB700 signaling) wich alows us to use such long/heavy trains in a real "passenger stile". :cheers:

Actually these _once diesel_ trains nowadays are run by electric locomotives: 












> All of which feeds back into my original point that European equipment, in the main, is not designed to take full advantage of the efficiencies offered by diesel or electric operation.


We (and the spanish) have a wide variety of what people consider as the AMERICAN "standard" equipment ... it's is nothing but NICHE equipment due preciselly to the vast amount of differently purposed traffic that we run. 

Most intermodal traffic in europe is just door-to-door single cargo traffic anyway. 

A standard coupling system failed to emerge simply because there was not a real NEED for such thing in reality. 

There was already plenty of options to choose from in the start. 

A "standard" would in reality just be "another" one to make choises harder.. :lol:



> Yes. 780m = 2560 feet, which, when divided by 40 feet (the length of a standard North American boxcar) yields a 64-car train (or 61 when you take away four boxcars for the locos). This is short by American standards.
> That number sounds _extremely_ fishy. There is no main line in the world that I am aware of that would let heavy freight trains operate under such short headways (not least because that would be the railroad version of tailgating--you can't stop in time if the train in front of you suddenly applied the brakes).


We are constantly improving our network to allow that kind of services to run ... 



> 600 mile-long freight trains? Don't fool yourself: it's unsafe to operate freight trains at the frequency needed for 600 U.S. trains to cross a stretch of rails in a day--not least because of braking issues. You can run passenger equipment in such a tight schedule, because it's lighter and shorter, but freight trains can take a mile or more to come to a complete stop, which is why you need to have that space between two trains--otherwise, it's exactly like tailgating on the Interstate. Although a _lot_ trains do go through the Tehachapi Loop, it's on the Southern Cal mains for both BNSF and UP (historically, the ATSF and SP).


You missread my comment ... 1100km would be the total lenght of ALL THE TRAINS that could pass in in a day and in a given route if "standard" european methods/infraestructure were used in it's construction. 

Remember ... a 120km/h train only needs 30 seconds to pass a 1000m(1km) long block ... that means that at these speeds the next train is 3km BEHIND it (4 signals behind actually) ... heavy trains operating in such LOOSE schedules are run in european rails EVERY DAY. :cheers:

It's not uncommon to be tailing the train in front of you ... with only a signal block in between. 




> Freight rail is thriving more in the U.S. than it has been in the last fifty years! What killed passenger trains in the U.S. was because people shifted to cars and planes as we sunk a *ton* of money into the infrastructure necessary for them--but neglected the railroad infrastructure and overregulated the railroads themselves. Remember that Amtrak, on Day One, cut 50% of the passenger trains it'd inherited from its constituent railroads. Mismanagement in the U.S., it is arguable, can be more costly than it was in Europe--the Milwaukee Road died, for example, not because it wasn't profitable (its transcon route was the most profitable railroad in North America c. 1972) but rather because its management bungled the management of the Pacific Extension until it no longer remained competitive with the competing transcon routes across Bozeman and Marias Passes, thereby killing its main source of revenue, thereby forcing the railroad into bankruptcy liquidation in 1980--whereas mismanagement in Europe seems to have had little, if any, effect, on the road's survival in Europe. Or: Mismanagement has been more costly in the Americas than it has in Europe.


Just finished reading it's history the other day ... to me Milwaukee Road cames second only to GM in terms of doing-always-the-wrong thing. hno:

About Europe ... just ask for Beeching in the UK , vias verdes in the iberic peninsula and other such lunacies ... :bash: 



> How you managed the railroads once they were rebuilt is not the same as lending you the money to help rebuild them in the first place.


Portuguese and Spanish railroads didn't had a single bomb landing on them ... wich makes this point of our discussion a little bit off-topic.



> No. The difference was the nationalization which meant that, since there railroads were an arm of the government, there was no need for any regulation (the government would be telling itself what to do). Passenger service was forced to remain, again, by the wishes of the government--had Europe's major railways been private, they would likely have shed passenger services in much the same way the UP or D&RGW or SP did. In fact, prior to the formation of Amtrak, both Europe and the FRA were forcing the passenger trains to keep running--only in very different ways.
> Big whoop. We're not talking about shortlines. A lot of shortlines in the U.S. have passenger service, too. I can name three within forty miles of where I live.


Portuguese railways were PRIVATELY OWNED until 1976. :dunno:



> That's because the lines were all nationalized! :bash:


Most european countries maintained a privately owned railway infraestructure and service until today ... on the other hand the state owned road infraestructure seems to have missed the purpose of robbing the entire traffic share from the railways. :dunno:



> Most European rail services are there because the nationalized railroads made them be there. I'm pretty sure SNCF still banks a net loss on its non-high-speed intercity trains.





> The difference is: In Europe the railroads were (and still are) managed primarily to benefit the public sector; in America, they were (and still are) managed primarily to benefit the private sector (this is why Amtrak has shed about 90% of the routes it inherited and has never made money: because private-sector management simply _does not work_ in respect to non-high-speed intercity passenger trains). Furthermore, the demands the public sector places on freight--making it run more like passenger trains--undermines the efficiencies the private sector has been able to demonstrate in their handling of railfreight transport.


Freight transport in europe is a private thing ... state run railway companies only provided a means to transport that freight from one point to another. 

Passenger traffic (be it private or nationalized) never seemed to suffer from any of the problems that affected (let's say literally killed) the american passenger traffic.



> By the way, there a lot of railroads throughout the NAFTA zone that are today considered Class II when once upon a time they would've been considered Class I. FEC, ARR, and PANAM all spring to mind.


What better serves as a comparison between what European and American railroads did right or wrong is this:


Most large scale freight traffic travels allong europe by shiping ... the primary feeding method is by rail (americas use long and slow freight)

A single and common railway network serves all kinds of traffic inside europe (be it either passenger or freight , short or long haul).

Air and road (bus or truck) both mingle with the railways to gain the most advantages from one another ... in europe.



The most hilarious thing in the middle of all this is that ... 








American "cliché" BUS company Greyhound is owned by british FIRST group that is one of the most pro-train european passenger transport companies. :cheers:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Suburbanist said:


> Just a side question, not exactly directed only to you: why do people usually group Portugual with Spain when discussing any European theme or issue? The fact Portugal doesn't have a land border with any other country but Spain doesn't make it a "West Spain" autonomous region!
> 
> It was not your case, but I even recall some people, in other topics on SSC, treating Portugal like it was a subordinated political divison of Spain with some autonomy like Catalunia or Euskadi.
> 
> ...


Portuguese and Spanish in STATE/international discussions usually side in the same group. :lol:

In gauge discussions it's the IBERIAN gauge ... the gauge in portugal and spain is refered by such name so there's nothing we can do about it. 

In other discussions ... welll ... let's just say that some people like to be provocative now and then. :lol:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

mgk920 said:


> And even more far-sighted if that pipe-dream of a Bering Strait crossing is ever realized - as the railroads in China and North America (Canada, Mexico and the USA) are 100% compatible with each other (same track gauge, maximum axle loading, coupling and braking standards, etc).
> 
> Mike


:nuts: yup



makita09 said:


> Although it must be said that the standardisation is being pushed through in various ways. A slow and painful process, as ever, within the EU. But it is being done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




European freight trains in the mainlines usually need to follow the same rules as passenger trains when dealing with standard stopping distances and such stuff.

One thing that most people in the american-run-oh-so-great-freight-trains side don't seem to understand is that basically in a route served by a 2km long container train , by the time that single train would have cleared the point at the end of the yard ... in europe there would already have passed double that volume of traffic. :lol:

Most problems in europe deal with low axle load alowance and specially the upgrading of entire routes to allow longer/heavier trains ... this of course in the secundary network ... in the mainlines is just a matter of sending one after another for as long as they are needed. hno:


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Coccodrillo said:


> The problem is mainly between the 1435 and 1524 mm networks, that is, western and eastern Europe.
> 
> And only 4% of goods cross the land border between Spain (1668 mm) and France by rail, that is about 3 million net tonnes per year.
> 
> The other gauges are 1600 mm in Ireland and 1000 mm on other lines here and there.


between Portugal and Spain there arw about 20 major harbours ... all have container terminals and other such things.

Why should anyone try to shuffle the enormous amount of freight possible in post-panamax ships into tiny trains ??? :dunno:

And why break the cargo into trains when there are other means available ???


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Maybe because of about 70 milion of tonnes that cross the spanish-french border only 3 travel by train?

As most (*) spanish and portuguese railways have a low or very low traffic, it would not bee too penalizing convert all broad gauge lines to standard gauge. This will greatly help freight traffic.

(*) Except some HSL, all suburban networks, and some railways here and there like the portoguese coal trains you have posted.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

sotavento said:


> Indeed I did hear from them ... long live (now defunct) GM and it's moronic economic practices. :cheers:


Actually, GM ain't dead yet. It went into bankruptcy _protection_, *not* liquidation.


sotavento said:


> A lot of things happened in Europe and in The USA ... you have good and bad examples in BOTH sides of the Atlantic.
> 
> There was NEVER a real need for standardization of couplings to begin with ... services are RUN by specific equipment which is indeed built for that purpose.


Yet standardized equipment is one of the most important facilitators of railroad movement. The fact that *tons* of traffic is lost at the Franco-Spanish border due to the gauge change is the most blatant example of the losses brought on by non-standardization. Standardized couplers is a good way of matching the right engine to the job, and not just hoping that the engine builders did their job and designed it properly.


sotavento said:


> ]
> You missed the most important kind of coupling used in European freight trains ...
> 
> For example we use standard (old standards actually) AAR couplings here in portugal to pull heavy (2200/2500ton) coal trains in the mainlines:
> ...


Those would be knuckle couplers. No, I didn't miss them.
By the way, the signal equipment _is_ a definite improvement over U.S. signaling systems. Signaling is definitely an advantage Europe has over North America--so long as the blocks aren't overly short.


sotavento said:


> Actually these _once diesel_ trains nowadays are run by electric locomotives:


It would be nice if we still had mainline freight electrification. Electric motors can develop more horsepower than diesels: the AEM7, the brave little toaster that could (needless to say, I like watching them go by), is a perfect example thereof.


sotavento said:


> We (and the Spanish) have a wide variety of what people consider as the AMERICAN "standard" equipment ... it's is nothing but NICHE equipment due precisely to the vast amount of differently purposed traffic that we run.


 That's because the American standard is perhaps the most heavy-duty in the world. It seems like unit trains tend to be operated according to that standard the world over.


sotavento said:


> Most intermodal traffic in Europe is just door-to-door single cargo traffic anyway.
> 
> A standard coupling system failed to emerge simply because there was not a real NEED for such thing in reality.
> 
> ...


Well, as I keep pointing out, on most mainline freight (excluding the really heavy unit trains) buffer-and-chains do seem to be a _de facto_ European standard--it is, after all, the dominant coupling system in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, the Benelux, and Austria _at least_.


sotavento said:


> You misread my comment ... 1100km would be the total length of ALL THE TRAINS that could pass in in a day and in a given route if "standard" European methods/infrastructure were used in it's construction.


Well, in any case, I'm pretty sure that Tehachapi Pass is so congested that trains follow one another at the minimal distances safely allowed. Walong Siding is _incredibly_ busy. I wouldn't doubt that some 400 trains total run through it daily. (But I've never been there, so this is conjecture...)


sotavento said:


> Remember ... a 120km/h train only needs 30 seconds to pass a 1000m(1km) long block ... that means that at these speeds the next train is 3km BEHIND it (4 signals behind actually) ... heavy trains operating in such LOOSE schedules are run in European rails EVERY DAY. :cheers:
> 
> It's not uncommon to be tailing the train in front of you ... with only a signal block in between.


I think it's about time to time the time it takes between trains to pass at Duncannon (a busy spot along the busy Norfolk Southern main that was once the Pennsylvania main.)


sotavento said:


> Just finished reading it's history the other day ... to me Milwaukee Road cames second only to GM in terms of doing-always-the-wrong thing. hno:
> 
> About Europe ... just ask for Beeching in the UK , vias verdes in the Iberian peninsula and other such lunacies ... :bash:


Lesser-used lines were cut in such a fashion all over the world! The travesty of the Milwaukee Road was that its management treated a transcontinental main like a branch line, and so allowed it to decay until it lost its revenue-generating capacity and so caused the whole _system_ to implode!

A lot of branch lines were abandoned the world over. In the U.S., if they continued to be considered worthy of operation, they tended to become shortlines, but shortlines can make money in a multiplicity of ways. That's why shortline operations, while interesting in their own right, is more a distraction than anything else when we're trying to compare _mains_.


sotavento said:


> Portuguese and Spanish railroads didn't had a single bomb landing on them ... which makes this point of our discussion a little bit off-topic.


Franco must've done something to Spanish railroads in his time, though... hno:


sotavento said:


> Portuguese railways were PRIVATELY OWNED until 1976. :dunno:


That tends to be the exception rather than the rule.


sotavento said:


> Most European countries maintained a privately owned railway infrastructure and service until today ... on the other hand the state owned road infrastructure seems to have missed the purpose of robbing the entire traffic share from the railways. :dunno:


I think that the operations of shortlines and such has always been allowed to be private (outside the Communist sphere of influence) even when the key mains--the lines we're comparing to American operations--were nationalized. These are lines that are marginal, as far as the major railroads are concerned, and often utilize rather creative means to raise money.


sotavento said:


> Freight transport in europe is a private thing ... state run railway companies only provided a means to transport that freight from one point to another.


DB Shenker, which manages _all_ freight transport in Germany, Denmark, and (with its purchase of EWS) the UK (among other countries?), is, in fact, an arm of Deutsche Bahn, the nationalized German railroad corporation.


sotavento said:


> Passenger traffic (be it private or nationalized) never seemed to suffer from any of the problems that affected (let's say literally killed) the american passenger traffic.


As I've stated before, I feel that the nationalization and the politicians' subsequent ability to keep the lines in their jurisdictions open managed to mask most of the passenger issues as compared with the American situation.


sotavento said:


> What better serves as a comparison between what European and American railroads did right or wrong is this:
> 
> 
> Most large scale freight traffic travels allong europe by shiping ... the primary feeding method is by rail (americas use long and slow freight)


Actually, in many cases in Europe, shipping can be quite slow. See the example I posted earlier today (well, yesterday for you).


sotavento said:


> A single and common railway network serves all kinds of traffic inside Europe (be it either passenger or freight , short or long haul).


The _lack_ of a common carrier between, say, the German Baltic Sea coast and Milan, is exactly the biggest thorn in the side _hurting_ Europe. In the U.S. a single main would cover that distance. The EU's privatization of railroads is meant to help alleviate the situation somewhat, and DB Shenker is definitely buying its way through other carriers. :lol:


sotavento said:


> Air and road (bus or truck) both mingle with the railways to gain the most advantages from one another ... in Europe.


This isn't just European. Toys made in China are shipped via container from the port of Shenzen to that of Long Beach, then loaded onto a train from Long Beach to Newark, N.J. (presumably via Chicago); the container transferred onto a truck to a warehouse, where the container is unloaded and then reloaded into other trucks, one of which would be sent out to a Toys R Us in Philadelphia, just to get those Hot Wheels to a six-year-old kid.

Containerization means that _all_ modes of transportation that can utilize those containers can work together: that's why it's one of the greatest innovations of the late 20th Century, IMO.


sotavento said:


> The most hilarious thing in the middle of all this is that ...
> 
> American "cliché" BUS company Greyhound is owned by british FIRST group that is one of the most pro-train european passenger transport companies. :cheers:


So _that's_ why those Greyhound buses have been looking nicer lately! :nuts:


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

In the UK the two main rail freight companies are:

DB Schenker (formerly EWS) - http://www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/index.asp

Freightliner - http://www.freightliner.co.uk/

UK Passenger Train Operating Companies - http://www.rail.co.uk/ukrail/railcomp/towelcm.htm

DB Schenker Freight Trains operating in the UK

* photo by alanharris53 - Flickr*










* photo by alanharris53 - Flickr*










* photo by StephenW1991 - Flickr*










* photo by rowanC82 - Flickr*


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

sotavento said:


> Indeed I did hear from them ... long live (now defunct) GM and it's moronic economic practices. :cheers:


It's actually a myth that GM killed the interurbans on purpose to force people in to cars. Don't forget that interurbans were disappearing everywhere, even in Europe.


Back on topic however:

The reason the AAR choose to standardize on a knuckle coupler at the end of the 19the century have little to do with the need to run humongous trains, or to make shunting easier. It had all to do with worker safety.
See, before the knucke coupler US railroads used a "link and pin" coupler, without buffers, like in Europe. Coupling cars was very dangerous, as a worker had to guide the link in to its socket between two moving cars. And in the US there were no buffers protecting them. It was an extremely dangerous job, and many railroad workers got killed.
The European "chaing and buffer" coupler does not suffer from this problem, as you can just push two cars together, and once they're stopped a worker ducks below the buffers and hooks up the chain. The European coupler also has the advantage over the US coupler that it is possible to push a train without the couplers engaging. That is quite convenient when shunting and banking. 
That's why the urge to change to a US style coupler has never been really there in Europe.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

Jaeger said:


> In the UK the two main rail freight companies are:
> 
> DB Schenker (formerly EWS) - http://www.rail.dbschenker.co.uk/index.asp
> 
> ...


And significant traffic is operated by First, Direct Rail Services, and a few others. Hammersklaviers' post did make it seem like DB had a monopoly over freight in the UK, which it certainly doesn't.


----------



## Jaeger (May 11, 2006)

makita09 said:


> And significant traffic is operated by First, Direct Rail Services, and a few others. Hammersklaviers' post did make it seem like DB had a monopoly over freight in the UK, which it certainly doesn't.


There are a few freight operators in Britain, although DB and Freighliner are by far the largest rail freight companies. 

FirstGBRf - http://www.gbrailfreight.com/first-...ervices-railway-infrastructure-materials/p_2/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Freight_operating_companies

The opening up of competition via the Eurotunnel may mean more European and International Rail Freight Companies operating within the UK, as Europe's rail systems becomes ever more intergrated.

* photo by jrs 1967 1 - Flickr*











* photo by Chris Beaumont - Flickr*


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

sotavento said:


> between Portugal and Spain there arw about 20 major harbours ... all have container terminals and other such things.
> 
> Why should anyone try to shuffle the enormous amount of freight possible in post-panamax ships into tiny trains ??? :dunno:
> 
> And why break the cargo into trains when there are other means available ???



The irony is the photo you show is of an LKW Walter semi-trailer. 

If you look closely, you'll see that is a 'piggyback' trailer - in other words, one specifically able to travel by train! In case you didn't know, LKW Walter operates one of the largest fleets of intermodal swap bodies and piggyback trailers in Europe, and in Germany and Austria you will see whole trains carrying just LKW Walter equipment.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> Maybe because of about 70 milion of tonnes that cross the spanish-french border only 3 travel by train?
> 
> As most (*) spanish and portuguese railways have a low or very low traffic, it would not bee too penalizing convert all broad gauge lines to standard gauge. This will greatly help freight traffic.
> 
> (*) Except some HSL, all suburban networks, and some railways here and there like the portoguese coal trains you have posted.



There is already a rather serious plan to build a standard gauge freight-only route via the Cerbere/Portbou crossing to at least the Port of Barcelona. 

Such a link would do a tremendous amount to boost the share that rail has of Iberian trade flows, especially for the intermodal market, be that the shipping container segment or the Continental segment, comprising containers, swap bodies and semi-trailers. 

I can think of no better way of illustrating the potential of this corridor than highlighting the DB Schenker/Stobart service which links London with Murcia and Valencia, catering for both Spanish-grown fresh produce and that which comes in from North Africa.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

TedStriker said:


> There is already a rather serious plan to build a standard gauge freight-only route via the Cerbere/Portbou crossing to at least the Port of Barcelona.


This will not run via the Cerbere - Portbou crossing. The new Perpignan - Figueres line, which is almost finished, has from the outset been intended for freight too. So future railfreight Spain - France will go through the new Perthus tunnel.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

TedStriker said:


> The irony is the photo you show is of an LKW Walter semi-trailer.
> 
> If you look closely, you'll see that is a 'piggyback' trailer - in other words, one specifically able to travel by train! In case you didn't know, LKW Walter operates one of the largest fleets of intermodal swap bodies and piggyback trailers in Europe, and in Germany and Austria you will see whole trains carrying just LKW Walter equipment.


The irony was there to see ... it was not unintentional. :cheers:


the thing about iberia to europe freight AVOIDING to go tru france is just that ... SNCF Fret and french highway tolls are the only responsible for the detour of such traffic. 


For instance even DB operate inside the peninsula by the hand of its long time subsidiary Transfesa. 

Such DB trains are hauled by the national carriers of both countries (Renfe in spain and CP in portugal) ... it's the BLOCK in between that hold's back most cargo transfers. 

If there's such a great availability of DETOUR services (ro-ro shipping even) theres surely a reason. :dunno:



Coccodrillo said:


> Maybe because of about 70 milion of tonnes that cross the spanish-french border only 3 travel by train?
> 
> As most (*) spanish and portuguese railways have a low or very low traffic, it would not bee too penalizing convert all broad gauge lines to standard gauge. This will greatly help freight traffic.
> 
> (*) Except some HSL, all suburban networks, and some railways here and there like the portoguese coal trains you have posted.


Your numbers are completely wrong ... 99% of the portugal/spain-europe traffic doesn't even set a foot inside france.

And you are wrong in your assessment ... theres virtually no low-traffic railway open in portugal ... most railways here are run at capacity 24-7 ... the rest are constantly being upgraded to allow them to be increasingly explored.

The "interest" in transporting anything from portugal to central europe by train is nonexistant (to say the least) ... specially when you have plenty of capacity available in ocean shiping.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

K_ said:


> This will not run via the Cerbere - Portbou crossing. The new Perpignan - Figueres line, which is almost finished, has from the outset been intended for freight too. So future railfreight Spain - France will go through the new Perthus tunnel.



That contradicts what I've read. Not only have I read that the HS line to/from Perpignan is to be only for passenger trains, I've also read about the specific plans for a new freight-only line. 

If the HS line is to allow for freights also, why would the Port of Barcelona, for example, be talking about the construction of a freight-only line?


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

hammersklavier said:


> Actually, GM ain't dead yet. It went into bankruptcy _protection_, *not* liquidation.
> 
> Yet standardized equipment is one of the most important facilitators of railroad movement. The fact that *tons* of traffic is lost at the Franco-Spanish border due to the gauge change is the most blatant example of the losses brought on by non-standardization. Standardized couplers is a good way of matching the right engine to the job, and not just hoping that the engine builders did their job and designed it properly.
> Those would be knuckle couplers. No, I didn't miss them.
> ...


1st of all ... DB is a "private" company. :cheers:

Now that you mention Teachapy pass ... if it were in europe we would have one of these built and/or in project/construction:

- a 25/30km long tunnel between Tehachapi(1200m high) and Digiorgio(250m elevation)
- 54km long tunnel between Mojave and DiGiorgio
- 25km tunnel between Palmdale and Acton 

hno:


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

sotavento said:


> the thing about iberia to europe freight AVOIDING to go tru france is just that ... SNCF Fret and french highway tolls are the only responsible for the detour of such traffic.
> 
> 
> For instance even DB operate inside the peninsula by the hand of its long time subsidiary Transfesa.
> ...




It may also be worth noting that again the loading gauge issue may also be a factor to consider. 

For example, the main Perpignan-Beziers corridor (UIC B+) does not allow for the carriage of unaccompanied 4m-high semi-trailers, piggyback style. 

So even rail-friendly companies with piggyback trailers, like LKW Walter, would not be able to use train transport in France, let alone those companies which have yet to invest in any intermodal equipment. 

On the other hand, the specialist wagons made by Groupe Lohr for the Lorry-Rail service (see: http://www.lorry-rail.com) have a platform height that is 50mm lower than the height of conventional European piggyback wagons (220mm verses 270mm). This tiny difference means that SNCF can carry 4m-high trailers, like the ones that LKW Walter uses, along UIC B+ routes. 

As for the loading gauge in Spain, I'm 99.99 per cent sure that there's no way any operator would be able to carry 4m-high trailers.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

TedStriker said:


> That contradicts what I've read. Not only have I read that the HS line to/from Perpignan is to be only for passenger trains, I've also read about the specific plans for a new freight-only line.
> 
> If the HS line is to allow for freights also, why would the Port of Barcelona, for example, be talking about the construction of a freight-only line?


As far as I know the Perpignan - Figueres line is meant for both freight and passenger trains. It was build by a private consortium, which finished it on time, however Spain still has to connect it. Probably south of Figueres different lines will be build for high speed passenger trains and freight.
You can read more here.


----------



## TedStriker (May 18, 2009)

^^


That makes sense. Certainly I know the main stretch in Spain itself is just for passenger trains only.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

It is hoped that the Port of ABrclellonawill have acces to the standard gauge network by 2010, shifting between the completed parts of the mixed traffic HSL and some double gauge tracks on the existing line.



sotavento said:


> Your numbers are completely wrong ... 99% of the portugal/spain-europe traffic doesn't even set a foot inside france.


My numbers are correct.

http://www.certa-aquitaine.org/media/CETEMEDITERRANEE2006.ppt

http://www.mer.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/partie_3_cle5b1e3a.pdf (in particular page 22/77)

42% by sea, 56% by road, 2% by rail. 

Or, considering only land transport, 3% by rail and 97% by road.



sotavento said:


> And you are wrong in your assessment ... theres virtually no low-traffic railway open in portugal ... most railways here are run at capacity 24-7 ... the rest are constantly being upgraded to allow them to be increasingly explored.


I don't know about Portugal, but except a few mainlines (Madrid-Barcelona, Valencia, Andalusia, Valladolid, and Barcellona-Valencia) most spanish lines have only 10 to 20 trains per day. Not very much...


----------

