EU's "4th rail package": more attempts at unifying railways

CIE

Of course, the EU wants to have its cake and eat it too: centralised regulation, signalling, et al, but with the token nod to privatisation and all that (the companies thereof of course being government favourites). Interesting facts in there, though...

EurActiv (from September)

The European Commission is working on its fourth Railway Package since 2001 with the aim to further liberalise rail networks, citing rail’s low market shares of about 7% for freight and 12% for passenger services.

But after two decades of trying to create a competitive single market, major hurdles remain. Technological differences, regulatory barriers, underinvestment and debates over how best to manage infrastructure and equipment contribute to the slow pace of change in some countries.

“The fragmentation of the European railway system leads to serious problems of efficiency, flexibility and reliability as well as to high operating costs — limiting rail’s ability to compete against other modes and discouraging private investments by new entrants in the rail market,” Transportation Commissioner Siim Kallas says. ...

One of the persistently expensive challenges to integration has been technical interoperability. Two decades after the birth of the single market, industry figures show that 20 different types of signalling systems remain in use in the EU — typically leading to frustrating delays at border stations for a change of locomotives, or forcing operators to outfit locomotives with multiple systems. Efforts to create a single European Train Control System (ETCS) are far from complete. ...

... (E)ven with high motor fuel prices, the reality is that Europeans rarely take trains — a concern if the EU is to meet its long-term pledges to reduce pollutants. On average, the Swiss travel 2,100 kilometres per year by train, five times more than the British and more than twice the distance of Germans. Just 4% of Europeans ride a train at least three times a week and 77% use railways less than once a month, according to a recent Eurobarometer survey. The survey shows that the Czech Republic has the highest railway usage on a regular basis, with 12% of those surveyed saying they ride the rails “most days” and 13% up to three times a week. The EU average was 4% for both categories, while Poland, Finland, Ireland and Estonia have some of the lowest use in the EU. ...

No mention of the different rail gauges, funny enough.

corktina

the guage issue isn't an issue on an island.

CIE

Islands or continents don't matter; if you have multiple gauges on any land mass, it's a problem. Besides, there are bridges and tunnels that it is possible to build between same. Gauge-changing bogies are a stopgap and an expensive one at that (e.g. Spain to France and vice-versa).

At least what is illustrated here is that where the rail is underinvested in, you have the fewest passengers using it, and where the regulations are too draconian, you have the least haulage in railfreight.

Run_to_da_hills

corktina wrote: »

the guage issue isn't an issue on an island.

It is when you are trying to off load a whole fleet of Mk3 carriages.

Victor

CIE wrote: »

No mention of the different rail gauges, funny enough.

In the scheme of things, not really a problem. Power systems and signalling are much greater problems. Clearance profiles (the guaranteed loading gauge) is problematic in the UK, France and Italy, except for specific routes, which is a problem for freight. The combination of power systems, signalling and clearance profiles are an issue in getting from one part of the core standard gauge system to another.

The only real track gauge interfaces are Spain's northern border and the western border of the former Russian Empire (rationalised to modern borders). Ireland doesn't matter. Notably, Spain's high speed railways have been built to standard gauge and Spain is likely to gradually convert it's broad gauge lines to standard gauge.

There is an issue with narrow gauge lines, but these tend to be local lines.

http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/voltage_map_europe.php

Jmccoy1

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is when you are trying to off load a whole fleet of Mk3 carriages.

They should have refurbished and kept those.

CIE

Victor wrote: »

In the scheme of things, not really a problem. Power systems and signalling are much greater problems. Clearance profiles (the guaranteed loading gauge) is problematic in the UK, France and Italy, except for specific routes, which is a problem for freight. The combination of power systems, signalling and clearance profiles are an issue in getting from one part of the core standard gauge system to another.

The only real track gauge interfaces are Spain's northern border and the western border of the former Russian Empire (rationalised to modern borders). Ireland doesn't matter. Notably, Spain's high speed railways have been built to standard gauge and Spain is likely to gradually convert it's broad gauge lines to standard gauge.

There is an issue with narrow gauge lines, but these tend to be local lines.

http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/voltage_map_europe.php

I wonder where this "Ireland doesn't matter" attitude is coming from...?

Power systems are not as big of a problem as gauge differences. There are several electric engines available that can switch between different systems of electrification while in motion. That of course leaves signalling, and for the most part that is a modernisation problem.

Victor

CIE wrote: »

I wonder where this "Ireland doesn't matter" attitude is coming from...?

Until you spend tends of billions of euros on a tunnel to Britain, interoperability isn't an issue.

Power systems are not as big of a problem as gauge differences. There are several electric engines available that can switch between different systems of electrification while in motion.

And they cost more than trains using a single system.

That of course leaves signalling, and for the most part that is a modernisation problem.

And that costs money.

dowlingm

CIE wrote: »

I wonder where this "Ireland doesn't matter" attitude is coming from...?

Chisel to remove chip from shoulder to the C&T board stat :rolleyes:

corktina

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It is when you are trying to off load a whole fleet of Mk3 carriages.

it isn't there are many spare bogies (from scrapped mk3 sleepers and other sources) and you just unbolt the earth straps and brake hoses and lift them off. I know, I've done it.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

Islands or continents don't matter; if you have multiple gauges on any land mass, it's a problem. Besides, there are bridges and tunnels that it is possible to build between same. Gauge-changing bogies are a stopgap and an expensive one at that (e.g. Spain to France and vice-versa).

At least what is illustrated here is that where the rail is underinvested in, you have the fewest passengers using it, and where the regulations are too draconian, you have the least haulage in railfreight.

as far as Ireland is concerned, the gauge doesn't make a bit of difference.No bridge or tunnel will ever be built, nor is there a need for same.

CIE

Victor wrote: »

Until you spend tens of billions of euros on a tunnel to Britain, interoperability isn't an issue

Not if you start considering things like tram-trains. And the costs of gauge conversion for new rolling stock bought off the shelf are still not insignificant besides, since you are customising spare parts in terms of manufacturing lines and stored inventories.

And the "Ireland doesn't matter" attitude, frankly, is a lot bigger than this issue, which is why I get troubled when I see any Irish person coming out with it.

(To me, best location for trans-Irish-Sea tunnel is via the Isle of Man, for the record. Adding that market brings up the value significantly; it'll make the sea and air transporters a bit ticked off, but they can adapt. No reason not to look into it even now during a relatively recessionary period; might even be possible that the EU would look into such infrastructure especially if they're serious about making the union "ever closer" as they claim. And besides, the tiny trickle of railfreight via the Eurotunnel Channel Tunnel is rather shameful; through freight from the continent to Ireland and vice-versa has a lot of potential, never mind the tourism boost from being able to ride a train to the IOM.)

Victor wrote: »

me wrote: »

Power systems are not as big of a problem as gauge differences. There are several electric engines available that can switch between different systems of electrification while in motion

And they cost more than trains using a single system

Not much more, not even in terms of capital costs. When you're pulling freight, too, they pay off far more than using diesel the whole way, even in purely thermodynamic terms.

Besides, there are physical limits as to certain voltages and frequencies in terms of loading gauges and the like; you'd need higher clearances for high-voltage AC electrification than with a lower-voltage DC system in order to prevent electric arcs. Building the multi-voltage engines translates to far less in capital costs than (for example) en-masse conversion of 3kV DC to 25kV 50Hz AC, and even means far less in operational and maintenance costs. (And you aren't going to get Germany to convert from its homegrown 15kV 16⅔Hz electrificaton either.)

Victor wrote: »

me wrote: »

That of course leaves signalling, and for the most part that is a modernisation problem

And that costs money

More money than replacing the Mark 3s with Mark 4s and DMUs, and then running them on lines still signalled with semaphores? in the 21st century no less? I've been saying on here for a while that CIE's spending priorities are way out of whack. The longer you defer upgrading, the more it will cost you, so more money is being wasted by deferral until the last minute (or until a catastrophic accident spurs the government to finally take action).

steamengine

It's too late now, whoever was the genius who came up with 5ft 3ins. If we had standard gauge then locomotive, dmu and rolling stock would be off the shelf and not special builds, bogie-wise at least. These adaptations must come with a hefty price tag - the use of e.g. secondhand UK stock is not a possibility either, though that might 'stick in the graw' for political reasons, although we still post our letters in their post boxes - amazing what paint can achieve. :D

CIE

steamengine wrote: »

It's too late now, whoever was the genius who came up with 5ft 3ins. If we had standard gauge then locomotive, dmu and rolling stock would be off the shelf and not special builds, bogie-wise at least. These adaptations must come with a hefty price tag - the use of e.g. secondhand UK stock is not a possibility either, though that might 'stick in the graw' for political reasons, although we still post our letters in their post boxes - amazing what paint can achieve. :D

Why is it too late? There are only 1160 route miles of railway in the Republic (excluding Luas) and about 207 miles in the North.

The Dublin & Kingstown and Dalkey Atmospheric railways were built to 1435 mm (4ft 8½in) gauge, so the country started off with that gauge. It was because of the Dublin & Drogheda (today's Northern Line) being built to 5ft 2in and the Ulster Railway's 6ft 2in gauge that the "compromise" 5ft 3in came about. For some bizarre reason, this gauge difference between Britain and Ireland ended up being codified into UK law in 1846 as the "Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act".

(BTW, if it's true that Dublin's former tramway system had railfreight wagons transported along it, then the gauge difference between the general railway network and Luas gets a bit more disturbing.)

Wikipedia still has the pic from Australia of dual-gauge tracks; one is 1435 mm and the other 1600 mm (like Ireland). Just as food for thought. I would say that 1367 route miles would be cheaper to convert than to do something like this...

corktina

Cost is the least of your worries...you would need to shut sections of line whilst converting them and the logistics and disruption would be enormous problems, for what? there's no advantage to converting Ireland's lines to Standard gauge.Any extra cost of buying 5'3" stock would be tiny compared to the cost of replacing/converting the existing fleet.

steamengine

CIE wrote: »

Why is it too late? There are only 1160 route miles of railway in the Republic (excluding Luas) and about 207 miles in the North.

The Dublin & Kingstown and Dalkey Atmospheric railways were built to 1435 mm (4ft 8½in) gauge, so the country started off with that gauge. It was because of the Dublin & Drogheda (today's Northern Line) being built to 5ft 2in and the Ulster Railway's 6ft 2in gauge that the "compromise" 5ft 3in came about. For some bizarre reason, this gauge difference between Britain and Ireland ended up being codified into UK law in 1846 as the "Railway Regulation (Gauge) Act".

(BTW, if it's true that Dublin's former tramway system had railfreight wagons transported along it, then the gauge difference between the general railway network and Luas gets a bit more disturbing.)

Wikipedia still has the pic from Australia of dual-gauge tracks; one is 1435 mm and the other 1600 mm (like Ireland). Just as food for thought. I would say that 1367 route miles would be cheaper to convert than to do something like this...

That would surely be a massive financial undertaking at this stage of the game, especially when the network is now under even more financial constraints. Another oddity is having two state run railways on this island instead of an all island railway and homogenising both systems. My main point is that gauge does matter, cost wise in purchasing all manner of rolling and powered stock and also selling off stock such as the present redundant Mark 3's.

CIE

steamengine wrote: »

That would surely be a massive financial undertaking at this stage of the game, especially when the network is now under even more financial constraints. Another oddity is having two state run railways on this island instead of an all island railway and homogenising both systems. My main point is that gauge does matter, cost wise in purchasing all manner of rolling and powered stock and also selling off stock such as the present redundant Mark 3's.

"Massive" compared to what? Perhaps the private sector can handle the "mass" thereof, and certainly have better priorities in regards to capital spending than the state does. I suspect a private operator would have re-signalled to more modern systems back in the 20th century rather than retaining semaphores into the 21st as the state operator has. (After all, the GWR in England was still in private hands when the government legislated its gauge changeover from 2140 mm to 1435 mm.)

corktina

cost/benefit. What is the benefit of such a massive investment?

The reason that the GWR had to change gauge (completed in 1892 but an ongoing process that really didn't need Government intervention) was to facilitate interchange between the various companies, precisely the reason why it isn't necessary on this island.

steamengine

CIE wrote: »

"Massive" compared to what? Perhaps the private sector can handle the "mass" thereof, and certainly have better priorities in regards to capital spending than the state does. I suspect a private operator would have re-signalled to more modern systems back in the 20th century rather than retaining semaphores into the 21st as the state operator has. (After all, the GWR in England was still in private hands when the government legislated its gauge changeover from 2140 mm to 1435 mm.)

Private has already been tried, GNRI perhaps the most progressive of them all, finished up bust. The arrival of the motor car, buses and trucks altered things radically and indeed the motorway bus/coaches are continuing to leech rail passengers on intercity routes, most notably Dublin Galway - so how is private enterprise going to sort things out ? Fair dues if it can happen, but I can't see re-gauging as part of it.

Cyberbeagle

I have heard that gauge *is* an issue the EU people are looking at...

CIE

steamengine wrote: »

Private has already been tried, GNRI perhaps the most progressive of them all, finished up bust. The arrival of the motor car, buses and trucks altered things radically and indeed the motorway bus/coaches are continuing to leech rail passengers on intercity routes, most notably Dublin Galway - so how is private enterprise going to sort things out? Fair dues if it can happen, but I can't see re-gauging as part of it.

Where was private "already tried" in Ireland? Merely because the Free State government centralised everything does not constitute "private has been tried (and failed)", after all; the 23 companies that predated the GSR were not all insolvent.

The "motor car" canard has already been busted. Going over it for the umpteenth time in about the space of a century will not make that more valid, especially in the face of the fact that it required government intervention in its infrastructure to even get where it is today — and that is unfair competition with the railways when the state does that.

But back to the subject, this is a European initiative here, with an eye towards interconnectivity. Perhaps it may end up being long term, but their vision does entail a unified railway network with the continent, and they can unilaterally decide whether to make a standard rail gauge across the Union, which Ireland will not be able to opt out of.

steamengine

CIE wrote: »

Where was private "already tried" in Ireland? Merely because the Free State government centralised everything does not constitute "private has been tried (and failed)", after all; the 23 companies that predated the GSR were not all insolvent.

GNRI prior to being absorbed into CIE was the example I gave you. In essence private as opposed to state.

The "motor car" canard has already been busted. Going over it for the umpteenth time in about the space of a century will not make that more valid, especially in the face of the fact that it required government intervention in its infrastructure to even get where it is today — and that is unfair competition with the railways when the state does that.

Well like it or not, and I don't, the facts are that is what happened and is continuing to happen. Post the motorways, Rail fought back in the UK with the introduction of InterCity 125, no sign of that happening here, unfortunately.

But back to the subject, this is a European initiative here, with an eye towards interconnectivity. Perhaps it may end up being long term, but their vision does entail a unified railway network with the continent, and they can unilaterally decide whether to make a standard rail gauge across the Union, which Ireland will not be able to opt out of.

Like the way they standardised the bank rates! Look at the mess that has resulted from that bit of ill thought out homogenisation. I think they have more on their plate for the foreseeable future to sort out than messing around with railway gauges.

Victor

Cyberbeagle wrote: »

I have heard that gauge *is* an issue the EU people are looking at...

More loading gauge than track gauge. Only Ireland, Spain and Portugal have a different gauge (Malta and Cyprus don't have railways) - every other country in the EU is standard gauge.

Meanwhile, getting a full height freight container across several countries is a logistical nightmare.

strassenwo!f

CIE wrote: »

No reason not to look into it even now during a relatively recessionary period

Relatively recessionary? Well thank goodness we don't live in the bad times.

Cyberbeagle

Victor wrote: »

More loading gauge than track gauge. Only Ireland, Spain and Portugal have a different gauge (Malta and Cyprus don't have railways) - every other country in the EU is standard gauge.

Meanwhile, getting a full height freight container across several countries is a logistical nightmare.

I wonder if the DRD are aware of the difference...??

Victor

Victor wrote: »

More loading gauge than track gauge. Only Ireland, Spain and Portugal have a different gauge (Malta and Cyprus don't have railways) - every other country in the EU is standard gauge.

Meanwhile, getting a full height freight container across several countries is a logistical nightmare.

Apologies. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are 1520mm gauge, but here are only 3 points where it joins the standard gauge system: http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/maps_baltic-states.php

Hungerford

steamengine wrote: »

GNRI prior to being absorbed into CIE was the example I gave you. In essence private as opposed to state.

But the GNRI was a particular victim of partition. Journey times became uncompetitive because all its lines crossed the border and both governments decided to insist on strict isolationist customs regulations between both parts of the island.

steamengine

Hungerford wrote: »

But the GNRI was a particular victim of partition. Journey times became uncompetitive because all its lines crossed the border and both governments decided to insist on strict isolationist customs regulations between both parts of the island.

It would still have been the fastest way for most people to travel up until the early fifties, so in effect they would have had a captive market. As I recall it, widespread car ownership only commenced around that period. As soon as people acquired cars, then that became the mode of choice, due to the time saved. Strangely enough I recall one rail journey our family took to Enniskillen which took an age ok. However Enterprise journey times haven't altered appreciably in the last sixty years, so between Dublin and Belfast, that service remained the faster of the two modes.

Customs delayed the trains ok., but not unduly. Again I recall the old 'triptych' system of documents required by car drivers, who in turn had to queue up at the border posts and pay homage to bureaucracy - so delays applied there also, to an even greater extent.