Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 88

Thread: why dont they use rail?

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Brisbane, Inner East.
    Posts
    11,178
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by frantic View Post
    Have a good look at the maglev. Sydney to melbourne in 3 hours is in reality faster. 1 hr check in minimum + travel to the airport then you land in melbourne and how far are the 2 airports from the city centre and how much is the bus or taxi? What this meant is that it would be faster from home/ work to your destination along with no chance of delays due to weather . The maglev was proposed to go central sydney to central melbourne via wollongong and canberra.
    I am sure security restrictions would be applied to the service just like flying. Check in 90 minutes prior, x-ray your carry-on bag and empty your pockets, pass through the detector manned by obese otherwise-would-be-unemployed "security" guards. You should be able to turn up at the departure point, whether airport or rail station ten minutes prior to departure, buy a seat, and board. No different to catching an urban bus or train.
    URSUSMAJOR

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Illawarra
    Posts
    2,508
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm View Post
    I am sure security restrictions would be applied to the service just like flying. Check in 90 minutes prior, x-ray your carry-on bag and empty your pockets, pass through the detector manned by obese otherwise-would-be-unemployed "security" guards. You should be able to turn up at the departure point, whether airport or rail station ten minutes prior to departure, buy a seat, and board. No different to catching an urban bus or train.
    I seriously doubt it bullet train Japan, you turn up 5 min before time to leave walk from suburban lines to dedicated high speed platform, place your bags in the carriage with you and go. You can't really hi-jack a train especially one that has no rails.
    Sheer luck was there any security or 1+ hr check in for the Chinese maglev?
    As to cost how much is a second airport going to cost in Sydney along with every domestic plane that will not be needed, enviro impact , avgas and noise pollution in the western burbs?

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    13,786
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Even Europe is having problems increasing rail freight...
    Shifting freight traffic to rail proves daunting
    Article reuse Print this story [Recommend (you need to be logged in)]
    National

    Transfer of traffic
    Additional incentives
    Alpine Crossing Exchange
    comments

    twitter
    Rail freight travel fell between 2000 and 2010 despite the allure of subsidies

    Rail freight travel fell between 2000 and 2010 despite the allure of subsidies (Keystone)

    by Daniele Mariani and Christian Raaflaub, swissinfo.ch
    Jun 24, 2012 - 11:00

    A goal of cutting down on heavy traffic crossing the Alps by boosting freight travel by rail has been enshrined in the Swiss constitution for nearly 20 years. But with roads still faster than rail, it is starting to look like an illusion.

    Rail transport absorbs two-thirds of the freight traffic crossing the Alps every year. Despite the government’s efforts, its market share is not increasing, nor is likely to in the foreseeable future.

    Swiss voters accepted the Alpine Initiative in 1994, sending a clear signal as to what future policy on transportation was to be. The resulting article 84 of the constitution stipulated that “transalpine traffic involving transportation of goods through Switzerland is to take place by railway”.

    While the number of heavy trucks crossing the Swiss Alps has declined, from over 1.4 million in 2000 to 1.25 million in 2010 (three-quarters of which go by the Gotthard axis), the proportion of freight conveyed by rail has also fallen - despite the subsidies paid to make it more attractive.

    In 1999 rail freight traffic was 68.7 per cent (compared with 31.3 per cent by road), while in 2010 it was 62.6 per cent (37.4 per cent), according to Alpifret figures in the 2010 report on monitoring of road and rail freight transport in the Alpine region.

    Last December, approving the report on the transfer of traffic for 2011, the government admitted that “the instruments currently available [for shifting traffic from road to rail] will not be sufficient for achieving the objective of 650,000 trips annually set for 2018”. The opening of the Gotthard base railway tunnel, scheduled for 2016, will not change the situation in any substantial way.

    “For over ten years now we have been doing all we can. But the limits of the transfer policy are becoming more and more apparent,” said Rico Maggi, a transportation expert and the director of the Institute for Economic Research at the University of Lugano
    Switzerland ahead of the rest

    The glass can of course been seen as half full. Without the additional incentives (see sidebar) to support the transfer of traffic, the number of trucks would certainly be greater – by at least 600,000 per year, according to the Federal Transport Office.

    At the European level, on the other hand, Switzerland is an exception.

    In France, the truck continues to rule the road, and the railway seems to be running out of steam: whereas in 1999 rail accounted for 19.9 per cent of goods tonnage transported through the Alps, in 2010 the proportion dropped to 10.5 per cent. Only very recently, in 2009, has the government put forward an initiative to transfer at least 500,000 trucks a year to rail by 2020 and increase the proportion to 25 per cent.

    In Austria the proportion is higher and rail transport is growing, but it still conveys only a third of the goods.
    Timing

    The problem of rail transportation is not really one of price. If you take to the highway, costs along the Cologne-Busto Arsizio corridor (820km) reach €1.85 per kilometre per vehicle, according to data provided by Alpifret. Opting for combined transport, the same stretch costs €1.71/km, without taking the subsidies into account.

    Combined road-rail transport is thus quite competitive. The obstacles are of a different kind.

    “The transfer policy is based on the idea that flows of traffic can be regulated like flows of water,” said Maggi.

    “In reality, however, companies have to decide individually how to produce and transport their goods. There are many small and medium-sized companies that cannot work with a rather inflexible logistical system that is not conceived for short-term needs. And on the other hand, there are goods that are not suitable for rail transport.”

    In spite of traffic jams and problems of various sorts, the highway remains the fastest way to get from point A to point B: 11 and a half hours from Cologne to Busto Arsizio, without holdups, compared to about 22 hours by train.

    “The potential for transfer is fairly slight,” concluded Maggi.
    No turning back

    Despite the rather middling results achieved so far, the Swiss government and parliament intend to continue on the path they have set out for themselves.

    On June 12, the House of Representatives adopted a motion containing a series of proposals to encourage transport by rail.

    Some of these measures are currently under review. The government will soon present its proposal to build a corridor on the Gotthard axis permitting transport of four-metre-high semi-trailers (currently it’s 3.80 metres), which would mean an increase in capacity. They are also considering the possibility of enlarging the loading terminals in Italy.

    For the government these provisions will encourage “a lasting transfer of heavy transalpine traffic from road to rail”. Yet the real impact is expected to be modest.

    To reach significant results, “much higher” taxes than the current ones for heavy trucks on the highway would be required. The margin of manoeuvre is limited, though. Currently a truck making the crossing from Basel to Chiasso pays about SFr290 kilometre-based tax on heavy goods vehicles. The tax could be increased to SFr325. Anything higher would not be in conformity with the land transport agreement concluded with the European Union.

    Another strategy advocated for some time now is the creation of an Alpine Crossing Exchange (see sidebar). A convention introducing an international system to manage traffic appeals to the Swiss government, but not to the other parties involved.

    “Given the lack of political consensus found in neighbouring countries of the European Union” the establishment of an Alpine Crossing Exchange in the next few years “seems unlikely”, says the government.

    For the transfer of traffic, then, they will continue to proceed by small steps. Nothing revolutionary is on the horizon.

    Daniele Mariani and Christian Raaflaub, swissinfo.ch
    (Translated from Italian by Terence MacNamee)
    Transfer of traffic

    The aim of the traffic transfer policy is to protect the Alps from the negative effects of through traffic.

    The legislation fixes at 650,000 the maximum annual number of trucks allowed to be in transit across the Swiss Alps two years after the opening of the Gotthard base tunnel railway, that is in 2018.

    In December 2011, however, the government made clear that, under current conditions, this aim will not be reached. In 2010 about 1.25 million trucks transited on Swiss alpine routes.

    In Switzerland the situation is better compared with other countries of the alpine region, because the railway absorbs about two-thirds of the goods traffic through the Alps. In Austria the proportion is one-third, while in France it is less than one-tenth.
    Additional incentives

    To try to shift freight traffic to rail, various additional measures have been introduced which aim to equalise competition between rail and road, increase railway productivity and improve the flow of traffic on the roads.

    The measures include operating subsidies for combined traffic and railway freight traffic, investment in terminals and financial aid for feeder tracks. In 2011 SFr234 million were budgeted for these three items.

    Another important instrument is the kilometre-based tax on heavy goods vehicles, applied to road transport. In 2011, this tax yielded SFr1.5 billion for the federal coffers. A third of this amount is earmarked for the cantons, which use it mainly to finance the costs of road traffic. The federal share is used mainly in public transport projects.
    Alpine Crossing Exchange

    The Alpine Crossing Exchange is a proposed instrument based on market mechanisms, the purpose of which is to encourage the transfer of freight traffic from road to rail.

    In practice this would mean that a maximum number of heavy vehicles in transit through the Alps is fixed annually, and these transit credits are sold to the highest bidder.

    The credits would apply to all the alpine passes in the country, while it would be left up to the transporters to choose their own route.

    To avoid just diverting the traffic through neighbouring countries, the Alpine Crossing Exchange would require the establishment of a coordinated approach within the entire alpine region.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Illawarra
    Posts
    2,508
    Total Downloaded
    0
    There is the answer in the last part of your quote isuzurover. They are actually going to limit the number of trucks crossing the alps and have an auction style fee to those places available. They have to work with other countries to implemented this to stop it being avoided by driving through a neighbouring country. How much easier would that be to implement on the east coast. Auction off X number of spots per day Vic-nsw ditto nsw-q qld. And all 3 into S.A. You will reduce the number of trucks but jobs will be created in larger storage and increased metro deliveries.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    East-South-East Girt-By-Sea
    Posts
    17,662
    Total Downloaded
    1.20 MB
    Frantic, how will they justify the quota when it has been fuel an weight taxes on trucks that in no small way have paid for the upgrades to the Hume/Pacific Hwy corridor?

    You may create a few jobs in rail-freight depots, but you will have a net loss of jobs overall when you account for the direct losses in drivers/owners and indirect losses in new truck sales and truck service areas. It will also increase the cost on the taxpayer because social security benefits come out of the taxpayer's pockets and you will reduce the number of taxpayers by the equivalent of the net loss of jobs across the industry.

    A lose lose lose situation.

    Did you read the paper yesterday where the rail infrastructure corp in Victoria has admitted a bungled upgrade of the track from Southern Cross (Spencer Street) to Albury with speed limits of 60 KPH and 80KPH over numerous sections of track with muddied ballast. Rail freight will never be economical with speed limits almost half that of road freight.

    You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Tassie/Perth
    Posts
    1,454
    Total Downloaded
    0
    And just to add to that, how many people now days get peeved off waiting for their supplies - now imagine if EVERYTHING was delayed a minimum of 24 hours over what you already wait.....

  7. #77
    sheerluck Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by frantic View Post
    ........Sheer luck was there any security or 1+ hr check in for the Chinese maglev?..............
    Visible uniformed police presence on the platforms, and x-ray luggage checks in the terminal, but the trains ran every 15 mins or so. It was a standard pay, chuck your bags through the machine and then get on when the next one leaves.

    The price (80rmb, about 12 bucks return) was considered extortionate considering you could do the same trip on the metro for about 10rmb.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Illawarra
    Posts
    2,508
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies View Post
    Frantic, how will they justify the quota when it has been fuel an weight taxes on trucks that in no small way have paid for the upgrades to the Hume/Pacific Hwy corridor? Re-read isuzurovers cut then re-post They PLAN to halve alpine trucks by a 650,000 limit.

    You may create a few jobs in rail-freight depots, but you will have a net loss of jobs overall when you account for the direct losses in drivers/owners and indirect losses in new truck sales and truck service areas. It will also increase the cost on the taxpayer because social security benefits come out of the taxpayer's pockets and you will reduce the number of taxpayers by the equivalent of the net loss of jobs across the industry.
    You will not only create jobs in rail depots but in every medium / large business. Please think before posting, now you need 1 or even a part time storeman to cover your 3-5 days of stock, go to rail(or the 3rd option) and you need to carry 10-20 days of stock or pay the extra levy. This means storage size is tripled meaning more storemen/jobs and fuel use is reduced.Ooops an enviro win as well!

    A lose lose lose situation.
    You forgot the reduced heavy vehicle traffic and reduced accidents of Semi's and cars/ buses, obviuosly not a factor in your mind. So to you a semi driver having a micro-sleep and wiping out a car/bus/house is no different to a train de-railing and hitting a few tree's with koala's?

    Did you read the paper yesterday where the rail infrastructure corp in Victoria has admitted a bungled upgrade of the track from Southern Cross (Spencer Street) to Albury with speed limits of 60 KPH and 80KPH over numerous sections of track with muddied ballast. Rail freight will never be economical with speed limits almost half that of road freight.
    And in your final para, another list of potential jobs called track work, upgrades and maintenance
    There would be problems if the trains and shipping(not really an option in the alps Lots-a) terminals on our coastline where not upgraded before the legislation was enacted but in the swiss case they have a 2018 date to acheive this by and already have 62% going by train, the french have dropped to 10% from 25% a decade ago but are following suit to build that figure back up This was decided by the voters, i wonder what we would vote for: #a slight delay in deliveries for half the trucks on our north/south freeways or#more trucks?

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    East-South-East Girt-By-Sea
    Posts
    17,662
    Total Downloaded
    1.20 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by frantic View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies
    <snip> Re-read isuzurovers cut then re-post
    You're assuming I read posts by isuzurover!

    You won't find me on: faceplant; Scipe; Infragam; LumpedIn; ShapCnat or Twitting. I'm just not that interesting.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Mirboo North, Vic.
    Posts
    1,149
    Total Downloaded
    16.28 MB
    Rail wont work for freight.

    Too slow, not in the right places, too expensive and you have the added burden of massive heavy haulage traffic in areas no longer set up to cope with this to get containers from the rail head to existing distribution facilities.

    I have sat in the queues on the docks waiting for containers and its a massive amount of lost productivity.

    It can not be done today and nobody will pay for it to be done tomorrow on traditional rail let alone pie in the sky Maglev which has to duplicate the existing infrastructure.

    The concept is good but the execution is flawed.

    BTW dont maglev trains run on batteries and gensets? And if they dont and run on DC current isnt that going to indirectly pollute via brown coal fired steam turbine generator power stations?

    As for Pollution from aircraft as far as I understand it Jet fuel is similar to diesel so there is particulate pollution in the form of carbon, Hi Lead Avgas is getting harder to get and only used on old radial piston engines and older light aircraft neither of which do freight.

    And for what its worth im enjoying global warming anyway.
    Charleston Green 1997 TDi Disco R380
    Silver 1986 Vogue
    Charcoal 1983 Range Rover 4 speed
    Silver 98 Volvo C70
    Red 88 740 HP Turbo
    Silver Volvo 740 Wagoon
    1998 Volvo S90 Royal
    W116's, C107 and a W123 onna stick

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!