nieuwstopic?!

[rail s]

3 oktober 2008
Extra spoorkraan voor Deurganck Terminal
De Chinese kranenfabrikant ZPMC heeft in Antwerpen een nieuwe spoorkraan geleverd voor de Deurganck Terminal van PSA HNN. Het is de tweede spoorkraan voor de containerkade. Ze kan ruim dertig containers per uur behandelen, waardoor de totale capaciteit van de terminal eind oktober verdubbelt naar 450 containers per shift.

De nieuwe kraan komt niets te vroeg, want er werden voor de eerste kraan al vaak bijkomende nachtploegen georganiseerd om alle spoorlading te kunnen behandelen. Wanneer de Deurganck Terminal verder wordt uitgebreid, komt er nog een derde spoorkraan bij. De terminal zal dan op een 2.750 meter lange kade over 24 portaalkranen beschikken. De jaarlijkse capaciteit bedraagt dan 5,7 miljoen teu.
bron: http://www.nieuwsbladtransport.nl/nieuw ... minal.html

[rail s]

> Nieuws
Chauffeurs vinden busbanen te smal
Veel buschauffeurs klagen dat de busbanen te smal zijn geworden. "De bussen zijn hun busbaan ontgroeid", zeggen de chauffeurs. Fietsers, vrachtwagens, scheefstaande vuilnisbakken of laaghangende takken maken het voor buschauffeurs vaak erg moeilijk om te passeren.

Vrije busbanen en busstroken zijn zo nipt berekend dat de chauffeurs goed moeten mikken. Dat blijkt uit een evaluatie van busbanen in Car & Bus Magazine. De vervoersmaatschappij De Lijn vraagt een breedte van 3,25 meter op wegen waar je 50 km per uur mag rijden, maar de chauffeurs vinden dat te krap.

Erg nipt
Nieuwe bussen zijn 2,55 meter breed, maar daar komt nog eens de breedte van de spiegels bij. Als een fietser over de busbaan rijdt, is het vaak onmogelijk om te passeren, laat staan om een veilige afstand te bewaren. "Zeker in stadscentra is de breedte van busbanen meestal erg nipt', zegt Geert Van Lierde.

"Door de ruimtelijke ordening kan je vaak niet ruimer gaan, maar het schept soms gevaarlijke toestanden. Een tram of een trein kan geen vijf centimeter uit zijn baan springen, maar een buschauffeur is een menselijk instrument. Het wordt gevaarlijk, zeker nu de nieuwe bussen breder zijn dan vroeger. Ze zijn als het ware hun baan ontgroeid." (belga/adv)
04/10/08 13u37
bron: http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/989/Binnen ... smal.dhtml

[rail s]

Moscow ring agreed
04 Oct 2008
RUSSIA: On September 11 Russian Railways President Vladimir Yakunin and Mayor of Moscow Yuri Luzhkov signed an agreement establishing Moscow Railway Ring as an equally-owned joint venture of RZD and the city. The special purpose vehicle will be responsible for the development and funding of the 5bn rouble ring railway project.

An initial five stations will be opened on the 54 km freight ring line for the start of passenger services in 2010. Electrification and a further seven stations will be completed by 2012, along with separate freight tracks between Kozhuhovo, Cherkizovo, Likhobory and Kutuzovo. The project will be completed in 2015, with up to 100 passenger trains each way per day serving 30 stations.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... greed.html

[rail s]

Trans-Eurasia Express to launch next year
06 Oct 2008
GERMANY: Welcoming the arrival in Hamburg of a container train from China on October 6, DB Chairman Harmut Mehdorn confirmed that DB Schencker planned to launch a regular scheduled service following the Chinese new year in February 2009. Operating under the Trans-Eurasia Express branding, the dedicated container trains will initially operate twice a week in each direction, with a target journey time of 20 days. The latest test run, carrying products for Fujitsu Siemens Computers arrived took 17 days for the 10 000 km journey from Xiangtang to the north-German port.

‘Our endurance in pursuing this project is now paying off’, said Mehdorn. ‘Thanks to our co-operation with five other railways, including the Chinese and Russian railways, we are now able to open up an attractive and reliable new trade route for our customers between the markets in China and Central Europe. We are thus offering an attractive supplement to slower ocean freight and significantly more expensive air freight.

Speaking in Hamburg, the DB ML Board Member for Transport & Logistics Dr Norbert Bensel said that DB Schenker was strengthening its technology leadership at international level. ‘With the introduction of the regular timetable and fixed departure times, this new link in our global network will enable us to offer a new level of quality in the trans-continental exchange of goods’, he explained.

Operating across the Eurasian landbridge, the container trains will initially link Shanghai and Beijing with Hamburg, Nürnberg and Duisburg. Space on the trains will be marketed by DB Schenker's existing national business units. Bensel said that ‘companies in the automotive industry, the chemical industry, manufacturers of household goods, and from the engineering and paper industries’ had already expressed interest in using the service.

The Trans-Eurasia Express was dispatched from China in mid-September and routed via the Trans-Mongolian and Trans-Siberian routes.
bron; http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... _year.html

[rail s]

Vom: 06.10.08
EVB: Zwei Wochen Betriebsunterbrechung zwischen Buxtehude und Harsefeld
Umfangreiche Oberbau- und Entwässerungsarbeiten sind der Grund – die Fahrgäste der Elbe-Weser-Bahn EVB, die im Stundentakt zwischen Bremerhaven, Bremervörde, Harsefeld und Buxtehude mit Anschluss an das Hamburger S-Bahn-Netz pendelt, müssen erhebliche Fahrzeitverlängerungen in Kauf nehmen.

Zwischen dem 11. und dem 26. Oktober werden zwischen Harsefeld und Buxtehude Busse statt Bahnen unterwegs sein. Die Busse bedienen auch die Ortschaften Apensen und Ruschwedel. Zwischen Harsefeld und Bremerhaven wird nach Fahrplan gefahren.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... efeld.html

[rail s]

Six bids to build Polish high speed fleet
06 Oct 2008
POLAND: Six companies had expressed interest in the tender to supply a fleet of 250 km/h inter-city EMUs to PKP Intercity, when the deadline for prequalification closed on October 2. PKP is looking to order 20 trainsets at an estimated cost of €400m.

The six bidders are:

- CAF of Spain, believed to be offering a variant of the Class 120 AVE sets;
- Alstom Konstal SA offering a new-generation Pendolino;
- a consortium of Ansaldobreda and Newag with a variant of the V250 Albatros trainset;
- Siemens with a Velaro derivative;
- Bombardier Transportation Sweden with PESA Bydgoszcz offering a design based on the X2000;
- Paseo del Tren Talgo 2 with a version of its Talgo 250 design.


The next stage of the process will see the initial offers assessed, with final specifications to be issued in January 2009. PKP Intercity says the tender will be awarded through competitive negotiation, and it expects to announce the final decision in mid-2009.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... fleet.html

[rail s]

First Park Maritime Logistics strijkt neer langs Zeekanaal
First Industrial Realty Trust heeft langs het Zeekanaal Brussel-Schelde in Bornem en Puurs een terrein gekocht voor de bouw van het trimodale First Park Maritime Logistics-platform van bijna 118.000 m². Op het verworven perceel zullen twee distributiecentra worden gebouwd. De eerste bouwfase van het magazijn op grondgebied Bornem is reeds gestart.

Het project wordt gefinancierd door FirstCal Industrial Europe, de joint venture van de Amerikaanse vastgoedontwikkelaar First Industrial Realty Trust en California State Teacher's Retirement System, het op één na grootste openbare pensioenfonds in de VS.

Het terrein aan de Oude Sluisweg is gekocht van Group De Paepe en bouwgroep Willy Naessens, die het zelf van NV Zeekanaal hadden verworven.

First Park Maritime Logistics moet een extended gateway worden voor de haven van Antwerpen, met weg-, spoor- en binnenvaartontsluiting.
bron: http://www.lloyd.be/nieuws/id22528-Firs ... anaal.html

[rail s]

Vom: 06.10.08
Arriva will sich auf Nahverkehr konzentrieren Piers Marlow, Geschäftsführer Arriva Deutschland, Direktor NordeuropaFoto: Arriva
Der britische Bahn- und Busbetreiber Arriva wird sich auf absehbare Zeit nicht über den „Vogtlandexpress“ hinaus im deutschen Schienenfernverkehr engagieren. Der Geschäftsführer von Arriva Deutschland, Piers Marlow, sagte in einem Interview mit der „Netzeitung“, zurzeit seien Fernverbindungen für ihn nicht interessant.

Arriva konzentriere sich auf regionale Dienstleistungen, die das Unternehmen wirtschaftlich erfolgreich betreibe. Es gebe hier schon eine Reihe von großen Playern wie die französische SNCF und die DB, die das Geschäft vernünftig betreiben.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... ieren.html

[rail s]

Alstom and Transmash bid for double-deckers
06 Oct 2008
Alstom Transport and Transmashholding have signed a memorandum of understanding to launch a strategic partnership, and agreed to set up a specialist joint venture company to deliver double-deck coaches for the Russian market.

As well as providing for technical cooperation between the two firms, the MoU includes an option for Alstom to purchase an equity stake in TMH up to 25% plus one share, subject to a due diligence audit. TMH recently confirmed that discussions for Bombardier to buy a stake in the company had been abandoned.

The joint venture company is initially focusing on the supply of double-deck inter-city coaches to Russian Railways. Tenders are due this month for supply of 1 210 double-deck vehicles which RZD plans to operate on the St Petersburg – Moscow – Sochi route. These will be to ‘hotel train’ standards, suitable for long-distance routes, with sleeping cars, couchettes and showers as well as full restaurant cars.

Alstom prequalified for the tender in May, and was subsequently selected by TMH to become its technical partner. The two firms have now decided to create a joint venture known as TMH-Alstom DV. TMH will hold a 51% stake, and Alstom the remaining 49%. If the joint venture wins the tender, the trains are likely to be manufactured at Tver, where the existing TMH plant may be modernised or rebuilt.

In the longer term, Alstom Transport and TMH are looking at estblishing a joint ‘platform’ for a new generation of freight and passenger locomotives, drawing on expertise from both partners and adapted to Russian requirements. According to Alstom, RZD is expected to purchase around 1 000 locos a year from now until 2030.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... ckers.html

[rail s]

Werken Liefkenshoektunnel van start in november 2008
Vlaams minister-president Kris Peeters en minister Hilde Crevits ondertekenden vandaag de drie resterende overeenkomsten die nodig zijn voor de start van de werken aan de Liefkenshoekspoortunnel, de nieuwe spoorverbinding tussen de Linkeroever en de Rechteroever in de Antwerpse haven.

De spoorverbinding is niet enkel belangrijk voor de haven maar zal ook nuttig blijken voor wat betreft de uitdagingen op het vlak van mobiliteit, leefmilieu en leefbaarheid in de Antwerpse regio.

De eerste overeenkomst betrof de taakverdeling bij de realisatie van het natuurgebied "Rietveld Kallo". De tweede overeenkomst had betrekking op de realisatie van vijf geluidsbuffers en de derde ging over een reeks praktische afspraken in verband met de overdracht van eigendommen.

De werken kunnen dus in principe in november starten en zullen zeker vier jaar duren.
bron: http://www.lloyd.be/nieuws/id22538-Werk ... ember.html

[rail s]

Vom: 06.10.08
Russlands staatliche Eisenbahn will bei DB einsteigen
Die russische Staatsbahn RZD will bei dem für Ende Oktober geplanten Teil-Börsengang der Deutschen Bahn AG fünf Prozent am größten europäischen Schienenkonzern erwerben. Das teilte RZD-Chef Wladimir Jakunin der russischen Wirtschaftszeitung "Kommersant" mit.

Er halte den Einstieg für "strategisch wichtig", um eine "Containerbrücke" zwischen Europa und dem Pazifik zu schlagen, sagte Jakunin. Der Handelsumfang zwischen diesen beiden Regionen beträgt ihm zufolge 600 Mrd. US-Dollar (436 Mrd. EUR).
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... eigen.html

[rail s]

Market reforms revitalise European rail freight
06 Oct 2008 | Jeremy Drew
FREIGHT: Does competition between operators improve efficiency and is the separation of infrastructure from operations necessary to develop viable competition? Jeremy Drew compares the impact on customers of railway reforms in three European countries.

Jeremy Drew is an independent consultant advising on the reform and privatisation of railway operations around the world.

Much has been written in recent years about the benefits, or otherwise, of the separation of infrastructure from operations, and of introducing competition between open-access operators. However, there has been little hard analysis to justify the arguments — partly because few countries had introduced these changes until relatively recently.

In order to try and understand the benefits for customers of introducing more competition, with and without infrastructure separation, I have tried to compare the impact of reforms on rail freight in the three European countries which have the most open markets: Germany, Sweden and the UK. Each of these countries has liberalised in a different way: the rail industry in Germany has not been fully separated, whilst the UK is the only one of the three to have completely privatised its rail sector. Customer benefits are assessed in terms of the development of competition and traffic growth.

International context
The granting of access for other operators to use parts of a national rail network is quite common internationally, although usually limited to specific locations. However, full separation between infrastructure management and train operations has been limited to a few mixed (freight and passenger) railways in Europe, long-distance freight in Australia and a few developing and transition countries. In North America, both the vertical separation and open-access models have been rejected on the grounds that, for most markets, there is adequate competition from other modes, notably road. There is also 'source competition’ between different suppliers — such as coal for a power station. Similarly, vertical separation and open access were rejected for the passenger-dominated railways in Japan.

Until recently, most European national railways were vertically-integrated monopolies. EU Directive 91/440 began the process of introducing competition across Europe, partly to create an open 'single market’ in railway services with no discrimination between companies from different member states, and partly to encourage modal shift and boost rail’s share of international freight movement.

Although only a few countries took practical steps to liberalise in the early days, rail freight has already exper-ienced a significant turnaround in traffic levels following a long period of decline (Table 1). After falling by 27% between 1970 and 1993, traffic then began to increase for the EU as a whole. As a result, rail freight in 2006 was 36% above the level recorded in 1993 in terms of tonne-km. However, it is unclear how much of this can be directly attributed to competition, since traffic in the less liberalised countries has increased by 20% over the same period.

Of the three sample countries, the largest increase since 1993 has occurred in the UK, where total tonne-km grew by 67% between 1993 and 2006, although freight volumes are still below the 1970 level. The upward trend really took off in 1997 following privatisation. However, rail’s share of total traffic is still below the EU average, probably because of the UK’s geographical characteristics rather than any specific failure of the rail sector.

Rail freight in Germany has grown by 62% since 1993, although growth in Sweden has only been 18%. Although other factors are likely to have affected traffic growth, the fact that the increase in two of the three countries has been substantially above the average suggests that competition has indeed contributed to growth.

The German model
The most notable feature of German railway reform to date has been the retention of a vertically-integrated organisation under a holding company structure. The need for trans- parency to encourage on-rail competition was not considered as important as achieving an improvement in DB’s financial and operational performance.

Open access was introduced in 1994, but competition was initially limited because of various obstacles, leading to allegations that barriers had been erected by DB to keep out the competition. These included difficulty in obtaining access to the network at the times required and problems obtaining information about the availability of paths. Some of these complaints were indeed substantiated by the regulatory authorities.

Over the years DB’s freight business has acquired all or part of rail freight operations in several other European countries as well as buying a major international logistics company. It remains dominant in its home market, although the level of competition has ramped up steadily. Open-access operators carried 17% of total rail freight traffic in 2007, compared to just 2% in 2000.

The development of competition has been assisted by Germany’s position at the centre of Europe. Germany has land borders with nine states, so there is a considerable volume of international business, including transit traffic, which is particularly well-suited to being carried by other operators. National railways from Switzerland, Italy and Poland run into Germany as do some private operators based in other EU member states. Thus geography can be seen as a clear reason to expect more competition in Germany than in more peripheral countries such as the UK or Sweden.

One result of increased competition is that DB has been achieving relatively low profits in the freight sector. This raises the question — also asked in countries as diverse as Sweden and North America — whether competition may be restricting DB’s ability to earn adequate funds for re-investment.

The German model is held up by some as combining the advantages of open access with the integration of track and operations to optimise co-operation. The decline of rail freight has certainly been reversed, achieving one of the government’s original goals, and the restructuring has not as yet involved any significant expenditure. Overall, it appears that the reforms have been successful, although given the obstacles faced by new entrants they might have produced greater competition and benefits to customers if open access had been accompanied by vertical separation.

It will be interesting to see whether the current restructuring of DB to permit a partial flotation of the operating business (DB Mobility Logistics) results in greater competition between operators and/or calls for a more transparent separation of infrastructure management. The competition authorities have already warned that any proceeds of the flotation must not be used to support DB’s operating business, but some is to be allocated for infrastructure investment.

Socio-economic priority
Back in 1988 Sweden led the way towards separation, when it became the first country in the world to establish a separate state-owned rail infrastructure authority. The idea was to provide a 'level playing field’ between road and rail, with the government directly financing the provision and maintenance of rail infrastructure in the same way as roads. At the same time, separation was expected to reduce the overall 'burden’ of the railways on the state budget.

Even with separation, train operations initially remained in the hands of a single state-owned company. SJ was gradually exposed to competition in different market sectors and then split up into six companies. Competition for freight began with a handful of 'short line’ operators taking over selected local feeder services in the early 1990s. Full open access to the main line network was introduced in 1996, two years later than in Germany and the UK, and by 2006 there were six freight operators.

Some of the services offered by new entrants are complementary rather than competitive with the state-owned operator Green Cargo. They continue to operate on a small scale, effectively acting as subcontractors to Green Cargo on more peripheral parts of the network.

By 2007 other operators had a 35% share of the rail freight market. Competition — or the threat of competition — has reduced rates and improved the quality of service. But as seen in Germany, the financial performance of Green Cargo has been relatively poor, with an operating margin of less than 5% recorded in both 2006 and 2007.

Whilst competition within the rail freight market has been strong, the overall growth in rail freight traffic has been much weaker than elsewhere, which can be attributed to strong modal competition from the 60 tonne lorries permitted on Swedish roads. To support rail freight in the face of such competition the government decided in the early 1990s to reduce track access charges to a nominal level close to zero.

Separation of the infrastructure has also proved expensive for the government. According one Swedish academic, investment levels increased five-fold in the early 1990s, with Banverket receiving a greater proportion of the total rail and road budget based on socio-economic analysis. However, some poor investment decisions were made, due in part to political intervention but also to the disconnection between the end customers and the infrastructure owner.

Overall, the reforms appear to have benefited freight customers but at the cost of an increased burden on the taxpayer.

Fragmentation and consolidation
The desire to facilitate competition, particularly in the freight sector, was a key factor influencing the decision to separate infrastructure management when British Rail was privatised in the 1990s. The UK government considered a number of options, including floating the railway as a single entity, breaking it up into separate regional operators, or into vertically-integrated companies based on the existing market sector business units.

The pre-privatisation debate on structure largely revolved around the passenger railway, which represented about 80% of rail revenues in 1993-94 and absorbed almost all the operating subsidies.

The passenger businesses would have preferred a sector model, as they would retain control of the infrastructure, but the freight units feared dominance. The government decided in favour of full vertical separation, triggering a complex restructuring which saw the creation of nearly 100 separate organisations linked by a complex regulatory and contractual matrix. Under the current model, some organisations (including the infrastructure company and the passenger franchises) are subject to economic regulation whilst others (the freight and rolling stock leasing companies) are not.

The rail freight operations were sold, rather than franchised, since it was not considered necessary for the public sector to specify what freight services should be provided.

BR’s profitable Trainload Freight business operated in two distinct markets. The short-distance, high-volume flows were relatively free-standing, and could easily be opened up to competition. By contrast, longer-distance, lower-volume traffic could be served most economically by a national network and would be more inefficient if broken up.

Although consultants had recommended that open access should be introduced only for the short-distance, high-volume business, the government decided to optimise the trade-off between the benefits of competition and the loss of economies of scale by splitting Trainload Freight into three regional companies.

When these were put up for sale in 1996, the most attractive bid came from a consortium led by Wisconsin Central, which argued that the key competitor was road haulage and it did not make sense to have three rail operators competing for a relatively small proportion of the total market. The consortium bought all three companies and the parcels business, later adding Railfreight Distribution (non-bulk traffic) to give its new subsidiary English Welsh & Scottish Railway almost 90% of the UK rail freight market.

The sixth operator, Freightliner was sold to a management buy-out. Initially it only ran intermodal services and there was no real competition between the two companies. Freightliner moved into heavy haul in 1999, and GB Railfreight, now a subsidiary of FirstGroup, began operations three years later. Both players initially relied on Railtrack, and later Network Rail, to enter the market, securing contracts from the infrastructure manager to carry materials around the network. This provided the business justification to invest in rolling stock and a base from which each operator could expand into other markets.

The other significant open-access operator is DRS, now a subsidiary of the Nuclear Decomissioning Authority. DRS was established to provide specialist services to the nuclear generating industry, but like First GBRf it later expanded to serve third parties. These two now have about 7% of the market, and further open-access players are starting to emerge.

Table II summarises UK market share by operator. EWS has fallen from 86% in 1997 to 64% in 2006. If the infrastructure manager had not awarded contracts for materials haulage to other operators, EWS might have been expected to retain a greater market share. Open-access operators might have found other ways to enter the market, but in this case vertical separation may well have assisted the growth of competition.

However, it can be seen that the greatest challenge to EWS dominance has come from the other privatised incumbent, as Freightliner’s market share has increased from 14% to 29%. Initially Freightliner expanded its core intermodal business, notably containers to and from the deep sea ports, but in 1999 Freightliner Heavy Haul was established to compete in the bulk sector. Part of its success in taking business from EWS is because FHH has not been encumbered by legacy assets and operating practices.

Fig 1 shows how the overall size of the UK rail freight market has increased. After declining from 23 billion net tonne-km in 1972 to 13·3 billion in 1996, traffic has recovered to 22·1 billion in 2006, an increase of 66% over the decade. However, nearly all of the growth is due to longer distances moved, with total tonnage increasing by only 3%.

Growth since 1996 has been from a low base, partly because of a sharp fall in traffic due to uncertainty in the privatisation period. However, traffic levels are now 22% higher than in the UK’s previous economic boom of 1989 and close to the levels of the mid-1970s.

External factors include changes in the coal mining and power generation sectors which means imported coal is being transported over longer distances from ports rather than from mines. Increases in road congestion and the costs of road haulage are also significant. However, road speeds were declining before 1997 when rail freight was stagnating. Some of the increase can therefore be attributed directly or indirectly to railway reform.

Since 1996 there has been considerable investment by the private operators and their customers in rolling stock and terminal facilities, which has encouraged growth in rail freight directly or indirectly.

However, despite efforts to reduce costs and expand the market, the UK rail freight industry is still not sufficiently profitable. Over the financial years 2001-05, EWS profits averaged £43m on an annual turnover of £505m. This is not enough to provide a normal return on capital invested, although interestingly the margin is better than that achieved by either DB’s rail freight business or Green Cargo.

Freight cannot be viewed in isolation from the railway industry as a whole. In the UK, rail industry costs have increased, decisions on investment have been made without adequate reference to the market, and operating performance has been erratic to say the least.

The UK model differed from the other countries in that two incumbent freight operators were formed, one for bulk freight and the other for containers, and these subsequently began to compete with each other. In other countries there was only one incumbent, and the development of competition has been dependent on new entrants.

Given that new operators still only transport 7% of UK rail freight, it seems unlikely that competition would have developed as quickly without the second incumbent. It can be argued that this is a further benefit of vertical separation. It would clearly have been unbalanced to establish a vertically-integrated operator and make the second incumbent dependent on its main competitor for access to the network.

Consider local conditions
Evidence from these three countries shows that open access for rail freight has allowed new operators to win traffic by offering a better combination of services and rates. In both Germany and the UK rail freight traffic has grown much faster than in other EU member states, suggesting clearly that competition has benefited customers.

The evidence on separation is less clear-cut. The dominant operator in Germany, where infrastructure and freight operations are part of a holding company, has a greater share of the rail freight market than the dominant operators in either Sweden or the UK, where there has been complete vertical separation. This is despite a geographical position which should encourage greater competition from operators in neighbouring countries.

However, the situation is not directly comparable. In Sweden, some of the open-access operators are not in direct competition with Green Cargo. In the UK, most competition to the dominant operator comes from the other incumbent. On the other hand, competition here might have been far less had the infrastructure manager not encouraged the emergence of competition. Similarly, the complaints by new operators in Germany suggest that competition might have been greater had there been clear vertical separation.

Advocates of the German model argue that it retains the benefits of integration whilst allowing competition. Vertical separation has clearly led to additional system costs in Sweden and the UK which appear to have been avoided in Germany. However, both the benefits and the costs of separation may be expected to vary, both between countries and between regions within countries. They depend on a number of conditions: markets, capacity constraints and how the railways are regulated.

Whilst lessons can always be learnt from the experience in other countries, any government considering reform as a means to encourage rail freight needs to consider its options carefully in the light of local conditions.

Table I. Increase in rail freight tonne-km 1993 to 2006 in selected European countries
Germany 62%
Sweden 18%
UK 67%
Others 20%
EU15 36%

Table II. Market share of UK rail freight by revenue, 1997 to 2006
EWS Freightliner DRS First GBRf
1997 86·4% 13·6% 0·0% 0·0%
2002 74·4% 22·8% 2·0% 0·8%
2006 63·6% 29·4% 3·5% 3·5%
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... eight.html

[rail s]

NieuwsberichtFinanciële crisis treft goederenvervoer SNCF
De wereldwijde financiële crisis heeft een zware impact op het vrachtvervoer van de SNCF. Dat heeft voorzitter Guillaume Pepy van de Franse spoormaatschappij toegegeven tijdens een seminarie in Megève. De trafieken van de transport- en logistiekafdeling liggen ver onder de verwachtingen.

Naast het logistieke filiaal Geodis maakt ook Fret SNCF deel uit van die afdeling. Vooral die laatste krijgt het hard te verduren. Volgens spoorbond CGT-Cheminots zag Fret SNCF zijn trafieken tussen januari en augustus dalen met 8,8%, terwijl de inkomsten afnamen met 4%. De Franse pers voorspelt een jaarverlies van 300 miljoen euro. Cijfers die door de SNCF bevestigd noch ontkend worden. De activiteiten die het zwaarst onder de crisis lijden, zijn het vervoer van auto-onderdelen en het transport van flessenwater
bron: http://www.lloyd.be/nieuws/id22530-Fina ... _SNCF.html

[rail s]

Vom: 07.10.08
Chemion: G 1206 in Betrieb
Seit 29. September 2008 besitzen die beiden G 1206 der Chemion Logistik GmbH die uneingeschränkte Zulassung des Eisenbahn-Bundesamtes (EBA).

Beide Fahrzeuge kamen bislang wegen Zulassungsverzögerungen nicht im Streckendienst zum Einsatz.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... c.php.html

[rail s]

Trans-Korean reconstruction begins
Tracklaying ceremony at Tumangan. Photo: RZD
07 Oct 2008
NORTH KOREA: Ceremonies were held at the border station of Tumangan on October 4 to mark the start of reconstruction work on the first section of the Trans-Korean Main Line between the Russian border and the port of Rajin, where a new container terminal is to be built.

Intended to raise the capacity of the line to 12 trains each way per day, with a nominal capacity of 4 million tonnes a year, the €150m project will see the reconstruction of 54 km of track, 10 stations, three tunnels and more than 40 bridges. Work is being undertaken by a joint venture company established by North Korean Railway and Russian Railways.

The joint venture is expected to set its own tariffs for traffic on the line and transshipment at the port, in order to recoup its investment. Discussions are underway to simplify the customs and border formalities at Khasan and Tumangan, and the possibility of granting special tariff conditions for shipments through Russian territory is under consideration.


Speaking at the celebrations, RZD President Vladimir Yakunin said the port was expected to attract around 100 000 TEUs to the Trans-Siberian route from Asia-Pacific countries, especially South Korea. ‘As early as 2011, it will be possible to handle more than 35 000 containers from Khasan, with the figure rising to 70 000 in 2012 and to 100 000 in 2013’, he explained.

The joint venture partners plan to set up a logistics company with the participation of South Korean freight forwarders routing traffic by sea between Pusan and Rajin. The new container terminal is designed to handle 400 000 TEUs a year, but future expansion of the port could increase the throughput to 700 000 TEUs.

Yakunin sees the reconstruction of Tumangan - Rajin as a pilot for the longer-term modernisation of the whole route. ‘Restoration of the Trans-Korean Main Line would allow us to create the longest Euro-Asian transport corridor of over 10 000 km. Delivery time for containers being shipped from east to west by rail will be cut by half compared to the sea route’, he said.

Reconstruction of the whole line is provisionally estimated at between US$7bn and US$8bn. RZD suggests that this could be funded by an international consortium, and says the idea is ‘supported by the governments of Russia and of South and North Korea’. Investors from other countries, including Germany, Italy, Finland, Japan and China are reported to have expressed interest in the scheme.

Also under consideration is the reconstruction of the line between Rajin and the Chinese border, which could also be jointly managed and operated by the Russians and North Koreans, bringing Chinese freight onto the corridor.

To accommodate the traffic from Rajin and projected increases in flows through the existing Russian ports at Poset, Zarubino, Slavyanka, RZD is planning to upgrade its 240 km line between Khasan and Baranovsky which links the Korean border with the Trans-Siberian. Feasibility studies are underway for enhancements which will lift the capacity of the line to 20 trains each way per day, or 17 million tonnes of freight per year. RZD estimates the cost of the infrastructure upgrading at more than 10bn roubles.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... egins.html