Local conditions prevent SA from emulating success of overseas rail models

TO WHAT extent do rail services elsewhere in the world yield efficiency and monetary returns for their investors? A look at some European models provides some food for thought. According to Arup South Africa transport economics adviser Andrew Marsay, if rail operators in Europe had to pay fully for infrastructure, rail freight services would virtually come to a standstill except for highly dedicated bulk moves. “In the UK where rail has been privatised, it’s a lot more efficient than it was. There are very good container services from the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton, but they don’t pay fully for their infrastructure. “In Britain there is a 50% subsidy for infrastructure costs; in Sweden the government pays 80% and in Holland 90%.” In the USA, where transcontinental rail freight operators do pay fully for their infrastructure and operating costs, they use a distance of 1 000 miles as a benchmark for an economic rail operation. And this is for double stack container wagons. “Moreover, they own and operate their own infrastructure, have far lower rolling stock costs than we have, and hence have been able to respond directly to the market in that country,” says Marsay. “We have none of these conditions here in SA and so we are deceiving ourselves about the potential of rail to economically win back significant amounts of general cargo freight from the road sector.”