European Railroad Discussion > Freight Car Friday: Austria Edition

I did not take many freight car photos on my trip to Austria last September, but a few were sufficiently interesting to warrant some pixels.

1. I had not previously seen enclosed autoracks in Europe. These are bi-level, single-axle, articulated pairs. Owned by a German company, Altmann (ARS), a major player in automobile transport. Technically in Brennero, Italy, but on the Austrian border at Brenner.

2.  Loaded bulkhead flat of Rail Cargo Austria at Spittal-Millstättersee. One of the larger single-axle cars.

3. Aggregate hopper from Slovenia (SŽ Cargo) on a northbound unit train through Mallnitz-Obervellach.

---

---

---

4. The Austrian state railway (ÖBB) operates a shuttle service for vehicles and small trucks through the Tauern tunnel that loads at Mallnitz-Obervellach. I was fascinated by the low-profile four-axle trucks used on the covered (but open) racks.

5. The more common open autorack design. Again, owned by Altmann. These are quite weathered but previously attractive in yellow and green. Empty northbound through Semmering.

6. Empty Polish (PKP Cargo) coal hoppers on a unit train northbound through Semmering.

---

---

---

No.3 is an iron ore hopper by Innofreight for the Voestalpin steel company, carrying imported ore from Koper (Slovenia) to either Linz or Loeben Donawitz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/25 08:56 by 86235.

I appreciate that clarification. I know I saw at least one other train that was all InnoTrans open top "containers," two to a flatcar, in all the colors of the rainbow. I am surprised how much iron ore is moving around Europe, I saw more up in Germany.

86235 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No.3 is an iron ore hopper by Innofreight for the
> Voestalpin steel company, carrying imported ore
> from Koper (Slovenia) to either Linz or Loeben
> Donawitz

Ummm.....it looks to me like it's a Euro-Twin, with both sides carrying a 30 ft [ guess on length ] semi-ISO container fitted for side unloading.  I know there were 500 pairs -- note the drawbar between the two -- built beginning in 1993 by Arbel and others, many of which I think operated just in the UK at a later stage, and perhaps there were later builds.  The vehicle registration must be on the other half, there's none visible.
Corrections or more info welcome.

I think these photos are great -- thank you, NM.  I'd like to see more like this on TO.

Best regards, SZ   [ who thinks 'drawbar' is a valid word ]

Steinzeit2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 86235 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No.3 is an iron ore hopper by Innofreight for
> the
> > Voestalpin steel company, carrying imported ore
> > from Koper (Slovenia) to either Linz or Loeben
> > Donawitz
>
> Ummm.....it looks to me like it's a Euro-Twin,
> with both sides carrying a 30 ft [ guess on length
> ] semi-ISO container fitted for side unloading. 
> I know there were 500 pairs -- note the drawbar
> between the two -- built beginning in 1993 by
> Arbel and others, many of which I think operated
> just in the UK at a later stage, and perhaps there
> were later builds.  The vehicle registration must
> be on the other half, there's none visible.
> Corrections or more info welcome.
>
> I think these photos are great -- thank you, NM. 
> I'd like to see more like this on TO.
>
> Best regards, SZ   [ who thinks 'drawbar' is a
> valid word ]

You're quite correct, it is a container flat, carrying an Innofreight Rocktainer Ore container for Voestalpine.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/05/25 08:34 by 86235.

NMlurker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... I was fascinated by the
> low-profile four-axle trucks used on the covered
> (but open) racks.

Thanks for posting the interesting series.

I agree. 

Makes me wonder what the load capacity is and maximum speed allowed?

Capacity might be on the side of the car if I knew what to look for.

ts1457 Wrote:
>
> Makes me wonder what the load capacity is and
> maximum speed allowed?
>
> Capacity might be on the side of the car if I knew
> what to look for.

Look for a grid panel on the side of the car with the letters A, B, C,....  across the top [ which shows load distribution ] and s or  s and ss    on the left side.  s indicates a max speed of 100 kph, and ss =  120 kph  [ at least that's what it used to be -- perhaps the limit for each has been raised ].  In the case of the car in question, other photos on the Internet show a max load of 32 T, and a max speed of 100 kph.

SZ

Steinzeit2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look for a grid panel on the side of the car with
> the letters A, B, C,....  across the top [ which
> shows load distribution ] and s or  s and
> ss    on the left side.  s indicates a max
> speed of 100 kph, and ss =  120 kph  [ at least
> that's what it used to be -- perhaps the limit for
> each has been raised ].  In the case of the car
> in question, other photos on the Internet show a
> max load of 32 T, and a max speed of 100 kph.

Much appreciated,

We don't have that much of a clearance problem in the USA , but the cars at about 60 mph maximum and the load limit being about what a fully loaded semi-trailer (no tractor) weighs would be of limited use here. I didn't even ask about the length of the car. I am trying to come up with concepts which could help get the trucks off of the highways. I wonder what the FRA would say about using wheels of less than 28" in diameter?

The FRA might have a problem with the small wheels, but
the ERA (European Railway Agency) doesn't/ Of course
they are more concerned with inspection frequency and
quality.

Very interesting thread, photos and information - thanks. Those rock / ore containers are new to me, and quite interesting. Unfortunately I did not see any during a recent visit to Austria, although I several times saw different truck carrier cars used in the drive-on drive-off ROLA service by OBB for trucks from Brennero and elsewhere: https://rola.railcargo.com/en/

A fascinating operation, and so, so logical and efficient. The concept is a very good one. Well used, particularly last autumn to bypass major construction underway on the Autoroute freeways, particularly the paralleling A13 over the Brenner Pass. I'm still scratching my head as to why such a service couldn't succeed here in the US. The use case seems so compelling, and the efficiencies so obvious. We watched the loading process at Brennero. It was simple, uncomplicated, a minimum amount of expensive extra infrastructure like cranes and huge parking areas such as used here, and no delays doing lifts with expensive equipment. Same for the autoverlag automobile and smaller truck drive-on drive-off services used through the Simplon and Lotschberg tunnels and elsewhere, and which I've ridden (in my rental car) several times. Not only a very interesting experience, but very efficient structurally.

A few more ways European railways have a lot to teach us over here.

MC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/25 06:28 by ironmtn.

ironmtn Wrote:
----------------------------------------------
>
> ....... I'm still scratching my head as to why such
> a service couldn't succeed here in the US. The use
> case seems so compelling, and the efficiencies so
> obvious. We watched the loading process at
> Brennero. It was simple, uncomplicated, a minimum
> amount of expensive extra infrastructure like
> cranes and huge parking areas such as used here,
> and no delays doing lifts with expensive
> equipment..........
> A few more ways European railways have a lot to
> teach us over here.
>
Why ?  Well for openers:
  -  There is the political will at the national, international, and in some cases regional, levels to
       a)  Spend the billions of taxpayer dollars to build the infrastructure [ Alpin base tunnels being the obvious examples ] and subsidize the operating costs to get Heavy Goods Vehicles [ HGV's ] off the roads and onto rail
         AND
      b)  pass legislation to help this happen;  for example, HGV night time driving bans [ 10 pm to 5 am nationwide in Austria, for example and on weekends from 3 pm Saturday till 5 am Monday ];  But this doesn't apply if you are going a limited distance to/from an intermodal terminal.   And note that in summer the Brenner motorway is even more restricted....  The Swiss have similar legislation.
 -   A physical layout suited for fast, short, frequent trains

It's not the railways that can teach us, and it's also not a hardware problem......

SZ

PS  I'm not going to take my time to research the current [ more or less ] mix of "complete w/ tractor" [ = RoLa ] vs trailer only vs container [ inc swapbodies ], but I would venture that Rola is still less than 10% in the corridors where it is even offered.  But there are economic reasons -- of course ! -- for this.


       

I don't disagree with any of these points. And I completely understand - and frankly admire - the political will in several European countries to undertake massive infrastructure projects like the various base tunnels. And I realize the positive impact that such projects have in reshaping traffic flows and modalities to some degree. All to the good, in my opinion. And I personally also can sometimes favor some density controls.

But outside of any such actions here in the US, none of which I was thinking of when I made my previous post (we are relatively adverse to big-picture strategic infrastructure spending like the European base tunnels), I still think there perhaps is a use case for ROLA drive on - drive off operations for trucks, and auto ferry service (autoverlag) in certain locations here in the US. Even without any associated major infrastructure spending. Or enactment of capacity controls, a politically incendiary issue here - see: recent debate on charges for cars entering Manhattan in addition to bridge and tunnel tolls.

And I am with you, even in saying this, in not taking the time to do the numbers on such ROLA drive-on / drive-off services versus lift-off /on trailers or containers. But it would certainly be an interesting exercise. I've had contact with a few people in the transport field through the years who have looked into it. They were serious folks, and I presume they did the numbers. My impression in talking with them was that the conclusion was a reasonably workable use case, but one with very thin margins, not a lot of market strength and attractiveness to potential customers, and a lot of risk. At least for now. And yes, the ROLA traffic we saw this autumn at Brennero seemed rather "niche", with many trucks still taking the A14 freeway despite near-standstill traffic due to very heavy construction work, or with many trailers riding on regular intermodal trains over the Brenner Pass route. That said, you have to give OBB a lot of credit for running with the ROLA concept, and apparently making it work to some degree.

MC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/25 08:10 by ironmtn.

ironmtn Wrote:
.......the conclusion was a reasonably workable use case, but
> one with very thin margins, not a lot of market
> strength and attractiveness to potential
> customers, and a lot of risk.......

"All business is managing risk."  And unlike a container train, there will be paying customers [ the truck drivers ] aboard......

Let's see, for Switzerland the first production low floor wagons*, the 38 shorter ones, came out in 1969-76, with the next 40 production ones in 1981;  so that's 40+ years and it's still a "niche" service
    [* registered with the SBB, not owned by them ]

I don't know that I would give ÖBB, or SBB, all that credit;  was ÖBB really the operator [ in a commercial sense ]  of the Brenner service you saw and others ?  I thought it was a case of power/crews/paths, and a lot of dictation by the appropriate government agencies ? 

I remember the last time I was along the Gotthard seeing all these empty or 1-2 trucks Huckepack trains running both ways over the hill, and wondering why SBB didn't cancel pairs of the empty ones.  But then I remembered that the Swiss, unlike US railroads, treat locomotives and crews as assets, and accordingly follow a schedule -- and the SBB probably got paid either way .

Best regards, SZ

Steinzeit2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ironmtn Wrote:
> .......the conclusion was a reasonably workable use case, but
> > one with very thin margins, not a lot of market
> > strength and attractiveness to potential
> > customers, and a lot of risk.......
>
> "All business is managing risk."  And unlike a
> container train, there will be paying customers [
> the truck drivers ] aboard......

Agree on the risk element. But are the truck drivers the ones who pay to use an OBB drive-on / drive-off ROLA service? Or is it the trucking company owner? Or the consignee of the freight in the trailer, via a surcharge on their bill, or a higher rate in the tariff? Here in the US where there are many owner-operator truckers who get their loads through freight brokers, it could definitely be an owner-operator driver's decision to pay an extra cost for a ROLA service (if there was one), and to pass that cost along to the consignee through a higher agreed-upon rate or surcharge with the freight broker. Or just to eat the cost of the service, for whatever reason, such as getting past bad weather on a mountain pass route.

I see those kinds of cost decision choices made by owner-operator truckers all the time near where I live in southwester Michigan if I go down to nearby northern Indiana or Ohio, as I do fairly frequently. Some owner-operators will take the Indiana Toll Road or Ohio Turnpike and pay the tolls on the limited-access Interstate freeway / autoroute, probably because they have a brokered or regular load with a rate that justifies it relative to time, or a very time-sensitive load. But you can also see them on paralleling US 20, accepting the longer driving time, slower pace and traffic lights at many intersections because they have a load that just doesn't justify paying the tolls - and they have the time available.

I just don't know enough about how trucking works in Europe as compared to the US to know the answer on such questions relative to the decision to use a ROLA service. A little bit of internet research indicated that owner-operator drivers are much less common in Europe than here in the US. So I would anticipate that the choice to use a ROLA service would be more in the hands of the trucking company who will roll that cost into the freight charge to the customer, and less in the hands of a driver, as it might be here in the US if there were such services.
>
> Let's see, for Switzerland the first production
> low floor wagons*, the 38 shorter ones, came out
> in 1969-76, with the next 40 production ones in
> 1981;  so that's 40+ years and it's still a "niche" service
>     [* registered with the SBB, not owned by
> them ]

Perhaps you are speaking about cars / wagons for a ROLA service. Then yes, a "niche" service. But if you are referring to regular intermodal trains, I certainly did not see them being at all a "niche"service in my trips to Europe in the last two autumns. I focused on the major north-south trans-Alpine routes in both cases (BLS, Gotthard, Brrenner), and intermodal trains heavily predominanted. Loose-car / -wagon trains were in the substantial minority. And the intermodal trains were almost always full, with maybe a few empty placements here and there - but not many. I don't think I ever saw a completely empty "baretable" train out of dozens of intermodal trains which I saw on all three routes. This definitely left me with the impression that the European operators are able to do a better job balancing their equipment flows and loads and empties. That's always a big issue here in the US.

> I don't know that I would give ÖBB, or SBB, all
> that credit;  was ÖBB really the operator [ in a
> commercial sense ]  of the Brenner service you
> saw and others ?  I thought it was a case of
> power/crews/paths, and a lot of dictation by the
> appropriate government agencies ? 

I'll have to accept your statement of some government preference or incentive for using ROLA service at face value, if you mean something beyond the tolling systems that exist, particularly in Austria. I simply do not know about that from my perch here in the US, and can't readily locate a quick answer. And if it's motive power / crews / paths that are incentives (or preferences) for ROLA service us, again that knowledge is not readily available to me.

> I remember the last time I was along the Gotthard
> seeing all these empty or 1-2 trucks Huckepack
> trains running both ways over the hill, and
> wondering why SBB didn't cancel pairs of the empty
> ones.  But then I remembered that the Swiss,
> unlike US railroads, treat locomotives and crews
> as assets, and accordingly follow a schedule --
> and the SBB probably got paid either way .
>
> Best regards, SZ

Again, that certainly does not match my experience on the Gotthard in the last two autumns. Intermodal trains were almost always completely full, with very few scattered open placements. Frankly, I was impressed. Maybe that represented seasonal traffic flows, and it's not like that at other times of the year. Here in the US for example, autumn is typically a time for heavy intermodal traffic flows.

Last autumn, my visit coincided with the period during which the Gotthard base tunnel was partially closed to traffic due to a major derailment in August. So those loaded intermodal trains were mainly going over the hill on the old route - and it was a very impressive show (some still used the base tunnel). But the same was true when viewing the route from a location like Belllinzona, south of the base tunnel, or Altdorf north of the base tunnel, where all traffic on the route would pass. I spent a full afternoon one day last year on the station platforms at Bellinzona (a lovely city and terrific railfanning location), and saw many intermodal trains pass through the station, all quite full. None were ROLAs (I don't think SBB operates such a service on the Gotthard, at least that I'm aware of). All were regular demountable trailers and containers on flatcars. But still very full.

Maybe we're "mixing apples and oranges" here in considering ROLA-service trains and regular detachable-body intermodal trains. Related, but separate operations, each with their own use case. Probably some factors are similar for both, and some are different. And I could see that being the case if anyone were to try a ROLA service here in the US. Some common elements, and some that are different.

An interesting question in any case.

MC
Muskegon, Michigan USA

Image: A northbound SBB standard intermodal (non-ROLA) train passes through the station at Bellinzona, Switzerland during an afternoon rainshower on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023. Led by a handsome SBB Cargo International Class 193 "Alppiercer" Siemens Vectron locomotive.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/25 17:11 by ironmtn.

---

Maybe I missed it but I am curious if the term 'ROLA' has any meaning attached to it?

ts1457 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe I missed it but I am curious if the term
> 'ROLA' has any meaning attached to it?

The acronym is related to the "Rolling Road" service operated by OBB. Link: https://rola.railcargo.com/en/service.

I believe the acronym is derived from the German "ROllenden LAndstraße", or "Rolling Road" (more literally, "rolling country / secondary road"). Link:https://rola.railcargo.com/dam/jcr:ffff705b-b522-4085-92cb-83b9053d0ef3/Frachtpreisheft_2025.pdf

I probably should have made this clear in my first reference to this service in a previous post above. Sorry for that omission.

MC



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/25 10:56 by ironmtn.

ironmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The acronym is related to the "Rolling Road"
> service operated by OBB. Link:
> https://rola.railcargo.com/en/service.
>
> I believe the acronym is derived from the German
> "ROllenden Landstraße", or "Rolling Road" (more
> literally, "rolling country / secondary road").
> Link:https://rola.railcargo.com/dam/jcr:ffff705b-b
> 522-4085-92cb-83b9053d0ef3/Frachtpreisheft_2025.pd
> f
>
> MC

Thank you, very much appreciated!

All of my comments -- risk, wagons, service, observations --  in my previous post of 1/10 related solely to RoLa/ tractor w/driver + semitrailer operation:

-  The "paying customers" referred to the truck drivers onboard;  once you have that element in addition to the freight, you are in effect operating a passenger train, with all the insurance premiums and much greater liability risk involved.
-  Specifically, RoLa wagons of the Saadkmms type
-  I should perhaps not have used the word "Huckepack" in the last paragraph, as that is also used for unaccompanied trailers in well wagons.

                                                  ****************************************************************************
Here is some information I ran across while trying to find information on something else*:
   -  For 2023  international [ only ] intermodal shipments by rail were apportioned among the following:
           trailer 21%         ISO container 47%     non-ISO container [ = swapbodies, etc ] 27%      RoLa  4%
      Most of the RoLa was in the Germany-Italy corridor  where the trailer portion was 33%, containers 55% but RoLa was 12%;  there seem to be only 1 RoLa terminal in each country

   -  Recent studies showed that for a typical 600 km journey
        a 40' ISO container cost 715 e with a journey time of 19.1 hours
        a RoLa equivalent cost 1073 e with a 16.8 hour time

   -  There is barge container service on the Rhone between Fos and Lyon and on the Seine from Le Harve
                                               
*  Specifically, the overnight service for accompanied tractors+trailers that the SNCF [ for Novatrans ? ] ran between Toulouse and Paris [ and vv I presume ] in the 1970's.

Best regards, SZ

Thanks all for the information on truck-on-train services in Europe.

I have some interest in how to get everyday trucks off of the highways in North America. I've been primarily interested in systems that handle semi-trailers only, but I can see some applications for the ROLA concept. If my recollections are correct, the USA truckers in their 14 hour work period before mandatory rest still have to take a three hour rest during the 14 hours. Could you imagine a trucker in the I-75 corridor getting on a train with his rig while being transported around the congestion of Atlanta and Macon GA while taking his rest?

I might start a discussion of this the Eastern or Western Railroads discussion so that it may have the appropriate audience.