Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Longer, faster and heavier freight trains

Longer, faster and heavier freight trains <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to examine the necessity of longer and/heavier and/or faster freight train operations and their viability in the European context.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>Using a case study, the current research applies qualitative methods, including desktop research and informal discussion with the rail freight industry and shippers. The case study is the recently conducted trial of 1.5 km long Marathon freight train in Europe.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The research finds that at this stage there is no commercial necessity of running a 1.5 km long train. There are technical and operational limitations which are less problematic, but the commercial necessity is a must and that will need sufficient traffic volume on a longer route (to justify extra time and cost incurred in marshalling yard and reasonable pre- and post-consolidated rail transport haul). The time required to form up/disperse such large formation could arguably be a major constraint for the train itself as well as for other services run on the same network. The authors agree in principle with the “do more with less” notion and the necessity of faster train concept. Also, the authors are agreeing with the heavier train aspect.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title> <jats:p>Considering the current and future (more semi-finished and finished, containerised) cargo trend, it is more important that freight train is operated consistently, reliably, and commercially attractive relatively faster and frequent serving moderate distances (around 300+ km). Towards this, the operation of merging two (or more) short trains to form up to 750 m long trains should be explored, in particular on the nine Rail Freight Corridors, to identify the potential and realistic opportunities for commercial deployment of “longer and/or faster and/or and heavier” freight train.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Social implications</jats:title> <jats:p>At the moment there is no need of a 1.5 km long freight train to improve the performance of EU railways.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>The case study provides an important platform for debate on the contemporary notion of “longer”, “faster” and “heavier” freight trains in the European context.</jats:p> </jats:sec> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Benchmarking: An International Journal CrossRef

Longer, faster and heavier freight trains

Benchmarking: An International Journal , Volume 24 (4): 994-1012 – May 2, 2017

Longer, faster and heavier freight trains


Abstract

<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title>
<jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to examine the necessity of longer and/heavier and/or faster freight train operations and their viability in the European context.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title>
<jats:p>Using a case study, the current research applies qualitative methods, including desktop research and informal discussion with the rail freight industry and shippers. The case study is the recently conducted trial of 1.5 km long Marathon freight train in Europe.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title>
<jats:p>The research finds that at this stage there is no commercial necessity of running a 1.5 km long train. There are technical and operational limitations which are less problematic, but the commercial necessity is a must and that will need sufficient traffic volume on a longer route (to justify extra time and cost incurred in marshalling yard and reasonable pre- and post-consolidated rail transport haul). The time required to form up/disperse such large formation could arguably be a major constraint for the train itself as well as for other services run on the same network. The authors agree in principle with the “do more with less” notion and the necessity of faster train concept. Also, the authors are agreeing with the heavier train aspect.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title>
<jats:p>Considering the current and future (more semi-finished and finished, containerised) cargo trend, it is more important that freight train is operated consistently, reliably, and commercially attractive relatively faster and frequent serving moderate distances (around 300+ km). Towards this, the operation of merging two (or more) short trains to form up to 750 m long trains should be explored, in particular on the nine Rail Freight Corridors, to identify the potential and realistic opportunities for commercial deployment of “longer and/or faster and/or and heavier” freight train.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Social implications</jats:title>
<jats:p>At the moment there is no need of a 1.5 km long freight train to improve the performance of EU railways.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title>
<jats:p>The case study provides an important platform for debate on the contemporary notion of “longer”, “faster” and “heavier” freight trains in the European context.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>

Loading next page...
 
/lp/crossref/longer-faster-and-heavier-freight-trains-nfIqnE1XYd

References (40)

Publisher
CrossRef
ISSN
1463-5771
DOI
10.1108/bij-05-2015-0051
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

<jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>The purpose of this paper is to examine the necessity of longer and/heavier and/or faster freight train operations and their viability in the European context.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Design/methodology/approach</jats:title> <jats:p>Using a case study, the current research applies qualitative methods, including desktop research and informal discussion with the rail freight industry and shippers. The case study is the recently conducted trial of 1.5 km long Marathon freight train in Europe.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The research finds that at this stage there is no commercial necessity of running a 1.5 km long train. There are technical and operational limitations which are less problematic, but the commercial necessity is a must and that will need sufficient traffic volume on a longer route (to justify extra time and cost incurred in marshalling yard and reasonable pre- and post-consolidated rail transport haul). The time required to form up/disperse such large formation could arguably be a major constraint for the train itself as well as for other services run on the same network. The authors agree in principle with the “do more with less” notion and the necessity of faster train concept. Also, the authors are agreeing with the heavier train aspect.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Practical implications</jats:title> <jats:p>Considering the current and future (more semi-finished and finished, containerised) cargo trend, it is more important that freight train is operated consistently, reliably, and commercially attractive relatively faster and frequent serving moderate distances (around 300+ km). Towards this, the operation of merging two (or more) short trains to form up to 750 m long trains should be explored, in particular on the nine Rail Freight Corridors, to identify the potential and realistic opportunities for commercial deployment of “longer and/or faster and/or and heavier” freight train.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Social implications</jats:title> <jats:p>At the moment there is no need of a 1.5 km long freight train to improve the performance of EU railways.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title content-type="abstract-subheading">Originality/value</jats:title> <jats:p>The case study provides an important platform for debate on the contemporary notion of “longer”, “faster” and “heavier” freight trains in the European context.</jats:p> </jats:sec>

Journal

Benchmarking: An International JournalCrossRef

Published: May 2, 2017

There are no references for this article.