1 / 25

RAIL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

RAIL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. By Harry Gow. GREENER PASTURES. « The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence » We wish we had railways « like those in Europe » European and Japanese railways are often held up as examples in modernity and excellence

burton
Download Presentation

RAIL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RAIL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS By Harry Gow

  2. GREENER PASTURES • « The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence » • We wish we had railways « like those in Europe » • European and Japanese railways are often held up as examples in modernity and excellence • Are our railways under-equipped and ineffective? • How do we stack up?

  3. OTHER JURISDICTIONS • Reference will be had to railways in: • Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia and elsewhere. • Sources include: • Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer (UIC) • Railway Association of Canada (RAC) • Union Internationale des Chemins de fer (UIC) • American Association of Railroads (AAR) • Trade Journals • Personal observation • Other

  4. INTERNATIONAL DATA:RAILWAYS: Passenger millions km, Freight million tonne/km • Europe: Pass 575,326 Frt 1,861,023 • N. America: Pass 10,740 Frt 2,465,236 • Canada: Pass 1,564 Frt 220,000 RAC • Australia: Pass 1,350 Frt. 38,525 • World: Pass. 1,906,597 Frt. 7,471,720 Source: UIC 2001 Proportions of passenger to freight vary greatly!

  5. RAILWAY MODAL SHAREPASSENGER AND FREIGHT • Europe (EU) passenger: 7% of passenger km • USA passenger: 0.6 % of passenger km • Europe freight: 15% of tonne km • USA freight: 40.4 % of tonne km (UIC 2001)

  6. AUSTRALIAMODAL SHARES • Rail freight tonne km: 137,700 million (appr. 33%) • Allfreight tonne km: 374,000 million • Passenger rail km: 548 850 million (% not avail.) • (Est. Greenhouse gas emissions of Aus. Rail 0.3% of total Australian gg emissions ) • Discussion: How do we explain this last percentage? Note discrepancies with UIC figures! • Source Australian Transport Statistics 2003

  7. Freight Revenue tonmiles - 220 billion in 2001 221 billion in 2000 (32% non-bulk) Passenger km 4,11 million pass in 2001; for 1,564.1 million pass km - 4.07 million pass in 2000; for 1,478.8 million pass km CANADARAIL

  8. ANALYSIS OTHER JURISDICTIONS IMPORTANCE OF RAIL MODE • In Europe: Rail Passenger greater Rail freight less • In USA, Australia and Canada Rail passenger less Rail freight greater

  9. JAPAN, RUSSIA & CHINA • Pass million km Frt million ton- km Japan: 240,658 21,800 Russia: 125,834 1,249,166 China: 463,655 1,424,980 ____________________ (Source UIC 2001) Note: Proportionally Japan shows a « European » profile:high rail passenger, low freight, Russia & China similar

  10. INVESTMENTSPOLL OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE Australia: Aus. Track Corp, 15 m USD BHP Iron Ore 35.86 m USD Queensland Railways m 301.17 USD 83.80 m USD for passenger coaches by QR Canada: CPR 453.64 m USD VIA RAIL: 80.31 m USD 25.16 m USD for pass. Coaches by VIA + 12.05 mUSD refurb (Source IRJ 2001)

  11. POLL (Continued) France: SNCF 951.54 m USD au total (Coaches 300 m USD) RFF 1,329.04 m USD Switzerland: CFF 1,528.59 USD USA: BNSF 1,650 m USD UP 1,600 m USD (Source IRJ)

  12. RAIL NETWORK LENGTH VS INVESTMENT IN RAIL INFRASTR. • NAFTA 23 % of world network length 14 % of world investment • European Union 15 % of length 43 % of investment • China 6 % of length 17 % of investment (Source IRJ: length, World Bank; - investment, DVB)

  13. North America and Australia Lower investment per km of track Lower investment in coaches Total amounts for infrastructure still large Competitive advantage slipping Road « investments »! European Union + China XX + investment for length Part of explanation proportions of freight vs. Passenger Part of explanation role of state. Subsidies to roads vary SOME GENERALIZATIONS

  14. FUEL CONSUMPTION BY RAIL • In Canada Revenue Ton Km per litre of fuel jumped 26.4 % from 133 RTK per l in 1992 to 168 RTK per l in 2001, - Upgraded loco fleet & train handling; (RAC 2002) • Result is less GGE gaseous emissions. • Rail freight typically consumes less fuel than road freight: ratio 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 (AAR)

  15. ENERGY USE BY RAIL –EUROPE, RUSSIA & CHINA • Increasing electrification (now from Gasgow to Vladivostock - in 2003) • Sources multiple: Swiss hydro, French nuclear, Russian both, China coal & hydro, (Denmark some wind!) • Transborder freight diesels increasing • High speed (electric) rail very energy efficient replacing airlines: Paris-Brussels, Paris-Lyon-Marseille, Germany, Spain, Italy, US, Japan • Local transport: Tram-trains (el., some deisel)

  16. GLOBALISATION OF RAILWAYS • First railways used British technology, then developed specialized national systems • High costs for systems esp. vehicles • Transborder difficulties, tech., customs, et c especially for freight in Europe • Technical obsolecence, conservatism • Road mode more internationalised

  17. GLOBALIZATION • Rise of international markets and suppliers: ex. Bombardier in China, GM in England, et c • The appearance of techniques in new countries • (Seimans signals in Edmonton etc, Indusi - OC • International operators, ex. WC–CN in the UK • Harmonisation between countries • More technology transfers

  18. IMPACT OF TRENDS ON GGEEXAMPLES • Higher norms may apply on a wider area • Canadian GM locos in Europe more powerful and efficient, help attract freight from road • Bombardier and Alstom world leaders in energy-efficient rolling stock; Acela their electric Euro train in USA replacing air trips Boston – New York - Washington • Modern signalling and control systems can eliminate waste of energy, idling • Use of European vehicles implies tougher emission standards ex. Talent BR 643 meet Euro 2 standards

  19. POENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENTEUROPE • Further reduction of border effects NA style double-stack on dedicated frt. Lines • More tunnels through mountains, under straits • Harmonization and spread of Euro standards • Linking-up of national HSR networks e g France-Spain, France-CH-Germany-Italy-Benelux • Tram-train on wider basis incl. transborder • European signalling systems • Efficiencies from common providors of equipment

  20. POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENTAUSTRALIA • Continue unification of network – stqndard gauge • Extension of network – Alice Springs- Darwin now connected (Sept. 2003) First frt Jan. 2004, first pass. Feb. 2004 – • Lift more clearances for double stacked containers • Infill electrification – Melbourne, Sydney, Queensland • Improve Sydney – Darwin; line configuration, passing loops • More unified freight network • New generation diesels • Greater use of rail for transit: Vic, WA, SA, Qld • Wider use of tilting passenger trains (QR) • More continuous investment by feds • Favours access to local services and business • Fosters local development

  21. POTENTIAL FOR IMPROVEMENTContinue new line construction and electrification (China)Electrification of now diesel lines (Russia)Improve links with EU and future EU country networks; gauge changers (5ft – 4’8 ½’’)Improve links to Central Asian countries and ultimately southern tier countries Enhance transcontinental container haulageIntroduce European innovations such as tram-train

  22. POTENTIAL : CANADA • Further improvement to investment régime • Continued taxation reforms • State incentives for investment in green rail initiatives- ex. Green Goat et c • Federal and provincial investment in transit and inter-city passenger, capacity imrovement, HSR • Adoption of European techology such as low-emission diesl light rail on a wider basis • TEA (USA) – type intermodal investment prog.

  23. RAIL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONSSUMMARY • European and Asian railways have a strong share of passengers • North American and Australian railways do better with freight than do the Euros • We can learn from other jurisdictions: Technology, legislation, financing, emissions reductions, power sources

  24. OTHWER JURISDICTIONSLESSONS • Rail contributes little GES per ton-km, • More emissions reductions are accomplished by improving rail systems • We do surprisingly well here compared to others • Our problem is that we are often satisfied with that • Other cultures may value clean air more than does ours (Denmark, Switzerland) & act on it -> Rail • Distance is not a barrier to improved passenger rail (viz. European HSR runs of over 1000 km) • Population density is also a false criterion (Australia)

  25. ACTIONHERE • 1. Take global warming seriously • 2. Learn from the world(Acela, GM et al) • 3. Think globally, act locally (Ottawa & …)

More Related