Freight multiple unit train and freight tram - They are really the future？

[Gostav]

When CargoSprinter (in UK named MPV) came out in late 1990s many people (include me!) believe multiple units were the future of freight traffic, however over 20 years past only a few multiple units were used for parcel traffic and most freighters were never have really change. Today, in the world only Japan uses EMU (M250 series) for container traffic and most CargoSprinter vehicles (MPV in UK) are use for engineering work.

Another thing is freight tram on modern tramway system, there were some modern freight tram planning and testing in Europe past years with loud slogan (environment friendly, alternate road vehicles, reduce traffic jams, etc) but almost all of them no any follow-up develop. Even the only successful examples CarGoTram in Dresden was closed the traffic in December 2020.

So why they are not going to popular?

 

[edwin_m]

Once you get to about five cars, one big engine in a locomotive is cheaper and easier to maintain than a small engine in each car. Most freight trains are way longer than that. The floor height is also higher than for unpowered wagons, which in the UK gives us a particular problem that standard containers won't fit within our structure gauge.

Good news is that avoiding the use of FMUs removes one of the barriers to electrifying freight. All FMUs produced in Europe have been diesel-powered, to provide flexibility to go anywhere, so would still use diesel power even on electrified lines.

 

[RobShipway]

You also have to remember that SNCF did have a dedicated fleet of TGV's for their high speed freight and mail transportation between 1984 - 2015. SNCF ended the service due to restructuring and found that it was cheaper to use Swap body containers into locomotive hauled services.

I think the only Freight Multiple units we are going to be seeing is the class 769 units for Rail Operation group that will be used for high speed parcels by rail and logistics work. Not sure if they have entered service yet, but they should have entered service back in April under the Orion High Speed Logistics brand.

 

[zwk500]

You also have to remember that SNCF did have a dedicated fleet of TGV's for their high speed freight and mail transportation between 1984 - 2015. SNCF ended the service due to restructuring and found that it was cheaper to use Swap body containers into locomotive hauled services.

I thought they only had 1 TGV Converted, and if La Poste counts, then so does the Class 325.

I think the only Freight Multiple units we are going to be seeing is the class 769 units for Rail Operation group that will be used for high speed parcels by rail and logistics work. Not sure if they have entered service yet, but they should have entered service back in April under the Orion High Speed Logistics brand.

I think some trains are ready, enough for a trial service at least, but that operations are yet to begin. Orion have some 319s alongside their 769s, there's a thread on here somewhere.

 

[RobShipway]

I thought they only had 1 TGV Converted, and if La Poste counts, then so does the Class 325.

I think some trains are ready, enough for a trial service at least, but that operations are yet to begin. Orion have some 319s alongside their 769s, there's a thread on here somewhere.

There was about 7 half sets in all within the La Poste fleet. But yes, class 325 would be included as well even though based on the class 319, but with a Turbostar cab. P1 - P5 where from the original build of TGV trains built from TGV Sud-EST and P6 & P7 built from TGV-SE sets.

 

[edwin_m]

I wasn't really thinking about MUs for fast light freight when writing my post above, but I do agree this is more likely to find a market than the CargoSprinter/MPV concept. It does have problems though, particularly getting enough volume to capture economies of scale, and finding capacity on the rail network.

 

[HSTEd]

I would expect that FMUs are probably the future, although at the moment the UK loading gauge constrains technological solutions. And the freight sector is notoriously conservative.

Ultimately FMUs will be forced not by economics of freight per se, but the necessity of dramatically improving the traction performance of freight trains to match that of passenger trains.

The network grows crowded and in the post coronavirus times it will be likely be increasingly difficult to get political backing to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on infrastructure to support freight trains hauled by single low powered locomotives with awful acceleration and braking performance.

FMUs are the ultmiate way to avoid this problem (other partial solutions exist), but I can't see the freight sector doing anything at all until the government forces them to

 

[Irascible]

I would expect that FMUs are probably the future, although at the moment the UK loading gauge constrains technological solutions. And the freight sector is notoriously conservative.

Ultimately FMUs will be forced not by economics of freight per se, but the necessity of dramatically improving the traction performance of freight trains to match that of passenger trains.

The network grows crowded and in the post coronavirus times it will be likely be increasingly difficult to get political backing to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on infrastructure to support freight trains hauled by single low powered locomotives with awful acceleration and braking performance.

FMUs are the ultmiate way to avoid this problem (other partial solutions exist), but I can't see the freight sector doing anything at all until the government forces them to

I can see liner trains ending up with a traction power bus & motored axles with a power takeoff from a discrete locomotive - even if it's partially dedicated to a rake - but for things like aggregates and other stock with a really hard life, is distributed power & control really going to be practical? it sounds more like we just need to change our idea of how a freight train should perform. Or we need more freight routes.

 

[03_179]

I seem to recall something about units being converted to use as parcels machines. In a discussion with a mate we thought that this would have been a brilliant idea for the likes of Amazon etc. Unit full of parcels to London (or near London/Machester/Leeds/Birmingham) or other local hubs like Redhill, Croydon etc.
Then fleet of Electric van/vehicles to deliver to the house.

A bit of a 2020s Red Star parcels type set up.

 

[HSTEd]

I can see liner trains ending up with a traction power bus & motored axles with a power takeoff from a discrete locomotive - even if it's partially dedicated to a rake - but for things like aggregates and other stock with a really hard life, is distributed power & control really going to be practical? it sounds more like we just need to change our idea of how a freight train should perform. Or we need more freight routes.

I am unsure, although I do have an inkling that given that deep sea shipping is increasingly seeing containerisation of what were once bulk loads, that something similar might happen in the UK.

(For example, Grain is being increasingly shipped in containers in the US/China trade especially, farmers are almost selling loads of grain on quasi-ebay direct to consumers)

 

[Irascible]

I am unsure, although I do have an inkling that given that deep sea shipping is increasingly seeing containerisation of what were once bulk loads, that something similar might happen in the UK.

(For example, Grain is being increasingly shipped in containers in the US/China trade especially, farmers are almost selling loads of grain on quasi-ebay direct to consumers)

That does seem a little like uncompetitive faff for domestic aggregates, at least. Never say never, I suppose.

So, there's three issues:

* Acceleration - which you can ameliorate somewhat just by throwing more power at it - provided we're not adhesion-limited here. If you've got the same power in a lightweight 4 car EMU as a 1500t freight train, then no matter what fiddling you do to get the most TE out of it you're not going to match them...
* Running speed - can we actually run any faster with the current axle loading limits? kinetic envelopes? aerodynamics?
* Braking - what's limiting right now? wheel-rail adhesion or shedding enough energy? if it's the latter then well, our brakes just aren't good enough & we need to spec better stock. If it's adhesion-limited ( I suspect it is given the worst case scenarios ) then there's a bit more of a philosophy issue.

Running freight MUs isn't going to lower axle loads, or overall tonnage unless you start taking up more paths - what you'd gain is better adhesion under power & perhaps regenerative braking, at the cost of massively more complicated operations. Something different might be worth it for regular container traffic, still.

 

[D6130]

You also have to remember that SNCF did have a dedicated fleet of TGV's for their high speed freight and mail transportation between 1984 - 2015. SNCF ended the service due to restructuring and found that it was cheaper to use Swap body containers into locomotive hauled services.

Within the last 2-3 years, FS-Trenitalia have converted a small number of 'Frecciarossa' high speed electric units to carry overnight premium rate parcels and sundries traffic on Milano-Bologna-Firenze-Roma-Napoli axis and they seemed to be doing well pre-Covid.

 

[RobShipway]

Within the last 2-3 years, FS-Trenitalia have converted a small number of 'Frecciarossa' high speed electric units to carry overnight premium rate parcels and sundries traffic on Milano-Bologna-Firenze-Roma-Napoli axis and they seemed to be doing well pre-Covid.

Possibly when HS2 has been built and the class 390's have come to retirement age for taking passengers we will see some of them converted!

 

[HSTEd]

* Acceleration - which you can ameliorate somewhat just by throwing more power at it - provided we're not adhesion-limited here. If you've got the same power in a lightweight 4 car EMU as a 1500t freight train, then no matter what fiddling you do to get the most TE out of it you're not going to match them...

Well one of the major advantages of 25kV, especially modern 25kV installations, is that relatively inexpensive modifications (to trackside infrastructure) can increase power delivery limits almost without limit.

We could put Eurostar 400m set levels of installed power into them if we wanted.

Although a proper fleet of Class 92 successors showing what modern power electronics can do would be a big advance over the status quo.

* Running speed - can we actually run any faster with the current axle loading limits? kinetic envelopes? aerodynamics?

I think it's a purely economic issue on track damage at the end of the day.

DB supposedly have those flat wagons and vans rated for 160km/h after all.

If Bald Rick is around he might be able to shed some light.

* Braking - what's limiting right now? wheel-rail adhesion or shedding enough energy? if it's the latter then well, our brakes just aren't good enough & we need to spec better stock. If it's adhesion-limited ( I suspect it is given the worst case scenarios ) then there's a bit more of a philosophy issue.

Also the several seconds it takes for a driver to apply brakes before the train brakes are actually fully applied on an ~800m freight train.
And fundamental control limits from the air brake.

We can probably get near EMU levels of performance with ECP braking (effectively a more modern two wire version of an EPB brake).

But ECP brakes are going to cost significant amounts of money for retrofit, although obviously cheaper than EMUs and it would allow distributed power with no additional cabling.

 

[JKF]

Ultimately we will have autonomous freight cars with onboard battery power that shunt themselves and attach themselves onto other cars to form trains, once running on the main line with a loco on the front providing power from the OHLE to charge the ‘shunt’ batteries and maybe feed traction motors for power. Wagonload freight will then be viable again.

This may need dedicated tracks or dedicated hours of operation.

 

[PeterC]

Ultimately we will have autonomous freight cars with onboard battery power that shunt themselves and attach themselves onto other cars to form trains, once running on the main line with a loco on the front providing power from the OHLE to charge the ‘shunt’ batteries and maybe feed traction motors for power. Wagonload freight will then be viable again.

This may need dedicated tracks or dedicated hours of operation.

But where would a wagonload go to? Turn station car parks back into goods yard?

 

[Bald Rick]

In a discussion with a mate we thought that this would have been a brilliant idea for the likes of Amazon etc. Unit full of parcels to London (or near London/Machester/Leeds/Birmingham) or other local hubs like Redhill, Croydon etc.
Then fleet of Electric van/vehicles to deliver to the house.

That’s not how Amazon have set up their (mightily impressive) logistics operation - they have lots of low volume, typically short distance links; not suited to rail at all.

It might work for the likes of DPD / UPS Etc, but only on very specific high volume flows

 

[Grumbler]

Ultimately we will have autonomous freight cars with onboard battery power that shunt themselves and attach themselves onto other cars to form trains, once running on the main line with a loco on the front providing power from the OHLE to charge the ‘shunt’ batteries and maybe feed traction motors for power. Wagonload freight will then be viable again.

This may need dedicated tracks or dedicated hours of operation.

Wagons could be formed as units each with its own power pack (like the FLIRTS), so they could be totally autonomous. Units could join to form longer trains at junctions, and split at other junctions. It might be viable to connect industrial units and distribution centres with dedicated lines rather than use road trucks. Some old lines might be re-opened.

 

[JKF]

Wagons could be formed as units each with its own power pack (like the FLIRTS), so they could be totally autonomous. Units could join to form longer trains at junctions, and split at other junctions. It might be viable to connect industrial units and distribution centres with dedicated lines rather than use road trucks. Some old lines might be re-opened.

I was thinking something like the old Trafford Park set-up would be good for this.

More realistically, we’re more likely to see road trains/convoys than a rail solution for small flows.

 

[RobShipway]

Apologies if this goes on a bit, but someone once said to me when you are wanting to find answers then look in front of you and you shall see the answer.

Now, the way Aggregates is moved by rail and road I think for the most part is fine. Other than the lorries should be battery powered and maybe be such that they could be converted into trailers to connect to each other to form a train of Aggregates wagons.

When it comes to more heavy haulage, i.e. the likes of Tesco containers etc... Again I think that is working well, but yet again I think the lorries that are taken the containers to the freight trains and away from the freight trains to their destinations should be battery powered.

When it comes to heavy freight lorries where they cannot go into a container, I think the answer lies with what is being done with the Eurotunnel trains and the wagons used to hold those lorries. Now I know that people will say that the wagons used to take the lorries cannot fit in the loading gauge for the some of the lines used for freight. But this is where I think HS2 can play a part. Back in the period between the 1950's to 1970's you had places like Kensington Olympia that had Motorail terminals, where drivers could drive their cars on too intermodal trailers that had two levels and the drivers of those cars once parked up when they go and join their families in the passenger stock coaches.

Well, my idea is that you have similar terminal areas as you have for lorries waiting to board the Eurotunnel freight trains. The lorry drivers place their lorries in the trailers and then go to the rest area coaches for onward travel. Probably by the time this is all worked out and built, most lorries would be battery powered so in doing this it would save the haulage companies time and also be less of a requirement for the lorry driver to be stopped for 30 minutes to 2 hours recharging the batteries for the lorries. Since the loading gauge of HS2 is no different than that of HS1 and the channel tunnel, I don't see there being an issue with using the same type of trailers as is used for lorries for the Euro Tunnel trains.

 

[zwk500]

Since the loading gauge of HS2 is no different than that of HS1 and the channel tunnel, I don't see there being an issue with using the same type of trailers as is used for lorries for the Euro Tunnel trains.

The loading gauge for the Chunnel is bigger than HS1 or HS2. Lorries won't fit on flat wagons on the HS lines, so you'd need well wagons which obviously would need different loading procedures and are less space efficient.
What the USA makes good use of is piggyback trailers, with the support for the cab end of thr trailer using the space above the bogies.

 

[edwin_m]

Ultimately we will have autonomous freight cars with onboard battery power that shunt themselves and attach themselves onto other cars to form trains, once running on the main line with a loco on the front providing power from the OHLE to charge the ‘shunt’ batteries and maybe feed traction motors for power. Wagonload freight will then be viable again.

This may need dedicated tracks or dedicated hours of operation.

You're thinking of something like this: NGT CARGO | DLR Transport

The NGT CARGO trains will be composed of individual CARGO wagons and high-performance locomotives, as required. The individual CARGO wagons each have a built-in engine with lower performance as well as an energy reservoir on board. This means that they are able, autonomously and independently, to serve sidings individually or as groups of individual CARGO wagons. Coupling and uncoupling of the trains takes place autonomously without the use of shunting locomotives or personnel. The individual CARGO wagons and locomotives are coupled together by automatic couplings which not only transmit locomotive power but also energy and signals.

However, this is totally vapourware at present. I'm involved in a project overseas that might ultimately have a use for something like this, but I get the impression they aren't actively developing it currently.

 

[Bald Rick]

Since the loading gauge of HS2 is no different than that of HS1 and the channel tunnel, I don't see there being an issue with using the same type of trailers as is used for lorries for the Euro Tunnel trains.

As well as standard road trailers not fitting on standard ro-ro flat wagons within GC loading gauge, there is the small matter of when any such services would operate. HS2 will be closed overnight for maintenance and inspection. In the day there will be trains passing every 3-4 minutes or so at 350km/h. In every sense, freight doesn’t fit.

 

[RobShipway]

The loading gauge for the Chunnel is bigger than HS1 or HS2. Lorries won't fit on flat wagons on the HS lines, so you'd need well wagons which obviously would need different loading procedures and are less space efficient.
What the USA makes good use of is piggyback trailers, with the support for the cab end of thr trailer using the space above the bogies.

As well as standard road trailers not fitting on standard ro-ro flat wagons within GC loading gauge, there is the small matter of when any such services would operate. HS2 will be closed overnight for maintenance and inspection. In the day there will be trains passing every 3-4 minutes or so at 350km/h. In every sense, freight doesn’t fit.

As much as I know that HS2 is needed, the fact that freight is not considered to be using it I think is a shame and is also a problem I find with HS1.

If the likes of HS1/HS2 was able to take the Eurotunnel Class 9 (Class 9000) locomotives and wagons, I think that we would see a lot of lorries off our roads and it would be better environmentally for all. I know some would argue that they would only have a top speed of 99mph (160km/h), but as happens with them for the Channel Tunnel, I have no doubt that there is paths that the trains could be fitted into.

Or alternatively as Zwk50 states use Piggyback trailers but still being having at either end something like the Eurotunnel Class 9 (Class 9000) locomotives or possibly a class 93 at either end.

It might mean that existing ports where possible maybe needed to be adapted or in the case of somewhere local to me like Newhaven, a new port is built in the outer harbour with rail connection, that could be used for both dropping passengers of and an area where lorries could be taken out of piggyback trailers that I think would make a world of difference in 10 - 50 years time in how we are transporting freight not just here in the UK, but around Europe and the world.

 

[Bald Rick]

but as happens with them for the Channel Tunnel, I have no doubt that there is paths that the trains could be fitted into.

What is your ‘no doubt’ based on?

The Channel Tunnel has capacity for 4 x Eurostar paths an hour, in 2 flights three minutes apart, and they run at 160km/h for the 50km crossing. Even then it is a squeeze with the 10 or so lorry shuttles and car shuttles travelling at 140km/h. Note the speed difference of 20km/h, for 50km.

On HS2 you would be talking a speed difference of 200km/h for 2-300km. There are no paths for freight.

Also, the line is not designed for freight. Specifically gradients, track cant, and most importantly tunnels (and the aerodynamic effect of a very high speed train passing a curtain sided freight vehicle).

 

[RobShipway]

What is your ‘no doubt’ based on?

The Channel Tunnel has capacity for 4 x Eurostar paths an hour, in 2 flights three minutes apart, and they run at 160km/h for the 50km crossing. Even then it is a squeeze with the 10 or so lorry shuttles and car shuttles travelling at 140km/h. Note the speed difference of 20km/h, for 50km.

On HS2 you would be talking a speed difference of 200km/h for 2-300km. There are no paths for freight.

Also, the line is not designed for freight. Specifically gradients, track cant, and most importantly tunnels (and the aerodynamic effect of a very high speed train passing a curtain sided freight vehicle).

My no doubt is based on the fact that you have DB Cargo UK running freight services on High Speed 1 using adapted Class 92 locomotives, enabling flat wagons to be carrying continental-size swap body containers to reach London for the first time. The class 92's in operating that service are running at no more than 87mph, yet is fitted in between trains doing anything from 140mph to 180mph. The same could happen with HS2, except that the trains in question would need to be doing 100mph - 120mph, which given the technology since the class 92 was built is more than possible.

Can you provide a link from HS2 Ltd states that HS2 will just be for passenger trains only?

 

[zwk500]

My no doubt is based on the fact that you have DB Cargo UK running freight services on High Speed 1 using adapted Class 92 locomotives, enabling flat wagons to be carrying continental-size swap body containers to reach London for the first time. The class 92's in operating that service are running at no more than 87mph, yet is fitted in between trains doing anything from 140mph to 180mph.

And cause no end of issues doing so.

The same could happen with HS2, except that the trains in question would need to be doing 100mph - 120mph, which given the technology since the class 92 was built is more than possible.

First of all, stopping a train weighing 1600 tonnes at that speed takes a lot of brake force. Second, why go to all that effort when you will be able to find better overall paths (in terms of less regulation and better service to terminals) by running on the WCML using the capacity released by HS2 taking the dedicated fasts.

And this still doesn't address the issue of getting from HS1/2 to the terminals. For context to clear Dollands Moor to Wembley via Maidstone to W12 is estimated to cost £79.6m. Clearing the route to W9a is estimated to cost £18.2m. This is because there are fewer bridges that would need rebuilding (any bridge that did need rebuilding would be rebuilt to W12). And W12 wouldn't permit piggyback, you'd need UIC GB gauge for that (or thereabouts), which is 33cm higher above the rail than W12.

 

[swt_passenger]

My no doubt is based on the fact that you have DB Cargo UK running freight services on High Speed 1 using adapted Class 92 locomotives, enabling flat wagons to be carrying continental-size swap body containers to reach London for the first time. The class 92's in operating that service are running at no more than 87mph, yet is fitted in between trains doing anything from 140mph to 180mph. The same could happen with HS2, except that the trains in question would need to be doing 100mph - 120mph, which given the technology since the class 92 was built is more than possible.

Can you provide a link from HS2 Ltd states that HS2 will just be for passenger trains only?

There are no track connections with the conventional network to allow freight on or off HS2 at its south end. I think you should just take it as read that it is not a freight route. Presumably you’ve missed all the previous times this has been asked and answered in the negative?

 

[RobShipway]

And cause no end of issues doing so.

First of all, stopping a train weighing 1600 tonnes at that speed takes a lot of brake force. Second, why go to all that effort when you will be able to find better overall paths (in terms of less regulation and better service to terminals) by running on the WCML using the capacity released by HS2 taking the dedicated fasts.

And this still doesn't address the issue of getting from HS1/2 to the terminals. For context to clear Dollands Moor to Wembley via Maidstone to W12 is estimated to cost £79.6m. Clearing the route to W9a is estimated to cost £18.2m. This is because there are fewer bridges that would need rebuilding (any bridge that did need rebuilding would be rebuilt to W12). And W12 wouldn't permit piggyback, you'd need UIC GB gauge for that (or thereabouts), which is 33cm higher above the rail than W12.

That is fair comment.

There are no track connections with the conventional network to allow freight on or off HS2 at its south end. I think you should just take it as read that it is not a freight route. Presumably you’ve missed all the previous times this has been asked and answered in the negative?

I think that you need to check the plans for HS2 at Old Oak Common, before making your statement.

 

[swt_passenger]

That is fair comment.

I think that you need to check the plans for HS2 at Old Oak Common, before making your statement.

They come together alongside but do not join. HS2 tracks are in the bottom of a deep station box, everything else is on the surface. It isn’t a freight route.

But another minor point, this thread started out about freight MPVs or freight trams. What has that got to do with HS1 or HS2 anyway?