Electric Locomotives.....What is the future?

[NightStar]

How about sticking a panto on the Class 70 fleet? Atleast maybe then they would not catch fire.

Robert

 

[HSTEd]

Or start building freight-only tracks and routes.

I propose this occasionally and get laughed at.

Freight rail is too expensive to build in the UK, land takes and tunnel requirements are too extensive.

Especially as any reasonable new freight route would need to be cleared to 20'3" under any overhead wiring like the Betuweroute is.

 

[LE Greys]

I propose this occasionally and get laughed at.

Freight rail is too expensive to build in the UK, land takes and tunnel requirements are too extensive.

Especially as any reasonable new freight route would need to be cleared to 20'3" under any overhead wiring like the Betuweroute is.

Surely, it's easier to dual/quadruple existing lines, especially those that have been cut back to single/double track, before building new line just for freight. The exception would be diversionary routes around stations, although even there we have situations like the Lincoln and Carlisle avoiding lines where they have been removed and ought to go back if possible.

 

[HSTEd]

Surely, it's easier to dual/quadruple existing lines, especially those that have been cut back to single/double track, before building new line just for freight. The exception would be diversionary routes around stations, although even there we have situations like the Lincoln and Carlisle avoiding lines where they have been removed and ought to go back if possible.

Unfortunately no, dual tracking perhaps. (It is cheaper than building a whole second double track route in all likelyhood)
But quad tracking is more expensive than building a whole second line for the new traffic which can be built to enable highly efficient modern freight operations. (With very large loading gauges).

Quad tracking lines involves all that disruption and work on an active railway rather than simple construction work on a trench.

 

[LE Greys]

Unfortunately no, dual tracking perhaps. (It is cheaper than building a whole second double track route in all likelyhood)
But quad tracking is more expensive than building a whole second line for the new traffic which can be built to enable highly efficient modern freight operations. (With very large loading gauges).

Quad tracking lines involves all that disruption and work on an active railway rather than simple construction work on a trench.

Although, if it's a line paired by use (df-uf-ds-us) you're effectively building another railway right next to the existing one, depending on how big the gap is. However, I imagine the biggest problem would be integrating the signalling. Besides, it makes more sense to build new fast lines, intended for at least 125, then leave the old lines for freight and local traffic.

 

[HSTEd]

Although, if it's a line paired by use (df-uf-ds-us) you're effectively building another railway right next to the existing one, depending on how big the gap is. However, I imagine the biggest problem would be integrating the signalling. Besides, it makes more sense to build new fast lines, intended for at least 125, then leave the old lines for freight and local traffic.

The problem is that leaves us with slow lines trapped in the extremely restricted loading gauge that dominates our current railway systems.
Fast lines don't need large loading gauges but freight most certainly does.
Additionally freight lines that are not tied to current alignments don't need to go into built up areas unless approaching termini.
They can loop around to make an approach to a site that is over open fields.

And we will never get approval for massed Shinkansen in all directions, they are just too expensive and won't get us the freight system we need.

 

[LE Greys]

The problem is that leaves us with slow lines trapped in the extremely restricted loading gauge that dominates our current railway systems.
Fast lines don't need large loading gauges but freight most certainly does.
Additionally freight lines that are not tied to current alignments don't need to go into built up areas unless approaching termini.
They can loop around to make an approach to a site that is over open fields.

And we will never get approval for massed Shinkansen in all directions, they are just too expensive and won't get us the freight system we need.

Just to play devil's advocate, new slow lines would leave us with fasts stuck at 90/100/110/whatever rather than the 125 they need to be.

This is a debate that many lines had in the past, and they almost universally went for new goods lines. However, the circumstances were different. Speeds had increased, but almost all lines back then were easily capable of passenger running speeds. Besides, platforms were on the existing lines, so no need to build additional ones when speed differentials in passenger traffic were lower. Many of these goods lines now carry local passenger traffic.

 

[HSTEd]

Just to play devil's advocate, new slow lines would leave us with fasts stuck at 90/100/110/whatever rather than the 125 they need to be.

Tilting trains can solve, to a degree, the line curvature issues of current lines.

I can't think of any such solutions for loading gauge issues.

 

[LE Greys]

Tilting trains can solve, to a degree, the line curvature issues of current lines.

I can't think of any such solutions for loading gauge issues.

Which is, of course, entirely true - depending on the cost of installing tilt on the line vs the cost of quadrupling the line (or doing both at the same time). The thing about loading gauge issues, though, is that they apply to the entire route from end to end rather than just the bit you're doing at the time. At some point, this is going to mean gauge-enhancing old line. For example, take a possible new line to Felixstowe. Now, let's assume that this can be 'double-stack' height. But is there much point to it? Even if it follows an existing or closed line, how many other container terminals does it link to? Now, if we reign it back to being a bit more realistic (for example, a line linking HS2 to the Midlands) there are still pinch-points at the ends, which would involve rebuilding freight terminals and the access routes to get there.

Whatever you do with this, it snowballs.

 

[HSTEd]

The thing about loading gauge issues, though, is that they apply to the entire route from end to end rather than just the bit you're doing at the time. At some point, this is going to mean gauge-enhancing old line. For example, take a possible new line to Felixstowe. Now, let's assume that this can be 'double-stack' height. But is there much point to it?

Indeed for the first sections the primary benefit will be in removing speed and gradient constrains from the through freight trains that will still have to transit on the conventional lines at both ends.
But with significant construction the network effect becomes important.
And in the mean time we could still run mile long trains and other insanities like that.

Even if it follows an existing or closed line, how many other container terminals does it link to? Now, if we reign it back to being a bit more realistic (for example, a line linking HS2 to the Midlands) there are still pinch-points at the ends, which would involve rebuilding freight terminals and the access routes to get there.

Whatever you do with this, it snowballs.

As I understand it most container freight links to relatively few "point hubs", so the lines could be reasonably easily built to link up as many of those hubs as possible with end to end services.

Other freight trains can be tacked on as possible.

And HS2 is not big enough.... even the Channel tunnel needs a few more inches of vertical clearance in an ideal world (which may or may not be obtainable by installing conductor rail in place of the conventional equipment currently used inside).

 

[LE Greys]

Indeed for the first sections the primary benefit will be in removing speed and gradient constrains from the through freight trains that will still have to transit on the conventional lines at both ends.
But with significant construction the network effect becomes important.
And in the mean time we could still run mile long trains and other insanities like that.

As I understand it most container freight links to relatively few "point hubs", so the lines could be reasonably easily built to link up as many of those hubs as possible with end to end services.

Other freight trains can be tacked on as possible.

And HS2 is not big enough.... even the Channel tunnel needs a few more inches of vertical clearance in an ideal world (which may or may not be obtainable by installing conductor rail in place of the conventional equipment currently used inside).

In an ideal world, every line in the country would be 7ft ¼in gauge (or wider!) with Chunnel shuttle width and US 'Autorack' height clearance. Trouble is, they ain't! As I often say, 'If I were you, I wouldn't start from here.'.

In dealing with this, I'd actually start with the terminals. Look at getting everything double-stack cleared around the terminals and then look at linking them up (although there's no reason not to start on the first line in the mean time). I'd also commission a decent electric freight loco capable of hauling something this heavy, perhaps a development of the IORE, but sized to fit UK loading gauge so that it could run to British works for overhaul (just to bring us back to the thread topic). This might sort out the GEML's pathing issues!

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I propose this occasionally and get laughed at.

Freight rail is too expensive to build in the UK, land takes and tunnel requirements are too extensive.

Especially as any reasonable new freight route would need to be cleared to 20'3" under any overhead wiring like the Betuweroute is.

Everything is too difficult in the UK. Yesterday I went on the brand new 125 mph railway from Gothenburg to Trollhättan at the beginning of December. The UK needs to get rid of its can't do mentality on the one hand, and its propensity to splurge money on prestige projects on the other. Perhaps the two things are linked, as the tendency is then to ignore the possibility of small scale incremental developments which add up to worthwhile improvements.

If you look at the map of Britain's railways pre-Beeching, you will see that three routes from, roughly the line of the M4 to the coast were closed. One main line north of London was closed, the other is only new being brought up to main line standards again. Many other main lines were formerly four-track. The SW main line is still not double track west of Salisbury.

The Trent Valley line, not previously four track, was quadrupled without undue disruption.

Given this previous history, and even allowing for the fact that trackbeds have been built over in places, if the system is looked at in detail, then there must be more possibilities than the generalisation would suggest.

 

[LE Greys]

Everything is too difficult in the UK. Yesterday I went on the brand new 125 mph railway from Gothenburg to Trollhättan at the beginning of December. The UK needs to get rid of its can't do mentality on the one hand, and its propensity to splurge money on prestige projects on the other. Perhaps the two things are linked, as the tendency is then to ignore the possibility of small scale incremental developments which add up to worthwhile improvements.

If you look at the map of Britain's railways pre-Beeching, you will see that three routes from, roughly the line of the M4 to the coast were closed. One main line north of London was closed, the other is only new being brought up to main line standards again. Many other main lines were formerly four-track. The SW main line is still not double track west of Salisbury.

The Trent Valley line, not previously four track, was quadrupled without undue disruption.

Given this previous history, and even allowing for the fact that trackbeds have been built over in places, if the system is looked at in detail, then there must be more possibilities than the generalisation would suggest.

It's interesting to see this from an outsider's perspective. I'm not entirely sure which lines you're referring to, apart from the Great Central of course. The M4 spends a lot of time travelling through the middle of nowhere in upland country, while the nearest parallel rail route (the GWML) was developed significantly by BR, with 125mph running, ATP and so on. The line is due for electrification and another signalling upgrade in the near future. It needs more work though, reinstating some of the local stations, with Wooton Bassatt and Corsham being the highest priorities. Four tracks to Swindon would be ideal, and since it's Great Western, it would be easier to build two new lines alongside the old one (ideally on the south side, but the north will do just as well). However, I'd leave that until HS2 is finished, so that the Heathrow branch could be the start of HS3 to Bristol and onwards, but that's an issue for another thread.

However, I can see what you're getting at. The ECML has undergone a complete relaying cycle in the last decade (it had one when it was electrified, now it's had another). Imagine if that had been combined with an incrimental upgrade to give passive provision for 140mph running, or if it had included quadrupling around Peterborough. It would have cost more and taken longer, but produced a better result in the end. There are some tweaks, the new bridge at Newark, the Hitchin flyover and York south throat being the biggest. Thing is, the 'value for money' drive in certain parts of our society would see that as 'gold plating' a simple relay. I'm not going to decide on the rights and wrongs of that, but you can see where it comes from.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

It's interesting to see this from an outsider's perspective. I'm not entirely sure which lines you're referring to, apart from the Great Central of course.

I believe that the Midland was at one time four track all the way from Toton for use by coal trains to Brent. These were separated from the passenger lines for much of the way and were an entirely separate route.

The WCML was 4 track from Stafford to Crewe (and may still be), and there were long 4 track sections between Swindon and Didcot.

The three north-south routes were the MSWJ from Cheltenham to Eastleigh via Marlborough and Andover, the Somerset and Dorset, and the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton, roughly following the line of the A34. But it is much the same story around the country. Disused trackbeds all over the place.

 

[RobShipway]

I believe that the Midland was at one time four track all the way from Toton for use by coal trains to Brent. These were separated from the passenger lines for much of the way and were an entirely separate route.

The WCML was 4 track from Stafford to Crewe (and may still be), and there were long 4 track sections between Swindon and Didcot.

The three north-south routes were the MSWJ from Cheltenham to Eastleigh via Marlborough and Andover, the Somerset and Dorset, and the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton, roughly following the line of the A34. But it is much the same story around the country. Disused trackbeds all over the place.

After Swindon and the old Railway works site if memory recalls, you do kind of have the line going to four tracks again. As you have the junction where two tracks head towards Bath & Bristol Temple Meads and you have the two tracks to the left that head towards Bristol Parkway station, which then has a connecting line that can take you into Bristol Temple Meads or twoards Severn Tunnel Junction so that you can go on to Newport and Cardiff.

 

[HSTEd]

These lines simply don't go where demand goes now.

And if we are going to quad track these routes are you proposing to pay for massed flyovers to keep them completely isolated from the fast lines?

Otherwise I don't think the passenger operators are going to be thrilled with the prospect of mile long freight trains (and that is the length we have to aim for) crossing station approaches several times an hour at major junctions.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

These lines simply don't go where demand goes now.

What, none of them? Where is the demand?

And if we are going to quad track these routes are you proposing to pay for massed flyovers to keep them completely isolated from the fast lines?

Otherwise I don't think the passenger operators are going to be thrilled with the prospect of mile long freight trains (and that is the length we have to aim for) crossing station approaches several times an hour at major junctions.

Why would anyone want to run mile long freight trains in Europe? In the former Soviet countries you see trains with TEP-multiples eg coal from the Ukraine to Riga, and some of them are long, but not that long. Or is the objection to make the whole idea prohibitively expensive so it is never considered?

Everything in the UK is too hard or too dear.

 

[HSTEd]

What, none of them? Where is the demand?

The primary demand is from the major container ports and the channel tunnel to the midlands.
This means lots of capacity is required on the cross london and cross midland routes, which don't handily line up with any major railway lines that have or can be reasonably quadroupled.

It has to be a green field route effectively, with a lower Thames Crossing to the East of London..

Why would anyone want to run mile long freight trains in Europe? In the former Soviet countries you see trains with TEP-multiples eg coal from the Ukraine to Riga, and some of them are long, but not that long. Or is the objection to make the whole idea prohibitively expensive so it is never considered?

Everything in the UK is too hard or too dear.

Because that is what it takes to make non bulk product rail shipment pay, you can see it in America.

 

[LE Greys]

The primary demand is from the major container ports and the channel tunnel to the midlands.
This means lots of capacity is required on the cross london and cross midland routes, which don't handily line up with any major railway lines that have or can be reasonably quadroupled.

It has to be a green field route effectively, with a lower Thames Crossing to the East of London.

That makes sense.

Because that is what it takes to make non bulk product rail shipment pay, you can see it in America.

The limit in this country has always been track and signalling. The reason why massive goods steam engines were uncommon up to the 9Fs was that trains would be too long for loops and some block sections. 100 four-wheel wagons was as long as you could go, and an 8F, O4 or 28XX could handle that, so the various Garratts, P1s and so on were never employed profitably. Higher-capacity wagons arrived about the same time as the 9Fs, but the loop/block section limit remains to this day. If we could get rid of that limit with a new line including moving-block signalling, then a UK-size IORE might just find some profitable employment.

 

[Beveridges]

DB have countless 92s in store while it is not uncommon for a Schenker 66 to haul a train over a route which is entirely electrified.
Both Freightliner and DRS could both make use 92s. FL are currently using many 66s or 70s on electrified routes and double-heading with 86s is expensive. DRS could use them for obvious reasons, nearly all their Intermodal traffic runs entirely on the WCML. Quick loco change to a class 66 (or a 57 - they could do away with 66s entirely!) for the remainder of the journey if it heads to non electrified routes like Scotland.

 

[Monty]

DB have countless 92s in store while it is not uncommon for a Schenker 66 to haul a train over a route which is entirely electrified.
Both Freightliner and DRS could both make use 92s. FL are currently using many 66s or 70s on electrified routes and double-heading with 86s is expensive. DRS could use them for obvious reasons, nearly all their Intermodal traffic runs entirely on the WCML. Quick loco change to a class 66 (or a 57 - they could do away with 66s entirely!) for the remainder of the journey if it heads to non electrified routes like Scotland.

As I have mentioned before it is not in DBS's interest to either sub-lease or return the 92s back to the ROSCO, it's actually beneficial to keep them in storage even if they have no requirement for them.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

The primary demand is from the major container ports and the channel tunnel to the midlands.
This means lots of capacity is required on the cross london and cross midland routes, which don't handily line up with any major railway lines that have or can be reasonably quadrupled.

The Midland? That was four track.

It has to be a green field route effectively, with a lower Thames Crossing to the East of London.

Oh yes, definitely, from say Ashford to Peterborough or somewhere like that? Would be a good passenger route too, would it not? Is that what you had in mind? The railway that followed the line of the A34 runs from Southampton towards the midlands. It was used during WW2 and then fell into neglect.

Because that is what it takes to make non bulk product rail shipment pay, you can see it in America.

Green Cargo the local freight operator uses RC locomotives and the trains are certainly not a mile long. This is a typical Eastern European operation, a coal train from the Ukraine to Riga, but it is not the kind of thing that there would be any call for in the UK.

 

[HSTEd]

The Midland? That was four track.

Heads in the wrong direction, you have to cross the river somewhere in the vicinity of Gravesend, which means you are 22 or so miles east of St Pancras.
Which means you can't practically use the Midland.

Oh yes, definitely, from say Ashford to Peterborough or somewhere like that? Would be a good passenger route too, would it not? Is that what you had in mind? The railway that followed the line of the A34 runs from Southampton towards the midlands. It was used during WW2 and then fell into neglect.

Whether passengers would use such trains is irrelevant, speeds would be too low for practical passenger operations (60-75mph top speeds).
It would be very unlikely to give shorter journey times than going through London for passengers.
As a northern terminus I think it should extend across the Midlands, connecting to various inland ports and logistics hubs as is convenient, terminating somewhere immediately south of Manchester.
Potentially with an extension to Merseyside somewhere to permit through operation of freight trains to the dockside for shipment to Ireland.

Southampton is also really in the wrong direction as most freight traffic can be expected, in a world with such a system, to come from Thamesport, Felixstowe and the Chunnel, potentially from Rotterdam and Germany (via the Betuweroute and the line to Rotterdam).
Providing the necessary 6.15m clearance can be provided in the chunnel of-course.

Southampton is really going to be a sideshow compared to all those ports.
Especially if shipping a 57-foot hi-cube container between Thamesport and Rotterdam turns out to cost £200 and take 4-5hours (as it would using American Intermodal costs as a guide).

Green Cargo the local freight operator uses RC locomotives and the trains are certainly not a mile long.

Do we have any financials for that operator?
Does it actually turn an operating profit?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Heads in the wrong direction, you have to cross the river somewhere in the vicinity of Gravesend, which means you are 22 or so miles east of St Pancras.
Which means you can't practically use the Midland.

Whether passengers would use such trains is irrelevant, speeds would be too low for practical passenger operations (60-75mph top speeds).
It would be very unlikely to give shorter journey times than going through London for passengers.
As a northern terminus I think it should extend across the Midlands, connecting to various inland ports and logistics hubs as is convenient, terminating somewhere immediately south of Manchester.
Potentially with an extension to Merseyside somewhere to permit through operation of freight trains to the dockside for shipment to Ireland.

Southampton is also really in the wrong direction as most freight traffic can be expected, in a world with such a system, to come from Thamesport, Felixstowe and the Chunnel, potentially from Rotterdam and Germany (via the Betuweroute and the line to Rotterdam).
Providing the necessary 6.15m clearance can be provided in the chunnel of-course.

Put your thoughts into a simple diagrammatic map and post it. If the predominant freight movement is east-west, which is what you seem to be saying, it is at right angles to the predominant passenger movement, so it is not competing for the same routes and there is no reason to be running these freight trains at 70 mph to keep them out of the way of passenger trains, though in my view the latter should generally not be running faster than 100 mph.

 

[HSTEd]

Put your thoughts into a simple diagrammatic map and post it. If the predominant freight movement is east-west, which is what you seem to be saying, it is at right angles to the predominant passenger movement, so it is not competing for the same routes and there is no reason to be running these freight trains at 70 mph to keep them out of the way of passenger trains, though in my view the latter should generally not be running faster than 100 mph.

According to the AAR, the average speed of intermodal freight trains in the US system is something in the vicinity of 33-35mph.
This averages "expedited" and "normal" freight trains.

This would indicate that significant parts of the network will have top speeds in the vicinity of 60mph or more to produce similar figures.

TOFW (Trailer on Flat Wagon) runs will have to move faster to keep them ahead of road haulage, with average speeds in the 55-60mph range, which implies long runs at 75mph or so on significant parts of the route.
Since the trailers would be on flat wagons with ordinary height sole bars, it might even be practical to build electric multiple units with the attendant acceleration advantage reducing the necessary top speed and thus the energy consumption.

Then there is the fact that any trains transiting to the continent will have to obtain 75mph before entering the tunnel to reduce the number of paths consumed by the train.
(62mph trains take 3 'standard' paths, 75mph trains consume 1.33)

This will require significant trackage to be rated for 75mph or so to provide the necessary "run up" and to prevent the brakes being applied upon emerging from the tunnel to decelerate rather than simply allowing the train to spool down.

Not all trains are very heavy coal or stone trains.

A line with a top speed of 75mph will not cost very much more and it will allow the trains which derive benefits from running at these speeds to do so.
Running amongst fast freights doing 75mph will cause far less trouble than running amongst more numerous passenger trains in the 90-125mph range.

If we can get 60+mph average speed TOFW trains we might be able to manage some domestic intermodal shipments.

 

[jimm]

Everything is too difficult in the UK. Yesterday I went on the brand new 125 mph railway from Gothenburg to Trollhättan at the beginning of December. The UK needs to get rid of its can't do mentality on the one hand, and its propensity to splurge money on prestige projects on the other. Perhaps the two things are linked, as the tendency is then to ignore the possibility of small scale incremental developments which add up to worthwhile improvements.

If you look at the map of Britain's railways pre-Beeching, you will see that three routes from, roughly the line of the M4 to the coast were closed. One main line north of London was closed, the other is only new being brought up to main line standards again. Many other main lines were formerly four-track. The SW main line is still not double track west of Salisbury.

The Trent Valley line, not previously four track, was quadrupled without undue disruption.

Given this previous history, and even allowing for the fact that trackbeds have been built over in places, if the system is looked at in detail, then there must be more possibilities than the generalisation would suggest.

I believe that the Midland was at one time four track all the way from Toton for use by coal trains to Brent. These were separated from the passenger lines for much of the way and were an entirely separate route.

The WCML was 4 track from Stafford to Crewe (and may still be), and there were long 4 track sections between Swindon and Didcot.

The three north-south routes were the MSWJ from Cheltenham to Eastleigh via Marlborough and Andover, the Somerset and Dorset, and the Didcot, Newbury and Southampton, roughly following the line of the A34. But it is much the same story around the country. Disused trackbeds all over the place.

I can't really agree that the scale of work I saw going on to provide new/rebuilt main lines in Sweden last winter, including near Gothenburg, and what had been done west of Stockholm in the decade since I last went that way to Oslo, were small-scale incremental developments - quite the opposite, in fact, with new double-track formations replacing winding single track in many places. As for the notion that we can't do incremental work here, how would you define the series of Evergreen upgrades carried out by Chiltern Railways, between 1998 and 2011, soon to be followed by the link to Oxford? I'd say that was the very definition of incremental improvements.

Why should the old LSW main line be redoubled? Traffic levels simply won't justify it on what is basically an hourly service. There are 10 miles of double track between Templecombe and Yeovil Junction and three miles more at Axminster, plus three loops. A loop at Whimple as well might be nice to have but not essential.

The Midland Railway basically quadrupled the existing main line but where problems with the landowners when the original line was built had forced some stiff climbs, most notably at Sharnbrook, the extra lines took a separate course specifically to ease the gradients for heavy coal trains bound for London. It was not "an entirely separate route".

The S&D, MSWJ and DN&SR traversed sparsely-populated rural areas, and, in the first two cases, some very difficult terrain. Their promoters were never flush with money, so corners were cut, and the DN&SR saved precious few miles between Didcot and Winchester compared with the route via Reading. About the only times the line was any great use was during the two world wars, as a transit route to Southampton docks, with the line doubled in the run-up to D-Day. Otherwise it was the very definition of a rural backwater. No surprise that all three were closed.

The flyover at Reading is intended to get Southampton container trains out of the way of passenger services, forthcoming capacity enhancements around Oxford are also designed to minimise conflict, East-West Rail adds to the routing options for such services north of Oxford. Who needs quadruple track all over the place or some separate route, or double-stack mega-trains? If vast numbers of freight trains suddenly start to use the Channel Tunnel, Tonbridge-Redhill was upgraded for just such a purpose in the 1990s - stick in a flyover at Redhill and off to Guildford and Reading you go.

Southampton is also really in the wrong direction as most freight traffic can be expected, in a world with such a system, to come from Thamesport, Felixstowe and the Chunnel, potentially from Rotterdam and Germany (via the Betuweroute and the line to Rotterdam).
Providing the necessary 6.15m clearance can be provided in the chunnel of-course.

Southampton is really going to be a sideshow compared to all those ports.

If it's in the wrong place, why has the number of container trains using it being rising for years, especially since the W10 gauge clearance work was completed? Why is a major expansion of the port at Southampton under way? Maybe you'd better tell them before they waste £150m on new facilities.

If we can get 60+mph average speed TOFW trains we might be able to manage some domestic intermodal shipments.

So what are the trains being operated for Tesco then, if they are not domestic intermodal shipments - along with other containers being carried for supermarkets? See http://modeshiftcentre.org/export/sites/modeshiftcentre/.content/public_downloads/On_Track.pdf

 

[HSTEd]

The flyover at Reading is intended to get Southampton container trains out of the way of passenger services, forthcoming capacity enhancements around Oxford are also designed to minimise conflict, East-West Rail adds to the routing options for such services north of Oxford. Who needs quadruple track all over the place or some separate route, or double-stack mega-trains? If vast numbers of freight trains suddenly start to use the Channel Tunnel, Tonbridge-Redhill was upgraded for just such a purpose in the 1990s - stick in a flyover at Redhill and off to Guildford and Reading you go.

Unfortunately, while container trains in the UK are limited to 40-100TEU there will be no increase in container traffic through the Chunnel.
The path charges on the Chunnel are too large and the staffing costs are too high for any sort of freight to be competitive with coastal shipping and road haulage.

You can have one path and one driver for your train with 50-60TEU or you can have one path and one driver for my train with 600TEU.
Which do you think has the better business case?
And you can't run 600TEU or mile long TOFW trains on conventional lines in Britain

Double stack shipment and TOFW from Rotterdam/Calais direct to the Midlands or Thamesport would do serious damage to coastal shipping and could cause serious modal shift from road to rail.

You sometimes have to do things big otherwise you won't achieve anything.
This is a disruptive technology effectively.

Intermodal railfreight with the types of trains we currently have in the UK just aren't competitive any more. They only really worked on a marginal cost basis under BR and not very well either.
In today's railway they just can't compete without collosal subsidies.

And I would like to see how the third rail on the reading to tonbridge line will do stand heavy freight use rather than occasional single Class 92s.

If it's in the wrong place, why has the number of container trains using it being rising for years, especially since the W10 gauge clearance work was completed? Why is a major expansion of the port at Southampton under way? Maybe you'd better tell them before they waste £150m on new facilities.

There is massive expansion under-way at several major ports but with growth in imports mostly stagnant there appears to be no way that they can all fill all the excess capacity.
The free market requires they all attempt to grow market share at the expense of others.
One might as well ask what has happened to the number of containers being shipped in and out of Felixstowe in the last two decades, the answer is almost certain that it has also been rising.

So what are the trains being operated for Tesco then, if they are not domestic intermodal shipments - along with other containers being carried for supermarkets? See http://modeshiftcentre.org/export/sites/modeshiftcentre/.content/public_downloads/On_Track.pdf

[/quote]

Those are a rounding error, they make no significant difference to Tesco's supply train, the vast vast majority of which is still based upon road transport.
They are mostly a marketing gimmick.

 

[jimm]

Unfortunately, while container trains in the UK are limited to 40-100TEU there will be no increase in container traffic through the Chunnel.
The path charges on the Chunnel are too large and the staffing costs are too high for any sort of freight to be competitive with coastal shipping and road haulage.

You can have one path and one driver for your train with 50-60TEU or you can have one path and one driver for my train with 600TEU.
Which do you think has the better business case?
And you can't run 600TEU or mile long TOFW trains on conventional lines in Britain

Double stack shipment and TOFW from Rotterdam/Calais direct to the Midlands or Thamesport would do serious damage to coastal shipping and could cause serious modal shift from road to rail.

You sometimes have to do things big otherwise you won't achieve anything.
This is a disruptive technology effectively.

Intermodal railfreight with the types of trains we currently have in the UK just aren't competitive any more. They only really worked on a marginal cost basis under BR and not very well either.
In today's railway they just can't compete without collosal subsidies.

And I would like to see how the third rail on the reading to tonbridge line will do stand heavy freight use rather than occasional single Class 92s.



There is massive expansion under-way at several major ports but with growth in imports mostly stagnant there appears to be no way that they can all fill all the excess capacity.
The free market requires they all attempt to grow market share at the expense of others.
One might as well ask what has happened to the number of containers being shipped in and out of Felixstowe in the last two decades, the answer is almost certain that it has also been rising.

Those are a rounding error, they make no significant difference to Tesco's supply train, the vast vast majority of which is still based upon road transport.
They are mostly a marketing gimmick.

Your 600TEU train is a fantasy. Your 'business case' rests entirely on a non-existent dedicated freight railway and the margins in freight transport are so tight that I suspect you would struggle to finance such a thing in the first place.

None of what you say about ports gets away from the fact that rail container traffic at Southampton is growing and has been for some years and that the port is being expanded - some people clearly think it is in the right place. Same trends apply at Felixstowe.

RE supermarket traffic, don't try to move the goalposts. You said

we might be able to manage some domestic intermodal shipments

I simply noted that such things already exist. I made no judgment on the current volumes, which have also been growing, nor anything else. Unlike your fantasy, those services are a reality. And they aren't just operating for Tesco.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Unfortunately, while container trains in the UK are limited to 40-100TEU there will be no increase in container traffic through the Chunnel.
The path charges on the Chunnel are too large and the staffing costs are too high for any sort of freight to be competitive with coastal shipping and road haulage.

You can have one path and one driver for your train with 50-60TEU or you can have one path and one driver for my train with 600TEU.
Which do you think has the better business case?
And you can't run 600TEU or mile long TOFW trains on conventional lines in Britain

Double stack shipment and TOFW from Rotterdam/Calais direct to the Midlands or Thamesport would do serious damage to coastal shipping and could cause serious modal shift from road to rail.

You sometimes have to do things big otherwise you won't achieve anything.
This is a disruptive technology effectively.

Please do your map to make your ideas clearer to readers.

 

[33Hz]

These lines simply don't go where demand goes now.

The number of trucks on the A34 and the gauge clearance, electrification and increase in freight traffic heading towards Basingstoke says otherwise.