This whole diary was written by European Tribune front pager DoDo, who works in the railway industry in Hungary, and posts on DailyKos as Daneel. He should be around in the comments, as well as BruceMcF who has long been writing on rail issues on dKos.
BruceMcF introduced us to various local transport modes as potential 'recruiters' for high-speed rail. Pursuing most of these is worth on its own, for local traffic. This diary expands on one of these: local rail. As the Recruiters diary indicated, local rail is just one alternative, but it should be the backbone of any decent public transport system.
Public transport near Budapest's Keleti pályaudvar (East Terminal): express and local rail (black), subway (thick red), light rail (thinner red), trolley bus (dashed red), bus (blue) all linked up. Blaha L. t. to the West is again a hub.
Update - see BruceMcF's parallel diary
If you think about rail, don't think in lines: always think in networks, even if a line built will be part of one only in decades. What's more, coordination with other modes of transport, or even work hour schedules, is essential. But just in public transport, it's not one shoe fits them all. Different kinds of public transport, even of local rail, are best for differing kinds of travel. Think of them less as alternatives, more as different levels, all superimposed and linked up, say these seven:
- high-speed rail,
- express rail,
- normal stopping trains,
- rapid transit,
- metro (subway/elevated),
- light rail,
- buses.
In this five-part series, I will chart the four distinct categories of local rail (nos. 3-6 on the list): describe their specialities, differing best uses, and some newer developments. In the real world, however, the category boundaries are rather blurred. What's more, different locales use a bewildering array of rail terminology. But, there are also some ingenious ideas truly mixing the 'basic categories': three of these will be described, too.
This series can also be viewed as a general guide as to what kind of projects local initiatives could aim for, and tries to give examples around the world that can be used as model for supporters and argument against opponents.
Stopping train/regional/local service
Värmlandstrafik's X53-2 No. 3286, a 180 km/h (112 mph) capable wide-body electric multiple unit (EMU) from Bombardier's Regina family, stops as local service in Arvika, May 2004. Photo by Jan Lindahl from SJK
A 'normal' railway line runs between two transport hubs (or radiates from one), and has stations in wayside towns. Running passenger transport on such a line is aimed for the outer commuter belt, it is the longest-distance (and potentially fastest) form of commuter service. It is typically also the most 'concentrated': it functions best if stations are transport hubs themselves (for regional buses etc.), it doesn't run too frequently, but can have high capacity.
In North America, an example could be the services around New York City still maintained by Metro-North.
'Normal' stopping trains often share tracks with freight trains. This can be both a blessing and a curse: a blessing if with passenger alone the line would make too high losses, a curse if passenger has no priority and has to face delays.
It is generally a good idea to strive for lines that don't end out in the nowhere, but in another major hub. This increases utility for passengers dramatically, and even if most passengers would almost always go to one of the hubs, the possibility of occasional trips into much more directions could draw new passengers overall: people who keep to cars because of those occasional trips.
Another modern EMU: A wide-gauge, wide-body series 3400 (Siemens-Bombardier type Viriatus) of Portuguese state railway CP approaches Campanhã on the outskirts of Porto, February 26th, 2004. Photo by Roberto V. Sousa from RailFanEurope.net
There is a distinction between mainlines and branchlines (one I won't discuss much here), with trains on the latter traditionally serving as feeders for trains on the former. However, the aim for connection to major hubs also means that, if possible, branchline services should go directly to the major city closest to the junction station, e.g. trains should continue from the latter on the mainline.
Systems centered on a city usually branch out. An old idea to rationalise such service is running 'wing-trains': two trains run together until the junction station, and then continue separately. However, such attempts were often abandoned due to technical difficulties causing delays and extra costs. But lately, this idea finds increased application in Europe, with the spread of modern multiple units in place of locomotive-pulled trains: state-of-the-art electronics and automatic couplers make the option more viable.
Above: the Bayerische Oberlandbahn serves the lines from Munich into the mountains to the South with trains branching into wings twice. On the left, the already joined VT 101 (from Tegernsee) and VT 111 (from Lenggries) roll up with coupler doors opened to VT 110 (from Bayrischzell) to continue to Munich as trio. All three are diesel multiple units themselves (type Integral). Photo from Bahnbilder.de
Below: the fast coupling of two of the famous Danish "rubber-noses". After coupling, the front with the driver's desks are folded up, to open up a comfortable gangway.
Both prior paragraphs imply a need for a good timeplan, and traffic control able to keep trains on-time. In Switzerland, the latter aim led to a reversal of the normal order of things: instead of setting up a timeplan according to the characteristics of the line, some line upgrades are built where they help the timeplan best. That is, for example along the single-track line from the capital Berne to Langnau, a couple of double-track sections (e.g. over-long passing loops) have been built, so that a small delay of one train won't cascade to the trains in opposite direction.
A novelty that sounds simple but was difficult to implement, yet brought so positive results in passenger numbers that it now spreads around the world, is the regular interval timeplan (or sometimes named by the German word Taktfahrplan): the idea to run trains at the same minute each hour (or two hours or half an hour). On one hand, this way passengers can remember times easily, on the other hand, introducing such a timeplan usually means a higher frequency, which again has a higher utility for passengers (e.g., even if some midday or late night trains run less profitably, new passengers drawn make the other trains even better earners).
On the rolling stock front, beyond multiple units, bi-level or double-deck trains (which will also feature in the next two episodes) live a renaissance too, including North America. The lower floor of bi-level cars is also ideal for what has now became standard on European local trains: bike transport.
Roll-on transport: bikes in and outside the lower floor of the driving trailer of a German Railways bi-level push-pull train, at the door the foot of a man in wheelchair; May 4th, 2006. Photo by Michael Katai from RailFanEurope.net
Modern railbuses gave new life to many European non-electrified branchlines. These are one- or two-car trains with compact engine packs, easier-to-board low floors, and a lighter chassis, in cases demanding special rules of traffic alongside/in normal trains. These kinds of trains don't spread fast in the USA, because AAR doesn't want to create a special category for them. Thus, either something similar but heavy (and expensive) has to be built (see Colorado Railcar's Aero DMU), or imported European trains are run as "light rail". An example is New Jersey Transit's River LINE, running GTW 2/6 railbuses of Swiss maker Stadler on a track also used by Conrail by night.
Though ridership grew healthily, constantly (from 4,200/weekday in spring 2004 to 7,350/weekday in 2006), and beyond projections(5,900/weekday), economically, the River LINE is also a truly bad example of re-starting service on an existing line. I just can't explain what cost $1.1 billion on a mere upgrade of an existing single-track 34-mile line without any major superstructures. (You'll see what was built from a similar sum in Spain in the third episode.) But, since opponents of public rail transport projects like to cite it as example, I give an example of how restarting passenger service is done right.
One of the Schönbuchbahn's railbuses (ADtranz (now Bombardier) type RegioShuttle) arrives in Böblingen-Zimmerschlag -- with freight car attached, July 12th, 2006. Photo by Uwe Schnell
The Schönbuchbahn was a 17 km (11 mi) branchline near Stuttgart, Germany. With no maintenance and a busy main road built in parallel, daily ridership dropped to one or two hundred, so the national railways ended passenger service in 1966. Local initiatives kept demanding a re-start, but the national railways projected only 1,250 trips daily even with full renovation, which is too little.
Then the locals pursued the takeover of the line by a regional railway, which projected twice as many daily rides: 2,500. Ambitious, given that buses carried 2,000/weekday in a region of 24,000 inhabitants. But the concept they hatched was ambitious, too:
- full renovation of the since disused track
- stations should be built where passengers can be expected
- new railbuses must be bought & locally maintained
- 30-minute regular interval timeplan
- bus companies should re-arrange their services from parallel to feeder routes
- adjustment between the timeplans of this railway, the Stuttgart rapid transit the line feeds into at one end, and buses that feed the line
- businesses and public institutions should adjust their work hours for the railway, above all schools
- local communities should raise a reserve pool of €0.6 mio/year for operating costs
Schönbuchbahn before and after: track at kilometre point 7.4 in October 1994 (above) and August 1996 (below). Photos by Aschpalt from PROBAHN
After spending €14.6 million on construction and purchase, the line opened in December 1996. On the very first workday, 3740 were carried. By spring 2003, 6,800/weekday was achieved, of which over two thirds left their cars; while bus ridership doubled, too. About the same sum as the original investment was spent on enhancements for the unexpected traffic load.
Outlook
They stop in all stations and their vehicles can look little different from 'normal' stopping trains: so what makes rapid transit special? Find out in the next episode, to be posted in two or three days by DoDo/Daneel.
In later parts, you will also read more about the technology in newer vehicles, especially in the fourth. For a view on overall public transport development, wait for the concluding part.