125mph Freight

[BantamMenace]

Im in the initially exploratory stages of conducting a university study on the viability of 125mph freight in the UK.

What im looking for is a list of the issues which come with it. I understand these to huge trackwear, decelerating the huge masses safely, lack of capable traction and no perceived market.

What i hope to produce is a study that could provoke thought into a step change from long distance road haulage to more regular timetabled swapbody services between regional hubs without creating huge pathing issues between passenger services.

All thoughts and comments welcome.

 

[Manchester77]

125mph freight couldn't realistically happen during the day when a 125 cleared line (such as the ECML) is shared with Long Distance High Speed services, semi fast, stoppers as well as existing slower freight services there wouldn't be the capacity for it all since 125mph services take up more capacity and so limit the number of paths on a railway. Overnight when there isn't much passenger traffic you may have more of a chance.

 

[Teaboy1]

It sounds a bit too implausible TBH. The energy required to get it up to such a speed would be colossal only to be wasted when it has to brake for a speed restriction or junction. Secondly what freight is so important that it needs to be so fast?
In UK most freight seems to be worked around the passenger traffic and whatever is the most economic pathing IME.
Freight will always move at the lowest £/ton-mile so I would try to find out what the likes of a 66 hauling a coal from say Tyne Dock to Drax or Ince work out at.

 

[HSTEd]

Essentially the only way to reach such speeds would be a fixed formation freight multiple unit with lots of motored axles - certainly only plausible under electric traction.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I don't see the point TBH.

Not only will it be exceedingly slow in getting there, but getting it to stop within 4 MAS signals would be very difficult.

 

[The Planner]

Considering we have got nowhere near 90mph for freight yet I cant see 125 ever being possible for the reasons already given, getting them to that speed and stopping them would take massive distances.

 

[Whistler40145]

If it was practicable, only certain types of freight could run at 125mph.

I expect it will receive some questioning by the Unions regarding safety.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Haydn1971]

The track loading would be substantial too, faster speeds put greater strain on the rails and fixings, freight tends to be a lot heavier than passenger, thus axle loadings would increase substantially - so probably three elements to consider, the track design, geometry and bogie design to reduce impact on infrastructure. Freight is run slow currently because of the increased risk of derailment at higher speeds, I'm not clear if the details, but seem to recall reading about speeds being capped back in the 50's/60's to reduce the problem.

I'd also agree with HSTEd that distributed traction would be necessary as getting up to those speeds would require huge tractive effort, such a system would increase costs massively.

 

[Bald Rick]

Tilting freightliner flats with 9%g braking would be fun to see.

Unless you were on a train on the opposite line!

 

[BantamMenace]

Isnt there an example in Japan i think it is of a container carrying EMU capable of three figure speeds? Not sure if our loading gauge would allow for this though.

Also, all these comments are highly constructive so thank you, my project doesnt have to make it viable, just give all the right reasons as to why it isnt viable, which i didnt think for a second it would be to be honest.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The only feasible high speed freight would be parcels (like the La Poste TGVs) IMO. However I doubt Royal Mail want a replacement to the 325s just yet.

 

[HSTEd]

Tilting freightliner flats with 9%g braking would be fun to see.

Unless you were on a train on the opposite line!

Why would they tilt?
There are no passengers to get upset about the centripetal accelerations......

 

[Jordeh]

The only feasible high speed freight would be parcels (like the La Poste TGVs) IMO. However I doubt Royal Mail want a replacement to the 325s just yet.

Exactly, I think some in this thread have been a bit quick to write it off.

Certainly worth looking into EuroCarex, they are certainly considering high speed parcels and mail freight through the Eurotunnel and High Speed 1. No doubt a few years off yet though, like everything regarding Eurotunnel really.

http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/tgv-la-poste-visits-st-pancras

 

[Bald Rick]

Why would they tilt?
There are no passengers to get upset about the centripetal accelerations......

Good point. Long day.

Although thinking about it, a fully loaded container might have more overturning potential, especially in a crosswind, than a passenger carriage which is essentially carrying fresh air from half way up. They'd have to be locked down onto the flats, which might negate some of the time saving from the higher speed.

 

[Beveridges]

EWS trailed 90mph freights with Class 90's around 2004~2006. They must have not been proven to be worthwhile as they never became regular.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I would instead look at the feasibility of 90mph intermodal freight.

 

[Tomnick]

125mph freight couldn't realistically happen during the day when a 125 cleared line (such as the ECML) is shared with Long Distance High Speed services, semi fast, stoppers as well as existing slower freight services there wouldn't be the capacity for it all since 125mph services take up more capacity and so limit the number of paths on a railway. Overnight when there isn't much passenger traffic you may have more of a chance.

Just to challenge this point - a faster freight would surely be easier to path than a slower equivalent? A 60mph freight pootling along between regulating points will take up a good number of paths that faster trains could otherwise use - easier to visualise if you imagine it shown on a graph - especially when you consider the time taken to crawl into loops more frequently.

 

[Haydn1971]

Another point being that passenger services stop at stations, freight does not...

 

[Bayum]

I would instead look at the feasibility of 90mph intermodal freight.

Why?

Surely there is more to discuss for the negativity and inability surrounding 125mph freight? I did my dissertation knowing that my area of work had a few areas against me, this gave me an amazing oppurtunity to critique, analyse and contrast between my findings and theirs.

 

[edwin_m]

Just to challenge this point - a faster freight would surely be easier to path than a slower equivalent? A 60mph freight pootling along between regulating points will take up a good number of paths that faster trains could otherwise use - easier to visualise if you imagine it shown on a graph - especially when you consider the time taken to crawl into loops more frequently.

Depends on the route. A 75mph freight that keeps moving probably has a similar average speed to a 90mph or 100mph passenger train that stops from time to time, as might be found on a secondary main line or the slow lines of a four-track main line.

On the face of it a 125mph freight would similarly fit on the fast lines of the ECML/WCML or on our faster double-track routes such as the GWML west of Didcot. However I suspect those routes are mostly full during the daytimes, either with 125mph trains or with slower ones fitting between them such as the 110mph Desiros. Hence daytime fast freight could only be accommodated, if at all, by decelerating some of these slower passenger trains.

I believe EWS/DBS experimented with a 90mph freight a few years ago between Birmingham and Glasgow aimed at providing a trunk haul for parcels companies. It didn't last long but I'm not aware of the reasons it was dropped. However it was mentioned at the time that the load had to be limited to avoid track damage - this would probably be more of a problem with small-wheeled intermodal wagons than with passenger stock even if the axle loading was similar. Another issue might be the pressure pulses generated by containers, which almost literally have the aerodynamics of the proverbial brick, when passing passenger platforms at high speeds.

I agree that the best market for fast freight would be parcels in passenger-type trains - I seem to recall reading a suggestion somewhere that HS2 trains might have demountable seats like the aircraft that are converted for overnight transport of mail.

 

[Tomnick]

Another point being that passenger services stop at stations, freight does not...

Indeed, a very good point too. A class 4 freight running at 75mph won't have much problem keeping well clear of a faster passenger with a couple of intermediate stops - from personal experience of running such trains on very tight margins!

 

[BantamMenace]

So to develop the idea of a form of fixed formation distributed traction 100mph intermodal train how far could a service run with current infrastructure? I'm assuming Grangemouth, Leeds, Doncaster, Trafford park and other northern freight facilities to at least the far side of Germany, Italy, Austria and all of Spain and Portugal. Could a service reach Russia and be loaded with containers from China that have arrived there by rail?

 

[Jonny]

My view would be, the question to ask would it be worthwhile slotting a freight train into a 125mph path and would the cost of running such a train (fuel, maintenance, track wear and tear etc...) justify it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So to develop the idea of a form of fixed formation distributed traction 100mph intermodal train how far could a service run with current infrastructure? I'm assuming Grangemouth, Leeds, Doncaster, Trafford park and other northern freight facilities to at least the far side of Germany, Italy, Austria and all of Spain and Portugal. Could a service reach Russia and be loaded with containers from China that have arrived there by rail?

Hmm, maybe - but to reach Spain & Portugal (on the 'classic' lines) and Russia, there would need to be the facilities to cope with a break of gauge. If it was still worthwhile, the service might as well originate from China and cross the break of gauge there. After all, China (apparently) runs on 4'8+(1/2)" international gauge...

However, Japan might be another matter (sea out, pickup at Vladivostock). In fact I was suprised when I found out where Vladivostock is - suprisingly near Japan and also quite close to the Trans-Siberian railway.

 

[HSTEd]

Talgo type technology can apparently handle multiple units with distributed traction so there would be no reason why a train could not run all the way from Shanghai or similar to a Midlands depot in a single jump.
If gauge changers could be provided on each side of the Russian gauge system.

EDIT:

For your enjoyment I also present a copy of this study by the US Army during the early 90s. Into the construction of a 125mph capable train for the carriage of tanks.

 

[a good off]

There will be load of HST sets possibly becoming surplus to requirements in the next few years. Why not convert them into parcel and mail carrying vehicles in order to create a dedicated high speed parcel and mail network? It could use the surviving former Royal Mail terminals, freight terminals and selected passenger termini. :roll:

 

[34D]

Didn't the french do a trial of a 100mph freight around 20 years ago?

 

[ffm]

Manchester77 missed a vital point, faster freight uses LESS capacity, on a 125mph railway it is the slower trains that use capacity.

Tilt would be more essential with heavier trains, passenger trains don't tilt for passenger comfort, they do so in order to get round curves at a higher speed, by moving the weight into the curve, reducing the centripedal forces wanting to move the weight away from the curve. The heavier the load the more centripedal force is exerted away from the turn, so more need to tilt to prevent derailing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Didn't the french do a trial of a 100mph freight around 20 years ago?

They didn't just trial it, they run mail trains (freight!) at over 186mph daily and trialled it to the UK this decade.

 

[HSTEd]

Tilt would be more essential with heavier trains, passenger trains don't tilt for passenger comfort, they do so in order to get round curves at a higher speed, by moving the weight into the curve, reducing the centripedal forces wanting to move the weight away from the curve. The heavier the load the more centripedal force is exerted away from the turn, so more need to tilt to prevent derailing.

If that were true this problem would be solved almost entirely by track canting.
Even at the maximum degree of tilt it is not going to make a significant difference to the position of the centre of gravity of the train.

10 degrees of tilt only moves the top of the train something like 50cm which isn't going to make any significant difference to the centripetal acceleration forces.
Also it wouldn't explain why the locomotives on many tilting trainsets do not tilt when they are the heaviest components of the entire system.

 

[edwin_m]

Tilt systems are designed to move the centre of mass as little as possible - effectively the coach rotates and the axis of rotation is near the centre of mass. Therefore in itself it has little effect on the forces applied to the rails, except that resulting from the extra weight of the tilt gear. However the higher curving speeds possible with tilt result in more cant deficiency and therefore more wear on the outer rail.

 

[cjmillsnun]

There will be load of HST sets possibly becoming surplus to requirements in the next few years. Why not convert them into parcel and mail carrying vehicles in order to create a dedicated high speed parcel and mail network? It could use the surviving former Royal Mail terminals, freight terminals and selected passenger termini. :roll:

Because the Royal Mail mainly prefer road and air transport.