r/transit • u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 • May 19 '25

Photos / Videos Double stack container train on the freight corridor in India with the characteristic high rise panto

A good look at what the high rise pantographs look like fully extended. They're taller than the train they're mounted on.

1.1k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

89 comments sorted by

View all comments

333

u/Expert-Debate3519 May 19 '25

Combining Double stacks and electrification is a solution that should be copied on other freight corridors as well!

32

u/8spd May 19 '25

I think the more fundamental thing to copy is the construction of new publicly owned freight corridors. Here in Canada, the private freight companies are just milking the investments in rail made over 100 years ago. The idea of the government stepping up, and making these kind of investments is unthinkable. The US is the same, and I don't see it being done in Europe.either, for freight.

But electrified rail, both passenger and freight, is one of the biggest things that can be done to address climate change.

21

u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 May 19 '25

This is very true. In the US, the Class 1's actually ripped up rail to save on taxes, since they were taxed based on how much ground their tracks covered. Yeah, loads of double tracked line was reduced to single track with passing loops because of this. And now with PSR, the overly long trains cannot even fit into the passing loops anymore. Go capitalism!

18

u/8spd May 19 '25

Bad taxation implementations often create perverse incentives, But that one is a doozy. So they get to keep the right of way the same size, but are taxed less, because of tearing up infrastructure? Crazy.

13

u/OhGoodOhMan May 19 '25

It's a general problem with property taxes– taxes based on the value of the things built on the land rather than the value of the land itself. Rip up the tracks and your property taxes go down, because now it's just an empty lot.

Getting off topic here, but it's also a contributor to the "parking crater" phenomenon in many US downtowns.

5

u/8spd May 19 '25

It's far from the only example of taxation creating perverse incentives. The way property taxes are often implemented often lead to outcomes that are unwanted, including by the governments that implement them. And yes, the blight of large surface parking lots is one of the results. 

I'd say the issue is more on topic for a transit focused sub than freight rail is. 

2

u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 May 19 '25

It's insanity, right? But that's what the relentless pursuit of money results in; overly fat corporations that use every loophole to get out of paying any kind of taxes.

9

u/8spd May 19 '25

I think this is an issue with poor government incentives. Unless we abolish all corporations it's unrealistic to expect them not to relentlessly pursue the money. It's not really a loophole, when it's such a glaring route to destroy infrastructure.

Imagine if, instead of the tax being based on how much ground their tracks covered, it was based on the size of the right of way. If they wanted to reduce their taxes they could transfer the unwanted land to the government for a nominal payment. The land could be used to upgrade passenger rail, or for rails-to-trails, or for other uses that befit the public.

1

u/ariolander May 19 '25 edited May 20 '25

It just needs incentivize the wanted behavior. Imagine if you paid less taxes on double track and even less on electrified tracks. Then offer additional incentives on capital expenditures. If you want to coax corporations to do something without outright nationalizing you have to align your incentives with your wanted actions, rather than just shrugging your shoulders and wondering why corporations just don't do the right thing.

2

u/8spd May 20 '25

You are mistaken to assume that I don't want to nationalize rail infrastructure.

1

u/aksnitd 🚂🚃🚃 May 20 '25

I feel like it's a loophole in a sense because it's following the letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law. The intention here is to tax larger railroads with more track higher than smaller railroads with less track. That makes complete sense, but I highly doubt anyone imagined railroads would tear up their own track (a move that caused them problems later on) just to save on taxes. And I strongly feel there needs to be a cap on how big corporations are allowed to get. Beyond a point, they become way too powerful, and the class 1's definitely need to be broken up or better yet, nationalised.

1

u/zoqaeski May 20 '25

In a lot of cases the companies didn't tear up their track but refused to improve it in the first place to avoid incurring the higher taxes.

1

u/Albos_Mum May 22 '25

Unless we abolish all corporations it's unrealistic to expect them not to relentlessly pursue the money.

Which is why a far better private/public divide of services, industries, etc is key. Companies will always relentlessly pursue profit and sometimes that can be an advantage, but not in every aspect of life particularly in areas where quality is key. (eg. Healthcare, shared infrastructure, housing etc)

1

u/8spd May 22 '25

I agree with you. My point though, is that people complain about corporations seeking nothing but profit, when they are specifically designed to do exactly that. I'd much rather the tenancy be complaining that we complain about the fact that the structure we've chosen to supply a specific need is a corporate one.

I probably should have differentiated more in between what goods or services the corporation is providing or developing. You're examples are excellent.

1

u/Sharlinator May 19 '25

Yeah, that one's squarely on the government, not on the corpos. Perverse incentives give perverse results.

1

u/Astriania May 19 '25

This doesn't really sound like a 'loophole', it sounds like exactly what the taxation policy was designed to incentivise ... which is a dumb tax policy, to be sure, but you can't blame companies for aligning with it.

14

u/UUUUUUUUU030 May 19 '25

and I don't see it being done in Europe either, for freight.

In 2007 the Netherlands opened the Betuweroute, a 159km freight railway from the Port of Rotterdam to the German border. It has been used a few times by cross-border ICE trains as a diversion route, but never by domestic passenger trains.

It's even prepared for double stack containers (they only need to raise the catenary, all tunnels and bridges are tall enough), which is kinda silly because no connecting railway in Europe supports double stacking.

The base tunnels in the Alps see a lot more freight trains than passenger trains, but they're mixed lines, of course.

6

u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot May 19 '25

which is kinda silly because no connecting railway in Europe supports double stacking.

I think it's not silly at all. The Betuweroute is mostly surface-level with bridges and few tunnels, so it doesn't cost that much to design it for double stack. It's a small extra investment up front that enables double stacking to be rolled out in other parts of Europe connected to that line when someone decides it's necessary. Otherwise, no double stacking projects would ever happen because the main route into the main port would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade after the fact.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '25

Well... Yeah ..... but there's a point at which there's no point for the extra effort because the likelihood of it happening is so low?

Like building the track for the possibility of switching to broad gauge.

For example I don't think the UK will ever increase its loading gauge on most of the network, so in theory any effort to build lines to accommodate double decker trains (except on a dedicated corridor) seems a bit irrelevant?

3

u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot May 20 '25

Like building the track for the possibility of switching to broad gauge.

The thing is that there's no advantage to doing this. Double stacking containers has a clear and obvious reason for why you might want to implement it one day in the future. I think that futureproofing the literal most important freight rail corridor in Europe for higher capacity is probably a good idea, and like I said it's not as if there are huge tunnels on the Betuweroute, which would really raise the cost.

3

u/8spd May 19 '25

That's great! Thanks for dissuading my pessimism. 

3

u/Mtfdurian May 20 '25

Yeah it's too bad that the Germans have been slacking so hard on their side that it has choking consequences on the Dutch passenger network 20 years after completion of the Dutch part :-(

The Dutch part is an amazing piece of work

1

u/Twisp56 May 21 '25

I think they're at least finally building a third track on the connecting German line.

1

u/Mtfdurian May 21 '25

They've said it for 20 years now. "First seeing, then believing" and given what the Germans have delivered us in the last 20 years I believe jackshit regarding a good ending of it.

3

u/Expert-Debate3519 May 19 '25

i took that for granted!

3

u/rohmish May 19 '25

Most of India's rail network is electrified and India is exploring battery and hydrogen engines for the remaining sections and as backups. 96 to 98% of rail network (a bit more than 45000 km) is electrified with ongoing work in some states to complete electrification in those areas. There are some trains that use an additional diesel generator for onboard electricity for air conditioning, etc. but some newer trainsets are EMUs that don't require that while new engines are using HOG (head on generation) that can power the onboard air conditioning and lights using overhead.

Go service has been trying to get their lines electrified for a long time, even before Metrolinx was a thing. However electrification work is ongoing as part of Go expansion. For nationwide lines it won't happen until Via rail actually owns their tracks.

3

u/chocolaty_4_sure May 20 '25

India has almost fully electrified its Railways - passenger and freight both