Freightliner's environmental credentials down the pan

[RJS1977]

28 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

I suspect there is limited scope for this.

 

 

Not without significant investment in rolling stock anyway.

 

However if that investment is there, there probably are routes that could benefit.

 

A large volume of lorries comes through the Channel Tunnel by train, or across by ferry, then drive across Wales to Pembroke, Fishguard and Holyhead for the ferries to Ireland. If those lorries could be brought right across from Calais to the Irish Sea Ports by train, there could be a significant reduction in lorry miles.

 

Likewise I'm sure Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh must have significant numbers of lorries heading their way each day from the Channel. If these lorries could be transported by train overnight, with a couple of sleeper coaches and a day coach, as well as reducing lorry movements, the drivers would (hopefully) get some sleep and something to eat, and be ready to continue their journey the next morning, rather than parking up in a layby overnight.

 

[62613]

7 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

A large volume of lorries comes through the Channel Tunnel by train, or across by ferry, then drive across Wales to Pembroke, Fishguard and Holyhead for the ferries to Ireland. If those lorries could be brought right across from Calais to the Irish Sea Ports by train, there could be a significant reduction in lorry miles.

 

Likewise I'm sure Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh must have significant numbers of lorries heading their way each day from the Channel. If these lorries could be transported by train overnight, with a couple of sleeper coaches and a day coach, as well as reducing lorry movements, the drivers would (hopefully) get some sleep and something to eat, and be ready to continue their journey the next morning, rather than parking up in a layby overnight.

 

This is reducing; since Brexit finally kicked in, the continental ferry companies have been resetting their routes from there to the ROI, to avoid the increased beaurocracy of travelling across England. 

[ruggedpeak]

34 minutes ago, 62613 said:

This is reducing; since Brexit finally kicked in, the continental ferry companies have been resetting their routes from there to the ROI, to avoid the increased beaurocracy of travelling across England. 

Great news, less traffic, less pollution, less foreign lorries on the roads, less road deaths. One of the many Brexit benefits

[159220]

On 15/10/2021 at 14:56, kevinlms said:

Earlier it was mentioned about the doctored photo of water lapping up to Buckingham Palace, which is plain nonsense.

 

A poor choice of words there old chap, like Arpster, I am also a climate scientist at a renowned global top 10 university. And though I might be loud about trains, wasps and the lack of good stout in my local... I am very understated when it comes to my research and engaging with others. Until it comes to anthropogenic climate change/global warming within the climate crisis realm. As members of the civil society and custodians of knowledge we have an absolute responsibility to be as loud as we possibly can be in raising awareness of the climate crisis and teaching those who have (as of yet) failed to engage in comprehending how fundamental it is to our current society to do something about it. Today's youth are right to be scared about our futures and are utterly willing to engage and learn from the science. We clearly cannot stop teaching and instilling knowledge of the threat we face. 

 

The article comes from an Open Access journal - i.e. it is free for the public to download, read and join in the discussion. Check it out for yourself (warning it is scientific reporting, it is balanced and certainly no nonsense): 

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2e6b. You shall note the authors are clear in stating it can happen IF flood defences and mitigations are not brought forward. I would utterly agree with their thesis. 

 

I have for the past decade taught my students examples exactly like this, how we shall see central London (inc. Buckingham Palace) being flooded in our life times as it has previously been a swap/flood plain/estuary and shall once again be so. There are various projections that if we fail to upgrade our flood defences along the Thames Estuary, we shall see the Thames Barrier being breached earlier than predicted (it was designed to account for storm surges and high spring tide until 2070). The UK Government is very much aware of this and there is a Thames Estuary 2100 Plan to ensure we bolster our flood defences. We must remember the IPCC projected sea-level rises are global and that relative sea level rises shall be different around the globe. The Thames Estuary, under the 'high' scenario, shall see the sea level rising 1150 cm by 2100. Remember we plan for the worse and hope for the best. I.e. the Thames Barrier was designed to account for 1 in 1000 storm surge events at 0.1% probability - anthropogenic climate change has smashed this figure out. To give this some substantive substance, during the period of 1911 and 2018 the relative sea level rose by 15 cm in the estuary against a IPCC global projection of 12-21 cm (1902-2015). So we can be fairly certain we shall see a significant increase of the sea in the Estuary by 2100. Now remember, it is not the rising sea that is the main risk, but that of storm surges (and to a less extent the mean high spring tide - a tangent I shall give you saw my parents boat's marina flooded(!!) by a high spring tide for the first time on record earlier this year), the frequency of these events are increasing (due to anthropogenic climate change) and when you factor in relative sea level rise by 2100 you have a flooded Thames Estuary including central London. 

 

So no, not nonsense. Science. You are welcomed to engage with the paper and how they have interpreted the data. How about you write us a 3000 word essay on it by next Friday? My students can easily achieve this, thus I am certain it would be a breeze for an RMWeb expert. Remember RMWeb is populated with experts. The very fragility of our hobby is attractive to such a mind and you would be wise not to make yourself seem so gaudy. Perhaps before you make silly comments, you engross yourself in the literature and then make only informed comments.

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Great news, less traffic, less pollution, less foreign lorries on the roads, less road deaths. One of the many Brexit benefits

+ Less food, less clothes, less toys etc. etc.

[RJS1977]

3 hours ago, 62613 said:

This is reducing; since Brexit finally kicked in, the continental ferry companies have been resetting their routes from there to the ROI, to avoid the increased beaurocracy of travelling across England. 

 

Though if the lorries could be sealed in a train from Calais until crossing inside a 'secure' zone at Fishguard or Holyhead, the customs bureaucracy of crossing Britain would be eliminated.

[woodenhead]

Just now, RJS1977 said:

 

Though if the lorries could be sealed in a train from Calais until crossing inside a 'secure' zone at Fishguard or Holyhead, the customs bureaucracy of crossing Britain would be eliminated.

Why a lorry, how about simply a container - transfer from road to rail in France, train through tunnel, traction change in UK, onward travel to Liverpool where it can be put onto a ship to move across to Ireland.

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Great news, less traffic, less pollution, less foreign lorries on the roads, less road deaths. One of the many Brexit benefits

 

But is it?

 

3 hours ago, 62613 said:

This is reducing; since Brexit finally kicked in, the continental ferry companies have been resetting their routes from there to the ROI, to avoid the increased beaurocracy of travelling across England. 

 

Does it use more fuel (and environmental damage) to send a ship as well as the lorries direct?  Which is faster?  If direct uses less fuel and is faster, perhaps they should have been doing that before brexit.

 

There are other economic considerations to complicate that choice too.  Presumably the lorry drivers still have to paid for their hours if they are on board a much longer sea crossing even though they're not working by roaring down the M4.

[admiles]

43 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Why a lorry, how about simply a container - transfer from road to rail in France, train through tunnel, traction change in UK, onward travel to Liverpool where it can be put onto a ship to move across to Ireland.

 

In that scenario the containers would (and are already) simply be shipped directly from France to Ireland.  Changes of mode of transport incur additional cost and cost is the enemy! 

[woodenhead]

2 minutes ago, admiles said:

 

In that scenario the containers would (and are already) simply be shipped directly from France to Ireland.  Changes of mode of transport incur additional cost and cost is the enemy! 

You're probably right, it was just in reference to a sealed lorry riding across England, which is no different, why not simply ship them as you say.

 

However, given how busy the Channel is, the awful weather then through a tunnel from France to Liverpool would be faster and incur only a short transit by ship.  Someone somewhere is doing the math to work out the most cost effective long term solution I am sure.

[phil-b259]

9 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

Not without significant investment in rolling stock anyway.

 

However if that investment is there, there probably are routes that could benefit.

 

A large volume of lorries comes through the Channel Tunnel by train, or across by ferry, then drive across Wales to Pembroke, Fishguard and Holyhead for the ferries to Ireland. If those lorries could be brought right across from Calais to the Irish Sea Ports by train, there could be a significant reduction in lorry miles.

 

Likewise I'm sure Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh must have significant numbers of lorries heading their way each day from the Channel. If these lorries could be transported by train overnight, with a couple of sleeper coaches and a day coach, as well as reducing lorry movements, the drivers would (hopefully) get some sleep and something to eat, and be ready to continue their journey the next morning, rather than parking up in a layby overnight.

 

Its not just stock that is the problem.

 

The UK loading gauge is simply not high enough to take standard HGVs on rail wagons (unlike in Europe). Such a wagon (even if low floor) plus standard HGV come out significantly taller than 9ft high containers so any gauge enhancement done so far (and which is more about converting arched openings to square ones in any case) won't help.

 

Getting road haulage firms to operate a special fleet of bespoke 'UK gauge' HGVs simply won't happen - yes its been looked into / trailed several times in the past.

[caradoc]

On 19/10/2021 at 10:07, Nick C said:

Surely far easier for the electric loco to bring the train into an arrival road, a Diesel or battery shunter to move it to the unloading/loading road, and then back to the departure road for a main line loco to collect?

 

Not quite sure how it is far easier having to provide another loco, and traincrew, and fuelling/charging/maintenance/repair facilities for that loco, rather than arrange the terminal so that the main line locos can position their train in an unwired portion of line for unloading/loading, as at Coatbridge ? 

 

 

[corneliuslundie]

It probably depends on how busy the container terminal is. If there are only half a dozen trains a day then a separate shunter would be underused, but if there are trains arriving and departing every 30 minutes then it could well be that a separate shunter would more than justify itself in freeing up mainline locos for further journeys. Though that also depends on how intensively diagrammed the mainline locos are. So much will also depend on the actual site and the distances to other terminals etc.

So no single answer - as usual.

Jonathan

[mdvle]

5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Great news, less traffic, less pollution, less foreign lorries on the roads, less road deaths. One of the many Brexit benefits

 

And less money spent in the UK economy for food and other services both by those lorry drivers, and by the employees at the UK docks that will be losing their jobs.

[SamThomas]

A 44 tonne HGV would use something like 215 ltrs of diesel from Dover to Fishguard - something like £325.00

 

Even if the rail infrastructure existed the cost of the "ticket" would have to be no more than the cost of the fuel to attract hauliers to use it. Even with traffic conditions when you take into account waiting/loading/unloading times at the terminal I doubt if there would be much, if any time saving.

 

Trucks have the flexibility that the railways never will have - a truck can be re-routed/diverted by a simple phone call.

 

Please feel free to pick holes.....................

[melmerby]

3 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

A 44 tonne HGV would use something like 215 ltrs of diesel from Dover to Fishguard - something like £325.00

 

Even if the rail infrastructure existed the cost of the "ticket" would have to be no more than the cost of the fuel to attract hauliers to use it. Even with traffic conditions when you take into account waiting/loading/unloading times at the terminal I doubt if there would be much, if any time saving.

 

 

Truck companies are already loathe to pay the M6 Toll charges and would rather have their vehicles sit in the slow traffic through Brum.

[SamThomas]

2 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Truck companies are already loathe to pay the M6 Toll charges and would rather have their vehicles sit in the slow traffic through Brum.

Indeed - however, drivers with a bit of savvy know a much better way of avoiding the M6/Brum or M6/Toll between the M1 & Stoke.

[corneliuslundie]

No modal transfer will take place unless the government puts measures in place to make it either compulsory or more financially attractive.

Or unless the financial framework or infrastructure changes so radically that it becomes more advantageous (read profitable) for the hauliers. This is effectively what happened with Brexit, though I suspect more by accident than by design on the part of our government.

What chance?

Jonathan

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, SamThomas said:

Indeed - however, drivers with a bit of savvy know a much better way of avoiding the M6/Brum or M6/Toll between the M1 & Stoke.

And in my younger days doing that regularly sometimes I would just keep heading north on the M1 and come back to Manchester via Woodhead, the M1 always seemed someone saner than the queues and mad driving on the M6 north of Brum.

[Ron Ron Ron]

52 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Truck companies are already loathe to pay the M6 Toll charges and would rather have their vehicles sit in the slow traffic through Brum.

Although that has always been the case, I have noticed a steady increase in the number of HGV’s using the M6 Toll, over the last couple of years.

In recent times they’ve not been such a rare sight.

Yesterday I used this route, heading southbound at lunchtime and I was amazed at the number of lorries on there.

Probably 5x as much as earlier this year.

 

 

.

[TravisM]

What more and more European haulage companies are doing, is just simply driving the trailer bound for the UK or ROI to a ferry port, dropping it, having the ferry company or freight handlers load it onto the ship, and do the reverse once it's arrived at the ferries destination.  It's then collected for forward delivery by the contracted haulage company.  No wasted hours of drivers sitting onboard a ship, they can just drop a trailer at the port and collect another one (back haul) and take that one to it's destination.

Edited October 21, 2021 by jools1959
Typo

[ruggedpeak]

56 minutes ago, mdvle said:

 

And less money spent in the UK economy for food and other services both by those lorry drivers, and by the employees at the UK docks that will be losing their jobs.

Losses will be minimal as they often carry their own food to save money and fill up with fuel on the continent with long range tanks as it is a lot cheaper than buying in the UK. Spend by continental lorry drivers passing through the UK to Ireland is minimal. Whether jobs will be lost remains to be seen, more likely a shift to other routes or roles. Many docks are expanding and freight volumes are rising fast. Even the excess of empty containers is creating business opportuinities.

 

Whilst England to Ireland freight volumes have dropped significantly they have risen on the England to NI routes. At the end of the day less trucks on UK roads, especially those not actually delivering to or from UK destinations, is a good thing for safety and the environment and UK taxpayers who pay for the upkeep of the roads. Frees up road space for traffic actually contributing to UK plc rather than passing through for intra-EU activity.

[Michael Hodgson]

5 hours ago, ruggedpeak said:

Frees up road space for traffic actually contributing to UK plc rather than passing through for intra-EU activity.

Isn't that why the French have tolls on the Autoroutes?

[DY444]

18 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

Not quite sure how it is far easier having to provide another loco, and traincrew, and fuelling/charging/maintenance/repair facilities for that loco, rather than arrange the terminal so that the main line locos can position their train in an unwired portion of line for unloading/loading, as at Coatbridge ? 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

It probably depends on how busy the container terminal is. If there are only half a dozen trains a day then a separate shunter would be underused, but if there are trains arriving and departing every 30 minutes then it could well be that a separate shunter would more than justify itself in freeing up mainline locos for further journeys. Though that also depends on how intensively diagrammed the mainline locos are. So much will also depend on the actual site and the distances to other terminals etc.

So no single answer - as usual.

Jonathan

 

I posted before that a moveable ole system for yards and freight terminals is under development.  The idea being that it can easily be moved out of the way once the train has arrived providing free access for cranes etc.  Assuming it works reliably and doesn't cost an absolute fortune then it might solve this problem once and for all at container terminals and similar.  It would certainly knock one of the bigger bricks out of the wall of resistance to the electric haulage of container trains.

[admiles]

18 hours ago, jools1959 said:

What more and more European haulage companies are doing, is just simply driving the trailer bound for the UK or ROI to a ferry port, dropping it, having the ferry company or freight handlers load it onto the ship, and do the reverse once it's arrived at the ferries destination.  It's then collected for forward delivery by the contracted haulage company.  No wasted hours of drivers sitting onboard a ship, they can just drop a trailer at the port and collect another one (back haul) and take that one to it's destination.

 

This has always happened with ro/ro trailer traffic. Certainly in the 30+ years (eek!) I've been in the industry. Simply known as "accompanied" and "unaccompanied" trailers.