How do we get more freight off the roads and onto the railway?

[Fat Controller]

2 minutes ago, C126 said:

 

My thanks for correcting my dismal error!  I thought the dates overlapped slightly.  Am I right in thinking there are no 'wagon load' trains now running through from the continent if only as far as Willesden?  Is there any container traffic?  Am I plain wrong in thinking the Channel Tunnel could help at all?

Not only are there no wagon-load freights on this side of the water, but such as run in Northern France are operated by Belgian Railways, who use Tergnier yard, near St Quentin, as a hub. I believe the current freight service via the Tunnel consists of what used to be the Ford 'Blue Train' (now a general-purpose container train, conveying a lot of perishables),  a train of steel slab from Scunthorpe to Eastern France and a block train of mineral water from various 'sources' to Daventry. There's also a train of china clay slurry from Antwerpen to Irvine every week or so.

[C126]

3 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

And thats the nub of it.

 

It only happens because the Swiss Governments have put massive restrictions and extra costs on the use of road transport.

 

Doing that in the UK means not only taking on multiple vested interests who are politically well connected, it also means abandoning the central tenants of right wing political thinking - small, low regulation government and leaving as much as possible to 'the power of the free market'

 

Until that mindset changes road transport will dominate goods transport in the UK apart from specific situations which can be summarised that either transhipment is needed anyway (Containers off ships being transported to distribution centres at Daventry, Mosssend, etc) or bulk products.

 

Q.E.D.  Could not agree more.  And I bet the small gains alluded to in rail freight recently will soon be eroded by more road building and yet more tax concessions.

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, C126 said:

 

Am I right in thinking there are no 'wagon load' trains now running through from the continent if only as far as Willesden?  Is there any container traffic?  Am I plain wrong in thinking the Channel Tunnel could help at all?

 

Correct

 

The small trickle of traffic through the channel tunnel these days are basically point to point block trains (a few of which might be intermodals carrying containers to the likes of Daventry)

 

The final hammer blow was over a decade ago when trains had to run the gauntlet of migrants trying to jump on them at Calais - the delays and disruption was the final straw for many customers who switched to road.

 

As for Willesden that terminal was shut over a decade ago and after being sub let to a number of businesses (including one of those car supermarket people IIRC) the site has now been turned into HS2s London construction / logistics centre with the container cranes dismantled for scrap.

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 08/05/2021 at 16:29, Fat Controller said:

I worked at Eurotunnel for 25 years, until I retired last year; for most of that time, I was in the Railway Control Centre. When I started, there were often twenty or more National Freight trains on most days.

There was a lot of industrial action towards the end of the 1990s at SNCF; sometimes short-duration guerilla action, at other times, longer strikes. This caused a lot of hard-won flows to wither on the vine; most of the container flows were lost.

No sooner were things returning to a sort of normality, then the 'stowaway' crisis kicked off. I recollect night shifts when virtually no trains (neither NR nor Eurotunnel) ran during the hours of darkness. 

 

Industrial "action" on SNCF has certainly been a big factor over the years.

 

But, with open access rail operators (i.e. the big lorry firms operating their own trains), that should be less of an issue.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Joseph_Pestell
typo

[Fat Controller]

4 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Industrial "action" on SNCF has certainly been a big factor over the years.

 

But, with open access rail operators (i.e. the big lorry firms operating their own lorries), that should be less of an issue.

I'd hope so, but some of the 'Open Access' operators seem to only get the crumbs off the table.

What struck me was seeing how little of the container traffic from Le Havre goes by rail. Given the port is about the same size as Southampton or Felixstowe, it handles fewer trains in a week than either of them does in a day. Even if they're in the timetable doesn't mean they run; I stood at the side of the line, watching a procession of light engines pass, with an SNCF colleague who would indicate which working they should have been.

[37114]

7 hours ago, Fat Controller said:

I'd hope so, but some of the 'Open Access' operators seem to only get the crumbs off the table.

What struck me was seeing how little of the container traffic from Le Havre goes by rail. Given the port is about the same size as Southampton or Felixstowe, it handles fewer trains in a week than either of them does in a day. Even if they're in the timetable doesn't mean they run; I stood at the side of the line, watching a procession of light engines pass, with an SNCF colleague who would indicate which working they should have been.

The thing in France is lots more of the distribution centres are close to the ports, there are 2 main freight entry points,  Le Harve and La Fos sur Mer near Marseille, the idea being that as France is so vast compared to the population, you serve the South of the country from La Fos and the North from Le Harve.  We use barge to ship from Le Harve to one of our northern DCs which is South of Paris.

Edited May 9, 2021 by 37114
Typo

[phil-b259]

12 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Industrial "action" on SNCF has certainly been a big factor over the years.

 

But, with open access rail operators (i.e. the big lorry firms operating their own lorries), that should be less of an issue.

 

And when the Signallers employed by SNCF go on strike.....

 

Rail and Air transport stop if the signallers / air traffic controllers aren't there to run the infrastructure.

 

Its a fact that the road network does not need a bunch of highly skilled controllers to make it function (outside a few specific examples like those monitoring tunnels say). Hence road hauliers can assume its always open - and that its density usually leaves plenty of diversionary capabilities.

 

 

 

 

[KeithMacdonald]

On 07/05/2021 at 14:33, Grizz said:

Look at the Royal Mail rail hubs, all that money spent, all those facilities built and overnight .. Ah we are transferring all to the roads, because anyone can drive a truck.

 

What's this all about then?

 

Quote

 

The UK’s postal operator has announced that construction of a major, new Royal Mail parcel hub in the Midlands is underway as the Company accelerates its transformation to an international parcels-led business that also delivers letters in the UK.

...

Situated at the Daventry International Rail Freight Interchange (DIRFT), the second Royal Mail parcel hub will have excellent transport links to major cities nearby as well as the warehousing and fulfilment centres of several online retailers. This will enable Royal Mail to enhance its support of the UK’s ecommerce and retail industry.

..

Capitalising on the site’s rail connectivity, the new hub will also have its own dedicated rail platform, allowing parcels and other freight direct access to the West Coast Main Line, the country’s primary rail freight route.

 

 

https://tamebay.com/2021/02/new-royal-mail-parcel-hub-under-construction.html

 

Then there's the East Midlands Rail Freight Interchange (a.k.a Castle Donington freight line) right next to the East Midlands Airport. Which at some times of night seems to more flights in & out than anyway else in the country. Mostly cargo planes for the likes of UPS, Fedex, DHL, etc.

 

Then there's the fleet of Boeing 737s (operated by Titan Airways) that the Royal Mail uses to get stuff between Exeter, Bournemouth, Stansted, East Midlands, Edinburgh and Belfast,. No more Night Mail trains?

 

Perhaps it's not just a "roads -v- railways" issue. Maybe it's "an every changing dynamic balance of road, rail, sea and air to suit demand and priorities"

 

 

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

What's this all about then?

 

 

https://tamebay.com/2021/02/new-royal-mail-parcel-hub-under-construction.html

 

Then there's the East Midlands Rail Freight Interchange (a.k.a Castle Donington freight line) right next to the East Midlands Airport. Which at some times of night seems to more flights in & out than anyway else in the country. Mostly cargo planes for the likes of UPS, Fedex, DHL, etc.

 

Then there's the fleet of Boeing 737s (operated by Titan Airways) that the Royal Mail uses to get stuff between Exeter, Bournemouth, Stansted, East Midlands, Edinburgh and Belfast,. No more Night Mail trains?

 

Perhaps it's not just a "roads -v- railways" issue. Maybe it's "an every changing dynamic balance of road, rail, sea and air to suit demand and priorities"

 

 

 

One thing to bear in mind is that the nature of what Royal Mail carry has radically changed over the past decade.

 

Letters (which lend themselves to easy sorting while on route) have continued to decline sharply with the popularity of e-mail and social media to convey the written word.

 

The growth sector has been parcel traffic - which by its bulky nature is best sorted at each end. As such transport by air, even on short runs within the UK, allows this to happen and still ensure 'next day delivery' can be provided.

 

For less time sensitive parcels haulage by road is cheap and easy requiring no special facilities or transhipment between modes.

[Arpster]

Some excellent posts on this thread. Thanks to all contributors for an enlightening and broad discussion.

My thoughts, for what they're worth, are as follows:

 

The UK Government may yet have its hand forced on this issue by one of the best things that the last Labour government did: the Climate Change Act (2008). That took decarbonisation out of the hands of politicians of whatever colour (and for transparency's sake, I should own-up to standing for the Green Party in last week's local elections) and put it in the hands of the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC). The CCC sets the UK's 'carbon budget' every four years to determine how much CO2 can be emitted to keep the UK in line with its climate change commitments.

 

Personally, I think it is these carbon budgets that will finally force the hand of whichever government is in power to take rail freight seriously. The latest Sixth Carbon Budget (for 2033-2037) included aviation for the first time and these budgets are becoming increasingly stringent to achieve Net Zero by 2050. As well as that target date, what is more important is the total amount of CO2 emitted by the UK between now and eternity, so the slower we start really cutting emissions the sooner we run out of carbon and fail.

Given the urgency for rapid decarbonisation of transport (responsible for around 25% of the UK's emissions), I don't think the government can just sit and wait for electric or hydrogen lorries to come along. And even if they did, there won't be enough renewable capacity to power tens of thousands of electric lorries as well as homes, workplaces, private cars, and public transport. This really puts an emphasis on the energy efficiency of rail transport.

The ideal solution in carbon terms would be a spine network of rail freight services serving urban or industrial consolidation centres, with 'last mile' deliveries done by smaller electric vehicles. You know, like we used to have until the 1960s... Yes, this would increase labour requirements, but a carbon tax may still render this cheaper than using a high-emitting HGV alternative. And in a time of dwindling employment and increasing automation of jobs, this increased demand for labour may actually be welcome!

All of this actually requires, as others have pointed out more eloquently that me, strong government intervention in the market to tax and regulate us towards a lower carbon freight system. This clearly goes against Conservative Party (and even recent Labour Party) ideology, which is why it's going to be very interesting to see how whoever is in power responds to the CCC's challenge. Perhaps we'll see moves to scrap the Climate Change Act soon...

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 09/05/2021 at 11:01, Fat Controller said:

I'd hope so, but some of the 'Open Access' operators seem to only get the crumbs off the table.

What struck me was seeing how little of the container traffic from Le Havre goes by rail. Given the port is about the same size as Southampton or Felixstowe, it handles fewer trains in a week than either of them does in a day. Even if they're in the timetable doesn't mean they run; I stood at the side of the line, watching a procession of light engines pass, with an SNCF colleague who would indicate which working they should have been.

 

Certainly accords with my recent experience. In just a few minutes travelling from Birmingham to London via Northampton (cheapskate £18 ticket from Worcester), I saw three container trains heading northwards. Freight here in France now seems very rare. I have seen none on the Toulouse-Paris mainline and drove past the marshalling yards at Rouen Sotteville with very little evidence of activity. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 09/05/2021 at 18:42, phil-b259 said:

 

And when the Signallers employed by SNCF go on strike.....

 

Rail and Air transport stop if the signallers / air traffic controllers aren't there to run the infrastructure.

 

Its a fact that the road network does not need a bunch of highly skilled controllers to make it function (outside a few specific examples like those monitoring tunnels say). Hence road hauliers can assume its always open - and that its density usually leaves plenty of diversionary capabilities.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, a fair question.

 

In an open access environment, and with the full backing of the EU for "freedom of movement", the infrastructure body (can't remember he name as it's been a long day), would be in deep doo-doo. They would need to grow some cojones.

 

If the Swiss can simply ban lorry movements through their country, why should the French not do the same. A lot of Green voters out there and a Presidential election coming up in 2022.

[Joseph_Pestell]

On 08/05/2021 at 16:34, phil-b259 said:

 

And thats the nub of it.

 

It only happens because the Swiss Governments have put massive restrictions and extra costs on the use of road transport.

 

Doing that in the UK means not only taking on multiple vested interests who are politically well connected, it also means abandoning the central tenants of right wing political thinking - small, low regulation government and leaving as much as possible to 'the power of the free market'

 

Until that mindset changes road transport will dominate goods transport in the UK apart from specific situations which can be summarised that either transhipment is needed anyway (Containers off ships being transported to distribution centres at Daventry, Mosssend, etc) or bulk products.

 

I was going to bring Switzerland into the thread. They simply don't allow lorries to cross the country unless loading/unloading there.

 

I don't think that any EU country could do that as it would be seen as a restriction of freedom of movement. So what we really need is for the EU to ban any HGV journey of more than 1000km.

 

Some mention has been made of battery HGVs. But they have the same problem as a UK gauge compliant HGV. You are losing payload. And I worry about our growing reliance on electric vehicles when China has a monopoly on the materials for those batteries.

 

And even if electric, an HGV will use a lot more energy to shift x tonnes of goods than will a train. 

 

A thought that occurred to me the other day, why do the trailers on semi-articulated lorries have such a high bed? With smaller wheels, and perhaps hydraulic suspension, it should not be so difficult to get a trailer on wagon combination that fits within the railway loading gauge and still has the same payload as most current trailers.

 

And another thought. Does there have to be transhipment (trailer or container on and off wagon and HGV)? Take the tractor unit as well (as in Switzerland) and you could have Eurotunnel style trains which load/unload very quickly. It's not ideal having the tractor sitting doing nothing on the train but that happens now for all the hours that the HGV is stopped for driver breaks. Put a couple of coaches for the drivers at the head of the train and they get their rest hours in a couchette while the goods are still on the move.

[Ben B]

This thread has made for some very interesting reading, and lots of informative discussion.

 

Another factor I've been wondering about- where are the actual unloading/loading facilities?  I seem to remember the trials of logs on the Cambrian and somewhere in Scotland where the trains had to be loaded on the mainline in gaps between passenger services.  OK they were just trials, and couldn't justify infrastructure costs, but with most railways (especially in the hinterlands and rural areas) chopped back to the bare minimum, new sidings would surely need to be laid.  At what point does it become economically more viable for the railway to retain/develop a yard compared to flogging the currently-redundant land for house building, or to become the extended station car park?

[Trog]

On 07/05/2021 at 09:52, uax6 said:

Maybe a start would be to impose an HGV ban on Sundays.... 

 

Andy G

 

Why do you think that God dislikes HGV's?

 

I suppose the number of clergymen involved with rail preservation etc. may be a clue to the almighty's views, as his thoughts might perhaps impress themselves on the consciousness of lesser beings that spent too much time thinking about him and his wishes. 

[37114]

20 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I was going to bring Switzerland into the thread. They simply don't allow lorries to cross the country unless loading/unloading there.

 

I don't think that any EU country could do that as it would be seen as a restriction of freedom of movement. So what we really need is for the EU to ban any HGV journey of more than 1000km.

 

Some mention has been made of battery HGVs. But they have the same problem as a UK gauge compliant HGV. You are losing payload. And I worry about our growing reliance on electric vehicles when China has a monopoly on the materials for those batteries.

 

And even if electric, an HGV will use a lot more energy to shift x tonnes of goods than will a train. 

 

A thought that occurred to me the other day, why do the trailers on semi-articulated lorries have such a high bed? With smaller wheels, and perhaps hydraulic suspension, it should not be so difficult to get a trailer on wagon combination that fits within the railway loading gauge and still has the same payload as most current trailers.

 

And another thought. Does there have to be transhipment (trailer or container on and off wagon and HGV)? Take the tractor unit as well (as in Switzerland) and you could have Eurotunnel style trains which load/unload very quickly. It's not ideal having the tractor sitting doing nothing on the train but that happens now for all the hours that the HGV is stopped for driver breaks. Put a couple of coaches for the drivers at the head of the train and they get their rest hours in a couchette while the goods are still on the move.

I admire the thought and in a perfect world you would be on to something  but to answer some of your points:

- Trailer bed height is determined by a number of things but the biggest blocker is the fact that every distribution centre with a loading bay would need rebuilding to accommodate a lower trailer and thus is a non starter. 

- Sending the driver with the train. Drivers are around the third of the cost of running a vehicle and there is a shortage of people willing to do the job so the costs are going up. Due to all the time involved loading the train, waiting for planned departure then travelling it would make it uneconomic to do as you describe especially if the rail element was domestic and was only 200km for example.  There are actually very few lorries in the UK that travel a 1000km for one delivery albeit I could see the concept working on the continent it would still add cost in to be passed onto the consumer. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, 37114 said:

I admire the thought and in a perfect world you would be on to something  but to answer some of your points:

- Trailer bed height is determined by a number of things but the biggest blocker is the fact that every distribution centre with a loading bay would need rebuilding to accommodate a lower trailer and thus is a non starter. 

- Sending the driver with the train. Drivers are around the third of the cost of running a vehicle and there is a shortage of people willing to do the job so the costs are going up. Due to all the time involved loading the train, waiting for planned departure then travelling it would make it uneconomic to do as you describe especially if the rail element was domestic and was only 200km for example.  There are actually very few lorries in the UK that travel a 1000km for one delivery albeit I could see the concept working on the continent it would still add cost in to be passed onto the consumer. 

 

Most of the big distribution centres that I have seen had bays with adjustable height. But why would it be so difficult to rebuild such a facility? Money, of course, but if we are serious about climate change, investment is going to be needed anyway.

 

I don't see how a driver is costing you any more asleep in a train than he is costing you asleep in a lay-by. Yes, some loading time. But look how quickly they get the HGVs loaded at Eurotunnel. No worse than a ferry. So if we could put a terminal this side of Eurotunnel, that would be evened out.

 

"Very few lorries in the UK that travel 1000km for a delivery". A minority, no doubt but I started this thread by commenting on the number of HGVs, mostly Spanish, just in one small Hereford village. And that morning, I had been on Dover Eastern Docks waiting for a ferry. 

[37114]

2 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Most of the big distribution centres that I have seen had bays with adjustable height. But why would it be so difficult to rebuild such a facility? Money, of course, but if we are serious about climate change, investment is going to be needed anyway.

 

I don't see how a driver is costing you any more asleep in a train than he is costing you asleep in a lay-by. Yes, some loading time. But look how quickly they get the HGVs loaded at Eurotunnel. No worse than a ferry. So if we could put a terminal this side of Eurotunnel, that would be evened out.

 

"Very few lorries in the UK that travel 1000km for a delivery". A minority, no doubt but I started this thread by commenting on the number of HGVs, mostly Spanish, just in one small Hereford village. And that morning, I had been on Dover Eastern Docks waiting for a ferry. 

So if we focus this in 2 parts as you refer to both UK and cross Europe;

 

UK; You are looking at £80k plus for a loading bay, even if you get a trailer bed 12 inches lower, the overall vehicle height is compromised by our tunnels and infrastructure. I recall there were some road railer trials in the early to mid 90s, the road trailers were so low they were useless for general haulage.  The company I work for has a fleet of triple deck trailers which carry 60 pallets, we would need 3 of the rail compliant trailers to send it via rail and to be fair we have very few regular trunk movements, most are store deliveries so not suited to rail. 

 

Compared to 20 years ago, very few drivers night out these days, the time spent non driving is only 45 mins for every 4.5 hours driving so down time is minimised.

 

Across Europe. I agree rail has more role to play here but you will find where possible non perishable product will go via rail where economic.  Yes we can shift the economics with legislation / tax rules but we will all pay in our pocket.

 

I do agree with your point we need to do something about the environment but it is much bigger issue than just moving freight from road to rail.  Our shopping habits need to change as lots of the carbon impact is final mile where rail is not the answer.  Private car usage is a bettee place to start than freight. 

[D6775]

A very interesting thread. I've had a good read through but probably missed a few things so apologies if I go over old ground:

 

Speedlink/Enterprise/Pick up Freight.

This is a complete dead duck unfortunately. When you are charging a 'wagon rate' you need that train full every time, it unfortunately doesn't stack up as you always end up with a short 'trip' at either end where you need to charge fully for the loco and driver etc. The trunk train then also needs to be full but you run the risk of Customer A on Monday wanting to move his two wagons, Customer B on Tuesday wanting to move his 5 wagons and customer C on Wednesday wanting to move his 12 wagons, effectively running three trains for the revenue of one.  The only way it would be viable would be to have a hub at each end and a trunk train that only runs when it is full which you then cannot cost effectively plan.

 

Electrification.

How many Yards we're included on the GWML electrification??? Zero, unless you have diesel/electric loco's (DRS 88's) then it is nigh on impossible to change trains over from diesel to electric traction. International trains to Barking need to swap to a diesel to trip into the terminal's, this works as there are multiple trains, how could you justify a loco in a yard or set of sidings just to do the last mile? Even DRS have a 37 sat at Garston to shunt their one train a day in/out of the terminal, this I would have thought was the whole reason for the 88's. 

 

Bulk trains & Intermodal. 

This is where rail freight wins, selling a full train day in day out. There is a market for this and the business is out there to win. But then you run into the issue of pathing. As has been alluded to earlier in the thread, a number of parts of the railway are at capacity, or the only capacity available say on the WCML then doesn't fit a slot to get you onto the GWML. It has been quite noticeable that while the TOC's have been running reduced services it has been much easier to path freight trains and get better paths because there hasn't been a 2 coach passenger train every 10 minutes on a clock face Timetable!

 

Anyway, that's just an outpouring of random thoughts in my head! I could go on down many other deeper rabbit Warren's. Now how do I get a class 90 on a pick up freight on the GWML that makes money........................................

[phil-b259]

5 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

Most of the big distribution centres that I have seen had bays with adjustable height. But why would it be so difficult to rebuild such a facility? Money, of course, but if we are serious about climate change, investment is going to be needed anyway.

 

I don't see how a driver is costing you any more asleep in a train than he is costing you asleep in a lay-by. Yes, some loading time. But look how quickly they get the HGVs loaded at Eurotunnel. No worse than a ferry. So if we could put a terminal this side of Eurotunnel, that would be evened out.

 

"Very few lorries in the UK that travel 1000km for a delivery". A minority, no doubt but I started this thread by commenting on the number of HGVs, mostly Spanish, just in one small Hereford village. And that morning, I had been on Dover Eastern Docks waiting for a ferry. 

 

As has been noted the barriers are economic!

 

What is so hard to understand - paying a low wage eastern European truck driver (note the registration of the lorry doesn't have to be the same as the nationality of the driver) on a 'per KM basis' is simply far cheaper than doing the equivalent trip by road.

 

Businesses (be they growing fruit or transporting fruit from Spain to the UK) are there to make money for their owners / shareholders!

 

MONEY (or shareholder dividends) remains the driving force behind what an organisation does - the fact that its killing our planet always comes second.

 

Its called Capitalism!

 

Hence if you want to achieve modal shift it has to be done by massively increasing the costs of road transport through extra taxes, road tolls etc - and that is going to be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices and also possibly less choice in terms of what  is available to purchase in the first place.

 

Unfortunately consumers are also voters - and generally speaking they do not vote for political parties that make them poorer in relative terms, restrict what they can buy or restrict what they can do.

 

For example one of the biggest things countries could do is start taxing aviation fuel - but you can guarantee that will be pushed by vested interests as 'denying the average British family their annual summer holiday in Spain / Greece / etc' and there WILL be negative consequences at the ballot box.

Edited May 23, 2021 by phil-b259

[Guest]

On 07/05/2021 at 05:41, Joseph_Pestell said:

I have put this in UK discussions rather than overseas because it involves both.

 

Where I was living in Herefordshire until recently, there would be about 40 lorries a day bringing fruit and veg from Spain down narrow lanes to a local packing plant. Thousands of lorries cross the Channel every day. Where I am living now in France, there are very few freight trains but the nearby motorway is crammed with lorries, including many of the big Spanish hauliers' vehicles.

 

The costs of one of these lorry trips must be enormous: fuel, ferry fare (for UK), driver wages, etc......

 

Now that there is "open access", surely it would be in the interests of these companies to put their trailers (or containers) on their own train. A big investment would be needed to create transhipment points and for suitable wagons but that is surely something that Govts could back with guarantees.

 

Spain, of course, presents a specific technical challenge with track gauge but there are ways round that.

 

Apart from what should be a good financial case, we really need to do this if we are serious about reducing carbon emissions. It takes a lot more energy to move this freight by road than it would by rail.

There was a car train from Zaragoza(?) to Warrington (at least talked about). I also understand this was to do with car parts going between the Opel/Vauxhall plants rather than finished cars to market. Either way, it doesn't really matter for what I'm about to say. I don't know if this happened or is still going, but if loading gauge is not a problem for cars I don't know why it would be for containers of strawberries or whatever.

 

Personally if I worked with export logistics and could organise a train for perishables from Spain to the UK I would fly the lot over instead as it would be quicker and I wouldn't have to worry about loading gauges. One benefit of road over rail (or plane) is that road is 'door to door' - the risk of product damage (or a crane at a yard not functioning) is a cost too. If I ran a Spanish fruit and/or veg company I'd have my own fleet of lorries. This way I can use what is already available and I won't have to even spend time researching rail logistics or spend time negotiating contracts that might not even be available due to maximised capacity (and, potentially, on top of that waiting for rail yards and any connecting lines to receive planning permission and then be built). I could also send one lorry going to Herefordshire and another going to Greater Manchester. If one lorry breaks down that would be bad, but if a train breaks down that might be as bad as a total crop failure. As well the Just-In-Time production method means businesses (UK railways included) are already operating on the margins of what they can get away with. Businesses do this to mitigate risk as well as to maximise profit in an environment of low investment (having already made massive capital outlay during the start up) and long-run low profit.

 

There are no easy solutions at a governmental level, either. The cost of investing in new, or reopening old, freight terminals is not being able to invest in something else - think of the other departmental spending for the UK government. There is an environmental cost to this potential (re)build too. Solar panels and wind turbines are criticised for causing carbon emissions during production especially in comparison to nuclear power. This would apply to rolling stock and warehouse manufacture (especially now that Redcar has closed meaning more imports of the steel if not the rolling stock). As well, wasting previous investment - I'm aware that this could have been applied the other way, in the 1960s, but we are where we are. The Freeports policy, however, might be a good environmental policy - using brownfield rather than greenfield sites. Also, from a national perspective, green tech with its positive income elasticity of demand and 4th wave industrial revolution implications might be better to develop, in the government's view, than freight yards (the land, labour, capital and enterprise dedicated to railways is the same not dedicated to graphene production). The United States and other countries are exploring this area of tech. Whoever gets the patents for those technologies gets an insurmountable barrier to entry and a licence to print money (at least for a while) meaning corporation tax for the UK Exchequer (if in the UK) to pay back the debts of COVID. As crudely as I put it here, this does fit in to the current Conservative agenda of wanting to make the UK a science and technology global hub.

 

Perhaps we should (also) be asking, for what reason are we importing so much food? I don't just mean we the contributors of RM Web, but we as a society. Not just the essentials, but modern luxuries like out-of-season strawberries etc (this is also a crop and land management issue). Perhaps we want Spanish fruit because it reminds us of home or because we enjoyed it on holiday and many other reasons like cheaper land in Spain. Furthermore, like modern car or steel production and an internationalised version of Smith/Ford-ism and Taylorism. The UK Govt did this to the UK railways in the 1920s; to coal-mining, the railway (again), shipbuilding and steel industries post-WWII (in a policy largely seen now as 'managed decline'). The European car and steel industries does this now. Perhaps investing in green tech is the best option from a British/climate change perspective rather than a rail perspective.

[Northmoor]

A very interesting thread with lots of contributions from knowledgeable people (as opposed to the opinionated).

 

One thought has often occurred to me that hopefully someone can immediately discount; are the tunnels on HS1 built to the same clearance as the Channel Tunnel itself?  I know the route was expected to take freight  (although don't think it currently does) but it would be a great benefit to the SE corner of England if a portion - say a quarter - of the Eurotunnel lorry shuttles didn't stop at Folkestone, but ran to a terminal somewhere just North of the Thames that didn't require significant gauge enhancement (perhaps in the Dagenham area?).  It would remove a lot of ton-miles from the A2/M2 - the "trunking section" of the journey - to allow those destined for North of London to focus on a shorter "last mile" portion of their journey.  It doesn't add a trans-shipment to the journey, just moves where it is taking place.

 

I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult to attract, say, 50 trucks per hour to do this? 

[Ron Ron Ron]

6 hours ago, Northmoor said:

.......are the tunnels on HS1 built to the same clearance as the Channel Tunnel itself?  ....

.....but it would be a great benefit to the SE corner of England if a portion - say a quarter - of the Eurotunnel lorry shuttles didn't stop at Folkestone, but ran to a terminal somewhere just North of the Thames ....

 

AFAIK, well at least it's my understanding, the Channel Tunnel bores are much larger, to accommodate the shuttle vehicles, which are much taller and wider than the largest UIC gauge allows.

The rail tunnel bores are 7.6 metre diameter (25ft)

The Shuttle vehicles cannot operate outside of the CT terminal complexes, either side of the Channel.

 

HS1 is bulit to UIC GC gauge, within which, rail vehicles have a max height of 4.65 metres.

(edit: as Phil points out below, it's effectively built and operates as a French LGV line).

It can accommodate double deck passenger trains, all the way to St, Pancras International, but not the CT Shuttle vehicles.

 

 

 

.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Northmoor said:

A very interesting thread with lots of contributions from knowledgeable people (as opposed to the opinionated).

 

One thought has often occurred to me that hopefully someone can immediately discount; are the tunnels on HS1 built to the same clearance as the Channel Tunnel itself?  I know the route was expected to take freight  (although don't think it currently does) but it would be a great benefit to the SE corner of England if a portion - say a quarter - of the Eurotunnel lorry shuttles didn't stop at Folkestone, but ran to a terminal somewhere just North of the Thames that didn't require significant gauge enhancement (perhaps in the Dagenham area?).  It would remove a lot of ton-miles from the A2/M2 - the "trunking section" of the journey - to allow those destined for North of London to focus on a shorter "last mile" portion of their journey.  It doesn't add a trans-shipment to the journey, just moves where it is taking place.

 

I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult to attract, say, 50 trucks per hour to do this? 

 

As a general rule HS1 is built to LGV standards and although physical structures may appear to be larger than necessary this is most likely due to the need to mitigate against undesirable aerodynamics which occur at 140 / 186mph.

 

The biggest physical issue however is the overhead power supply - Eurostars (even the new Siemens ones) have to be equipped with special 'high reach' pantographs as the OLE in the  Channel Tunnel is significantly higher than on the French LGV networks, let alone British standards! This enabled Eurotunnel to avoid things like small wheel sets and difficult engineering when it came to building the shuttle wagons and also affected the platform heights at the terminals.

 

As such it would be impossible to simply 'extend' the Eurotunnel shuttle service to London - it would need bespoke wagons that could fit lorries within the EU standard loading gauge and thus fit safely under the OLE used on HS1. However such wagons are not going to be compatible with the Channel Tunnel terminals so that means you need bespoke loading / unloading facilities too.

 

Finally there is the consideration of axle loadings and rail wear etc on HS1 to consider.  The cant on HS1 is designed around 140 - 186mph passenger units - traffic traveling at slower speeds (e.g. 100mph) will not be subjected to as much centrifugal force when cornering and as such are more likely to have the flange pressed up against the rail causing it to wear quicker. This extra wear would have to be factored into grater track access costs to pay for more frequent track maintenance / renewal

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by phil-b259

[Fat Controller]

28 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

A very interesting thread with lots of contributions from knowledgeable people (as opposed to the opinionated).

 

One thought has often occurred to me that hopefully someone can immediately discount; are the tunnels on HS1 built to the same clearance as the Channel Tunnel itself?  I know the route was expected to take freight  (although don't think it currently does) but it would be a great benefit to the SE corner of England if a portion - say a quarter - of the Eurotunnel lorry shuttles didn't stop at Folkestone, but ran to a terminal somewhere just North of the Thames that didn't require significant gauge enhancement (perhaps in the Dagenham area?).  It would remove a lot of ton-miles from the A2/M2 - the "trunking section" of the journey - to allow those destined for North of London to focus on a shorter "last mile" portion of their journey.  It doesn't add a trans-shipment to the journey, just moves where it is taking place.

 

I wouldn't have thought it would be difficult to attract, say, 50 trucks per hour to do this? 

The loading gauge on CTRL is noticeably smaller than that of the Channel Tunnel; I think I'm correct in saying that the nearest to the ET gauge is to be found in the central and western US.

At the moment, there are trailer-on-flat car services to Calais from Spain and Italy, but they traverse the Channel by sea. They transport perhaps a hundred or so trailers per day; Eurotunnel does that in an hour.