Newspaper report - "'Super’ freight trains set for Scots railways"

[PaulLothian]

From today's Scotsman.com
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/super-freight-trains-set-for-scots-railways-1-2907336

Does this actually sound realistic or achievable?

Super’ freight trains set for Scots railways

By ALASTAIR DALTON

HALF mile long “supertrains” - the longest ever - are planned for Scotland as part of an expansion of the Mossend freight railhead in Lanarkshire by operator PDS.

The firm is to lodge plans this summer for a siding long enough to accommodate 770-metre freight trains, compared to the 600m longest trains at the moment.

Britain’s longest passenger train, the 16-carriage Caledonian Sleeper, is a quarter of a mile long, or some 400m.

PDS’s plans are part of a new distribution park at its site near Bellshill, designed to take advantage of completion of the M8 motorway between Glasgow and Edinburgh. It said this would leave a section of the current A8 as a “high-quality access road” to the railhead via a planned new bridge.

The firm said Mossend would be the furthest north in the UK that the longer trains could reach. The centre currently handles freight such as food and drink, coal, steel and chemicals, which is transferred between rail and road.

Congestion

PDS admitted that slower-moving freight trains sharing the Glasgow-London west coast main line with higher-speed passenger services such as Virgin’s 125mph trains was “still a live issue”.

However, it pointed out that 750m trains would add significant capacity without taking additional trains “slots” on the route.

The Rail Freight Group described the expansion as a “very positive development”.

Scotland spokesman David Spaven said: “It’s very encouraging the private sector is continuing to invest substantially in new terminal facilities, but the public sector has to play its part too, by enhancing the route infrastructure to accommodate the longer trains which are the key to rail economics.

“We need 775m loop sidings on the west coast main line if big freight trains running at 75mph are to find suitable paths amongst 125mph passenger services.

“From the Central Belt to Aberdeen - a key corridor for new rail traffic such as supermarket supplies - 450m long trains can convey the equivalent of some 25 lorry loads, but intermediate loops are needed to handle this length of train.”

 

[455driver]

Is there an election due by any chance?

Who is going to pay to upgrade all the loops etc?
Nothing but hot air with nothing to back it up, of course it is a good idea but the costs would be horrendous.

 

[route:oxford]

Is there an election due by any chance?

Who is going to pay to upgrade all the loops etc?
Nothing but hot air with nothing to back it up, of course it is a good idea but the costs would be horrendous.

Well it's complete nonsense that the A9 is being dualled all the way between Perth & Inverness but there is no funding for dualling the Mainline.

Yes, bridges may need to be demolished or rebuilt likewise with viaducts as well as embankments widened and so forth... But the same will have to be done with the road...

 

[clc]

Is there an election due by any chance?

Who is going to pay to upgrade all the loops etc?
Nothing but hot air with nothing to back it up, of course it is a good idea but the costs would be horrendous.

Going by the info on their website the company seem serious about expanding the terminal but I'm not sure Transport Scotland would be too keen on the proposal to build a new at-grade roundabout on the A8 where none currently exists.

 

[swt_passenger]

From today's Scotsman.com
http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/super-freight-trains-set-for-scots-railways-1-2907336

Does this actually sound realistic or achievable?

Part of the England and Wales section of the current CP4 enhancement plans (updated Dec 2012) is the 'Strategic Freight Network' and this includes funding for various [freight] train lengthening projects. There are options within that to provide 775m freight loops on certain flows.

The Scottish section of the same document also mentions extension of freight loops at Mossend, but no details of intended length are given.

Nevertheless, the new standard length for freight loops does appear to be 775m wherever practicable, indeed there's one being built at Eastleigh at the moment.

So I'd say yes, the underlying proposal is realistic - given appropriate funding.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Who is going to pay to upgrade all the loops etc?
Nothing but hot air with nothing to back it up, of course it is a good idea but the costs would be horrendous.

I think you exaggerate. In the DFT's HLOS for CP5, they allocate another 'ring-fenced' £200 million to the Strategic Freight Network:

Recognising the wider economic growth and environmental benefits of transporting goods by rail, the Secretary of State wants to continue to fund the development of the Strategic Freight Network and has made a ring-fenced allocation of £200 million over the course of CP5 to fund improvements identified by the industry. This will help make best use of the existing network and, by increasing the network’s freight capability, will leverage continued private sector investment in rail freight growth.

That's the fund they are using for upgrading freight loops now (amongst other things). The 'electric spine', as far as it applies to freight routes, is a separately funded project.

 

[snowball]

Going by the info on their website the company seem serious about expanding the terminal but I'm not sure Transport Scotland would be too keen on the proposal to build a new at-grade roundabout on the A8 where none currently exists.

Is there a plan showing where this roundabout would be?

The idea doesn't seem out of the question, as once the M8 is completed the A8 will be for more local traffic and will have other at-grade roundabouts, e.g. at Eurocentral and Chapelhall. (At-grade from the point of view of the A8, that is.)

It may be that the M8 proposals include detrunking the A8 on completion - I haven't checked but it would be very usual. If so it wouldn't be a matter for Transport Scotland.

[Edit: Have now checked. The A8 will remain trunk.]

Proposed M8 and A8 eastern section

 

[jopsuk]

Is there an election due by any chance?

Nope, no election this year in Scotland. There's Euro elections next spring, a referendum the following autumn, UK general election the year after (2015), Scottish Parliament in 2016 and local elections in 2017. So nothing imminent.

 

[clc]

Is there a plan showing where this roundabout would be?

The idea doesn't seem out of the question, as once the M8 is completed the A8 will be for more local traffic and will have other at-grade roundabouts, e.g. at Eurocentral and Chapelhall. (At-grade from the point of view of the A8, that is.)

It may be that the M8 proposals include detrunking the A8 on completion - I haven't checked but it would be very usual. If so it wouldn't be a matter for Transport Scotland.

Proposed M8 and A8 eastern section

Full details including a plan are in here: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s...er_5HDNOFrJBK4rsbA336CBo2KHrf7IG2lcPbEEg&dl=1

 

[daccer]

There is a slight irony both in this story and also the comment emanating from the political arena regarding freight on rail. There seems to be agreement that there are many ancillary benefits for putting more freight on the railways but it has not stopped there being a process undertaken to look at increasing the variable charge for certain commodity flows. Even though this has supposedly targeted flows that can sustain higher charges all concerned do accept hat some volumes will be at risk. The biomass market in particular is a new market that is finding its feet. It will be a shame if any increase in rail access charges negatively influences the conversion of potentially redundant coal burning facilities into useful biomass additions.

 

[The Planner]

Plenty of 775m work going on, Oxford in the middle roads, Fenny Compton is already 775m capable but is getting better speeds in and out the down loop. Dorridge is getting a 775m loop as is Washwood Heath.

 

[455driver]

better speeds in and out <of the> loop.

That is where the money needs to be spent, 15 in just means the freight has to (almost) stop at the previous signal before its allowed in where-as if the points into the loop were (say) 40 it wouldnt be necessary and the freight could get in much much quicker.

Its the same with them crawling out at 15, it takes so long that the next passenger train is bearing down on it so either the freight sits in the loop until a bigger gap in traffic appears or it delays the passenger train. If the points exiting the loop were 40 then it could be on full power all the way out and up to its maximum speed much quicker and so could get further along the line before having to be looped again.

 

[The Planner]

40 is the target speed in most of the works, flashers on the approach as well.

 

[HSTEd]

775m loops honestly sound a little short to me.... shouldn't we be building the loops to the longest feasible length?

Otherwise we risk just having to go back later to extend them, especially as freight train length can be expected to continue to grow as we are nowhere near the maximum length for modern couplings.

 

[RichmondCommu]

775m loops honestly sound a little short to me.... shouldn't we be building the loops to the longest feasible length?

Otherwise we risk just having to go back later to extend them, especially as freight train length can be expected to continue to grow as we are nowhere near the maximum length for modern couplings.

Agreed but I would imagine that all too often for existing loops space is a major constraint.

 

[87015]

So does this just mean sheds will crawl over Shap at 15mph rather than 20mph because using electrics "can't" be done under our wonderful system?

 

[The Planner]

Cynic....

 

[455driver]

40 is the target speed in most of the works, flashers on the approach as well.

That is excellent news.