Display:
Oh, so the second.

That idea was championed by the German Railways, and the first two lines were built accordingly. But the experience was negative, and entirely predictably so...

  • Most freight cars are brake shoe braked, and are built robust and simple anyway, so wheel blocking and thus wheeltread flattenings happen, which 'beat up' the rail -- roughing up its surface for high-speed trains.

  • There is only a short gap between the last and first high-speed services, not to mention the occasional depot run, so in practice high-speed trains and railfreight has to be allowed to run in parallel, in opposite directions. Now what happens if an open or light freight car is passed, at 400 km/h relative speed, especially in a tunnel? Either the cargo loaded could move or the car itself could derail (it happened).

  • What if a freight train is late, or worse, there is some technical problem (say a wheel/axle that ran hot) in the morning? Delays for the high-speed train.

  • Nothing bad happened in practice, but there is also the safety concern if say a gasoline-loaded tank car derails and burns in one of the long tunnels.

Now all of the above doesn't hold the bosses of many other railways back from believing mixed traffic makes a high-speed line more economically viable. (Holding back is the wrong word: they probably never heard of the precedent.) Now maybe for speeds until 250 km/h, that may be (barely) tolerable. But 350 km/h lines?...

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jan 19th, 2008 at 04:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... existing freight rolling stock. True HSR freight will require dedicated stock ... say, with mini-containers accepting Euro-pallets that lock into a HSFR car, and also into a frame to form a standard intermodal container. And also, substantially higher aviation fuel prices to be in a position to start stealing the lower margins of the air freight market.

Which suggests that the main game at the moment should be 110kph double / 160 kph single container Express freight. Its perfectly fine if that infrastructure is shared with regular Express passenger stopping services.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 05:41:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, that is the second thing people may think of when they ask about freight on high-speed lines.

Further issues to consider:

  1. High-speed lines have an axle load of 17 tons (for the non-technical: that means that if a railcar has four axles, that is eight wheels with four on each side, then the entire car -- car + cargo - can't be heavier than 17x4=68 tons). Now freight transport is more economical if we go for higher axle-loads. Today in Europe, 20-22.5 tons is the norm, and there are pilot lines for 25 tons, while US railways even do 35 tons.

  2. Higher-speed transport is also higher energy use and thus higher transport costs.

  3. Even if for some types of time-sensitive cargo where the extra transport cost vs. trucks or low-speed rail may make it worth, and air cargo would be the rival, there is the issue of an as yet not wide network: you can't offer many destinations, the customer won't count on you.


*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 05:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(1) This is why regular intermodal containers are not a likely HSFR technology as such ... however, given greater flexibility to design the HSFR freight car to accomodate something that could fit into an intermodel container than air transport, something that can be rolled out of the HSFR and locked into an intermodal container (or visa versa) would give substantial logistical advantages over air freight

(2) And this, of course, is why the main target at the current point in time is getting Express freight out of trucks and onto Express freight rail, since the gain from HSFR is only if it shoots freight planes out of the sky.

(3) Goes back to (1) ... it has to integrate into the existing intermodal container system, and from my experience in working in the warehouse, a small enclosed mini-container is going to be the only serious option if the process is going to be largely automated.

But no hurry sorting out the details ... Express freight 110kph, 25 ton axle load / 160kph 21 ton axle load, that's the target currently in the frame, and that's just not at a speed that it can be seamlessly inserted into the HSR network.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jan 21st, 2008 at 06:29:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Why not using Eurostar-shuttle like trains, that allows for trucks to be loaded on trains at (relatively) high speed?

Trucks do not have a 35 ton/axle cargo! They have 35 tons cargo, and 5-6 axles...

In logistics, you could perhaps imagine a HSR line between two important nodes (like Paris/Lyon/Marseille in France), taking trucks on a no booking, shuttle basis so as to lower the community costs of road repairing - which is actually a government indirect subvention, at least in Europe-. Thus, road and train transport would compete on a same cost basis... which is conform to economic doxa.


A free fox in a free henhouse!

by Xavier in Paris on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:05:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Trucks do not have a 35 ton/axle cargo! They have 35 tons cargo, and 5-6 axles...

The axle loading is for the rail car ... and, yes, if there is a Freight Express rail clearway, with those axle loading

Designing a High Speed Freight Rail set that takes whole trucks is, for one thing, hauling weight around unnecessarily, magnifying the extra energy cost of HSFR over Express Freight Rail, and, for another thing, the job of trucks should be to haul a container the last mile to from the railhead to the final street address or warehouse ... the extension of the HSFR should be the load racking into a standard container to go to that closest railhead.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 09:42:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I do not get the point of using HSR for fret, except express fret that is going to be light enough to use normal HSR trains (La Poste has its own TGV).

Isn't it a bit counter productive to increase the energy use of cargo for transporting it at higher speed ? The speed problem, for cargo trains, at least in France, is lousy logistics, and there are much more gains to be made by improving those.

I might see that a private developer might want to increase the potential use of an High Speed Line, but that is a problem with having private developers doing rail infrastructure.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:17:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... the lighter freight that can use ordinary HSR locomotives are a more appealing if they can be shipped out of the warehouse in sealed containers, like the standardized containers used for distinct models of aircraft for air freight, except that with HSFR there is an opportunity to develop it in a way that can smoothly and efficiently flow from standard inter-modal shipping containers to HSFR and back, to allow dependence on trucks to be minimize and even, in some cases with the right technology, eliminated altogether.

For example, Aerobus has a container by container freight transport option:



I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 12:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series