International Railway Journal
BRAZILIAN freight operator Latin American Logistics (ALL) has signed an agreement with Progress Rail to lease 18 EMD SD40-2 diesel locomotives, which will be used on petroleum and ethanol trains in the state of Mato Grosso do Sul.
AUSTRIA's railways experienced a mixed fortunes in 2012 with falling freight volumes offset by rising passenger traffic, according to the annual report from the country's rail regulator Schienen-Control, which was published on July 10.
BROCKMAN Mining subsidiary Brockman Australia has entered into an exclusive three-year agreement with railfreight operator Aurizon, which will develop and operate the rail infrastructure for Brockman's Marillana and Ophthalmia iron-ore projects in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.
SWISS Federal Railways (SBB) is planning heavy overhauls on its entire fleet of 119 Re460 electric locomotives by 2022 in a SFr 230m ($US 238m) programme which will be carried out at the SBB workshops in Yverdon-les-Bains.
www.progressiverailroading.com US News..
www.railway-technology.com Updates.......
Euromaint wins rail maintenance contract in Sweden
Swedish company Euromaint Rail has secured a contract from Sweden's national rail operator Statens Järnvägar (SJ) to provide maintenance services for locomotives that run between Sala and Linköping.
Tutor Perini to build box tunnel at Hudson Yards site in US
Tutor Perini has secured a $133m contract from Amtrak to build a box tunnel under the Eastern Rail Yard of the Hudson Yards site in New York City, US.
Indra to develop integrated control centre for Kuala Lumpur rail system
Spanish IT firm Indra has secured a contract to design, develop and commission a new integrated control centre for the Monorail, Ampang and Kelana Jaya lines on the light rail system in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Alstom starts construction of bogies for Montreal's new metro cars
France-based manufacturer Alstom has started the construction of bogies for Montreal's new metro cars at its manufacturing plant in Sorel-Tracy, Quebec, Canada.
European Bank for Reconstruction & Development. (EBRD)
IEA and EBRD show benefits of improved energy efficiency of urban transport systems
As energy consumption for transport in cities is expected to double by 2050, report sees potential savings of up to US$ 70 trillion.
Policies that improve the energy efficiency of urban transport systems could help save as much as US$ 70 trillion in spending on vehicles, fuel and transportation infrastructure between now and 2050, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.
The report, A Tale of Renewed Cities, draws on examples from more than 30 cities across the globe to show how to improve transport efficiency through better urban planning and travel demand management. Extra benefits include lower greenhouse-gas emissions and higher quality of life.
This report was supported by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) Shareholder Special Fund. It includes input from EBRD experts and case studies based on the Bank’s work in the urban transport sector.
The report comes at a critical time: More than half of the world’s population already lives in cities, many of which suffer from traffic jams and overcrowded roads that cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost fuel and time and that harm environmental quality, health and safety.
“As the share of the world’s population living in cities grows to nearly 70 percent by 2050 and energy consumption for transport in cities is expected to double, the need for efficient, affordable, safe and high-capacity transport solutions will become more acute,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven as she presented the report. “Urgent steps to improve the efficiency of urban transport systems are needed not only for energy security reasons, but also to mitigate the numerous negative climate, noise, air pollution, congestion and economic impacts of rising urban transport volumes.”
She urged policy makers to take a systems perspective and a long-term view to address the challenges. “Governments must think beyond individual technologies and electoral cycles, and consider how to build – and how to renew – cities that will accommodate and transport nearly 6.3 billion people by 2050. We must plan infrastructure, logistics and energy systems now that make sense today and over the coming decades,” she said.
Among the three broad categories of policies recommended in the report are those that allow travel to be avoided, those that shift travel to more efficient modes, and those that improve the efficiency of vehicle and fuel technologies. The report notes that if fully implemented across the transportation sector, this “avoid, shift and improve” approach could save up to US$ 70 trillion in terms of lower spending on oil, roadway infrastructure and vehicles.
The report offers three case studies – Belgrade, Seoul and New York City -- to show how those cities have already improved their transport systems. It notes, for example, that within the first six months of refurbishing its urban rail system, Belgrade tripled passenger levels. When Seoul pushed through reforms that no longer rewarded bus operators for carrying more people, ridership, speed and safety all increased. And New York City shaved 11 minutes off travel times within a year of introducing express bus services, while at the same time attracting more passengers.
A Tale of Renewed Cities, sets forth a pathway outlining the essential steps and milestones for policy development and implementation to transform cities by improving urban transport systems. The pathway is divided into four sections that present the necessary planning and actions for supporting development, financing, implementation and evaluation of policies to improve the energy efficiency of urban transport systems.
To assist planners and policy makers in addressing many common issues and challenges, the pathway also provides a list of policy references and practitioner's guides that are noted throughout the report and on the IEA Policy Pathway Series webpage.
More news..
Shedmaster Railway News
Construction of Astana engine factory begins - Railway Gazette
Indra to build Kuala Lumpur integrated control centre - Railway Gazette
Railnews Blog | Big rise in passenger numbers – could digital technology be the cause?
World Heritage & Railway News
Mallard 75 - National Railway Museum
Sporty railway ancestors? | National Railway Museum blog
Pullman Diner Service | North Yorkshire Moors Railway :: A steam train adventure through the stunning Yorkshire Moors
Rail Ale Tours 2013 | The East Lancashire Railway
Railway Engineering News
Eversholt Rail to provide Thameslink fleet support services - Railway Gazette
20 years since rail privatisation - Speeches - Inside Government - GOV.UK
Secretary of State for Transport speech at an Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) event. These are the speaker's notes, not a transcript of the speech as it was delivered.
Thank you David.
And thank you everyone.
It’s a great pleasure to be with you today (9 July 2013).
At a very significant birthday party.
20 years since rail privatisation. 20 years of rising investment. 20 years of extraordinary growth on our railway.
As with all growing up, there have been a few wobbles along the way.
But we overcame them and learned from them. And think back to where we started.
As a junior transport minister in the 1980s, I remember British Rail.
Underinvestment in tracks and trains. Poor reliability. Managers whose good ideas were too often stifled by a lack of cash……….because of course some people in British Rail did want to innovate.
And an ageing network in a declining industry.
John Major – then the Prime Minister - knew things could be better.
So tonight, I’d like to pay tribute to the people who got it right. And those who over the past 20 years have made it happen.
But I also want to look ahead.
And ask:
How we can improve on the achievements of the past two decades?
How can we go on to do even better job in the future?
Let me start with some facts.
For most of the time since the Second World War rail traffic has been falling.
Since privatisation, journeys have doubled. The network is roughly the same size as 15 years ago. But there are 4,000 more services a day.
There’s been growth on lines that not long ago everyone had written off.
Rural routes. Commuter links to cities like Leeds. London’s remarkable new Overground.
Meanwhile, rail freight has grown by 60%. This is the success of privatisation.
I could go on reading out figures.
About safety.
We now have the safest major railway in Europe.
About passenger satisfaction.
Or about punctuality, at near record levels.
Though it still isn’t perfect and sometimes things go badly wrong.
All this is why a recent EU study found that our railways are the most improved in Europe.
And why other countries have followed Britain’s lead.
Adopting franchising. And creating separate operators for track and train.
But although we have much to celebrate, tonight is also a chance to look to the future.
In another twenty years our transport system is going to be different again.
HS2 will be built. Crossrail will be a familiar part of London life.
Our current mainlines will be largely electric.Services will often be faster and more frequent.
Away from the railways, things like car technology will have changed too.
We’ll have far more electric cars, and driverless ones too. And planes will be more efficient than ever.
So we have a really amazing opportunity.
It’s what makes my job so exciting. It’s also going to mean lots of challenges.
So how do we meet them? My answer begins with a question.
What are our railways really for?
Different people might give different replies to that.
But at their core the railways have just one job.
To provide a service. To move people. To move goods.To make life more pleasant.
To make our economy stronger.
Often – however - the rail industry makes things seem incredibly complex.
I include the Department for Transport in that.
Sometimes we talk about things that mean nothing to the travelling public.
HLOS. The Northern Hub. The Electric Spine. ATOC. The RDG.
After 10 months as Transport Secretary, it’s taken me a while to understand them all.
Although sometimes it’s better not to find out.
For instance, I suggested renaming HLOS the Rail Investment Programme….
…until an official pointed out that stood for R I P.
What are the consequences of all this complexity?
A rail industry that isn’t always as creative as it could be.
One that costs more to run than it should.
And one that’s still clinging on to some old practices and technologies.
I think everyone who uses or works for the railways recognises that.
So I want to challenge the industry and government…
…to find new ways to work together to give passengers what they want.
Which is a simpler fares structure and cheaper tickets.
That challenge shouldn’t sound revolutionary.
It’s precisely because the opportunities are so great that I want us to think hard about how we keep improving.
How we encourage more collaboration.
And how we build a better-value railway – not just for passengers, but for taxpayers too.
To use an old phrase – we’re getting there.
Just the other day I went to see SouthWest Trains.
They now collaborate closely with Network Rail under a joint venture.
They’ve created a single management team, responsible for trains and track.
This kind of joined up working isn’t bad for competition.
Neither is it an end to the market.
It’s just a commonsense example of how to make things work.
So if the first two decades of privatisation were about creating enterprise and growth.
The next decades are going to be about making sure all parts of the rail industry do what they do best as efficiently as possible.
Whether it’s selling tickets, running signals, or fixing track.
My message to you today is this.
We have a clear choice. We could choose to look back. Give up on progress.
Forget lessons that we’ve learnt about what works. There are some who want to do that.
If the Opposition has any clear plans at all they seem to be about:
Opposing competition.Letting union bosses call the shots.And cutting off private investment.
That would mean higher fares.Fewer services.More crowding.An industry once again in decline. It would be a tragedy for passengers.
Or we could look positively to the future.
Because the railway is in a better position than it has been for generations.
With a government that is investing unprecedented sums.
With HS2 we’re committed to building the first new national rail network since the Victorian era.
And yes, it’s controversial.
Some people say were spending too much.
Others say we should spend more on tunnels and compensation.
Some say we are going to fast. Others say too slow.
Some say Britain needs to invest more in the future.
Others that rules here are so complex it’s not worth trying.
As I often say, the easiest thing would be for us to do nothing.
But that would be to let down our country’s future.
We need the capacity that HS2 will provide to ease the strain on the ageing, overcrowded West Coast Mainline. Without it, as our prosperity and population grow…
…links between our great cities will stagnate.
But HS2 is just part of a massive programme of transport investment.
This includes roads, airports and our current rail network too.
And what matters to today’s travellers is that we get the current industry structure to work even better.
And it’s happening.
Franchising might still be criticised by those who want to turn backwards.
Those who think centralised control is the future.
Those who can’t see the significant benefits that private sector operators have brought to the railway. Those who haven’t learnt any lessons from the past.
But they are completely missing the point.
Look at today’s railway and you’ll find remarkable examples of open collaboration.
We need more of that. Not control from the centre.Or form-filling and box-ticking.
But innovation. Freedom.
Allowing the private sector and the public sector each to do what they do best in partnership.
Not fragmentation.But working together.
Getting back to the simple principle I set out earlier.
This is my commitment to you.
We want to see it happen over the next 20 years.
Thank you.
CER - The Voice of European Railways
Press Release.
Trans-European rail freight transport – what future lies ahead?
| |
The Community of European Railway and Infrastructure Companies (CER) and the Lithuanian Presidency of the EU jointly organised a political debate on the future of trans-European rail freight transport on 9 July. The event was a good occasion to reflect upon current issues and obstacles preventing rail freight from realising its full potential and on potential policy measures to remove these barriers and reinforce the competitiveness of rail freight.
The debate focused on how to better integrate rail in the logistic chain and how to turn it into an attractive solution for shippers – whether alone or in combination with other modes. It touched, amongst other elements, on the necessity to guarantee efficient hinterland links for European ports and to provide green and efficient solutions for the shipping of goods destined to or coming from overseas, notably Asia.
Lithuanian Transport and Communications Minister Rimantas Sinkevičius said: “As outlined in the 2011 European Commission Transport White Paper, the future prosperity of our continent will depend on the ability of all of its regions to remain fully and competitively integrated in the world economy. Efficient transport is vital in making this happen. Given its strategic assets, rail is ideally placed to provide efficient links among EU countries and between the EU, CIS and Asia for the transport of goods, as the backbone of a sustainable transport system in Europe. A Growing Europe and an Open Europe are two of the Lithuanian Presidency’s top priorities. Making the most of rail freight’s potential for the transport of goods both within the EU and towards Asia will be essential to reach these goals.”
CER Executive Director Libor Lochman added: “Rail freight has strong assets, such as its low environmental impact and its high energy efficiency. Rail is also one of the safest modes of transport and is particularly suited to the medium and long distance transport of goods – in particular towards Asia, a strategic commercial partner for Europe. Yet, in spite of these advantages and of various policy initiatives introduced by the European Commission during the last ten years, the modal share of rail in land freight transport has decreased dramatically. Rail freight operators have made important efforts in order to better serve the needs of their customers, and will continue to do so. However, these efforts will fail to reach their objective if they are not completed by essential framework conditions such as sufficient investment into infrastructure, measures to remove technical and administrative bottlenecks, and conditions to allow all modes to compete on a level playing field. These framework conditions should be at the core of the EU strategy in the field of transport.”
HS2 struggling to justify £50billion bill.
For the past four years, the project to build a North-South high-speed line has looked as solid a bet as Andy Murray eventually winning Wimbledon. Despite the high cost and the protests of well-organised objectors in the Chilterns, HS2 seemed to have everything going for it.
First proposed by the Tories in opposition, the project was picked up by Lord Adonis when he was Transport Secretary and given impetus with the creation of a government company to design the line and push a Bill through Parliament. For the incoming Coalition, the project was a unifying force, since the Lib-Dems were even more enthusiastic. Even in these austere times, a cool £1 billion was allocated to work up the project.However, while 1,500 planners are fleshing out the crude lines drawn on the map, suddenly the tide is beginning to turn. Lord Mandelson and former Chancellor Alistair Darling have both expressed doubts and while, so far, the opposition has largely been confined to time-expired politicians, there is a distinct feeling of unease about the viability of the project on both sides of the House. Even MPs who are publicly supportive often express doubts in private about the cost and nature of the scheme. The trigger was the announcement, slipped out in a classic attempt to “bury bad news”, that the cost of the Y-shaped 330-mile line linking London with Leeds and Manchester via Birmingham had soared from £32.4 billion to £42.6 billion. With rolling stock, that means a total bill of £50 billion, all met by the public purse, since no private money has been forthcoming. Forget the excuse that this extra money is down to contingency, as this was already included. It represents what will undoubtedly be the first of many cost rises. And the scheme faces the test of the parliamentary process, with objectors likely to force concessions on both the route and the compensation scheme. The National Audit Office, which reported before this latest rise in projected costs, also weighed in, saying the case for the line had been “poorly articulated” (code for extremely tenuous) and that there was no clear explanation of where the promised new jobs would come from. The fundamental problem with HS2 is that the scheme was drawn up without any detailed assessment of the need for it. Yes, trains heading north out of Euston are sometimes full but there is plenty of space left on most of them, as anyone travelling on expensive peak services can testify. Much of the overcrowding is a result of Virgin Trains’ policy of not allowing Milton Keynes commuters to use their services and of allowing off-peak travellers on cheaper tickets to travel only after 7pm. There is also far too high a proportion of first-class accommodation, making up four out of nine carriages (now 11 on some trains). So supporters of the scheme have constantly changed their rationale. At first they stressed the environmental case — but then HS2 Ltd’s own report came up with the result that it would be, at best, carbon neutral. Moreover, there is the damage to the environment caused by construction. While the Chiltern residents have attracted most publicity, there is now a growing realisation that the damage done to a swathe of north London is being carried out with the same haughty disregard for local residents exhibited by the mid-19th century railway builders. Despite my long-term support for investment in the railways, I have been against HS2 from the start. My opposition was strengthened by hearing from the residents of some of the 600 homes that will be destroyed in Camden. Many are in flats bought under right-to-buy and the compensation they will receive will never be enough for them to buy elsewhere. There would, in fact, be a way of rebuilding Euston station on several levels that would enable most of these homes to be saved. However, in order to keep costs down, the most crude option has been chosen. This is typical of the hamfisted way that the scheme has been put forward. Even more seriously for the scheme’s dwindling band of supporters, the business case has also weakened because of a huge hole in the methodology. Most of the supposed benefits come from the notion that people will save time by reaching their destination quicker. However, nowadays, people work with their laptops and mobile phones very efficiently on trains: saving half an hour on a long distance is not necessarily a real economic benefit. In a last stand, supporters are now stressing the regenerative effects of the line and its impact on the North-South divide. Again, the argument is shaky. Academic analysis by Professor John Tomaney of University College, who looked at high-speed rail schemes in France, suggests that it has been the bigger cities, rather than the regions, which have benefited most from their construction. The consensus over HS2 needs to be broken. It is unhealthy in a democracy that all three parties support a project that appears to offer so little for so much expenditure. There has been no proper discussion of the alternatives. For instance, the rapid roll-out of fast broadband may well lessen demand for travel. And while the railways are a great success story and many trains are full, as Alistair Darling pointed out, it is actually commuter routes into our major cities that need the extra capacity. Yet the old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo, the country’s busiest station, still stand empty nearly four years after services transferred to St Pancras, for want of a few million in investment and a coherent plan on how to use them. Lots of other commuter lines could do with money to boost capacity. There are many alternative ways to spend £50 billion that would prove better value for money, such as trams and more frequent bus services, than a scheme which, even on the Government’s own assessment, is at best marginal. BooksPurchase my books online by clicking the links below:
A social history of the tube |
The rise of Stagecoach was an emblematic story of the Conservative era of the 1980s and 1990s. This book tells the story of how the two founders, the brother and sister team of Brian Souter and Ann Gloag, emerged from humble beginnings on a bleak Perth council estate in central Scotland to become multi-millionaires, worth at one time £300m each. 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Tell us your Railway News!