Vom: 07.10.08
A.V.G. erwirbt BR 203
Die 203 001 (vollmodernisierte V 100.4) ist von der Alstom Lokomotiven Service GmbH an die A.V.G. Ascherslebener Verkehrsgesellschaft mbH verkauft worden.
Die Maschine soll im März 2009 eine neue Hauptuntersuchung samt Neulackierung erhalten.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... r_203.html
nieuwstopic?!
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Vom: 08.10.08
Tognum: Auftrag über 130 Motoren für Voith-Lok Gravita 10BB
Studie der Voith Gravita 10BB, Foto: Voith
Der Tognum-Geschäftsbereich Engines hat vom Lokomotivenhersteller Voith Turbo Lokomotivtechnik GmbH & Co. KG in Kiel einen Auftrag zur Lieferung von 130 Dieselmotoren des Typs 8V 4000 R43 erhalten.
Die 1.000 kW (1.360 PS) starken Motoren werden von Voith in die neuen Rangierlokomotiven des Typs Gravita 10BB eingebaut. Betreiber wird die Deutsche Bahn sein.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... _10bb.html
Tognum: Auftrag über 130 Motoren für Voith-Lok Gravita 10BB
Studie der Voith Gravita 10BB, Foto: Voith
Der Tognum-Geschäftsbereich Engines hat vom Lokomotivenhersteller Voith Turbo Lokomotivtechnik GmbH & Co. KG in Kiel einen Auftrag zur Lieferung von 130 Dieselmotoren des Typs 8V 4000 R43 erhalten.
Die 1.000 kW (1.360 PS) starken Motoren werden von Voith in die neuen Rangierlokomotiven des Typs Gravita 10BB eingebaut. Betreiber wird die Deutsche Bahn sein.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... _10bb.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
NSW moves to abolish RailCorp
CityRail EMU at Chatsworth
08 Oct 2008
AUSTRALIA: The Labor administration in New South Wales has decided to abolish RailCorp and return the state’s rail nework to government control. Premier Nathan Rees said on October 8 that legislation would be introduced into the next session of Parliament to abolish the corporation’s management board and convert the organisation to a ‘statutory authority’.
Rees said the move was intended to restore accountability and improve services, suggesting that railway operations had been ‘at arms length from the government for too long.’ Noting that ‘commuters expect governments to be responsible’, Rees pointed out that the market-style corporate model introduced by former Transport Minister Michael Costa had left the minister with ‘little authority over day-to-day operations.
The NSW rail sector has changed extensively over the past decade, following the break-up of the former State Rail Authority. With the establishment of the NSW Rail Infrastructure Corp, train operations were initially split between the Sydney CityRail network and the inter-state business comprising FreightCorp and the Countrylink inter-city passenger services.
FreightCorp was subsequently privatised and became part of Pacific National, and control of the interstate rail infrastructure and other rural lines was transferred to Australian Rail Track Corp. This left RIC controlling only the metropolitan rail infrastructure, so in April 2003 Costa decided to merge its residual activities with Countrylink and CityRail. RailCorp was formally established in 2004 under the State Owned Corporations Act, but reportedly suffered from a difficult relationship between the transport minister and the corporation’s former CEO Vince Graham who resigned earlier this year.
A study of CityRail operations commissioned from Boston Consulting Group by the previous administration had recommended significant cuts in the ‘bloated’ workforce and outsourcing of rolling stock maintenance to improve productivity and performance. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a review by the Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal suggested that streamlining RailCorp could save A$1bn over the next four years.
According to Rees, abolition of RailCorp will release more money for ‘front-line’ operations. The decision was welcomed by union representatives, who have clashed repeatedly with RailCorp management over proposed productivity initiatives and other changes to working practices.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... lcorp.html
CityRail EMU at Chatsworth
08 Oct 2008
AUSTRALIA: The Labor administration in New South Wales has decided to abolish RailCorp and return the state’s rail nework to government control. Premier Nathan Rees said on October 8 that legislation would be introduced into the next session of Parliament to abolish the corporation’s management board and convert the organisation to a ‘statutory authority’.
Rees said the move was intended to restore accountability and improve services, suggesting that railway operations had been ‘at arms length from the government for too long.’ Noting that ‘commuters expect governments to be responsible’, Rees pointed out that the market-style corporate model introduced by former Transport Minister Michael Costa had left the minister with ‘little authority over day-to-day operations.
The NSW rail sector has changed extensively over the past decade, following the break-up of the former State Rail Authority. With the establishment of the NSW Rail Infrastructure Corp, train operations were initially split between the Sydney CityRail network and the inter-state business comprising FreightCorp and the Countrylink inter-city passenger services.
FreightCorp was subsequently privatised and became part of Pacific National, and control of the interstate rail infrastructure and other rural lines was transferred to Australian Rail Track Corp. This left RIC controlling only the metropolitan rail infrastructure, so in April 2003 Costa decided to merge its residual activities with Countrylink and CityRail. RailCorp was formally established in 2004 under the State Owned Corporations Act, but reportedly suffered from a difficult relationship between the transport minister and the corporation’s former CEO Vince Graham who resigned earlier this year.
A study of CityRail operations commissioned from Boston Consulting Group by the previous administration had recommended significant cuts in the ‘bloated’ workforce and outsourcing of rolling stock maintenance to improve productivity and performance. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a review by the Independent Pricing & Regulatory Tribunal suggested that streamlining RailCorp could save A$1bn over the next four years.
According to Rees, abolition of RailCorp will release more money for ‘front-line’ operations. The decision was welcomed by union representatives, who have clashed repeatedly with RailCorp management over proposed productivity initiatives and other changes to working practices.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... lcorp.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Vom: 08.10.08
Münchner Express-S-Bahn soll bereits 2009 starten
Der Münchner Flughafen soll früher als bisher geplant mit einer Express-S-Bahn-Linie an den Hauptbahnhof München angebunden werden.
Die Verbindung könnte bereits mit dem Fahrplanwechsel 2009 ihren Betrieb aufnehmen. Es liefen entsprechende Gespräche zwischen Flughafenbetreibern und Bayerischem Wirtschaftsministerium, heißt es unter Berufung auf Michael Kerkloh, Chef der Flughafengesellschaft FMG.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... arten.html
Münchner Express-S-Bahn soll bereits 2009 starten
Der Münchner Flughafen soll früher als bisher geplant mit einer Express-S-Bahn-Linie an den Hauptbahnhof München angebunden werden.
Die Verbindung könnte bereits mit dem Fahrplanwechsel 2009 ihren Betrieb aufnehmen. Es liefen entsprechende Gespräche zwischen Flughafenbetreibern und Bayerischem Wirtschaftsministerium, heißt es unter Berufung auf Michael Kerkloh, Chef der Flughafengesellschaft FMG.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... arten.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Congress approves Amtrak funding bill
08 Oct 2008
USA: Funding and safety legislation primarily benefiting Amtrak and other public transport operators received its final Congressional approval on October 1 with a veto-proof 74-24 majority which means President George Bush must sign the bill despite his administration’s general antagonism toward rail transit and long opposition to federal subsidies for inter-city passenger services.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said the administration ‘remains committed to working with Congress to implement meaningful changes to improve the performance of our inter-city passenger rail system’, adding that ‘our passenger rail system should be driven by sound economics’.
The legislation provides around $13bn over five years for Amtrak, which is double the annual amount it has received since the last long-range authorisation bill expired six years ago. However, the funding is still dependent upon a separate appropriation by Congress each year. The money will help to fund essential infrastructure renewals, especially in the Washington – New York – Boston Northeast Corridor, and the repair and improvement of the railway’s ageing car fleet. A long-dormant programme to develop a new generation of standard rolling stock, including a commuter rail variant, can also begin.
Other provisions are intended to encourage private-sector participation in the development of a high speed line in the Northeast Corridor and call for management reforms including a new board of directors, improved accounting and financial planning, and new standards for reliability and on-time performance.
Following the recent fatal crash in Los Angeles, the safety aspects of the legislation have been strengthened, with a section added requiring Positive Train Control to be installed on passenger and commuter routes by December 31 2015, together with main lines used to transport specified hazardous chemicals. The bill authorises $250m in federal grants to support the installation of PTC and other technologies such as ECP braking. Describing the PTC schedule as ‘aggressive’, AAR President & CEO Edward R Hamberger said ‘the scope of the work remaining to be accomplished presents a challenge to both the supply industry and the railroads.’
Another safety provision addresses the thorny issue of train crew fatigue. The bill requires longer uninterrupted rest periods of at least 10 h between shifts for freight train crews, limiting the maximum shift to 12 h and capping the number of working hours per month to 276, compared to the current limit of 400 h. The Department of Transportation is instructed to develop similar anti-fatigue parameters for passenger train crews.
The bill requires all major carriers to develop risk-based safety programmes to help prevent deaths and injuries, mandates further level crossing safety improvements, and authorises the Federal Railroad Administration to recruit another 200 inspectors.
Finally, the bill contains a $1·5bn earmark for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, to help finance a massive renewal programme for both infrastructure and rolling stock. General Manager John Catoe says WMATA needs to spend $11·3bn on capital improvements between 2010 and 2020, including $7bn for repairs and $3·5bn to keep up with ridership growth. Noting that ‘we need to prioritise what gets fixed first’, he pointed out that the metro needs to replace one-third of its car fleet, about 300 vehicles, which are more than 30 years old.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... _bill.html
08 Oct 2008
USA: Funding and safety legislation primarily benefiting Amtrak and other public transport operators received its final Congressional approval on October 1 with a veto-proof 74-24 majority which means President George Bush must sign the bill despite his administration’s general antagonism toward rail transit and long opposition to federal subsidies for inter-city passenger services.
Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said the administration ‘remains committed to working with Congress to implement meaningful changes to improve the performance of our inter-city passenger rail system’, adding that ‘our passenger rail system should be driven by sound economics’.
The legislation provides around $13bn over five years for Amtrak, which is double the annual amount it has received since the last long-range authorisation bill expired six years ago. However, the funding is still dependent upon a separate appropriation by Congress each year. The money will help to fund essential infrastructure renewals, especially in the Washington – New York – Boston Northeast Corridor, and the repair and improvement of the railway’s ageing car fleet. A long-dormant programme to develop a new generation of standard rolling stock, including a commuter rail variant, can also begin.
Other provisions are intended to encourage private-sector participation in the development of a high speed line in the Northeast Corridor and call for management reforms including a new board of directors, improved accounting and financial planning, and new standards for reliability and on-time performance.
Following the recent fatal crash in Los Angeles, the safety aspects of the legislation have been strengthened, with a section added requiring Positive Train Control to be installed on passenger and commuter routes by December 31 2015, together with main lines used to transport specified hazardous chemicals. The bill authorises $250m in federal grants to support the installation of PTC and other technologies such as ECP braking. Describing the PTC schedule as ‘aggressive’, AAR President & CEO Edward R Hamberger said ‘the scope of the work remaining to be accomplished presents a challenge to both the supply industry and the railroads.’
Another safety provision addresses the thorny issue of train crew fatigue. The bill requires longer uninterrupted rest periods of at least 10 h between shifts for freight train crews, limiting the maximum shift to 12 h and capping the number of working hours per month to 276, compared to the current limit of 400 h. The Department of Transportation is instructed to develop similar anti-fatigue parameters for passenger train crews.
The bill requires all major carriers to develop risk-based safety programmes to help prevent deaths and injuries, mandates further level crossing safety improvements, and authorises the Federal Railroad Administration to recruit another 200 inspectors.
Finally, the bill contains a $1·5bn earmark for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, to help finance a massive renewal programme for both infrastructure and rolling stock. General Manager John Catoe says WMATA needs to spend $11·3bn on capital improvements between 2010 and 2020, including $7bn for repairs and $3·5bn to keep up with ridership growth. Noting that ‘we need to prioritise what gets fixed first’, he pointed out that the metro needs to replace one-third of its car fleet, about 300 vehicles, which are more than 30 years old.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... _bill.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Vom: 08.10.08
Benex ist an Eisenbahnen in Bayern interessiert
Mit dem oberfränkischen Dieselnetz hat die Hamburger Hochbahn AG (HHA) mit der Holding Benex GmbH die zweite Ausschreibung in Bayern nach dem Regensburger E-Netz gewonnen.
Die Benex GmbH ist eine Beteiligungsgesellschaft für den Schienen- und Busverkehr außerhalb von Hamburg. Die HHA hält 51 Prozent der Anteile, 49 Prozent gehören der australischen Investmentgesellschaft Babcock & Brown Public Partnerships. Wie HHA-Sprecher Christoph Kreienbaum den Medien sagte, ist Benex im Falle eines endgültigen Zuschlags daran interessiert, erfahrene Eisenbahner aus der Region zu übernehmen.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... siert.html
Benex ist an Eisenbahnen in Bayern interessiert
Mit dem oberfränkischen Dieselnetz hat die Hamburger Hochbahn AG (HHA) mit der Holding Benex GmbH die zweite Ausschreibung in Bayern nach dem Regensburger E-Netz gewonnen.
Die Benex GmbH ist eine Beteiligungsgesellschaft für den Schienen- und Busverkehr außerhalb von Hamburg. Die HHA hält 51 Prozent der Anteile, 49 Prozent gehören der australischen Investmentgesellschaft Babcock & Brown Public Partnerships. Wie HHA-Sprecher Christoph Kreienbaum den Medien sagte, ist Benex im Falle eines endgültigen Zuschlags daran interessiert, erfahrene Eisenbahner aus der Region zu übernehmen.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... siert.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Railroads agree PTC interoperability standards
Typical stand-alone PTC application. Image: TTCI
09 Oct 2008
USA: The four leading Class I railroads confirmed on October 1 that they had reached agreement on establishing interoperability standards for Positive Train Control, paving the way for a wider implementation of PTC across the North American rail network.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act passed by Congress on October 1 requires all Class I freight railroads and passenger operators to install PTC by December 31, 2015 on all main line tracks used by inter-city passenger trains and commuter rail services, as well as lines carrying 'toxic-by-inhalation' hazardous materials.
Several railroads already use Automatic Train Control and Automatic Train Stop technologies, but these are classified as ‘reactive systems’ as they wait for drivers to acknowledge alarms and only intervening with a brake application if no acknowledgement is received. PTC uses GPS for train location and safety-critical on-board processors to provide predictive collision-avoidance technology which can intervene automatically to stop a train before an accident occurs.
‘Our joint development of interoperable standards overcomes a significant hurdle and brings us much closer to a safe technology solution, said UP Executive Vice-President Dennis Duffy. ‘Interoperability is one of our key challenges since freight and passenger trains share tracks and must be able to exchange and use information in order for PTC to function appropriately.’
BNSF Chief Operations Officer Carl Ice believes that ‘the development and testing of positive train control systems has made great progress in the past decade’, adding that the railroad industry was ‘committed to continuously improving safety by developing and implementing proven, effective technologies that can operate across multiple railroads’.
Pointing out that ‘PTC has been a focus for NS and the industry for many years’, NS Vice-Chairman & COO Stephen Tobias admitted that ‘interoperability among railroads has remained a challenge’. He believed that the agreement ‘has put us on a fast track to realising the benefits of PTC.’
'We are very pleased to achieve this milestone in our joint work on this innovative and important safety enhancement', said Tony Ingram, CSX Transportation's Executive Vice-President & Chief Operating Officer. 'This helps assure the U.S. freight rail industry's continued global leadership in safe and secure transportation.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... dards.html
Typical stand-alone PTC application. Image: TTCI
09 Oct 2008
USA: The four leading Class I railroads confirmed on October 1 that they had reached agreement on establishing interoperability standards for Positive Train Control, paving the way for a wider implementation of PTC across the North American rail network.
The Rail Safety Improvement Act passed by Congress on October 1 requires all Class I freight railroads and passenger operators to install PTC by December 31, 2015 on all main line tracks used by inter-city passenger trains and commuter rail services, as well as lines carrying 'toxic-by-inhalation' hazardous materials.
Several railroads already use Automatic Train Control and Automatic Train Stop technologies, but these are classified as ‘reactive systems’ as they wait for drivers to acknowledge alarms and only intervening with a brake application if no acknowledgement is received. PTC uses GPS for train location and safety-critical on-board processors to provide predictive collision-avoidance technology which can intervene automatically to stop a train before an accident occurs.
‘Our joint development of interoperable standards overcomes a significant hurdle and brings us much closer to a safe technology solution, said UP Executive Vice-President Dennis Duffy. ‘Interoperability is one of our key challenges since freight and passenger trains share tracks and must be able to exchange and use information in order for PTC to function appropriately.’
BNSF Chief Operations Officer Carl Ice believes that ‘the development and testing of positive train control systems has made great progress in the past decade’, adding that the railroad industry was ‘committed to continuously improving safety by developing and implementing proven, effective technologies that can operate across multiple railroads’.
Pointing out that ‘PTC has been a focus for NS and the industry for many years’, NS Vice-Chairman & COO Stephen Tobias admitted that ‘interoperability among railroads has remained a challenge’. He believed that the agreement ‘has put us on a fast track to realising the benefits of PTC.’
'We are very pleased to achieve this milestone in our joint work on this innovative and important safety enhancement', said Tony Ingram, CSX Transportation's Executive Vice-President & Chief Operating Officer. 'This helps assure the U.S. freight rail industry's continued global leadership in safe and secure transportation.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... dards.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Vom: 09.10.08
Bahn-Börsengang wird wegen Finanzkrise verschoben
Wegen der Turbulenzen auf den Finanzmärkten wird der für Ende des Monats geplante Börsengang der Bahn vorerst verschoben.
"Wir werden das Vermögen des Bundes nicht zur Unzeit an den Kapitalmarkt bringen", erklärte Bundesfinanzminister Peer Steinbrück in Frankfurt am Main. Der Börsengang steht laut Steinbrück nicht in Frage, die Vorbereitungen würden konsequent und zielstrebig fortgeführt: "Sobald das Marktumfeld einen erfolgreichen Börsengang möglich macht, sind wir startklar. Die Weichen sind gestellt."
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... toppt.html
DB flotation put on hold
09 Oct 2008
GERMANY: The partial flotation of DB Mobility Logistics AG scheduled for October 27 has been postponed as a result of the turmoil in the global financial markets, which would have impacted on the potential value of the shares. Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück and DB Chairman Hartmut Mehdorn announced the decision in Berlin on October 9, but said that no new date would be set until the market environment improved sufficiently to ensure a successful flotation.
Under the timetable agreed at the end of September, the consortium of banks appointed by DB to float a 24·9% stake in the operating business DB ML had been due to start the formal bookbuilding process for the IPO on October 13, and set the offer price on October 17, ready for the shares to start trading on the Frankfurt stock exchange 10 days later.
There has been growing concern among federal and regional politicians about the viability of the fiercely-contested flotation plan. Steinbrück had expressed doubts earlier this week, questioning whether the anticipated €5bn to €8bn could be achieved in the light of falling share prices in almost every market around the world. Nevertheless DB’s Supervisory Board insisted that there was still strong interest among potential investors.
In the end, Steinbrück decided that the risk to the federal finances of floating DB ML at the wrong time was too great. Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee agreed, noting that the flotation was intended ‘to strengthen the railway and improve the services for its customers’, and that ‘dissipating the shares at less than the true value’ would not achieve the desired result.
Mehdorn pointed out that there had been ‘extremely high volatility and uncertainty in the capital markets, particularly since beginning of this week’, so he had agreed with the federal owners ‘to adapt the schedule’. DB’s Board Member, Finance, Diethelm Sack said the railway would 'watch the state of the market carefully, and remain ready to act at short notice’, adding that ‘in the meantime we will continue the dialogue with potential investors’.
The FDP spokesman in the Bundestag Horst Friedrich welcomed the postponement, insisting that ‘on this point the government and opposition are united’. Given the need ‘to achieve the sale proceeds of €5bn to €8bn which were the basis of the political decision’, he agreed that it was appropriate to wait for ‘a better market environment’.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... _hold.html
9 oktober 2008
Beursgang Deutsche Bahn uitgesteld wegens crisis
De gedeeltelijke beursgang van de transport- en logistiekonderdelen van Deutsche Bahn wordt uitgesteld wegens de kredietcrisis. Daartoe wordt vandaag door de bondsregering besloten, zo melden persbureau DPA en de Financial Times Deutschland onafhankelijk van elkaar. Ze baseren zich op bronnen binnen de regering en in de financiële markten. De deelprivatisering van DB Mobility Logistics stond gepland voor eind deze maand. Van de baan is de beursgang niet. Die zou op z'n vroegst in november alsnog kunnen plaatsvinden.
Een stuurgroep van overheid, banken en Deutsche Bahn kwam vandaag bijeen om over de beursgang te praten. Oorspronkelijk zou dat gesprek de prijsrange betreffen waarvoor DB Mobility Logistics voor maximaal 24,9 procent aan marktpartijen zou worden verkocht. Dan zouden gegadigden zich vanaf maandag kunnen aanmelden. Maar inmiddels is door de financiële crisis hoogst onzeker of de verwachte opbrengst van 4 tot 5 miljard euro wel wordt gehaald. Daarom is tot uitstel besloten, meldt Financial Times Deutschland.
Een opbrengst van 8 miljard euro, zoals verkeersminister Wolfgang Tiefensee aanvankelijk voor ogen zweefde zit er al helemaal niet meer in. Zijn collega van financiën, Peer Steinbrück, uitte begin deze week al grote twijfels over een beursgang eind oktober. Binnen de regeringspartijen SPD en CDU/CSU gingen stemmen op om die uit te stellen of een veel kleiner deel dan 24,9 procent van het bedrijf naar de beurs te brengen.
bron: http://www.nieuwsbladtransport.nl/nieuw ... risis.html
Bahn-Börsengang wird wegen Finanzkrise verschoben
Wegen der Turbulenzen auf den Finanzmärkten wird der für Ende des Monats geplante Börsengang der Bahn vorerst verschoben.
"Wir werden das Vermögen des Bundes nicht zur Unzeit an den Kapitalmarkt bringen", erklärte Bundesfinanzminister Peer Steinbrück in Frankfurt am Main. Der Börsengang steht laut Steinbrück nicht in Frage, die Vorbereitungen würden konsequent und zielstrebig fortgeführt: "Sobald das Marktumfeld einen erfolgreichen Börsengang möglich macht, sind wir startklar. Die Weichen sind gestellt."
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... toppt.html
DB flotation put on hold
09 Oct 2008
GERMANY: The partial flotation of DB Mobility Logistics AG scheduled for October 27 has been postponed as a result of the turmoil in the global financial markets, which would have impacted on the potential value of the shares. Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück and DB Chairman Hartmut Mehdorn announced the decision in Berlin on October 9, but said that no new date would be set until the market environment improved sufficiently to ensure a successful flotation.
Under the timetable agreed at the end of September, the consortium of banks appointed by DB to float a 24·9% stake in the operating business DB ML had been due to start the formal bookbuilding process for the IPO on October 13, and set the offer price on October 17, ready for the shares to start trading on the Frankfurt stock exchange 10 days later.
There has been growing concern among federal and regional politicians about the viability of the fiercely-contested flotation plan. Steinbrück had expressed doubts earlier this week, questioning whether the anticipated €5bn to €8bn could be achieved in the light of falling share prices in almost every market around the world. Nevertheless DB’s Supervisory Board insisted that there was still strong interest among potential investors.
In the end, Steinbrück decided that the risk to the federal finances of floating DB ML at the wrong time was too great. Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee agreed, noting that the flotation was intended ‘to strengthen the railway and improve the services for its customers’, and that ‘dissipating the shares at less than the true value’ would not achieve the desired result.
Mehdorn pointed out that there had been ‘extremely high volatility and uncertainty in the capital markets, particularly since beginning of this week’, so he had agreed with the federal owners ‘to adapt the schedule’. DB’s Board Member, Finance, Diethelm Sack said the railway would 'watch the state of the market carefully, and remain ready to act at short notice’, adding that ‘in the meantime we will continue the dialogue with potential investors’.
The FDP spokesman in the Bundestag Horst Friedrich welcomed the postponement, insisting that ‘on this point the government and opposition are united’. Given the need ‘to achieve the sale proceeds of €5bn to €8bn which were the basis of the political decision’, he agreed that it was appropriate to wait for ‘a better market environment’.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... _hold.html
9 oktober 2008
Beursgang Deutsche Bahn uitgesteld wegens crisis
De gedeeltelijke beursgang van de transport- en logistiekonderdelen van Deutsche Bahn wordt uitgesteld wegens de kredietcrisis. Daartoe wordt vandaag door de bondsregering besloten, zo melden persbureau DPA en de Financial Times Deutschland onafhankelijk van elkaar. Ze baseren zich op bronnen binnen de regering en in de financiële markten. De deelprivatisering van DB Mobility Logistics stond gepland voor eind deze maand. Van de baan is de beursgang niet. Die zou op z'n vroegst in november alsnog kunnen plaatsvinden.
Een stuurgroep van overheid, banken en Deutsche Bahn kwam vandaag bijeen om over de beursgang te praten. Oorspronkelijk zou dat gesprek de prijsrange betreffen waarvoor DB Mobility Logistics voor maximaal 24,9 procent aan marktpartijen zou worden verkocht. Dan zouden gegadigden zich vanaf maandag kunnen aanmelden. Maar inmiddels is door de financiële crisis hoogst onzeker of de verwachte opbrengst van 4 tot 5 miljard euro wel wordt gehaald. Daarom is tot uitstel besloten, meldt Financial Times Deutschland.
Een opbrengst van 8 miljard euro, zoals verkeersminister Wolfgang Tiefensee aanvankelijk voor ogen zweefde zit er al helemaal niet meer in. Zijn collega van financiën, Peer Steinbrück, uitte begin deze week al grote twijfels over een beursgang eind oktober. Binnen de regeringspartijen SPD en CDU/CSU gingen stemmen op om die uit te stellen of een veel kleiner deel dan 24,9 procent van het bedrijf naar de beurs te brengen.
bron: http://www.nieuwsbladtransport.nl/nieuw ... risis.html
Laatst gewijzigd door rail s op 09 okt 2008, 20:47, 1 keer totaal gewijzigd.
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Every little counts in fuel-efficiency fight
09 Oct 2008 | Nick Kingsley
AUSTRALIA: Pacific National has introduced the Freightmiser route-optimisation software to help its drivers conserve fuel and maintain schedules on its long-haul intermodal services. The tool's developers now believe the concept is ripe for export, as Nick Kingsley explains.
Developed by Sydney-based TMG Rail Technology, now trading as TTG Transportation Technology, in association with the University of South Australia, Freightmiser is one of a number of tools that train operators across the world are deploying to encourage more fuel-efficient driving techniques and make gains through improved pathing and dispatching. However, by providing a second-by-second, metre-by-metre real-time interface, TTG Managing Director Dale Coleman believes Freightmiser 'is a unique product - adaptable, simple and stand-alone'.
While traction efficiency has become a central theme of the global research agenda in recent times, the Freightmiser concept has been 10 years in gestation. 'In the mid-1990s we were looking to move to the next generation of path optimisation tool', says Coleman. But, as the research programme undertaken with the Adelaide-based university evolved, assisted by a three-year grant from the federal government, it became clear that the Freightmiser concept could deliver environmental benefits, fuel savings and on-time running in the same product.
Simple interface
At the heart of the technology is an in-cab display that scrolls as the train makes its way between two defined timing points. Once supplied with the train performance parameters, Freightmiser helps the driver to exploit the train's potential and kinetic energy whilst conserving fuel. It computes the optimal driving strategy from the current location to the next target, and uses 'adaptive control' to deliver the train at the target with minimal energy use.
Communication using GPS provides the driver with a display screen that is split into three parts (p713). The upper part of the interface shows the train's actual speed and line speed limits, but also provides an optimised speed profile to advise the driver how best to bring the train to the next timing point on schedule.
The middle section gives an elevation profile of the route, showing the linear position of the train and any significant lineside features such as level crossings. The lower part represents line curvature and the location of passing loops.
The driver's objective is to maximise fuel savings by maintaining the train's speed as closely as possible to the optimised profile. 'We can get two hits with Freightmiser, energy efficiency and on-time running, in a single product,' says operations specialist Alex Wardrop.
At the top of the display, touch-screen buttons permit the parameters of the journey to be amended as circumstances change. Coleman explains that, whilst data on temporary speed restrictions and other operational amendments are downloaded to Freightmiser on a daily basis, other unscheduled changes, perhaps involving signalling (which is not part of the lineside furniture downloaded to the interface), may require the driver to amend the arrival time during the journey.
The target speed profile is automatically adjusted to permit more accelerating and braking, for example, if an earlier arrival is required, or more coasting for a later arrival. If for some reason it is not appropriate to follow the ideal profile, the driver can choose to ignore it until normal operating conditions are resumed.
Driver take-up
The key to exploiting the savings fully lies in isolating the points at which the driver makes his or her train control decisions, Coleman explains. 'It could be a matter of adjusting the braking point by 30 or 40 m to make the most efficient use of a gradient - but such precision is essential, even over a journey of 500 km or more'.
Reaction among Pacific National drivers and managers using the equipment on long-distance intermodal trains has been positive. As Siemens and its partner, UK passenger operator TransPennine Express, found when implementing the Eco Mode fuel efficiency programme (p715), introducing new technology and changing often long-standing practice is as much a cultural and educational challenge as an engineering one.
Often, drivers can be wary of a system that that could be seen as reducing their control. Freightmiser is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible - it is strictly an advisory tool.
Export potential
As the company aims to export Freightmiser beyond Australia, Coleman believes that emerging markets such as China and India could prove highly receptive. 'There are a lot of locomotives out there that did not come supplied with engine-management systems and data-loggers as modern units have', he says, suggesting that Freightmiser could be among the first weapons in the armoury of railways looking to reduce fuel costs and mitigate their impact on the environment.
Even in mature markets such as the UK and USA, the driver training potential of Freightmiser would make it a valuable asset as traction technology evolves to offer cleaner and more efficient power plants. 'Freightmiser complements manufacturers' efforts to optimise their prime-movers - you see driver efficiency improve alongside traction efficiency,' Wardrop explains. He also notes that there is scope for Freightmiser to be deployed on electric traction too as railways look to measure power use more closely, 'although the results of its use on diesel traction are more immediately apparent'.
But TTG cautions against over- estimating the benefits that these technologies can bring. 'You have to be realistic - the heavier and longer the train, and the longer the distance travelled, the greater the gains will prove', Coleman explains. He suggests a general saving of 8% in fuel costs 80% of the time for a large operator with a broad portfolio of services, 'but a heavy haul mineral line could achieve 15%'.
Looking further to the future, 'intelligent dispatching' could provide further economies. If dispatch and control staff learn how best to manage the pathing of an entire network of trains which are all equipped with Freightmiser, then energy could be saved through more detailed timetabling and route management to avoid bringing heavy trains to a halt at a junction or in a loop.
TTG admits that gaining access to dispatchers and signallers and educating them about their role in saving traction energy is yet another human issue. Coleman adds that the task would be easier if there were greater co-operation between national railways on a research level - 'I wish people would look harder at the research being undertaken elsewhere in the world…everybody is trying to re-invent the wheel out there'.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... fight.html
09 Oct 2008 | Nick Kingsley
AUSTRALIA: Pacific National has introduced the Freightmiser route-optimisation software to help its drivers conserve fuel and maintain schedules on its long-haul intermodal services. The tool's developers now believe the concept is ripe for export, as Nick Kingsley explains.
Developed by Sydney-based TMG Rail Technology, now trading as TTG Transportation Technology, in association with the University of South Australia, Freightmiser is one of a number of tools that train operators across the world are deploying to encourage more fuel-efficient driving techniques and make gains through improved pathing and dispatching. However, by providing a second-by-second, metre-by-metre real-time interface, TTG Managing Director Dale Coleman believes Freightmiser 'is a unique product - adaptable, simple and stand-alone'.
While traction efficiency has become a central theme of the global research agenda in recent times, the Freightmiser concept has been 10 years in gestation. 'In the mid-1990s we were looking to move to the next generation of path optimisation tool', says Coleman. But, as the research programme undertaken with the Adelaide-based university evolved, assisted by a three-year grant from the federal government, it became clear that the Freightmiser concept could deliver environmental benefits, fuel savings and on-time running in the same product.
Simple interface
At the heart of the technology is an in-cab display that scrolls as the train makes its way between two defined timing points. Once supplied with the train performance parameters, Freightmiser helps the driver to exploit the train's potential and kinetic energy whilst conserving fuel. It computes the optimal driving strategy from the current location to the next target, and uses 'adaptive control' to deliver the train at the target with minimal energy use.
Communication using GPS provides the driver with a display screen that is split into three parts (p713). The upper part of the interface shows the train's actual speed and line speed limits, but also provides an optimised speed profile to advise the driver how best to bring the train to the next timing point on schedule.
The middle section gives an elevation profile of the route, showing the linear position of the train and any significant lineside features such as level crossings. The lower part represents line curvature and the location of passing loops.
The driver's objective is to maximise fuel savings by maintaining the train's speed as closely as possible to the optimised profile. 'We can get two hits with Freightmiser, energy efficiency and on-time running, in a single product,' says operations specialist Alex Wardrop.
At the top of the display, touch-screen buttons permit the parameters of the journey to be amended as circumstances change. Coleman explains that, whilst data on temporary speed restrictions and other operational amendments are downloaded to Freightmiser on a daily basis, other unscheduled changes, perhaps involving signalling (which is not part of the lineside furniture downloaded to the interface), may require the driver to amend the arrival time during the journey.
The target speed profile is automatically adjusted to permit more accelerating and braking, for example, if an earlier arrival is required, or more coasting for a later arrival. If for some reason it is not appropriate to follow the ideal profile, the driver can choose to ignore it until normal operating conditions are resumed.
Driver take-up
The key to exploiting the savings fully lies in isolating the points at which the driver makes his or her train control decisions, Coleman explains. 'It could be a matter of adjusting the braking point by 30 or 40 m to make the most efficient use of a gradient - but such precision is essential, even over a journey of 500 km or more'.
Reaction among Pacific National drivers and managers using the equipment on long-distance intermodal trains has been positive. As Siemens and its partner, UK passenger operator TransPennine Express, found when implementing the Eco Mode fuel efficiency programme (p715), introducing new technology and changing often long-standing practice is as much a cultural and educational challenge as an engineering one.
Often, drivers can be wary of a system that that could be seen as reducing their control. Freightmiser is designed to be as unobtrusive as possible - it is strictly an advisory tool.
Export potential
As the company aims to export Freightmiser beyond Australia, Coleman believes that emerging markets such as China and India could prove highly receptive. 'There are a lot of locomotives out there that did not come supplied with engine-management systems and data-loggers as modern units have', he says, suggesting that Freightmiser could be among the first weapons in the armoury of railways looking to reduce fuel costs and mitigate their impact on the environment.
Even in mature markets such as the UK and USA, the driver training potential of Freightmiser would make it a valuable asset as traction technology evolves to offer cleaner and more efficient power plants. 'Freightmiser complements manufacturers' efforts to optimise their prime-movers - you see driver efficiency improve alongside traction efficiency,' Wardrop explains. He also notes that there is scope for Freightmiser to be deployed on electric traction too as railways look to measure power use more closely, 'although the results of its use on diesel traction are more immediately apparent'.
But TTG cautions against over- estimating the benefits that these technologies can bring. 'You have to be realistic - the heavier and longer the train, and the longer the distance travelled, the greater the gains will prove', Coleman explains. He suggests a general saving of 8% in fuel costs 80% of the time for a large operator with a broad portfolio of services, 'but a heavy haul mineral line could achieve 15%'.
Looking further to the future, 'intelligent dispatching' could provide further economies. If dispatch and control staff learn how best to manage the pathing of an entire network of trains which are all equipped with Freightmiser, then energy could be saved through more detailed timetabling and route management to avoid bringing heavy trains to a halt at a junction or in a loop.
TTG admits that gaining access to dispatchers and signallers and educating them about their role in saving traction energy is yet another human issue. Coleman adds that the task would be easier if there were greater co-operation between national railways on a research level - 'I wish people would look harder at the research being undertaken elsewhere in the world…everybody is trying to re-invent the wheel out there'.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... fight.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Vom: 09.10.08
VTG geht auf Einkaufstour
Der Schienenlogistik-Konzern VTG sieht in der Finanzkrise offenbar gute Chancen für Zukäufe. Nach einem Bericht der FTD will das börsennotierte Hamburger Unternehmen seine Geschäfte in den USA und Russland ausweiten.
Das Unternehmen hat in Nordamerika rund 800 Waggons gekauft und dort seinen Bestand knapp verdoppelt. In Russland wird eine eigene Gesellschaft gegründet. VTG mit Hauptsitz in Hamburg sieht sich trotz der Finanzkrise im Vorteil. In diesen Zeiten seien stabile Infrastrukturunternehmen gefragt, betonte Vorstandschef Fischer.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... stour.html
VTG geht auf Einkaufstour
Der Schienenlogistik-Konzern VTG sieht in der Finanzkrise offenbar gute Chancen für Zukäufe. Nach einem Bericht der FTD will das börsennotierte Hamburger Unternehmen seine Geschäfte in den USA und Russland ausweiten.
Das Unternehmen hat in Nordamerika rund 800 Waggons gekauft und dort seinen Bestand knapp verdoppelt. In Russland wird eine eigene Gesellschaft gegründet. VTG mit Hauptsitz in Hamburg sieht sich trotz der Finanzkrise im Vorteil. In diesen Zeiten seien stabile Infrastrukturunternehmen gefragt, betonte Vorstandschef Fischer.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... stour.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Cavity filling cuts noise
09 Oct 2008
NOISE REDUCTION: The German Association of Railway Engineers held a symposium in Berlin to examine the Duraflex system of noise reduction for ballasted track developed by Frenzel-Bau, Bayer MaterialScience and Hennecke.
Ballast cavities are filled with elastic polyurethane foam, preventing movement under the load of passing trains. This increases the durability of the superstructure and absorbs structure-borne noise at the point where it is usually generated.
Duraflex was demonstrated on a section of track used for testing at the Wedding depot of Berlin urban transport operator BVG. This has wood and concrete sleepers and tight curves, and is subjected to high loadings during acceleration and brake testing.
‘We used a mixing head to inject the liquid polyurethane system directly into the cavities between the ballast stones´, said Dr Andreas Hoffmann, polyurethane specialist at Bayer MaterialScience. ‘To achieve the desired durability and noise reduction, it was sufficient to apply the foam to the ballast in the sleepers´ load transfer area. After a short time, the polyurethane system had completely cured, and the track was ready for operation again.´
Durflex has been tested on a 300 m section of main line at Uelzen, where it cut vibrations by 40% and airborne noise by between 1·5 dB and 3 dB, depending on the train.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... noise.html
09 Oct 2008
NOISE REDUCTION: The German Association of Railway Engineers held a symposium in Berlin to examine the Duraflex system of noise reduction for ballasted track developed by Frenzel-Bau, Bayer MaterialScience and Hennecke.
Ballast cavities are filled with elastic polyurethane foam, preventing movement under the load of passing trains. This increases the durability of the superstructure and absorbs structure-borne noise at the point where it is usually generated.
Duraflex was demonstrated on a section of track used for testing at the Wedding depot of Berlin urban transport operator BVG. This has wood and concrete sleepers and tight curves, and is subjected to high loadings during acceleration and brake testing.
‘We used a mixing head to inject the liquid polyurethane system directly into the cavities between the ballast stones´, said Dr Andreas Hoffmann, polyurethane specialist at Bayer MaterialScience. ‘To achieve the desired durability and noise reduction, it was sufficient to apply the foam to the ballast in the sleepers´ load transfer area. After a short time, the polyurethane system had completely cured, and the track was ready for operation again.´
Durflex has been tested on a 300 m section of main line at Uelzen, where it cut vibrations by 40% and airborne noise by between 1·5 dB and 3 dB, depending on the train.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... noise.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Recognising the total value of railways
09 Oct 2008 | David Burns
ECONOMICS: Almost all railways generate economic and societal benefits, but these are rarely recognised in monetary values. It is up to governments to define public as opposed to commercial or private benefits. If it is deemed logical to have a viable railway, then the government needs to work out a way to pay for these benefits, says David Burns.
In a perfect world, governments would have a transport policy that treats all modes equally, and ensures a high level of co -ordination between them. But the world is not perfect, and few governments have such a co-ordinated policy. In fact, most administrations either consciously or unconsciously favour roads, because politicians seldom know much about railways and ?believe there are more votes to be gained from backing road transport.
In recent years — particularly in Europe — there has been a lot of discussion about the 'external costs’ which different transport modes impose on society: pollution, accidents, noise, energy consumption, and so on. The search for equal treatment depends on finding ways in which these costs can be 'internalised’ and reflected in the charges paid by the users.
Conversely, different modes also bring economic and societal benefits which are not always internalised to the advantage of the operator. An efficient and prosperous railway can bring many benefits to the communities through which it passes, or which it connects to other regions. Such benefits have a monetary value, which could significantly increase rail’s financial viability, and perhaps encourage greater use through better services and lower tariffs.
Defining economic benefits
With high levels of fixed infrastructure cost, railways are by nature expensive to build, operate, and maintain. Each route needs to generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs and, if it is privately owned, it should also be profitable enough to give the shareholders a reasonable rate of return.
In the 19th century, when railway companies essentially held a monopoly on surface transport, they could — and often did — charge high tariffs to ensure good profitability. Those that could not make enough money went bankrupt, or were taken over by a more viable company or by the government.
Now, in most market sectors, rail faces much stronger competition. In general it also suffers from a degree of inconvenience, as its routes seldom go door-to-door. Today’s railways are lucky if they can cover their operating costs from revenue. Successful companies may also cover maintenance and renewals, but seldom the full construction cost and capital amortisation.
However, a railway can bring many advantages to the community that do not necessarily result in a direct financial return. Often these include multiplier effects: less traffic congestion reduces the need for new highway construction, at the same time improving safety, the health of the population and the environment. During construction and operation, railways can generate jobs, and these in turn create more employment as the money is spent on goods and services. It should however be noted that highway construction can also create similar employment benefits. Railways support industrial development which also creates direct and indirect employment, ranging from shopkeepers to city administrators.
In comparison to road and air, a railway has the capacity to handle large volumes, using less energy per unit of transport. It is safer and generally has less environmental impact. Rail can carry passengers at higher speeds than road, and its freight hauling capacity can support the development of industries that may not be practical with other modes. The existence of a good rail service, especially in urban environments, can significantly enhance property values.
Discounting ancilliary activities, a railway will earn the majority of its revenue from passenger tickets and freight charges. It does not benefit directly from reduced road congestion, or from the knock-on benefits of encouraging rail-served industries. Indeed, to be competitive, railways often have to price their services at below their fully-allocated costs.
Table I lists 13 basic categories of economic benefit that can be generated by encouraging greater use of rail, and the player(s) to which the value of such benefits primarily accrues. Each of these categories presents its own challenges in terms of quantifying the benefits and monetising them to the advantage of the railway. This can be demonstrated by looking at some examples.
Increased passenger travel. As roads become more congested, passenger trains have an increasing economic benefit. A new line, especially for high speed trains, will almost never cover its construction cost purely from revenue. Yet the railway is required to borrow money that it will never be able to pay back. As the interest payments accrue, the railway’s losses become so high that the government has to take over or restructure the debts, as in the case leading to the break-up of Japanese National Railways. The Channel Tunnel is another example, except in this case it was the banks and shareholders that bore the losses.
Many governments require their railways to carry categories of passenger at a discount — to encourage rail use, provide support for poor or disabled people, or for other political reasons. Cheap fares certainly provide an economic benefit, but how many governments properly compensate the operator? As a result, in these cases the railway’s profit and loss account shows an artificially poor viability for its passenger activities.
The European Union has attempted to tackle this by requiring member states to negotiate formal contracts for the operation of unremunerative passenger services, but it has not always proved easy to agree the level of compensation. And even where contracts have been agreed, some governments have failed to make the payments in full.
Relieving road congestion. Turning to the freight sector, a typical North American double-stack container train will have a capacity of 480 TEU, which translates to about 300 lorry loads. A typical '18-wheeler’ requires as much road space as 10 cars, so one train frees capacity for up to 3 000 cars. On a busy urban road such an increase would be of considerable value, whereas in a rural area it might not. So, should the city pay for the economic benefit that it gains?
Take the Chicago Region Environmental & Transportation Efficiency Program. The major railways with terminals in Chicago developed a plan of work that could eventually cost US$4bn to permit more efficient handling of rail traffic through the region. The first phase of Create would cost US$1·5bn, bringing an estimated economic benefit of US$3·9bn. The railways, city and the state of Illinois agreed to contribute US$240m, and requested US$1·275bn from the federal government. Unfortunately, the legislators failed to recognise that tackling a local problem would have a national benefit, and only provided a grant of US$100m.
Increased land values. Rail investment can cause significant increases in property values, but the property owners benefit and the railways generally do not, unless they own the property. One way to address this would be to increase property taxes or introduce a transfer tax when the property is eventually sold. The economic benefit can then be transferred to the railway. However, there are very few instances where this happens.
To keep a balanced view, it should be noted that a railway may have little economic value if it passes though an area where there are good roads and little traffic. It can also be considered to have a distinctly negative benefit if it passes too near your 'back yard’!
Today there are few industries that are totally dependent on rail transport, but there are many where rail access can be considered a significant advantage. These include mining, steel making, power generation, and automotive and cement manufacturing.
Access to rail can encourage a company to consider certain locations for new plants. The potential economic benefits to the community, in terms of jobs created and extra taxes collected, are such that financial incentives are often offered by the community or state to encourage a manufacturer to move in. But how often is the 'value’ of the railway in this decision-making process properly compensated?
Although it can be argued that the railway will gain revenue, it may face the expense of constructing sidings to serve the plant. The manufacturer might have an option to locate the facility where new track is not required, so if a site is chosen that requires new sidings, maybe the community should pay for them.While rail freight is generally priced lower than road, there are some shippers who request the construction of a dedicated siding but have no intention of using it. The threat of shipping by rail gives them leverage when negotiating rates with road hauliers, so the siding has an economic value to the shipper and a negative value to the railway.
Time savings and pollution. In the economic benefit calculations used to justify construction of a new line or improvements to a railway, the value of the time saved by passengers and road users is usually considered. This can result in double-counting, since the value may already be reflected in a higher ticket price. But if that is not the case, how does the benefit go towards paying for the railway? How should the railway be compensated for enabling drivers to travel on less congested roads?
One of the frequent arguments for rail — particularly in recent years — is that its carbon footprint is around 30% or less of that of the equivalent road journey. This may be true, but how does the economic benefit translate into a payment to the railway operator? Should carbon trading or a carbon tax become popular, it may be possible to assign an economic value to such benefits. But it is difficult to imagine a power station paying the railway to subsidise freight transport at the same time as it is looking to negotiate competitive rates for delivering its coal.
Road tyre wear and the accompanying dust (estimated at 1 million tonnes per year in the USA alone) is resulting in an increase in medical problems, allergies, and water pollution. The cost is currently borne by health services and insurance companies, but can we imagine these organisations paying the railways to encourage more people to take the train or ship freight by rail?
According to the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials, a standard 18-wheeler operating at its maximum legal weight (36·2 tonnes) inflicts damage on the road surface equivalent to 9 600 cars. Today in Italy and France, we are starting to see more enlightened private motorway operators investing in rail freight services as a means of reducing wear and tear on their roads. But who will do the same for publicly-owned roads?
Identifying who can pay
The main problem is that there is seldom any necessity to pay the railway for the economic benefits that it generates. So the railway has to understand the benefits and argue for the payments. Finding the money will be different from case to case, but can be loosely grouped into several different categories.
Commuter rail. When commuters require travel in reasonable comfort, (and not packed like sardines), without taking into account the benefits mentioned earlier, it would usually cost less to provide a bus service. However, the buses would require free-flowing roads. Commuter rail is attractive to the local government, as it avoids the need to build more roads. The usual way to encourage rail use is to subsidise the fares, in some cases by more than 50%. If commuter rail is sufficiently successful in emptying the roads, everybody would be riding buses because the bus ticket would be cheaper. But for convenience, people might then go back to travelling in their own cars!
The satirical magazine The Onion once observed pointedly that 'we persist in building expensive rail systems because “98% of US commuters favour public transport for others” ’.
It is usually argued that car drivers should pay, because they benefit from a less congested highway. A fuel tax is a typical mechanism, but that penalises everybody for the benefit of a few commuters. Congestion charging is a better mechanism, but that requires a very strong government (Singapore), staunch public support (Stockholm), or a strong personal commitment from local politicians (London).
In some cases central government directly subsidises commuter transport. But individual cities gain the majority of the economic benefit, so it could be argued that the city should pay. This is perhaps best reflected by the French tax on employment to subsidise local transport provision. However, city governments seldom have enough money fto meet all their spending commitments, and rail transport is rarely top of the priority list.
Another enlightened approach is to make the stations into centres for living, working and entertainment, promoting the use of rail and generating funds to support the operation, as with the profitable private railways in Japan. These are essentially real estate companies that have connected their holdings using commuter railways, generating traffic and property revenues at the same time.
Light rail. A 'start-up’ light rail network is considerably more expensive than a bus rapid transit alternative. Yet there is strong evidence that car drivers will switch to a tram but would not be attracted by a bus. Where light rail replaced bus rapid transit in Dallas, for example, there has been a 300% increase in ridership. But what about the economic benefits? Should the city pay for reduced road congestion and better urban mobility?
New line investment. When a railway has to compete with other modes, such as road, water or pipeline, the market limits the freight rates it can charge. Building a new line at even the low cost of US$1m per route-km, would require about 5 million net tonnes of traffic a year to justify the investment on a purely financial basis. Unfortunately, there are few locations where railways can be built so cheaply. New construction can cost 15 to 20 times as much, and such a line could need to be carrying as much as 100 million net tonnes a year soon after it opens.
New railways undoubtedly bring an economic benefit to the community they serve. So should the communities contribute to the cost of construction?
Chinese Railways’ freight tariffs include a construction surcharge to finance new lines, reflecting the idea that such projects benefit the whole country. Unfortunately, the surcharge is now so large that it is discouraging companies from shipping freight by rail.
To raise additional funds CR is now requiring the states through which new lines will be built to cover the land acquisition and resettlement costs. If cities wish to have stations with more than basic facilities, they must pay the difference. However, in most cases, these supplementary payments still fall far short of the necessary amount needed to offset the extra costs. Clearly other forms of payment are needed to reflect the wider economic benefits.
In the case of Yudu (p661), the city has clearly benefited from having a new railway, although the railway has not. Can it be made to contribute? Probably not, unless the railway had approached the city during the design phase and could wield the threat of adopting an alternative route.
While the concept of a beneficiary contributing towards the cost of constructing or maintaining a railway is good, it can be difficult to implement fairly.
The concessioning fallacy: A number of national governments have concluded that concessioning their country’s railway, or selling it at a nominal price, is a solution to the funding dilemma. But in most cases such governments are naïve in thinking that private companies will come with baskets of money to invest.
Even though the government may hand over the assets for a nominal amount, the cost of operating, maintaining and renewing the railway is seldom covered by the revenue — let alone the costs of upgrading or addressing any maintenance backlog. What the government has failed to consider is that the economic benefit of the railway is usually much greater than the financial benefit. To be financially viable, the railway usually needs some form of support.
The European model of vertical separation allows governments to take over the cost of providing and maintaining rail infrastructure, working on the theory that lorry operators do not provide equivalent capital investment for the road network. But infrastructure typically only amounts to around 20% of a railway’s operating costs, so even if the train operator gets free access, it still may not generate enough revenue to invest, or make a profit to compensate its shareholders.
System improvements. Investment in an existing railway can range from catching up on deferred maintenance to a major upgrading of infrastructure and rolling stock to boost capacity or quality of service. Sometimes financial contributions are available in the form of tax credits, low-interest loans or outright grants. These can be allocated for specified tasks or as a general payment. In several countries, grants are available for building or improving rail access to a manufacturer’s facility on the understanding that the company will use rail in preference to road (RG 12.07 p784).
In the past most large private freight railways in the USA rejected government money, because they feared unacceptable conditions would be attached. Today the railroads are faced with a trucking industry that is very efficient and competitive, earning revenues 10 times greater than rail. Market competition means the railways cannot increase tariffs to generate sufficient funds for major improvements. With huge investment in extra capacity needed to meet the projected demand for rail services over the next 30 years, some railroads are now seeking government grants and low-interest loans.
The Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles (panel) provides an interesting example where a collaborative venture has brought benefits, contrasting with the Create experience in Chicago.
Operating support. It is sometimes appropriate to subsidise freight operations. A railway needs to earn a minimum amount of revenue per km to pay for operations and maintenance of an existing line. With market-constrained tariffs, each line would typically need to carry at least 1 million net tonnes a year to be financially viable.
But what if traffic is insufficient? Sometimes a shipper will agree to pay a premium to maintain service. If they do not, somebody else will need to subsidise the line, or it will eventually go out of business. In more progressive communities, the city or the state may provide a subsidy to reflect the economic benefit of keeping the line in operation.
This model is typified by many of the short lines in the USA today, which are either supported by their largest customers or by the local community in some form.
In the passenger sector, by far the most common method of paying for economic benefits is through what is commonly referred to as a Public Service Obligation payment. This formula is also occasionally used to maintain freight services on lightly-used lines.
There is no standard format for PSO contracts — the local government determines what it wants the rail service to achieve, what proportion of passenger or freight-km is appropriate for each mode, and determines the service pattern and tariff structure. From this, the level of support can be determined.
The authority will then either negotiate with the local railway or request tenders from competing train operators. While there are many variations, the contracts that seem to work best are those with strong financial incentives and penalty clauses.
Public-private partnerships
One approach which seems to be increasingly popular is some form of public-private partnership. A public-sector body (at whatever level) enters into a joint venture agreement with one or more private partners. Based on its asset and/or financial contribution, the public body becomes an equity partner in the concession company.
But for various reasons the track record of PPPs so far has not been very good. The problems appear to include a lack of analysis by the public entities before the deal is signed and exaggerated proposals by the private sector on the theory that the benefits can be renegotiated after the contract is awarded.
Whilst it is called a partnership, in many cases the state or community seems to have agreed to participate in funding an infrastructure project without taking partial ownership in the resulting assets.
Making the case for payment
In reality, few governments are going to be knocking on the doors of the railways offering money to reflect economic benefits. It is up to the railways to identify the benefits and put their request to the government bodies in a meaningful way. But to make a good case, the railway must have addressed at least the following six points.
1. Know your costs. Identifying construction costs is usually straightforward, but it is difficult to determine fully-allocated operating costs, and this increases exponentially with the size of the railway. It is fundamental to have an accurate accounting system that takes into consideration the responsibilities and relationships between departments.
2. Understand the competition. Knowing what effect any improvements in price and services will have on the competition is critical. This requires a detailed understanding of the competing modes, including their cost structures and pricing strategies.
3. Environmental impact. Rail offers many environmental advantages, but it is important to evaluate their economic impact. This must include every aspect from greenhouse gas emissions to the cost of tyre dust. But such impacts are very difficult to quantify, and this type of knowledge is seldom found within a railway administration.
4. Identify business development. It is essential to have a good understanding of potential industrial and business development that is happening or could take place within a reasonable distance of the railway. This must include any multiplier effects, but it should be remembered that the business could just as easily be located elsewhere.
5. Develop and justify. An understanding of financial analysis and transport economics is necessary so that comprehensive reports can be drawn up in a form that can be readily publicised. Good communications are essential when seeking contributions from public-sector bodies.
6. Dedicated staff. Developing the business justification, political arguments, and publicity requires a knowledgeable and specialist team including lobbyists who know the 'workings’ of the government. A survey of some larger railways that have successfully argued for economic contributions shows that they have a dedicated team of 20 people or more. The employment cost can be negligible compared to the potential contributions.
There are cases where the government recognises a need for an economic benefit payment. Some are structured as a 'negative concession’ whereby operators bid against an annual payment from the government. Even in such cases the bidders really need to have done their homework with the same degree of expertise.
Managing the money
One of the major problems with economic benefit payments can be how the public money is accounted for in practice. Subsidy payments or grants can go to the wrong place. Since money is fungible, it can be easily diverted into another investment that management thinks will make a better return.
Will the traffic actually come off the road, or will the projected new jobs be created? The railway may have its new line from which it is making additional revenue, but the impact on society may not be as much as anticipated. There is enough evidence to show that in some cases the lack of economic impact is the fault of the railway, but how does the government reclaim the money?
When a private entity is involved, there is another major question. To what extent should shareholders benefit from taxpayers’ money? Clearly shareholders are entitled to some proportion, because without the railway the economic benefits would not have been generated. But as with all private companies, the shareholders should also take some of the risk. The fair attribution of risk is a complex question, especially in PPPs, and can really only be judged on a case-by-case basis. Once again, good analysis and financial transparency are essential.
Any public money given to a railway to pay for economic benefits must be clearly and contractually defined. There should be penalties for failure to achieve the true purpose. And this should apply whether the government is giving public money to a private operator or a state-owned railway. Transparency is everything.
Table I. Categories of economic benefit that can be generated by railways
Benefits Railway Government Population
Increased passenger travel X X X
New industries X X X
Industrial expansion X X X
Lower cost freight transport - X X
Increased community income - X X
Increased land value - X X
Reduced land-take for roads - X X
Reduced road congestion - X X
Reduced road maintenance - X X
Value of time savings - - X
Energy savings - X X
Reduced pollution:
Noise - - X
Water - - X
Particulate emissions - - X
Gas emissions - - X
Improved transport safety - X X
A fruitless industrial park
Six years ago, the city of Yudu in China’s Jianghi province established a large industrial park. As a major component of its publicity to attract industries, it advertised widely that a new railway was to be built through the city.
Two years after the opening of the railway, the industrial park is now almost full, with 98 companies. Yet the railway is getting almost no freight traffic from any of these industries.
One of the major reasons that the manufacturers gave for locating in the city was because the railway would ensure that Yudu would not get 'left off the map’, and there would be a pool of employees and good city services. Actually making use of the railway was evidently not part of their decision-making process.
The basic conclusion is that the railway must aggressively seek out traffic. It should have participated in the industrial development, to ensure that rail-oriented companies would locate there. This is the opposite of the classic 'if we build it, they will come’ approach.
Local benefit — national tax
The Californian ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together form one of the largest container terminals in the world. The rail connection between the port and the rest of the USA ran through the suburbs of Los Angeles, crossing many roads at grade. This created considerable traffic congestion, and restricted the movement of trains.
The railway companies, port authority and the city jointly created the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to develop and build a 32 km segregated rail corridor, about half of which runs in a trench 10 m below street level. Total project cost was $2·4bn.
Grants came from nine different sources, ranging from $0·6m to $150m, which met about 13·5% of the total construction cost. The rest was raised through a variety of bonds and loans that must be repaid. It was agreed that every container using the corridor would be charged $15/TEU loaded and $8/TEU empty. Wagons are charged $8 each.
These payments are essentially a tax on any goods bought and sold in the USA that move through the two ports. In effect, this is a national tax, equivalent to about 0·5% of the total rail tariff, to pay for a substantial economic benefit which mainly accrues to the residents of Los Angeles.
The 'national tax’ on wagons and containers using the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles has been so successful that the state has started to add extra charges to fund local benefits, such as low-emission trucks. But these additional charges could result in the ports losing market share.
Benefits and risks
When it was privatised in 1996, the British infrastructure company Railtrack concluded it needed to borrow large amounts of money to fund track renewals and improvements. But to be able to borrow on the commercial markets at a low rate of interest, Railtrack needed to show it was profitable. To do this, it used revenue from track access charges (in effect government subsidy payments to the train operators) to increase shareholder dividends.
Senior executives at Railtrack did not understand the need to maintain the railway in good condition, and many engineers left the company. In the end, the Hatfield derailment in October 2000 revealed the extent of deterioration of the track. With the company demanding more financial support, the government engineered its downfall and Railtrack’s shareholders saw the value of their investments collapse.
The UK infrastructure has now been taken over by Network Rail, a nominally private company. But NR has no shareholders, and initially relied on government guarantees to get low interest rates in the market. It also receives substantial direct grants from the government to keep down the level of track access charges.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... lways.html
09 Oct 2008 | David Burns
ECONOMICS: Almost all railways generate economic and societal benefits, but these are rarely recognised in monetary values. It is up to governments to define public as opposed to commercial or private benefits. If it is deemed logical to have a viable railway, then the government needs to work out a way to pay for these benefits, says David Burns.
In a perfect world, governments would have a transport policy that treats all modes equally, and ensures a high level of co -ordination between them. But the world is not perfect, and few governments have such a co-ordinated policy. In fact, most administrations either consciously or unconsciously favour roads, because politicians seldom know much about railways and ?believe there are more votes to be gained from backing road transport.
In recent years — particularly in Europe — there has been a lot of discussion about the 'external costs’ which different transport modes impose on society: pollution, accidents, noise, energy consumption, and so on. The search for equal treatment depends on finding ways in which these costs can be 'internalised’ and reflected in the charges paid by the users.
Conversely, different modes also bring economic and societal benefits which are not always internalised to the advantage of the operator. An efficient and prosperous railway can bring many benefits to the communities through which it passes, or which it connects to other regions. Such benefits have a monetary value, which could significantly increase rail’s financial viability, and perhaps encourage greater use through better services and lower tariffs.
Defining economic benefits
With high levels of fixed infrastructure cost, railways are by nature expensive to build, operate, and maintain. Each route needs to generate sufficient revenue to cover its costs and, if it is privately owned, it should also be profitable enough to give the shareholders a reasonable rate of return.
In the 19th century, when railway companies essentially held a monopoly on surface transport, they could — and often did — charge high tariffs to ensure good profitability. Those that could not make enough money went bankrupt, or were taken over by a more viable company or by the government.
Now, in most market sectors, rail faces much stronger competition. In general it also suffers from a degree of inconvenience, as its routes seldom go door-to-door. Today’s railways are lucky if they can cover their operating costs from revenue. Successful companies may also cover maintenance and renewals, but seldom the full construction cost and capital amortisation.
However, a railway can bring many advantages to the community that do not necessarily result in a direct financial return. Often these include multiplier effects: less traffic congestion reduces the need for new highway construction, at the same time improving safety, the health of the population and the environment. During construction and operation, railways can generate jobs, and these in turn create more employment as the money is spent on goods and services. It should however be noted that highway construction can also create similar employment benefits. Railways support industrial development which also creates direct and indirect employment, ranging from shopkeepers to city administrators.
In comparison to road and air, a railway has the capacity to handle large volumes, using less energy per unit of transport. It is safer and generally has less environmental impact. Rail can carry passengers at higher speeds than road, and its freight hauling capacity can support the development of industries that may not be practical with other modes. The existence of a good rail service, especially in urban environments, can significantly enhance property values.
Discounting ancilliary activities, a railway will earn the majority of its revenue from passenger tickets and freight charges. It does not benefit directly from reduced road congestion, or from the knock-on benefits of encouraging rail-served industries. Indeed, to be competitive, railways often have to price their services at below their fully-allocated costs.
Table I lists 13 basic categories of economic benefit that can be generated by encouraging greater use of rail, and the player(s) to which the value of such benefits primarily accrues. Each of these categories presents its own challenges in terms of quantifying the benefits and monetising them to the advantage of the railway. This can be demonstrated by looking at some examples.
Increased passenger travel. As roads become more congested, passenger trains have an increasing economic benefit. A new line, especially for high speed trains, will almost never cover its construction cost purely from revenue. Yet the railway is required to borrow money that it will never be able to pay back. As the interest payments accrue, the railway’s losses become so high that the government has to take over or restructure the debts, as in the case leading to the break-up of Japanese National Railways. The Channel Tunnel is another example, except in this case it was the banks and shareholders that bore the losses.
Many governments require their railways to carry categories of passenger at a discount — to encourage rail use, provide support for poor or disabled people, or for other political reasons. Cheap fares certainly provide an economic benefit, but how many governments properly compensate the operator? As a result, in these cases the railway’s profit and loss account shows an artificially poor viability for its passenger activities.
The European Union has attempted to tackle this by requiring member states to negotiate formal contracts for the operation of unremunerative passenger services, but it has not always proved easy to agree the level of compensation. And even where contracts have been agreed, some governments have failed to make the payments in full.
Relieving road congestion. Turning to the freight sector, a typical North American double-stack container train will have a capacity of 480 TEU, which translates to about 300 lorry loads. A typical '18-wheeler’ requires as much road space as 10 cars, so one train frees capacity for up to 3 000 cars. On a busy urban road such an increase would be of considerable value, whereas in a rural area it might not. So, should the city pay for the economic benefit that it gains?
Take the Chicago Region Environmental & Transportation Efficiency Program. The major railways with terminals in Chicago developed a plan of work that could eventually cost US$4bn to permit more efficient handling of rail traffic through the region. The first phase of Create would cost US$1·5bn, bringing an estimated economic benefit of US$3·9bn. The railways, city and the state of Illinois agreed to contribute US$240m, and requested US$1·275bn from the federal government. Unfortunately, the legislators failed to recognise that tackling a local problem would have a national benefit, and only provided a grant of US$100m.
Increased land values. Rail investment can cause significant increases in property values, but the property owners benefit and the railways generally do not, unless they own the property. One way to address this would be to increase property taxes or introduce a transfer tax when the property is eventually sold. The economic benefit can then be transferred to the railway. However, there are very few instances where this happens.
To keep a balanced view, it should be noted that a railway may have little economic value if it passes though an area where there are good roads and little traffic. It can also be considered to have a distinctly negative benefit if it passes too near your 'back yard’!
Today there are few industries that are totally dependent on rail transport, but there are many where rail access can be considered a significant advantage. These include mining, steel making, power generation, and automotive and cement manufacturing.
Access to rail can encourage a company to consider certain locations for new plants. The potential economic benefits to the community, in terms of jobs created and extra taxes collected, are such that financial incentives are often offered by the community or state to encourage a manufacturer to move in. But how often is the 'value’ of the railway in this decision-making process properly compensated?
Although it can be argued that the railway will gain revenue, it may face the expense of constructing sidings to serve the plant. The manufacturer might have an option to locate the facility where new track is not required, so if a site is chosen that requires new sidings, maybe the community should pay for them.While rail freight is generally priced lower than road, there are some shippers who request the construction of a dedicated siding but have no intention of using it. The threat of shipping by rail gives them leverage when negotiating rates with road hauliers, so the siding has an economic value to the shipper and a negative value to the railway.
Time savings and pollution. In the economic benefit calculations used to justify construction of a new line or improvements to a railway, the value of the time saved by passengers and road users is usually considered. This can result in double-counting, since the value may already be reflected in a higher ticket price. But if that is not the case, how does the benefit go towards paying for the railway? How should the railway be compensated for enabling drivers to travel on less congested roads?
One of the frequent arguments for rail — particularly in recent years — is that its carbon footprint is around 30% or less of that of the equivalent road journey. This may be true, but how does the economic benefit translate into a payment to the railway operator? Should carbon trading or a carbon tax become popular, it may be possible to assign an economic value to such benefits. But it is difficult to imagine a power station paying the railway to subsidise freight transport at the same time as it is looking to negotiate competitive rates for delivering its coal.
Road tyre wear and the accompanying dust (estimated at 1 million tonnes per year in the USA alone) is resulting in an increase in medical problems, allergies, and water pollution. The cost is currently borne by health services and insurance companies, but can we imagine these organisations paying the railways to encourage more people to take the train or ship freight by rail?
According to the American Association of State Highway & Transportation Officials, a standard 18-wheeler operating at its maximum legal weight (36·2 tonnes) inflicts damage on the road surface equivalent to 9 600 cars. Today in Italy and France, we are starting to see more enlightened private motorway operators investing in rail freight services as a means of reducing wear and tear on their roads. But who will do the same for publicly-owned roads?
Identifying who can pay
The main problem is that there is seldom any necessity to pay the railway for the economic benefits that it generates. So the railway has to understand the benefits and argue for the payments. Finding the money will be different from case to case, but can be loosely grouped into several different categories.
Commuter rail. When commuters require travel in reasonable comfort, (and not packed like sardines), without taking into account the benefits mentioned earlier, it would usually cost less to provide a bus service. However, the buses would require free-flowing roads. Commuter rail is attractive to the local government, as it avoids the need to build more roads. The usual way to encourage rail use is to subsidise the fares, in some cases by more than 50%. If commuter rail is sufficiently successful in emptying the roads, everybody would be riding buses because the bus ticket would be cheaper. But for convenience, people might then go back to travelling in their own cars!
The satirical magazine The Onion once observed pointedly that 'we persist in building expensive rail systems because “98% of US commuters favour public transport for others” ’.
It is usually argued that car drivers should pay, because they benefit from a less congested highway. A fuel tax is a typical mechanism, but that penalises everybody for the benefit of a few commuters. Congestion charging is a better mechanism, but that requires a very strong government (Singapore), staunch public support (Stockholm), or a strong personal commitment from local politicians (London).
In some cases central government directly subsidises commuter transport. But individual cities gain the majority of the economic benefit, so it could be argued that the city should pay. This is perhaps best reflected by the French tax on employment to subsidise local transport provision. However, city governments seldom have enough money fto meet all their spending commitments, and rail transport is rarely top of the priority list.
Another enlightened approach is to make the stations into centres for living, working and entertainment, promoting the use of rail and generating funds to support the operation, as with the profitable private railways in Japan. These are essentially real estate companies that have connected their holdings using commuter railways, generating traffic and property revenues at the same time.
Light rail. A 'start-up’ light rail network is considerably more expensive than a bus rapid transit alternative. Yet there is strong evidence that car drivers will switch to a tram but would not be attracted by a bus. Where light rail replaced bus rapid transit in Dallas, for example, there has been a 300% increase in ridership. But what about the economic benefits? Should the city pay for reduced road congestion and better urban mobility?
New line investment. When a railway has to compete with other modes, such as road, water or pipeline, the market limits the freight rates it can charge. Building a new line at even the low cost of US$1m per route-km, would require about 5 million net tonnes of traffic a year to justify the investment on a purely financial basis. Unfortunately, there are few locations where railways can be built so cheaply. New construction can cost 15 to 20 times as much, and such a line could need to be carrying as much as 100 million net tonnes a year soon after it opens.
New railways undoubtedly bring an economic benefit to the community they serve. So should the communities contribute to the cost of construction?
Chinese Railways’ freight tariffs include a construction surcharge to finance new lines, reflecting the idea that such projects benefit the whole country. Unfortunately, the surcharge is now so large that it is discouraging companies from shipping freight by rail.
To raise additional funds CR is now requiring the states through which new lines will be built to cover the land acquisition and resettlement costs. If cities wish to have stations with more than basic facilities, they must pay the difference. However, in most cases, these supplementary payments still fall far short of the necessary amount needed to offset the extra costs. Clearly other forms of payment are needed to reflect the wider economic benefits.
In the case of Yudu (p661), the city has clearly benefited from having a new railway, although the railway has not. Can it be made to contribute? Probably not, unless the railway had approached the city during the design phase and could wield the threat of adopting an alternative route.
While the concept of a beneficiary contributing towards the cost of constructing or maintaining a railway is good, it can be difficult to implement fairly.
The concessioning fallacy: A number of national governments have concluded that concessioning their country’s railway, or selling it at a nominal price, is a solution to the funding dilemma. But in most cases such governments are naïve in thinking that private companies will come with baskets of money to invest.
Even though the government may hand over the assets for a nominal amount, the cost of operating, maintaining and renewing the railway is seldom covered by the revenue — let alone the costs of upgrading or addressing any maintenance backlog. What the government has failed to consider is that the economic benefit of the railway is usually much greater than the financial benefit. To be financially viable, the railway usually needs some form of support.
The European model of vertical separation allows governments to take over the cost of providing and maintaining rail infrastructure, working on the theory that lorry operators do not provide equivalent capital investment for the road network. But infrastructure typically only amounts to around 20% of a railway’s operating costs, so even if the train operator gets free access, it still may not generate enough revenue to invest, or make a profit to compensate its shareholders.
System improvements. Investment in an existing railway can range from catching up on deferred maintenance to a major upgrading of infrastructure and rolling stock to boost capacity or quality of service. Sometimes financial contributions are available in the form of tax credits, low-interest loans or outright grants. These can be allocated for specified tasks or as a general payment. In several countries, grants are available for building or improving rail access to a manufacturer’s facility on the understanding that the company will use rail in preference to road (RG 12.07 p784).
In the past most large private freight railways in the USA rejected government money, because they feared unacceptable conditions would be attached. Today the railroads are faced with a trucking industry that is very efficient and competitive, earning revenues 10 times greater than rail. Market competition means the railways cannot increase tariffs to generate sufficient funds for major improvements. With huge investment in extra capacity needed to meet the projected demand for rail services over the next 30 years, some railroads are now seeking government grants and low-interest loans.
The Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles (panel) provides an interesting example where a collaborative venture has brought benefits, contrasting with the Create experience in Chicago.
Operating support. It is sometimes appropriate to subsidise freight operations. A railway needs to earn a minimum amount of revenue per km to pay for operations and maintenance of an existing line. With market-constrained tariffs, each line would typically need to carry at least 1 million net tonnes a year to be financially viable.
But what if traffic is insufficient? Sometimes a shipper will agree to pay a premium to maintain service. If they do not, somebody else will need to subsidise the line, or it will eventually go out of business. In more progressive communities, the city or the state may provide a subsidy to reflect the economic benefit of keeping the line in operation.
This model is typified by many of the short lines in the USA today, which are either supported by their largest customers or by the local community in some form.
In the passenger sector, by far the most common method of paying for economic benefits is through what is commonly referred to as a Public Service Obligation payment. This formula is also occasionally used to maintain freight services on lightly-used lines.
There is no standard format for PSO contracts — the local government determines what it wants the rail service to achieve, what proportion of passenger or freight-km is appropriate for each mode, and determines the service pattern and tariff structure. From this, the level of support can be determined.
The authority will then either negotiate with the local railway or request tenders from competing train operators. While there are many variations, the contracts that seem to work best are those with strong financial incentives and penalty clauses.
Public-private partnerships
One approach which seems to be increasingly popular is some form of public-private partnership. A public-sector body (at whatever level) enters into a joint venture agreement with one or more private partners. Based on its asset and/or financial contribution, the public body becomes an equity partner in the concession company.
But for various reasons the track record of PPPs so far has not been very good. The problems appear to include a lack of analysis by the public entities before the deal is signed and exaggerated proposals by the private sector on the theory that the benefits can be renegotiated after the contract is awarded.
Whilst it is called a partnership, in many cases the state or community seems to have agreed to participate in funding an infrastructure project without taking partial ownership in the resulting assets.
Making the case for payment
In reality, few governments are going to be knocking on the doors of the railways offering money to reflect economic benefits. It is up to the railways to identify the benefits and put their request to the government bodies in a meaningful way. But to make a good case, the railway must have addressed at least the following six points.
1. Know your costs. Identifying construction costs is usually straightforward, but it is difficult to determine fully-allocated operating costs, and this increases exponentially with the size of the railway. It is fundamental to have an accurate accounting system that takes into consideration the responsibilities and relationships between departments.
2. Understand the competition. Knowing what effect any improvements in price and services will have on the competition is critical. This requires a detailed understanding of the competing modes, including their cost structures and pricing strategies.
3. Environmental impact. Rail offers many environmental advantages, but it is important to evaluate their economic impact. This must include every aspect from greenhouse gas emissions to the cost of tyre dust. But such impacts are very difficult to quantify, and this type of knowledge is seldom found within a railway administration.
4. Identify business development. It is essential to have a good understanding of potential industrial and business development that is happening or could take place within a reasonable distance of the railway. This must include any multiplier effects, but it should be remembered that the business could just as easily be located elsewhere.
5. Develop and justify. An understanding of financial analysis and transport economics is necessary so that comprehensive reports can be drawn up in a form that can be readily publicised. Good communications are essential when seeking contributions from public-sector bodies.
6. Dedicated staff. Developing the business justification, political arguments, and publicity requires a knowledgeable and specialist team including lobbyists who know the 'workings’ of the government. A survey of some larger railways that have successfully argued for economic contributions shows that they have a dedicated team of 20 people or more. The employment cost can be negligible compared to the potential contributions.
There are cases where the government recognises a need for an economic benefit payment. Some are structured as a 'negative concession’ whereby operators bid against an annual payment from the government. Even in such cases the bidders really need to have done their homework with the same degree of expertise.
Managing the money
One of the major problems with economic benefit payments can be how the public money is accounted for in practice. Subsidy payments or grants can go to the wrong place. Since money is fungible, it can be easily diverted into another investment that management thinks will make a better return.
Will the traffic actually come off the road, or will the projected new jobs be created? The railway may have its new line from which it is making additional revenue, but the impact on society may not be as much as anticipated. There is enough evidence to show that in some cases the lack of economic impact is the fault of the railway, but how does the government reclaim the money?
When a private entity is involved, there is another major question. To what extent should shareholders benefit from taxpayers’ money? Clearly shareholders are entitled to some proportion, because without the railway the economic benefits would not have been generated. But as with all private companies, the shareholders should also take some of the risk. The fair attribution of risk is a complex question, especially in PPPs, and can really only be judged on a case-by-case basis. Once again, good analysis and financial transparency are essential.
Any public money given to a railway to pay for economic benefits must be clearly and contractually defined. There should be penalties for failure to achieve the true purpose. And this should apply whether the government is giving public money to a private operator or a state-owned railway. Transparency is everything.
Table I. Categories of economic benefit that can be generated by railways
Benefits Railway Government Population
Increased passenger travel X X X
New industries X X X
Industrial expansion X X X
Lower cost freight transport - X X
Increased community income - X X
Increased land value - X X
Reduced land-take for roads - X X
Reduced road congestion - X X
Reduced road maintenance - X X
Value of time savings - - X
Energy savings - X X
Reduced pollution:
Noise - - X
Water - - X
Particulate emissions - - X
Gas emissions - - X
Improved transport safety - X X
A fruitless industrial park
Six years ago, the city of Yudu in China’s Jianghi province established a large industrial park. As a major component of its publicity to attract industries, it advertised widely that a new railway was to be built through the city.
Two years after the opening of the railway, the industrial park is now almost full, with 98 companies. Yet the railway is getting almost no freight traffic from any of these industries.
One of the major reasons that the manufacturers gave for locating in the city was because the railway would ensure that Yudu would not get 'left off the map’, and there would be a pool of employees and good city services. Actually making use of the railway was evidently not part of their decision-making process.
The basic conclusion is that the railway must aggressively seek out traffic. It should have participated in the industrial development, to ensure that rail-oriented companies would locate there. This is the opposite of the classic 'if we build it, they will come’ approach.
Local benefit — national tax
The Californian ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach together form one of the largest container terminals in the world. The rail connection between the port and the rest of the USA ran through the suburbs of Los Angeles, crossing many roads at grade. This created considerable traffic congestion, and restricted the movement of trains.
The railway companies, port authority and the city jointly created the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to develop and build a 32 km segregated rail corridor, about half of which runs in a trench 10 m below street level. Total project cost was $2·4bn.
Grants came from nine different sources, ranging from $0·6m to $150m, which met about 13·5% of the total construction cost. The rest was raised through a variety of bonds and loans that must be repaid. It was agreed that every container using the corridor would be charged $15/TEU loaded and $8/TEU empty. Wagons are charged $8 each.
These payments are essentially a tax on any goods bought and sold in the USA that move through the two ports. In effect, this is a national tax, equivalent to about 0·5% of the total rail tariff, to pay for a substantial economic benefit which mainly accrues to the residents of Los Angeles.
The 'national tax’ on wagons and containers using the Alameda Corridor in Los Angeles has been so successful that the state has started to add extra charges to fund local benefits, such as low-emission trucks. But these additional charges could result in the ports losing market share.
Benefits and risks
When it was privatised in 1996, the British infrastructure company Railtrack concluded it needed to borrow large amounts of money to fund track renewals and improvements. But to be able to borrow on the commercial markets at a low rate of interest, Railtrack needed to show it was profitable. To do this, it used revenue from track access charges (in effect government subsidy payments to the train operators) to increase shareholder dividends.
Senior executives at Railtrack did not understand the need to maintain the railway in good condition, and many engineers left the company. In the end, the Hatfield derailment in October 2000 revealed the extent of deterioration of the track. With the company demanding more financial support, the government engineered its downfall and Railtrack’s shareholders saw the value of their investments collapse.
The UK infrastructure has now been taken over by Network Rail, a nominally private company. But NR has no shareholders, and initially relied on government guarantees to get low interest rates in the market. It also receives substantial direct grants from the government to keep down the level of track access charges.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... lways.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Vom: 10.10.08
Düsseldorf: 30 Millionen für den Hauptbahnhof
Besserer Brandschutz, moderneres Design, neue Ladenstraße: Die Bahn, die privaten Pächter und die Stadt investieren kräftig in den Düsseldorfer Bahnhof und seine unmittelbare Umgebung. Die ersten Cafés sind umgebaut. Im November soll der Löwenanteil der Arbeiten beginnen.
Fast 30 Millionen Euro investieren die Bahn, private Pächter und die Stadt in den nächsten Jahren, um das Gebäude und seine unmittelbare Umgebung kräftig aufzuwerten. Im November sollen die Hauptarbeiten beginnen.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... hnhof.html
Düsseldorf: 30 Millionen für den Hauptbahnhof
Besserer Brandschutz, moderneres Design, neue Ladenstraße: Die Bahn, die privaten Pächter und die Stadt investieren kräftig in den Düsseldorfer Bahnhof und seine unmittelbare Umgebung. Die ersten Cafés sind umgebaut. Im November soll der Löwenanteil der Arbeiten beginnen.
Fast 30 Millionen Euro investieren die Bahn, private Pächter und die Stadt in den nächsten Jahren, um das Gebäude und seine unmittelbare Umgebung kräftig aufzuwerten. Im November sollen die Hauptarbeiten beginnen.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... hnhof.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Vom: 10.10.08
Frankreichs Staatsbahn expandiert in Italien - Deutsche Bahn draussen
Die französische Staatsbahn SNCF hat nach Angaben von "Les Echos" die Deutsche Bahn AG im Wettlauf um den privaten italienischen Bahnanbieter NTV ausgestochen.
Die SNCF steige für rund 80 Mio. EUR mit 20 % bei NTV ein, berichtete das Pariser Wirtschaftsblatt (Donnerstagausgabe). NTV will mit französischen Hochgeschwindigkeitszügen der neuen Generation (AGV) in Italien der Staatsbahn Konkurrenz machen. Das Unternehmen hat bereits als Erstkunde 25 AGV-Züge für 600 Mio. EUR beim Hersteller Alstom bestellt.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... ussen.html
Pepy takes a stake in NTV
NTV has 25 AGV trainsets on order.
10 Oct 2008
ITALY: Open access passenger operator NTV has selected SNCF as its 'industrial partner' to support its launch of domestic high speed trains in 2011. NTV Chairman Luca di Montezemolo and SNCF President Guillaume Pepy announced in Roma that they had signed an deal under which the French national railway will take a 20% stake in the consortium.
NTV revealed in September that it was looking for a potential partner to provide additional experience of high speed operations, and reportedly held talks with Deutsche Bahn as well as SNCF. Under the agreement, SNCF will appoint two members of the 14-strong NTV board. Pepy would not say how much SNCF is paying , but Intesso Saopaulo paid €60m for its 20% stake when it bought into NTV in January.
Di Montezemolo said the exclusive agreement ensured that SNCF would not become involved with any other high speed train operations in Italy. As well as incumbent operator Trenitalia, other groups are reported to be looking at the market including Italian entrepreneur Carlo Toto who owns Air One and is part of the consortium bidding for Alitalia.
Pepy is keen to expand SNCF's international reach in competition with DB, and is negotiating with both established operators and new entrants. He believes the alliance with NTV could also form a platform for further expansion in Europe.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... n_ntv.html
Frankreichs Staatsbahn expandiert in Italien - Deutsche Bahn draussen
Die französische Staatsbahn SNCF hat nach Angaben von "Les Echos" die Deutsche Bahn AG im Wettlauf um den privaten italienischen Bahnanbieter NTV ausgestochen.
Die SNCF steige für rund 80 Mio. EUR mit 20 % bei NTV ein, berichtete das Pariser Wirtschaftsblatt (Donnerstagausgabe). NTV will mit französischen Hochgeschwindigkeitszügen der neuen Generation (AGV) in Italien der Staatsbahn Konkurrenz machen. Das Unternehmen hat bereits als Erstkunde 25 AGV-Züge für 600 Mio. EUR beim Hersteller Alstom bestellt.
bron: http://www.eurailpress.de/article/view/ ... ussen.html
Pepy takes a stake in NTV
NTV has 25 AGV trainsets on order.
10 Oct 2008
ITALY: Open access passenger operator NTV has selected SNCF as its 'industrial partner' to support its launch of domestic high speed trains in 2011. NTV Chairman Luca di Montezemolo and SNCF President Guillaume Pepy announced in Roma that they had signed an deal under which the French national railway will take a 20% stake in the consortium.
NTV revealed in September that it was looking for a potential partner to provide additional experience of high speed operations, and reportedly held talks with Deutsche Bahn as well as SNCF. Under the agreement, SNCF will appoint two members of the 14-strong NTV board. Pepy would not say how much SNCF is paying , but Intesso Saopaulo paid €60m for its 20% stake when it bought into NTV in January.
Di Montezemolo said the exclusive agreement ensured that SNCF would not become involved with any other high speed train operations in Italy. As well as incumbent operator Trenitalia, other groups are reported to be looking at the market including Italian entrepreneur Carlo Toto who owns Air One and is part of the consortium bidding for Alitalia.
Pepy is keen to expand SNCF's international reach in competition with DB, and is negotiating with both established operators and new entrants. He believes the alliance with NTV could also form a platform for further expansion in Europe.
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... n_ntv.html
-
rail s
Re: nieuwstopic?!
Work starts on Beijing – Shijiazhuang line
Zublin is supplying trackwork for the Shijiazhuang - Taiyuan PDL.
10 Oct 2008
CHINA: October 7 saw the formal start of construction work on the 281 km Passenger-Dedicated Line between Beijing and Shijiazhuang. The project is expected to be completed within four years, at an estimated cost of 43·8bn yuan.
Parallelling the existing main line between the two cities, the PDL is expected to release capacity on Chinese Railways’ conventional network, as well as reducing inter-city journey times. The line has been designed for 300 km/h operation, and will form the northern part of the emerging high speed corridor linking Beijing with Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong.
Starting from Beijing West, the new line will serve intermediate stations at Zhuozhou, Gaobeidian, Baoding and Dingzhou before reaching the dedicated high speed station at Shijiazhuang South. The project also includes the construction of a 28·7 km connecting link to the Shijianzhuang – Taiyuan PDL now under construction (photo).
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... _line.html
Zublin is supplying trackwork for the Shijiazhuang - Taiyuan PDL.
10 Oct 2008
CHINA: October 7 saw the formal start of construction work on the 281 km Passenger-Dedicated Line between Beijing and Shijiazhuang. The project is expected to be completed within four years, at an estimated cost of 43·8bn yuan.
Parallelling the existing main line between the two cities, the PDL is expected to release capacity on Chinese Railways’ conventional network, as well as reducing inter-city journey times. The line has been designed for 300 km/h operation, and will form the northern part of the emerging high speed corridor linking Beijing with Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong.
Starting from Beijing West, the new line will serve intermediate stations at Zhuozhou, Gaobeidian, Baoding and Dingzhou before reaching the dedicated high speed station at Shijiazhuang South. The project also includes the construction of a 28·7 km connecting link to the Shijianzhuang – Taiyuan PDL now under construction (photo).
bron: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view ... _line.html