Edinburgh Junction Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Seen in the Rail Express magazine (feb 2010 edition) that Holyhead will gain a railfreight terminal... it says that its an intermodal train, which will benifit both us rail fans and the public. The lorries that clog up the A55 (North Wales coast express way) will be taken off the road, and its contents will be put into containers. The intermodal will start near the chunnel, and call at Daventry on the way to pick things up. Then, it will come over onto the NWC, and stop at shotton, where a little railfreight terminal will be to allow lorries to get their contents onboard, then it will head over to Holyhead, and offload its contents onto lorries to go over to Ireland. So with Holyhead's RTZ gone, its about time that they do something about it! Intermodal on the coast... now that is something! If you have any more info, or links, then please post here as Im sure, many of us will be interested in hearing the latest news about it. Cheers Jack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Then, it will come over onto the NWC, and stop at shotton, where a little railfreight terminal will be to allow lorries to get their contents onboard, then it will head over to Holyhead, and offload its contents onto lorries to go over to Ireland. When I read this I had to check it wasn't April Fools day. By the time the loads have been switched to rail at Shotton then back onto lorries at Holyhead, the lorries might just as well have carried on to Holyhead. This messing about loading and reloading was the reason why the railway lost freight in the first place 40 years ago. Yes, I'm a railfan but realistically it would be better to widen the A55! Presumably, carriers have have lorries stationed at Shotton and another batch at Holyhead.....Doesnt add up logistically. After the Freightliner Terminal at Holyhead closed in 1991. the various loops and bits of slow line that had allowed passenger trains to overtake the liner trains were ripped up. On the Down line from Shotton to Holyhead, short trains can loop at Rhyl, Abergele, Llandudno Junction and Bangor....that's all. Then there is the single line bottle neck at Menai. The North Wales line isn't the busiest line around, yet try 'placing' freight trains in between the passenger trains today. The way Control is afraid a freight will 'sit down' and stop ALL services for half a day, I just wonder how these new trains will be slotted into current schedules. Interesting to see how this develops...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 This sounds like the roll on/off proposal for Woodhead to take lorries off the Woodhead pass, the time lost to load/unload at each end (and in this case in between) will outweigh any benefits. Of course the big one was an intermodal proposal from Central Railways to re-open most of the Great Central route including Woodhead so containers could travel from the Chunnel all the way to Liverpool. Without the backing of the road hauliers none of these schemes can get off the ground as it is they who have to be persuaded that it will benefit them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 When I read this I had to check it wasn't April Fools day. By the time the loads have been switched to rail at Shotton then back onto lorries at Holyhead, the lorries might just as well have carried on to Holyhead. This messing about loading and reloading was the reason why the railway lost freight in the first place 40 years ago. Yes, I'm a railfan but realistically it would be better to widen the A55! Presumably, carriers have have lorries stationed at Shotton and another batch at Holyhead.....Doesnt add up logistically. After the Freightliner Terminal at Holyhead closed in 1991. the various loops and bits of slow line that had allowed passenger trains to overtake the liner trains were ripped up. On the Down line from Shotton to Holyhead, short trains can loop at Rhyl, Abergele, Llandudno Junction and Bangor....that's all. Then there is the single line bottle neck at Menai. The North Wales line isn't the busiest line around, yet try 'placing' freight trains in between the passenger trains today. The way Control is afraid a freight will 'sit down' and stop ALL services for half a day, I just wonder how these new trains will be slotted into current schedules. Interesting to see how this develops...... I'm not so sure this is as much of a problem as it is perceived. Not sure what the line speed is along much of the route but I do know that class 150s operate some of the services at a maximum of 75mph - the same speed as a class 4 intermodal service. The 100mph class 175s could presumably zip along at 80mph+. The route is reasonably flat so a type 5 diesel should cope reasonably well with hustling it's train along, and it might be the case that the stopping trains might impede the progress of class 4 freights, rather than having to regulate the freight for the passengers. Whether there is actually any real freight than can be accomodated on rail and make money of course is entirely speculative. Could rail compete with the likes of Willi Betz on the A55 - without tax swings ? Is this a WAG proposal ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I'm involved in the feasibility study for this. I can't comment on the details but I will say that if the REx article is as quoted it is inaccurate - Shotton is being considered separately not as a call for the Holyhead train. I'd also agree in general terms with Phil that on this route the passenger and freight have similar running times so there isn't any need for loops. Pretty much all of the through trains are 90mph units or better but the number of stops knocks down the average speed quite a bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Controller Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 This sounds like the roll on/off proposal for Woodhead to take lorries off the Woodhead pass, the time lost to load/unload at each end (and in this case in between) will outweigh any benefits. Of course the big one was an intermodal proposal from Central Railways to re-open most of the Great Central route including Woodhead so containers could travel from the Chunnel all the way to Liverpool. Without the backing of the road hauliers none of these schemes can get off the ground as it is they who have to be persuaded that it will benefit them. Containers can already travel from the Channel Tunnel to Liverpool without any need for a reinstated Woodhead. The Central Railways idea was to carry either lorry trailers or complete tractor/trailer outfits on rail- an idea which may be pleasing to parts of the rail enthusiast and 'envirionmental' lobbies, but which is hugely uneconomic, as it involves expensive purpose-built stock and the carriage of lots of dead weight. My reading of the short piece in Rail Express is that the proposals are based around the idea of one terminal serving Holyhead (and the Irish market), and another in the Deeside area, both having direct services from the Continent, and not of there being any direct service between the two Welsh terminals. This might be viable, depending on what traffic is being targetted. A lot of the Irish traffic is chilled meat and fish, often hauled by relatively small companies, sometimes even owner-drivers- I fear that few of these will transfer to rail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 I'd also agree in general terms with Phil that on this route the passenger and freight have similar running times so there isn't any need for loops. The previous Freightliner trains could go at a good lick but they were still relegated to secondary status and only allowed to run if there were no passenger trains in prospect. Most of the time they hopped from station to station just following stopping passenger trains. As can be imagined, it took a lot of effort to get these trains back up to line speed once they had been checked. When I used to follow workings on the Wrexham-Bidston line, there was plenty of time in between the hourly passenger service to let a freight onto the branch, but very often Control would only allow a steel out or a timber, never both. The powers that bee seem to thing a freight is a problem waiting to happen! Good luck to those attempting to move freight back onto rail, but I'm cynical having seen how different factions operate. Look what happened to the Amlwch traffic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 Containers can already travel from the Channel Tunnel to Liverpool without any need for a reinstated Woodhead. The Central Railways idea was to carry either lorry trailers or complete tractor/trailer outfits on rail- an idea which may be pleasing to parts of the rail enthusiast and 'envirionmental' lobbies, but which is hugely uneconomic, as it involves expensive purpose-built stock and the carriage of lots of dead weight. Poor use of the word container, sorry. But the point I was trying to make was that there are lots of proposals but without being designed in partnership with a road haulier then they won't get off the ground. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted January 30, 2010 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 30, 2010 where abouts in shotton would the transfer terminal be? as an ex resident of connahs quay and also shotton (my house used to look out onto the high level platforms) i know what the "bottom road" can be like at the best of times without added lorries clogging up the roads going to a terminal, also consider the low bridge in shotton too a sensible place for it to be would be dee marsh/deeside industrial estate but then they would have to (re)build the spur between the high and low levels, the alignment is still there but most of it is now cycle track, i'd have thought sandycroft would be a better alternative, plenty of old siding space and hardstandings etc would be great if it does happen, more freight on rail etc but shotton doesn't seem the best place road link wise, as for freight slotting in not driven the coast for a while but going to holyhead they could be regulated in rhyl (centre road), llan jn, bangor to allow passengers to pass, hopefully if it does happen ty-croes could become an intermediate box again to speed up love island....sorry anglesey!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Fat Controller hits the nail squarely on the head !!! IT is all very well some consultants sitting in their offices planning the rail freight future (absolutely no offence intended Edwin !!!!) but we are talking of reality here. I worked in the railfreight industry for 21 years at Bescot, and like to think I know a little of it. The bottom line is the customer. If he doesn't want to use rail, you are flogging a dead horse. What happened to the forestry timber on the Cambrian and the far north of Scotland ? I am speculating that the majority of it is shipped by the people Fat Controller describes - local companies, possibly owner operators. No amount of tax incentives will see old Dai Jones of Cilcewydd want to invest as few thousand quid in a load of new kit to participate in a partial rail service. Why should they ? They don't trust the mode. Larry - pass me over another one of those cynicism cakes would you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 IT is all very well some consultants sitting in their offices planning the rail freight future (absolutely no offence intended Edwin !!!!) ... And none taken. I can't say very much about this specific project but in general terms a proposal like this needs to be thoroughly tested to ensure that the road and rail freight operators can put together a workable proposition at a sensible price, before the public sector thinks about spending money to help make it happen. Edit: The above is a classic example of consultant-speak... but you did ask a consultant! However past experience may not necessarily be a guide to the future. A number of factors are making road freight less economical and rail freight better able to compete, so that the types of flow that BR would rightly not have been interested in can now be viable. The classic example is the Tesco train, reviving domestic intermodal distribution traffic which (bar a few abortive trials) hasn't run since the early days of Freightliner. These factors include, in no particular order: - Increasing congestion making long road journeys slower and therefore more expensive - Fuel prices, affecting road more severely than rail because road uses more fuel per load - Statutory restrictions on road drivers hours - Distribution models involving more bulk flows over longer distances - Increased concern about environmental issues (possibly contradicting the point above!) - Rail freight operators now more customer focused, probably due to competition in the market Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 And none taken. I can't say very much about this specific project but in general terms a proposal like this needs to be thoroughly tested to ensure that the road and rail freight operators can put together a workable proposition at a sensible price, before the public sector thinks about spending money to help make it happen. Edit: The above is a classic example of consultant-speak... but you did ask a consultant! However past experience may not necessarily be a guide to the future. A number of factors are making road freight less economical and rail freight better able to compete, so that the types of flow that BR would rightly not have been interested in can now be viable. The classic example is the Tesco train, reviving domestic intermodal distribution traffic which (bar a few abortive trials) hasn't run since the early days of Freightliner. These factors include, in no particular order: - Increasing congestion making long road journeys slower and therefore more expensive - Fuel prices, affecting road more severely than rail because road uses more fuel per load - Statutory restrictions on road drivers hours - Distribution models involving more bulk flows over longer distances - Increased concern about environmental issues (possibly contradicting the point above!) - Rail freight operators now more customer focused, probably due to competition in the market You speak a lot of sense Edwin, and today's railfreight environment is a damn sight more intelligent than 15 years ago. That is not too difficult mind you, and I feel the need to tell you about what I consider was a classic privatisation misuse of assets on a local scale. BR Trainload freight was carved up into TLF-W, TLF-SE and TLF-NE and flows of traffic were carved up into roughly geographical operations. Bescot became a TLF-W, later Transrail hub maintaining it's traincrew depot, marshalling yard and loco facilities. Just remember TLF-W received 34 of the 100 class 60s, the other 66 being divided equally between TLF-NE and TLF-SE. The other TLF power was equally divi'd up with TLF-NE and TLF-W having a split of class 56, whilst TLF-SE had all the class 58s. At this time one of the longest flows of traffic on TLF-W was the china clay "clayliner" from St Blazey to Stoke on Trent, amazingly (to me) diagrammed a pair of unrefurbished 37s. This round trip of maybe 800+ miles was quite challenging to the 37/0s and I think they struggled. Working out of Bescot everyday was a job contracted to TLF-W for a driver which used a TLF-SE class 60. The loco worked a 42 set of TLF-SE MGRs on a Mid Cannock-Rugeley circuit sometimes doing one, maybe two trips a day - well under a 100 miles a day. In my opinion it made sense for a fairly new type 5 diesel to be working the high mileage diagram, the loco mileage MGR circuit being covered by a pair of 37/5s or /7s - one with slow speed control, these being rediagrammed with the 37/0s from the TLF-W fleet. Sadly, it couldn't happen because the Midcannock flow was a TLF-SE flow - the competitor's !!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.