alternates to diesel haulage for freight in the uk in the next 10 years

[Ramblin Rich]

Some interesting thoughts here.

I do think that Motorail services should be looked at again, to take EVs on longer distance journeys.

[mikejames]

hi

thanks for everyone's thoughts - lots of interesting comments

Two questions arising out of peoples comments

 

1) Is 'infilling' of overhead electrical 'gaps' likely to be resumed - or is it a political 'no no'?

2) the suggestion that the continued use of diesels for freight is efficient and is such a small part

of total usage that it can be accepted? - do you agree?

 

regards

Mike j

[Edwin_m]

5 minutes ago, Ramblin Rich said:

Some interesting thoughts here.

I do think that Motorail services should be looked at again, to take EVs on longer distance journeys.

The economics are terrible.  One vehicle uses as much train length as about ten passengers, as well as the seats for the people travelling with the car.  There isn't the capacity on the railway to carry all the passengers who want to use it, let alone start providing space for their cars. 

 

If the purchase costs of EVs remain high then people may hire one when they needed it rather than owning one (or own one and hire a second one when needed).  This will make car hire more widespread and accessible, and even more likely than today that someone wanting a car at the other end of a train journey will just hire one for collection at the station.  The amount that would need to be charged to make Motorail viable would cover several days car hire.  

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

If the purchase costs of EVs remain high then people may hire one when they needed it rather than owning one (or own one and hire a second one when needed).  This will make car hire more widespread and accessible, and even more likely than today that someone wanting a car at the other end of a train journey will just hire one for collection at the station.  The amount that would need to be charged to make Motorail viable would cover several days car hire.  

 

Which suggests doing much more integration of rail and car hire. Interesting idea. One ticket to cover both?

[Reorte]

14 minutes ago, mikejames said:

hi

thanks for everyone's thoughts - lots of interesting comments

Two questions arising out of peoples comments

 

1) Is 'infilling' of overhead electrical 'gaps' likely to be resumed - or is it a political 'no no'?

2) the suggestion that the continued use of diesels for freight is efficient and is such a small part

of total usage that it can be accepted? - do you agree?

1) Depends on who you ask I suppose.  There's a lot of general scepticism about expensive infrastructure projects but that's mostly directed at the big shiny things rather than anything more mundane, which infilling might be regarded as (no-one seems to have had much to say about the  Manchester to Preston electrification for example).

 

2) Personally yes, but I'm hardly at the forefront of the type of vision of the future that's generally being pushed for! I'm also not in the industry so I'm really just at the "well I guess that..." level.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Reorte

[Zomboid]

7 minutes ago, Reorte said:

(no-one seems to have had much to say about the  Manchester to Preston electrification for example)

It was somewhat overshadowed by the GWML, was a later phase of the bigger NWEP project, and (probably most importantly) has no impact on people who live and work in and around London.

 

On the wider point, Scotland are keen on infill schemes and small/ easy wins when it comes to electrification, but most of the routes up there that would be useful for freight are either already electrified, or are long enough to be really major projects. It's a bit apples & oranges, but in England it apparently wasn't possible to electrify into the centre of Bristol or link the GWML too the WLL via a half mile chord, but EGIP included electrifying the freight only line to Fouldubs. Which to my mind shows a significant divergence of approach...

[sulzer27jd]

17 hours ago, mikejames said:

1) we wish to move as much freight as possible by rail and

 

The real problem is that this is simply not the case currently.

[Reorte]

39 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

It was somewhat overshadowed by the GWML, was a later phase of the bigger NWEP project, and (probably most importantly) has no impact on people who live and work in and around London.

 

What I was getting at is that it hasn't come in for all the criticism that the more prominent schemes have, suggesting that the political barriers to infill (which I think it probably counts as since it enables electric Manchester to Scotland services) aren't anywhere near as high.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Reorte

[Ohmisterporter]

I have used the Manchester - Preston service and must say it is a big improvement on what went before. But even this relatively short line had big problems in order to deliver on time. The Blackpool - Preston electrification has met with similar delays and cost over runs. If we end up with a better service I for one will be willing to accept the temporary upheaval. Obviously, there are other views on this.

Wandered a bit off topic as I am writing about passenger services, not freight.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Ohmisterporter

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, Ohmisterporter said:

I have used the Manchester - Preston service and must say it is a big improvement on what went before. But even this relatively short line had big problems in order to deliver on time. The Blackpool - Preston electrification has met with similar delays and cost over runs. If we end up with a better service I for one will be willing to accept the temporary upheaval. Obviously, there are other views on this.

 

I'd say "it depends". I used to go that way fairly often between Manchester and Penrith. It's an improvement now but that's really just down to having longer trains. 20 years ago with a 47 and rake of carriages it was fine, it then went down to a 4 car Voyager, than a 3 car (albeit doubled up as far as Preston, splitting there between Blackpool and Scotland) 185, which was horrendously overcrowded. I don't find any direct personal benefits from the electrification (slightly faster journey doesn't matter to me personally). Not saying there aren't benefits to me, if it helps to run more services etc., but they're indirect ones.

Edited April 23, 2020 by Reorte

[woodenhead]

A lot of the side benefits of the Northwest electrification has been the introduction of new electric diversionary routes for the WCML:

• Liverpool services can divert via Manchester and run over Chat Moss
• Anglo Scottish can divert via Manchester cutting out chunks of the mainline between Colwich and Preston and put to good use during the Weaver Junction renewal.
  • via Stoke (taking out Colwich to Preston or rejoining at Earlestown for Wigan)
  • via Crewe/Wilmslow (taking out Crewe to Preston or rejoining at Earlestown for Wigan)
  • via Earlestown missing out Warrington and/or Crewe for Southbound trains

[number6]

I'm thinking of something like this would work brilliantly, all bases covered:

3rd rail, DC overhead, AC overhead [maybe needs some rewiring], bio diesel. 

https://bluebell-railway-museum.co.uk/archive/photos/jjs/b03/3-40-8.htm

https://bluebell-railway-museum.co.uk/archive/photos/jjs/b03/3-40-7.htm

[The Johnster]

Cumulatively powerful enough for most jobs as well!

[Zomboid]

Though I do like a 33 (8LDAs make a lovely noise), if it's got 2 electric locos to drag around that'll seriously impact it's ability to pull any revenue earning load. Being barely a type 3 as it is you'd probably need two 33s to shift a worthwhile train... That would sound pretty nice, mind.

 

I've got it - a pair of buffer fitted HST power cars sandwiching a 92. Might need regearing to freight speeds, but that'll go anywhere...

Edited April 23, 2020 by Zomboid

[slilley]

48 minutes ago, number6 said:

I'm thinking of something like this would work brilliantly, all bases covered:

3rd rail, DC overhead, AC overhead [maybe needs some rewiring], bio diesel. 

https://bluebell-railway-museum.co.uk/archive/photos/jjs/b03/3-40-8.htm

https://bluebell-railway-museum.co.uk/archive/photos/jjs/b03/3-40-7.htm

These are from rail joint tests conducted in the summer of 1960 on the Brighton mainline near Balcombe. Mentioned in my forthcoming book on the 33s.

[The Stationmaster]

On 22/04/2020 at 13:57, sulzer27jd said:

The real problem is that this is simply not the case currently.

This gets nearer the heart of the matter.  Numerous people call out 'put more freight on the railways' without thinking through 'what freight'?  And that of course is the crux of the matter - a container train can't make deliveries to my local supermarket but a container could go on a skeletal trailer -  great.  But where then does the container come from - all the major supermarket distribution hubs in our part of the world are miles from the nearest railway.  But it goes a stage further as many (not all ) of their production points are also miles from the nearest railway.  So that business you can forget, same for the local builders' merchants and the bloke who delivers our milk.

 

So then you come back to what is on rail and it needs competitive raters to get it there in the first place because it will have to probably start or finish, or both, its journey on a lorry and transhipment adds cost and takes time.  So I go back to the core question, far more important than what is going to pull it is what traffic will it be, what can actually be put on rail which currently isn't there?  That's the real problem to solve, after that the traction bit is a doddle.

[mikejames]

the station master said

 

So I go back to the core question, far more important than what is going to pull it is what traffic will it be, what can actually be put on rail which currently isn't there?  That's the real problem to solve, after that the traction bit is a doddle.

 

and he is right.

 

I guess my thoughts revolved around current traffic but his remarks seem very depressing. Maybe a new thread entitled 'how do we attract new freight flows to the railways in the UK?'

mike j

[Dagworth]

3 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

what can actually be put on rail which currently isn't there?  That's the real problem to solve, after that the traction bit is a doddle.

 

Mail? The infrastructure was all there until very recently. That would shift a lot of lorries off the road

 

Andi

[Edwin_m]

Very gradually new rail-connected terminals are appearing, often to a chorus of comments that the rail connection is only there to secure planning permission and will never actually be used.  But at least, assuming the railway in question has some free capacity, there is something in place for the future.  

 

Currently the longer runs to and from ports and long-distance runs between major hubs of a hub-and-spoke network are viable by rail.  The threshold is probably twofold: firstly enough volume to justify a trainload at intervals that don't result in excessive waiting for the next one, and secondly that the distance is further than a road driver could do out and back in their daily maximum hours.  Over time that might shift at the margin towards rail, for example due to shortages of road drivers or congestion cutting average speeds, but factors such as auto-platooning of trucks could push things the other way.  The risk is that burdening the railway with extra costs for hydrogen or battery power could actually worsen emissions by pushing business onto the roads.  

[sulzer27jd]

I suspect rail cannot deliver this change on its own. It will require Government policy. The paradigm is currently that railways are for profit and roads are for free. Turn that on its head, especially for vehicles over a certain weight or travelling over a certain distance and you would see a change in fortune. Until policy determines otherwise the near monopoly of road transport will remain.

 

John

[newbryford]

8 hours ago, Zomboid said:

 

 

I've got it - a pair of buffer fitted HST power cars sandwiching a 92. Might need regearing to freight speeds, but that'll go anywhere...

 

Why bother with a 92 in the middle?

Create a "transformer car" with pantograph and feed the power car motors when under the wires.

(Similar to the proposal to make the Voyagers bi-modes - but that fell down partly because of the extra inter-car electric wiring needed)

 

[newbryford]

2 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Very gradually new rail-connected terminals are appearing, often to a chorus of comments that the rail connection is only there to secure planning permission and will never actually be used.  But at least, assuming the railway in question has some free capacity, there is something in place for the future.  

 

Currently the longer runs to and from ports and long-distance runs between major hubs of a hub-and-spoke network are viable by rail.  The threshold is probably twofold: firstly enough volume to justify a trainload at intervals that don't result in excessive waiting for the next one, and secondly that the distance is further than a road driver could do out and back in their daily maximum hours.  Over time that might shift at the margin towards rail, for example due to shortages of road drivers or congestion cutting average speeds, but factors such as auto-platooning of trucks could push things the other way.  The risk is that burdening the railway with extra costs for hydrogen or battery power could actually worsen emissions by pushing business onto the roads.  

 

Are any of these new terminals designed for traffic other than containers?

[brack]

Carbon neutral freight haulage:

 

I believe a few of these might be lying around in somewhat derelict condition, we might have some teeny trouble with our loading gauge being a touch small and our track gauge a bit large. The Benguela Railway owned several large eucalyptus plantations along the line. I believe the inland  sections were timber fired, with Angela's abundant oil supplies being used nearer the coast.

 

Far better than a 66 though.

 

 

[Zomboid]

7 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

Why bother with a 92 in the middle?

Create a "transformer car" with pantograph and feed the power car motors when under the wires.

(Similar to the proposal to make the Voyagers bi-modes - but that fell down partly because of the extra inter-car electric wiring needed)

 

That wouldn't be a daft lash up of existing traction... It also couldn't use the DC electrification (well I suppose it could since the electrical vehicle would be a new build) and even 2 HST power cars don't have the power of a 92.

 

I'm pretty sure this kind of stuff has been done in the imaginary locomotives thread though...

[Edwin_m]

10 hours ago, newbryford said:

 

Are any of these new terminals designed for traffic other than containers?

There have been a few terminals built for the receipt of cement and aggregates, but these tend to be driven by a specific need and don't have to be surrounded by warehousing.  They only receive the goods by train, possibly store for a short period and send it away by truck.  

 

Multi-purpose freight terminals with warehousing will be assuming any rail traffic will be intermodal (containers or swap bodies) unless they already have tenants who have some other arrangement in mind, as Royal Mail did for their Railnet project.  However, if there is a hardstanding extending to one side of the track, as would be provided for reach stackers, then I imagine other goods could be handled by suitable road vehicles with grabs if the need arose.  More efficient bulk handling requires equipment specific to the commodity in question.