Some time ago, RailFreight.com published an opinion piece taking a rarely heard perspective. It argued against the urgency of 740-metre trains in Europe. RailFreight.com and the original author Borys Ganaylyuk collected audience responses, which were far from unanimous. An overview and commentary.
To recap: Ganaylyuk argued that longer freight trains (and larger trucks), commonly seen as a tool to increase efficiency, actually harm public and carrier interests. For rail, he believes that longer trains worsen bottlenecks, slow operations, and strain infrastructure, while creating delays at crossings and platforms.
Instead of costly upgrades, the focus should be on modernising rolling stock fleets and fixing critical issues like level crossings and outdated tracks, argued Ganaylyuk.
This position could count on both disapproval and support. For example, Fiorenzo Ambrogio, who works for Europe’s first intermodal company (1969, according to Ambrogio himself), did not at all agree with Ganaylyuk’s point of view.
Costs change the picture
Ambrogio points to the broader impact of shorter trains on traffic and efficiency, a key point in Ganayluk’s article: Splitting a long train – such as an 800-metre train – into two shorter trains does not actually reduce overall waiting times at level crossings; in fact, it doubles the number of trains passing through the crossing. This results in more frequent closures, ultimately increasing total waiting time for road users, Ambrogio said. By contrast, Ganaylyuk argued that longer trains would achieve that effect by keeping level crossings closed for longer.
The second point of Ambrogio relates to costs. Operating two trains instead of one requires double the locomotives, double the personnel, and significantly higher operational costs, making the approach inefficient and economically unsound, he says.
What do customers want?
A more supportive response came in from Phil Mortimer, Director of TruckTrain Developments Ltd., a UK innovation company in the rail and intermodal freight market.
“This is all playing to the supply side economics of the rail sector but increasingly this [740-metre trains] separates rail from the market, which is not wanting infrequent massive trains but rather routine replenishment in smaller quantities”, Mortimer commented. “This is the fundamental flaw in the case for heavier trains particularly for the intermodal and logistics sectors which are driven by very different imperatives.”
Mortimer added to Ganaylyuk’s argument, saying that rail needs a more agile train model facilitating smaller and intermediate volumes and distances. Additionally, Mortimer believes that rail freight should operate at passenger train speeds to minimise the impact on fellow rail network users.
“A considerable body of technical, commercial and economic evaluation of short, fast, fixed formation (5-7 wagons) self-propelled bi-directional trains has been undertaken here to make rail a more attractive option for shippers. It looks to be feasible and a credible alternative to ‘more of the same’ using existing technology and operating models”, Mortimer told Ganaylyuk.
Passenger and freight at the same speed
That last comment – addressing train speeds – latches on to a central point of Ganaylyuk’s argument: he believes that longer trains reduce throughput. That has everything to do with lower speeds and the velocity mismatch with passenger trains, but also with longer loading and unloading times. Aligning train speeds could improve capacity and improve efficiency on the rail network by eliminating ‘hiccups’ – possibly a better alternative to longer trains.
In terms of engineering, Europe is stuck in the old days
A response by the retired American economist and railway teacher Jim Blaze focused on different points altogether: “It’s a lot more than just about train linear length between the locomotives and the last trailing [wagon]. Track infrastructure has geographic limits as to passing use of train paths – and more than length is important”, Blaze commented.
In terms of engineering, Europe is stuck in the old days, according to Blaze. Europe’s maximum axle loads have not improved since WW2, he says. The continent also lacks double-stack operations.
“To beat trucks, maritime and even pipeline competition rail freight needs more than longer trains”, Blaze claims.
Some reflections on the matter
These three highlighted reactions are just some of many. They reveal a – in the eyes of the current author – surprising diversity in perspectives on the need for 740-metre trains. The mainstream view is that 740-metre trains are a necessity and Europe needs to enable them as soon as possible.
Yet, not everyone holds this to be an undisputed truth. This also applies to ETCS, which may bring serious inefficiencies along with its implementation.
Fortunately for those who adhere to the mainstream perspective, 740-metre trains are central to European rail policy. They are part of EU guidelines on implementing the TEN-T network, for example.
There is no reason to think that the EU will change its mind on train length ambitions. However, the email exchanges following the publication of Ganaylyuk’s piece, as well as the responses on social media, have proven to be fruitful. They reflect the industry’s diverse views, helping to establish a conscious weighing of pros and cons.
Drawbacks of 740-metre trains include, for example, a mismatch between the service offering (longer trains) and supposed customer demands (more frequent trains). On the other hand, longer trains could help rail freight operators substantially by reducing the costs associated with train movements.
Perhaps longer trains won’t create customer value by increasing the frequency of services. They could instead provide an impetus by lowering the cost of transportation – a different avenue of progress. But again, it is worth being mindful of the downsides. They could give a hint as to where the future rail freight industry may find its customers, and where it will cede its modal share to the road and rivers.