daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 11th, 2011, 10:18 AM   #1041
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
No, I think that increasing ridership is not the only relevant success parameter. The Indian trains, for example, travelling at 30 km/h and stopping everywhere, have a high ridership. The "ridership" is even sitting on the roofs and hanging out of the windows.
Obviously the indian government should start investing in faster inter-regional trains. But this brings an interresting question, so do you think that India should copy the French model and have 1 car for each of it's 1,3 billion inhabitains? You know, that's more then double the amount of cars in the world today. What would power that? imported Oil?

Quote:
This is a realistic assumption. I have in hand a study of car ownership per age cohort that I can share if you're interested. It is true that young households in France - where the oldest member is 16-19 years old - have only 0.6 cars on average. However, from age 25 every household has one car, and this remains the case until the age rises above 75 years old. (I should add that France is internationally low in this respect: US and Canada has many more than just 1 car per household.) How many 80 yo people do we see on TGV trains?

Well, I live in a country where most people prefer driving and consider public transportation as somehow inferior. (I think it has to do with the French notion of "espace vitale" - in a car you are in your private sphere.) On top of this comes the price factor. You see very few families in TGV trains. The marginal cost of stuffing a child into a car is zero, the cost of buying a train ticket is non-trivial. Consequently the ridership is mostly business people (and well-healed travellers in mid-life). These people would definitely be less inclined to take the train between Marseille and Paris if the train stops more than twice on the only 740 km.
All of those considerations are about France, but this thread is about Germany, not France. I go very rarely to France, but from comments here it seams to me that the France railways has only two kinds of services:

* TGV trains which can only be used for higher distances and costs a good amount of money to use. Are also annoying to use regularly because of the fare management, reservation, etc
* Regional stop-everywhere trains, thus too slow for inter-regional usage

With this rail structure, it's not a surprised that people don't consider that not having a car at all is an option. In Germany, things are very different, there are many kinds of services. When I lived in Germany I commuted daily 50km using a Inter Regional Express (IRE) train. In France it seams that this kind of train that stops every 50km doesn't exist. So in France I would not be able to commute daily using trains, revenue loss of the rail company. At that point I also bought a BahnCard, so had no car and I was using trains for pretty much all of my trips in Germany. If I had to buy a car, I would most likely not use trains at all. Lost ridership, lost modal share, lost revenue, lost fidelity for the rail company.

Similarly in Poland also most people using long-distance trains are traveling between 50km and 300km and those trains stop every 50km. For Germany and Poland, your proposal would likely reduce ridership to something like 10% of the current levels for long-range trains.

Quote:
Which is why I keep repeating my mantra: highspeed traffic needs to be optimised on the medium to long distances (400-800 km) to provide an attractive alternative to air traffic.
InterCity is not a sinonim to highspeed rail. InterCity is like a very fast inter-regional train. Maybe you wanted to say something like ICE should stop less to be faster? ICE is closer to high-speed rail.

I'm not objected to having services which make fewer stops, as long as there are still other options. I think at least 3 kinds of differente services are required:

* slower, stop everywhere regional train (like RB)
* fast, stop every 50km inter-regional train (like RE, IRE, IC)
* very fast, few stops, High Speed Rail (ICE)
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 11th, 2011, 01:06 PM   #1042
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Well, I disagree. Intercity trains should, IMHO be reserved for people who travel at least 300 km. Less than that, they should use their cars.
Your are joking, right? You really think that people shouldn't travel, say, Bern - Zürich by train? What should people do who don't have cars? I can't use my car, because I don't have one. I don't have one because I don't see the point of owning one.

Quote:
This is also very consistent with an earlier point you made about point-to-point travelling times. If you travel at normal rail speeds (i.e. 300+ km/h) then you can achieve significant time gains on distances in the range 400-700 km even if you are dependent on local public transportation at both ends. If you travel a measly 100-200 km then it's mostly faster to drive, unless you happen to be travelling from city centre to city centre.
300 kph "normal" speed? You are really joking here.
And wether it is faster to drive is not important. We see that even train services that are slower than driving attract a lot of passengers. So apparently there is a demand for them.
On Geneve - Bern - Zürich - st. Gallen the SBB making lots of money, but according to you this should not even exist?
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 01:10 PM   #1043
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by sekelsenmat View Post
Basically you arrived at a non-sensical conclusion by ignoring all other modal choice aspects except for speed. One of the most important ones being left out is fidelity. People don't like to calculate on every trip what is the fastest at the moment, this calculation wastes time. Most people will simply go with what they are familiar with. If they use trains regularly, most likely they will use for newer trips, even if a car would theorically be better, because people prefer to stick to their known way of doing things.
Which is why psychology is so important in public transport planning. You need to design your network and timetable so that people base the mental map of their surroundings on it. That is why successful train networks have interval schedules, a logical network hierarchy and well designed information displays.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 01:12 PM   #1044
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
One does needs to apply draconian penalties to achieve this aim. All it takes is widening stop spacing.
Indeed. But there is this little matter of wanting, as a service provider, to make money. That means going where your passengers want you to go to, stopping where your passengers want you to stop. The train has the huge advantage over the plane that you can easily serve many points with one service.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 01:30 PM   #1045
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
No, I think that increasing ridership is not the only relevant success parameter. The Indian trains, for example, travelling at 30 km/h and stopping everywhere, have a high ridership. The "ridership" is even sitting on the roofs and hanging out of the windows. In the fellow Asian economy Japan, highspeed trains link the major economic centres with a travelling time of little more than 2 hours. I put it to you that the latter makes economically much more sense.
I don't get your point. Ridership is significantly higher in Japan than in India. So the network that makes economically much more sense in your view, is also the network with the highest ridership. Only Switzerland has higher train ridership.

Quote:
This is a realistic assumption. I have in hand a study of car ownership per age cohort that I can share if you're interested. It is true that young households in France - where the oldest member is 16-19 years old - have only 0.6 cars on average. However, from age 25 every household has one car, and this remains the case until the age rises above 75 years old. (I should add that France is internationally low in this respect: US and Canada has many more than just 1 car per household.) How many 80 yo people do we see on TGV trains?
On Switzerland a third of the households are now one person households, and this is pattern one now sees in the rest of Europe too. One person households in urban areas often have no car. In Zürich the number of public transport trips per person average to one per day...

Quote:
Well, I live in a country where most people prefer driving and consider public transportation as somehow inferior. (I think it has to do with the French notion of "espace vitale" - in a car you are in your private sphere.)
One reason is that in many areas in France they don't even try to offer good public transport. There are exceptions, ofcourse. Even in France public transport gets used it is decent.

Quote:
On top of this comes the price factor. You see very few families in TGV trains. The marginal cost of stuffing a child into a car is zero, the cost of buying a train ticket is non-trivial.
I do see a lot of families on trains. Even in France. And that is because the cost of putting a child on a train is trivial, compared to putting them in a kind of straightjacket (as is now required) in a car. In Switzerland parents can buy a "junior card" for their kids for 30 francs (op to the age of 16) that allows them unlimited free travel if they're travelling with their parents. But even SNCF has offers that mean that a couple with two kids pays more or less the same as what two adults would pay...

Quote:
Consequently the ridership is mostly business people (and well-healed travellers in mid-life). These people would definitely be less inclined to take the train between Marseille and Paris if the train stops more than twice on the only 740 km.
You either don't travel a lot, or don't look very carefully. If families wouldn't be so disinclined to travel by train as you claim I wouldn't have to travel 1st class to have some peace...

Quote:
And, as I said, they'd be disinclined to take the train from Paris to Lille unless they happen to have a trip from city centre to city centre. The distance is 211 km. If you go from suburb to suburb by care then the travel time is between 1 1/2 and 2 hours. The train from Gare du Nord takes 1 hour, to which you must then add local transport at both ends. The train has no time advantage.
It would be as fast as a taking a car if they added some stops in the suburbs of Paris and Lille to some of the direct services. If in other words they integrated the services better.

Anyway, I commuted three years from a suburb of Bern to suburb of Zürich. By public transport. By car I would probably have been as fast, but it would have cost a lot more, and you can't read your email while you're driving.


Quote:
- Which is why I keep repeating my mantra: highspeed traffic needs to be optimised on the medium to long distances (400-800 km) to provide an attractive alternative to air traffic.
Trains don't need to offer an attractive alternative to air They need to offer something that passengers are willing to pay for. Success is measured in paying passengers. On this count Paris - Lille is successful.
For many people travel time is not everything. A car has the huge disadvantage of requiring you to do your own driving, plus it is very expensive unless you use it a lot.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 06:41 PM   #1046
Baron Hirsch
Kara Tren Solcusu
 
Baron Hirsch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Berlin/Istanbul
Posts: 1,337
Likes (Received): 475

Hi guys,
I would like to get back to the network question. I do think that scrapping 8% of the network is indicative to an overall neglect of railways. the ranking of that EU report (who has in- or decreased their network) and which countries have how much investments into rail infrastructure per capita show the same picture: Spain of course rules and Germany - jugded by the size of its population - is as low as it gets. Thus the much lauded gradual network improvement is nothing but the only thing that can be done with the paultry means at hand.
I saw the effects in Berlin, a town which is arguably the best in the country for car-free living, a bike and the S-U-Bahn network gets you almost everywhere in town and where inner-city dwellers as a rule are as described in the Zürich example often without private car. When the new central station opened, to compensate several minor lines serving the surrounding countryside were scrapped to compensate. It was assumed that anyone who wants to go to Perleberg or other faovrite spots for Berliners to spend the weekend in nature (and mind you, a 3.5 million city produces a lot of leisure traffic), would have a car and should use it to that purpose.
To your other points: the de facto organization of ICE traffic is nothing but a slightly more fancy, slightly more fast version of the IC. That is obvious, if you look at schedules. IC going at 200 kmh could easily replace the ICE's; when after the Eschede disaster all ICE had to be withdrawn and checked, most delays by the emergency services on routes such as the Berlin - Wolfsburg line was just about 15 minutes. Many ICE lines in Germany nowadays spend most or all of their route on lines which do not permit them to surpass IC in speed. To mask the difference, IC have been reduced to something which previously would have been marked Interregio, i.e. long distance trains that stop at ridiciously small towns where no IC would have stopped in the 1980s.
The way to make the ICE more than a chique IC would certainly not be the overregulative approach our advocates of the free market, i.e. Hans and Suburbanist, shut out short distance commuters per rule, per obstrusive reserve only regulations or per price, but rather really going for market principles. Overregulation of trains access has as a rule always met with fierce consumer resistance in Germany, and there is no need to antagonize the passengers like in the worst Mehdorn times. Rather, offer a larger number of sprinters, do not suffocate the offer with abhorrent prices, and promote this new system well. I am sure it would work out, and if there were a few less stops in Limburg and Fulda and this slashes travel time by say 30 minutes, many people who have half an eye on the airplane would be attracted to trains.
Baron Hirsch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 11th, 2011, 06:45 PM   #1047
Suburbanist
on the road
 
Suburbanist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the rain capital of Europe
Posts: 27,539
Likes (Received): 21253

hans280 pointed a very important issue: it is futile to calculate travel time from station to station when the trip is short enough to warrant a car drive.

When a trip is long - say Paris - Marsielle -, any time lost getting from your house to Paris Montparnasse and then from Marseille station to your destination is not that relevant because your other otpion (drive) will take much longer regardless.

In short trips, like Paris-Lille or Avingon-Marseille, the time spent travelling non on the TGV is significant, and can tilt the balance in favor of driving, assuming you have one (and, as pointed, in Western Europe most households own at least one car, in France I guess more than 80% of households excluding student houses own a private car) .

That happens because, with a car, if you destination AND origin aren't both within a very short distance of the HSR stations involved, a car car avoid this hub-and-spoke movements and head straight to the destination, bypassing congested streets in downtown altogether. If you transform a 40min Paris (Metro + RER) ride + 16 minutes tram ride in Lile + 4 minutes waiting vehicles to come + 6 minutes walking, you already ate up 66 minutes going not on transit, on a very optimistic assumption.

If you are going form a Paris suburb to a Lille suburb, you'll need 70-90 minutes total to commute to HSR stations.

By then, depending where you are located whether do you want to drive, all HST time advantage is gone.

Of course many people will still catch the TGV, because they don't want to spend extra money in car driving + wear/tear, because they intend to drink, because they are afraid of the Autoroute or else. Not all people decide the same way. I have driven many times from Northern Italy (Milano) to Sicilia on 15-18h journeys spending twice the value of an air fare, jsut because I enjoy driving there. That doesn't make my extreme prefernece for driving uniform across the Italian costumers, for instance.
__________________
YIMBY - Yes, in my backyard!
Suburbanist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2011, 12:42 AM   #1048
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Indeed. But there is this little matter of wanting, as a service provider, to make money. That means going where your passengers want you to go to, stopping where your passengers want you to stop. The train has the huge advantage over the plane that you can easily serve many points with one service.
Passengers are an inhomogeneous group of people. Almost everyone travels between a different pair of stations. So, calling at stations is as advantageous as it is disadvantageous. The solution is to set up services of different stopping patterns. And one of these must be a service that runs fast and doesn't call for several hundred kilometres.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2011, 12:43 AM   #1049
thun
Registered User
 
thun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3,829

@ suburbanist: As K_ pointed out, this is only the case in unsatisfact integrated networks which force passengers to do long detours to connect with other (in that case long distance) services. From that point of view, SNCF urgently has to offer a slower version of the TGV (especially in the Paris suburbs) which stopps at more stations to allow direct connections. Fierfly is right here.

And of course, you'll never be able to build a train network which offers faster alternatives to the car for all theoretically possible trips in a country - in fact, nobody claimed that. But then again, travel time isn't the only, and for a lot of people not even the most important - factor in the choice of tranport mode.
__________________
Folglich mein TagesTipp => Es genau so hinzunehmen wie ich es sagte. Notorisches Widersprechen wird nichts bringen. Ehrlich! Vertraut mir da voellig!
__________ __________ __________
thun no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 12th, 2011, 01:29 AM   #1050
Wilhem275
The Transporter
 
Wilhem275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Genoa & Venice [I]
Posts: 2,733
Likes (Received): 767

I believe conventional rail will never gain a reduction of time so significant it can compete with driving time.
But I still think it is, in most cases, the best option: considering the mere travel time is misleading, since while I'm driving I'm obliged to only do that (unless I'm a moron who texts or reads his newspaper while doing it) and I get stressed by that, on the other hand while I'm on a train or bus I can do active tasks, for work or entertainment.
My standard trip, from Venice outskirts to Brescia, needs 120' by car or 40'+120'+5' by public transport, and still I like the second option, since I can do whatever I want for almost 140'.
The time wasted is 120' or 100% in first case, 25' or 15% in the latter one, and my time is precious.
I think it's stupid to think of a train trip as a totally inactive time spent sitting in a moving box: today's tecnologies allow us to do plenty of productive things while we are moving. Things which cannot be done while driving.

I have a passion for automobiles, I'm the moderator of what is probably the most important forum about cars in Italy. I love driving. And that's why I HATE having to drive in those cases which give me no other option. I HATE driving 100-150 km of highways, or even more, mainly because I'm surrounded by retards who don't do that properly and often put me in danger, and also because it's incredibly boring. I get angry and stressed and I don't like that.
I'm just like K_: I don't want to have a car because I'm obliged to have one, I want the freedom to choose. And I'm ready to pay for it, if needed.

A couple of years ago, in Leipzig, I saw a train with a smart claim printed on its side: Auto haben, Bahn fahren. Having a car, travelling by train.
That's exactly what I want: keeping my passion for driving, dedicating proper free time to it with adequate relax to enjoy the activity, and moving around with public transport.

__________________
I've sold monorails to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrooke, and by gum, it put them on the map!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a genuine, bona fide, electrified, six-car monorail!

Marchionne means never having to say you're sorry.

Due to Photobucket f*cking up, most images won't be visibile in my old posts. If you need anything specific, please write me.
Wilhem275 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2011, 12:18 AM   #1051
kato2k8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
I asume it counts as one if the number doesn't change (eg a Geneva - St. Gallen service) but as two if the train number does change (eg. Chiasso - Zürich forming a Zürich - Chiasso).
All DB statistics on trains per day count in train movements, i.e. a train stopping at a station and continuing counts as two.
kato2k8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2011, 12:45 AM   #1052
kato2k8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedStriker View Post
Was the MORA-C impact that concerning? Did it not enable the wagonload system to become profitable, and at the same time encourage the rise of a whole host of small privately-run small-line freight operators?
MORA-C eliminated 1,000 out of 2,100 cargo access points on the DB freight network. The result was for most of these customers not a switch to private operators but a switch to road transport, and in a lot of the affected areas considerable expansion of truck freight companies.

The primary thing that made the wagonload system more profitable was abandoning most marshalling yards - not exactly part of MORA-C, but happened in almost the same timeframe (started a bit earlier). This is an ongoing process still.

Current final plans will only keep these marshalling yards for long-distance freight:
- one for Southwest Germany (Mannheim)
- one for North East Germany (Potsdam-Seddin)
- one for South East Germany (Halle)
- two for North Germany (Hannover-Seelze and Hamburg-Maschen)
- two for the Ruhr and Cologne area (Hagen and Cologne-Gremberg)
- two for Bavaria (Nuremberg and Munich-North)

(this means exactly one for each major Metropolitan area in Germany btw - except Rhine-Main and Stuttgart, which are serviced from Mannheim in Rhine-Neckar in the middle)

Likely surviving minor stations would be Stuttgart-Kornwestheim and Bischofsheim as feeder stations for Mannheim and Osnabrück and Rostock-Seehafen for infrastructure reasons.

Last edited by kato2k8; June 13th, 2011 at 12:51 AM.
kato2k8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2011, 01:27 PM   #1053
sekelsenmat
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,139
Likes (Received): 50

Quote:
Stuttgart 21 rail project construction to restart

Published: 10 Jun 11 17:16 CET

Construction work on the controversial Stuttgart 21 rail project is to restart next week after a two-month pause to assess the future of the project following a state election in Baden-Württemberg.

The southwestern German state's new government, which is a centre-left coalition of Greens and Social Democrats, decided not ask for a longer building freeze at a meeting of Stuttgart 21 stakeholders on Friday.

The main reason is money: If the state government had demanded a further pause, it would have had to contribute to a fund to reimburse Deutsche Bahn for expenses the delay is causing.

Those would soar into the tens of millions of euros by the time a so-called “stress test” to probe the viability of the project is finished in July.

The government was hoping Deutsche Bahn would decide by itself to delay the project further, but the company confirmed Friday that construction would resume as soon as possible.

“We want to move up construction activities to next week,” said Deutsche Bahn infrastructure manager Volker Kefer.

Stuttgart 21 consists of a massive construction effort, involving rebuilding the city’s main train station underground and turning it around 90 degrees, as well as laying 57 kilometres of new tracks. The aim is to make the city a major European rail hub.

But opponents mounted massive protests against the project last year, calling it too expensive and unnecessary. In October, more than 100 demonstrators were injured in a violent clash with police.

The demonstration was followed by lengthy talks between state officials, national rail provider Deutsche Bahn and Stuttgart 21 opponents. But officials ultimately decided to go ahead with the project after making a few minor changes to plans.

Some believed the state’s new left-leaning government would more strongly challenge the project because the Greens opposed it before the the election, but they have so far failed to do so.

State officials have promised citizens will have the opportunity to vote on the future of the project, probably in the autumn.

But backing out could cost the state government hundreds of millions of euros in compensation fees to Deutsche Bahn.
http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110610-35587.html
__________________
True Democracy for Android - A realistic political simulation game where you are the premier/president and guides your country competing against other political parties =)

My blog about trains, politics and urbanism.
sekelsenmat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2011, 01:47 PM   #1054
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato2k8 View Post
MORA-C eliminated 1,000 out of 2,100 cargo access points on the DB freight network. The result was for most of these customers not a switch to private operators but a switch to road transport, and in a lot of the affected areas considerable expansion of truck freight companies.

The primary thing that made the wagonload system more profitable was abandoning most marshalling yards - not exactly part of MORA-C, but happened in almost the same timeframe (started a bit earlier). This is an ongoing process still.

Current final plans will only keep these marshalling yards for long-distance freight:
- one for Southwest Germany (Mannheim)
- one for North East Germany (Potsdam-Seddin)
- one for South East Germany (Halle)
- two for North Germany (Hannover-Seelze and Hamburg-Maschen)
- two for the Ruhr and Cologne area (Hagen and Cologne-Gremberg)
- two for Bavaria (Nuremberg and Munich-North)

(this means exactly one for each major Metropolitan area in Germany btw - except Rhine-Main and Stuttgart, which are serviced from Mannheim in Rhine-Neckar in the middle)

Likely surviving minor stations would be Stuttgart-Kornwestheim and Bischofsheim as feeder stations for Mannheim and Osnabrück and Rostock-Seehafen for infrastructure reasons.

I understand your point Kato. And on the one hand, the reduction in cargo access points from 2100 to 1000 may sound extreme - especially if for most wagonload customers, this meant a switch to road-only operations.

However, I still retain my respect for the wagonload operation that exists in Germany, despite the impact of MORA-C.

For a start, at least there is a wagonload system! And it appears to me to be thriving. Do you not agree? Does the fact that, even with the rationalisation plan you mention, Germany will still be left with nine, full-scale marshalling yards in service signify that the wagonload operation is in good health?

Admittedly, this has much to do with Germany's position at the centre of Europe, which allows for network connections in virtually all directions of the compass.

However, doesn't it also have something to with the positive impact that MORA-C has had in reducing inefficiencies?

I'm only making suggestions here, as I don't have access to all the data and information that would enable me to know for sure, but I can only suspect that the wagonload system is in better health now after MORA-C than it had been before it.

Also, with regards to those 'lost' wagonload customers. Is it not possible that some of these became customers of the road transport companies in Germany that own intermodal equipment and use the Kombiverkehr services?
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2011, 11:14 PM   #1055
kato2k8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedStriker View Post
Does the fact that, even with the rationalisation plan you mention, Germany will still be left with nine, full-scale marshalling yards in service signify that the wagonload operation is in good health?
Not when we're coming down from at least 50+ full-scale marshalling yards

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedStriker View Post
Is it not possible that some of these became customers of the road transport companies in Germany that own intermodal equipment and use the Kombiverkehr services?
Pretty much all intermodal terminals in Germany for road/rail are owned by subsidiary companies of DB Schenker. The two dozen or so that aren't are located in coastal or inland ports, are trimodal road/rail/water terminals and are usually owned by either the local port authority or one of a handful giant freight companies like Wincanton (there's a handful owned by local big-business companies - BASF for example has a trimodal terminal in its own harbour in Ludwigshafen).

Intermodal transport is still in its baby stage in Germany though. There's a lot of expansion potential there, often with road freight companies getting into it.
kato2k8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2011, 10:11 AM   #1056
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

Quote:
Originally Posted by kato2k8 View Post
Intermodal transport is still in its baby stage in Germany though. There's a lot of expansion potential there, often with road freight companies getting into it.
Kato, are you not being harsh? I can only imagine that you live in Germany, which might explain why you're being so negative about the country - it's human nature to be critical of anything close to home.

"Baby stage"? Intermodal transport in Germany has been up-and-running, in the sense of carrying heavy goods vehicles, since the 1960s. And because of the generous loading gauge, trains in Germany can carry 4m-high semi-trailers piggyback style - and many of them therefore do, with these trailers in the ownership of a large number of different road transport companies.

Surely it's true to say that in Europe, Germany has the most refined intermodal service network for Continental traffic, along with Switzerland, Northern Italy and Scandinavia.

Compare Germany with France, for example. The rail network in France does not have a loading gauge that can accept 4m-high semi-trailers - unless of course an operator is using the special Modalohr wagons. And only the SNCF-run LorryRail has access to these.

Meanwhile in Britain, well, the loading gauge is so small that we're never going to see piggyback services operate beyond the HS line between Folkstone and Barking (London).

So in European terms, I think it's true to say that intermodal transport is well-advanced in Germany - just as advanced, in fact as the North American system, even if the latter is more well-known, simply because of the size of the North American network, and it's bias towards freight traffic.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2011, 10:22 AM   #1057
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

[QUOTE=kato2k8;79570574]
Pretty much all intermodal terminals in Germany for road/rail are owned by subsidiary companies of DB Schenker. The two dozen or so that aren't are located in coastal or inland ports, are trimodal road/rail/water terminals and are usually owned by either the local port authority or one of a handful giant freight companies like Wincanton (there's a handful owned by local big-business companies - BASF for example has a trimodal terminal in its own harbour in Ludwigshafen).
QUOTE]

Does it matter that most terminals in Germany are run by DUSS, the DB Schenker subsidiary? The reason I ask this is because DB Schenker does not by itself retail the intermodal network within Germany.

Instead DB Schenker is in partnership with a lot of road transport operators via Kombiverkehr. It is Kombiverkehr that runs the network for Continental traffic, and it runs it in order to service not only DB Schneker, but also the other shareholders - in other words, the road transport companies.

Also, I know by having spent many moments glancing over aerial photos of Germany, that there exist plenty of locations which would be ideal for any private company to use as intermodal terminals. As such, I don't think it would be too hard for non-DB Schenker services to be set-up.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2011, 10:27 AM   #1058
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385

[QUOTE=kato2k8]Not when we're coming down from at least 50+ full-scale marshalling yards
QUOTE]

50?!?!?!

That's surely an insane number of yards!

Even a centrally-planned, Communist-run economy would struggle to justify having 50 full-scale yards covering the territory of Germany I reckon.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2011, 02:41 PM   #1059
kato2k8
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 527
Likes (Received): 106

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedStriker View Post
Even a centrally-planned, Communist-run economy would struggle to justify having 50 full-scale yards covering the territory of Germany I reckon.
DB currently operates 25 marshalling yards still. Of these 5 have double marshalling humps, 20 have one hump (one planned to have second reactivated, two with second hump shut down, one currently inoperational for planned complete new construction).
It's not so much about territory, it's about capacity. Before the yards became computer-controlled we did need that number of yards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedStriker View Post
Surely it's true to say that in Europe, Germany has the most refined intermodal service network for Continental traffic, along with Switzerland, Northern Italy and Scandinavia.
Sure, but it doesn't have any really significant market presence yet. Almost all intermodal transport is container transport btw.

If we look at the statistics for 2005, total freight modal split for Germany:

- Road transport: 3,100,000 kilotons (77.50%)
- Pipeline transport: 96,000 kilotons (2.40%)

- Regular Rail transport: 265,888 kilotons (6.65%)
- Intermodal Rail transport, containers: 46,066 kilotons (1.15%)
- Intermodal Rail transport, trailers: 4,187 kilotons (0.10%)
- Intermodal Rail transport, "rolling highway": 1,159 kilotons (0.03%)

- Regular Coastal Shipping: 179,474 kilotons (4.49%)
- Intermodal Coastal Shipping, containers: 48,280 kilotons (1.21%)
- Intermodal Coastal Shipping, trailers: 16,354 kilotons (0.41%)
- Intermodal Coastal Shipping, "rolling highway": 37,073 kilotons (0.93%)

- Regular Riverine Shipping: 218,059 kilotons (5.45%)
- Intermodal Riverine Shipping, containers: 18,911 kilotons (0.47%)

1.28% for freight transport in intermodal service on rail? That does say baby stage to me
kato2k8 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2011, 02:47 PM   #1060
TedStriker
Over Macho Grande
 
TedStriker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London
Posts: 2,517
Likes (Received): 385



Those statistics only tell part of the story though.

If you were to analyse specific corridors, such as the trans-Alpine corridor or that between Lubeck and South Germany/Northern Italy, you'd find, I think, that intermodal transport has a much higher share of the overall market, and most of this traffic consists of semi-trailers.

If I'm right, the reason why coastal shipping features so highly in the figures above is down to the short sea traffic with Denmark, Sweden and Finland. If you omit this market, and focus just on the overland market within central Europe, certainly on the North-South axis, I'm sure that intermodal takes a greater share than numbers above suggest.
TedStriker está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium