Do any railways still act as common carriers for freight?

[Shimbleshanks]

Are there any examples of railways in other parts of the world that are still common freight carriers? That is, if a customer presents them with a piece of freight that is within suitable dimensions and not dangerous, noxious etc, they are obliged to carry it between any designated freight depots on their network? This used to be the case in Britain up until about the 1950s or 60s I believe.

I'd imagine that this could still apply to railways in what used to be the former Soviet Union, partly owing to the lack of good roads. Possibly the Indian Subcontinent as well?

 

[dutchflyer]

YES-where I am right now and yesterday visited-part out of nostalgia as it is bound to close down pretty soon in the Nw Yr; SRT in Bangkok/Thailand.
Most sent item that way: Motosay ! (packed in boxes). (motorcycle in /en/).
The closing down is that faithful old station HuaLamPong-sending parcels as such : I have not seen any announcement that this is to cease, though its limited to certain trains with a goods car (not the fancy expensive touristy special expresses). Station has a special section labelled: ´SCALES´ for it. All major stations along the line have a parcel holding room. From what I´ve heard-never used-it also works pretty well and is fairly inexpensive too.
(BTW: 3d class basic fares here have not been raised all the time I visit TH-now some 33+ yrs).
Nearby countries most likely also still offer such a service: Vietnam, Burma=Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia has modernised it all and electrified and went semi hi-speed, so I doubt if it remains there.

 

[railfan99]

Are there any examples of railways in other parts of the world that are still common freight carriers? That is, if a customer presents them with a piece of freight that is within suitable dimensions and not dangerous, noxious etc, they are obliged to carry it between any designated freight depots on their network? This used to be the case in Britain up until about the 1950s or 60s I believe.

I'd imagine that this could still apply to railways in what used to be the former Soviet Union, partly owing to the lack of good roads. Possibly the Indian Subcontinent as well?

IIRC from my three weeks of travels in India in December 2019, there were heaps of parcels being carried on some passenger trains.

In 2015 when I visited Sri Lanka, identical. Many, and intermediate stations all staffed.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

Both the above examples sound like Britain used to be 30-odd years ago, before the 'can't do' brigade took over...

 

[ac6000cw]

US railroads still have common-carrier obligations - https://www.freightwaves.com/news/what-does-the-common-carrier-obligation-mean-for-us-railroads - and also can't completely withdraw freight service from a line without Federal Government permission. But nearly all the wayside freight depots/stations disappeared years ago, so the service obligation is basically to haul freight vehicles from one place to another for a customer at a reasonable commercial cost.

 

[jamesontheroad]

Both the above examples sound like Britain used to be 30-odd years ago, before the 'can't do' brigade took over...

Sound the Daily-Mail-klaxon.

It's nothing to do with any imaginary brigade of people with "can't do" banners. It was simply the neo.liberal agenda of the Conservative government that privatised the railways. By fragmenting a unified national system of passenger and freight, and also eventually developing a set of performance metrics that prioritised available seats and passenger capacity, it became impossible for any one part of the passenger network to also offer a viable parcels service.

 

[Springs Branch]

US railroads still have common-carrier obligations - https://www.freightwaves.com/news/what-does-the-common-carrier-obligation-mean-for-us-railroads - and also can't completely withdraw freight service from a line without Federal Government permission. But nearly all the wayside freight depots/stations disappeared years ago, so the service obligation is basically to haul freight vehicles from one place to another for a customer at a reasonable commercial cost.

US railroad operations are interesting, considering the supposed ruthless business efficiency culture in America, and it being the land of big rig trucking. Not so much for rail transport of parcels or the odd, one-off crate of goods from A to B, but for the apparent survival of so much wagonload (carload) freight in the US.

I've made a number of trips on Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner between Los Angeles and San Diego, and it always surprised me, passing through the industrial areas of LA, how many short sidings still branched off the main line into the yards of smallish and medium-sized businesses alongside the tracks.

Some of these connections were obviously long-disused - but a good number might have a rail tanker, or a boxcar or two parked up behind the chain-link fence. While the freight cars usually looked shabby and covered in old graffiti, they didn't seem abandoned or derelict rolling stock. Presumably every so often a 'switch loco' would turn up and collect or deposit more wagons.

I wondered if some of these businesses used the boxcar or rail tanker not just for transport but as convenient short-term storage on their premises, in the same way a British firm might keep a shipping container or two in its yard - in the UK case being collected and delivered on the back of a lorry.

To move this sort of wagonload traffic between marshalling yards and customers, there is still a substantial number of local shortline railroad companies operating throughout the US (many of which are now subsidiaries of Genesee & Wyoming - current owners of the UK Freightliner FOC).

I've never really understood why single wagonload rail consignments have seemingly remained economic in the US and Canada, while concepts like BR's Speedlink died such a quick death decades ago. I suspect there are multiple reasons beyond residual common carrier obligations. Maybe a topic for a separate 'international' thread?

 

[MarcVD]

I've never really understood why single wagonload rail consignments have seemingly remained economic in the US and Canada, while concepts like BR's Speedlink died such a quick death decades ago. I suspect there are multiple reasons beyond residual common carrier obligations. Maybe a topic for a separate 'international' thread?

Distance... in most cases, European geography is such that a waggon would not travel enough miles to make that method of transportation profitable. In North America, the distances are greater. I think the tipping point is somewhere near 600 miles.

 

[ac6000cw]

Distance... in most cases, European geography is such that a waggon would not travel enough miles to make that method of transportation profitable. In North America, the distances are greater. I think the tipping point is somewhere near 600 miles.

I agree, and also North American freight vehicles are higher, wider, longer and can load up to 130 tonnes (gross) on four axles. 'Carload' freight can be more profitable than intermodal, partly because the railroad often gets the whole origin-to-destination haul, rather than just the haul from intermodal terminal to intermodal terminal (and truckers the remainder of the revenue).

The basic problem with short distance (less than say 500-600 miles) carload/wagonload freight is the load spends too much time & money being collected, delivered and sorted along the way relative to the line-haul time & cost. A railroad makes money hauling 150 mixed freight cars 500+ miles with just two crew, and then throws some of it into the money pit of yard and terminal costs (which is why there are now relatively few operational large hump sorting yards in North America, and big railroads have offloaded some of the local freight pickup/delivery work to shortlines and 'terminal' railroads who can generally do it cheaper and more flexibly).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Sound the Daily-Mail-klaxon.

It's nothing to do with any imaginary brigade of people with "can't do" banners. It was simply the neo.liberal agenda of the Conservative government that privatised the railways. By fragmenting a unified national system of passenger and freight, and also eventually developing a set of performance metrics that prioritised available seats and passenger capacity, it became impossible for any one part of the passenger network to also offer a viable parcels service.

Somewhat earlier than privatisation in the 1990s: Wikipedia tells us under 'Transport Act 1962' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Act_1962#Reform_of_the_law_of_transport) that

The four boards [i.e BRB etc.] were placed in the position of private companies in respect of their commercial activities. They no longer had the status of common carrier transporting persons and goods for the public benefit, but were now bailees transporting goods and people like a private operator.

(my emphasis)

 

[MarcVD]

Distance... in most cases, European geography is such that a waggon would not travel enough miles to make that method of transportation profitable. In North America, the distances are greater. I think the tipping point is somewhere near 600 miles.

Also - clearly chicken & egg problem - businesses in north America have more often kept their railroad siding, so transport can remain 100% rail, while in Europe most of those sidings have disappeared, except for those that receive or expedite complete trains rather than waggonload.

 

[eldomtom2]

I've never really understood why single wagonload rail consignments have seemingly remained economic in the US and Canada, while concepts like BR's Speedlink died such a quick death decades ago. I suspect there are multiple reasons beyond residual common carrier obligations. Maybe a topic for a separate 'international' thread?

I strongly suspect the reason is that American railroads have powerless unions, minimal safety and labour regulation, and captive customers, which makes keeping short spurs open more profitable since costs are so much lower and prices can be set higher.

 

[etr221]

I strongly suspect the reason is that American railroads have powerless unions, minimal safety and labour regulation, and captive customers, which makes keeping short spurs open more profitable since costs are so much lower and prices can be set higher.

I think your statement "that American railroads have powerless unions, minimal safety and labour regulation" is very far from the truth - even if it might be the case for many other industries. And whether their customers are captive is very much a matter for debate (but is to at least to some extent the reason for the RRs remaining 'common carriers')

I think the reason for carload freight remaining economic is that large car (wagon) sizes, long hauls, and long, heavy trains enable the low costs of the line haul to outweigh the high terminal and switching costs at each end; together with it being very much something expected, that everyone is geared up for.

 

[eldomtom2]

I think your statement "that American railroads have powerless unions, minimal safety and labour regulation" is very far from the truth - even if it might be the case for many other industries. And whether their customers are captive is very much a matter for debate (but is to at least to some extent the reason for the RRs remaining 'common carriers')

What do you dispute? That the American rail unions are powerless is blatantly obvious. That they have minimal safety and labour regulation and oversight - at least by the standards of the UK - is also obvious if one does the slightest bit of research. That many customers of the railroads consider themselves captive is also well-known - hence the excuses for gutting the unions - and the STB is well known for only very slowly making decisions on if the railroads have breached their common carrier obligations.

I think the reason for carload freight remaining economic is that large car (wagon) sizes, long hauls, and long, heavy trains enable the low costs of the line haul to outweigh the high terminal and switching costs at each end

Those are not separable from matters of lax regulation.

 

[MarcVD]

What do you dispute? That the American rail unions are powerless is blatantly obvious.

That I'm not so sure of. They are currently threatening with a nation wide strike to fight a request from the RR companies to allow one person crews and this gets discussed as high as the US senate now...

 

[DelW]

What do you dispute? That the American rail unions are powerless is blatantly obvious. That they have minimal safety and labour regulation and oversight - at least by the standards of the UK - is also obvious if one does the slightest bit of research. That many customers of the railroads consider themselves captive is also well-known - hence the excuses for gutting the unions - and the STB is well known for only very slowly making decisions on if the railroads have breached their common carrier obligations.

The USA came very close to a national railroad strike on September 15th this year, averted for the time being by a "20 hour bargaining session that involved Labor (sic) Secretary Marty Walsh and included a phone call from President Joe Biden". (Quote taken from an article in December "Trains" magazine). The three unions involved represent locomotive engineers (i.e drivers), conductors, and signalmen.

The same article stated that the proposed agreement included pay increases over 2020 - 2024, additional leave, employers' concessions on attendance policies, and continuation of two-person crews. Another dozen or so unions are also involved in the negotiations.

I'm uncertain how far the ratification process has gone by now, but that doesn't sound as though the unions are powerless.

 

[eldomtom2]

The USA came very close to a national railroad strike on September 15th this year, averted for the time being by a "20 hour bargaining session that involved Labor (sic) Secretary Marty Walsh and included a phone call from President Joe Biden". (Quote taken from an article in December "Trains" magazine). The three unions involved represent locomotive engineers (i.e drivers), conductors, and signalmen.

The same article stated that the proposed agreement included pay increases over 2020 - 2024, additional leave, employers' concessions on attendance policies, and continuation of two-person crews. Another dozen or so unions are also involved in the negotiations.

I'm uncertain how far the ratification process has gone by now, but that doesn't sound as though the unions are powerless.

You are not up-to-date at all. Four unions voted the proposed contract down and once again made preparations too strike. However, as has happened every time for the past century, Congress intervened and forced the unions to accept the contract. Hence why the unions are powerless - they have no leverage because they will always be legally prevented from going on strike.

 

[DelW]

You are not up-to-date at all. Four unions voted the proposed contract down and once again made preparations too strike. However, as has happened every time for the past century, Congress intervened and forced the unions to accept the contract. Hence why the unions are powerless - they have no leverage because they will always be legally prevented from going on strike.

While they may not have achieved what they and their members wanted, if the report I quoted is correct, they did extract the significant concessions listed. So even if they have been prevented from taking further action (which post 15 disagrees), then I'd still argue that they weren't and aren't powerless - just not as effective as they'd like to be. They have succeeded in keeping double-manning despite railroads attempting to cut that back over a number of years now.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I do know that people I have contact with were seriously expecting the September strike to happen, though I'll admit that I haven't heard any similar views recently, possibly because of the Congressional action you mentioned.

 

[FormerBritInMe]

While they may not have achieved what they and their members wanted, if the report I quoted is correct, they did extract the significant concessions listed. So even if they have been prevented from taking further action (which post 15 disagrees), then I'd still argue that they weren't and aren't powerless - just not as effective as they'd like to be. They have succeeded in keeping double-manning despite railroads attempting to cut that back over a number of years now.

They did not get the paid sick days (7 days IIRC) which was a main sticking point. Something that is taken for granted in virtually every other industry.

 

[eldomtom2]

While they may not have achieved what they and their members wanted, if the report I quoted is correct, they did extract the significant concessions listed.

They got a pay increase halfway between what they wanted and what the railroads proposed via the PEB. The deal negotiated before the first threatened strike was that plus a Dickensian sick leave policy (previously the railroads had no sick leave). These were hardly significant concessions aside from the contract containing for the first time some language on attendance policies, but they have no means to exploit that.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I do know that people I have contact with were seriously expecting the September strike to happen, though I'll admit that I haven't heard any similar views recently, possibly because of the Congressional action you mentioned.

There's nothing to play out. The dispute is over.

 

[Cloud Strife]

That is, if a customer presents them with a piece of freight that is within suitable dimensions and not dangerous, noxious etc, they are obliged to carry it between any designated freight depots on their network?

On a very small scale, but this is done in Poland with PKP Intercity. You can send small items between any two points on a given service, so for instance, you can send a letter from Szczecin to Przemyśl overnight.

There are more details here: https://www.intercity.pl/pl/site/dla-pasazera/oferty/przesylki-konduktorskie.html

At a handful of stations, you can even drop off the letter at a given point and it will be stored on arrival, though the vast majority of stations require someone to hand it physically to the train crew and to pick it up in person. I've sent quite a few urgent documents to/from Warsaw this way.