Freight the future of the railways ?

[Gooner18]

Working from home was slowly but surely becoming more and more popular with covid hitting resulting in a massive acceleration in working from home resulting in drop of passenger numbers, would you say that freight is a more secure future then passenger TOC’s especially as companies are trying to become carbon neutral moving large amounts by rail could be seen as a greener more efficient way than by road, having said that could a greener way of life see passenger numbers rise and even go beyond pre- covid numbers as our cities become less and less motor vehicle friendly.

 

[zwk500]

In an ideal world, but freight has to compete against road transport prices in the UK, and those leave very little room for the railway to make a profit. Commuters and their shiny season tickets are still the fundamental source of revenue outside of taxation. And a train can remove c.800 cars from the road, which is arguably better than the 80 lorries a 775m freight can do.

 

[66701GBRF]

Freight is anything but secure. The recent NR and Port strikes have not helped.

 

[Thirteen]

Despite the current dispute and passenger numbers being lower, no Government is going to axe passenger railways completely especially considering that transport links are crucial to building new homes and creating job opportunities plus not all jobs can be done from home.

 

[pt_mad]

Many timetables are planning to introduce more services next week aren't they, not less?

 

[Mwanesh]

I work in haulage the shipping companies are not sold on the railways. The amount of strikes on the railways has made shipping planning difficult.

 

[Huntergreed]

Many timetables are planning to introduce more services next week aren't they, not less?

Next week - definitely not!

The week after, in theory yes, but I imagine many TOC’s will still operate a highly reduced service. Does anyone know what the plan is for Avanti? Almost certain they won’t be offering the full December timetable!

 

[alf]

Main reason for using railfreight is green washing & ability to rent low/subsidised cost unloading storage sites in cities..Southampton & Acton for stone come to mind & of course royal mail depot at Wembley which has token rail services to allow them to use it for pathetically low rental, but 95% of long distance mail from Wembley carried by road.

Strikes, higher cost, unreliability from FOCs but specially NR, & theft have driven most of the traffic away

 

[Dr Hoo]

Strikes, higher cost, unreliability from FOCs but specially NR, & theft have driven most of the traffic away

Err, you are aware that 'Other' rail freight (i.e. not coal) had higher tonne-km in 2021-22 than at any time since 1970 and in fact higher than in the late 1930s (pre-war)?

 

[ExRes]

Main reason for using railfreight is green washing & ability to rent low/subsidised cost unloading storage sites in cities..Southampton & Acton for stone come to mind & of course royal mail depot at Wembley which has token rail services to allow them to use it for pathetically low rental, but 95% of long distance mail from Wembley carried by road.

Strikes, higher cost, unreliability from FOCs but specially NR, & theft have driven most of the traffic away

And of course you realise that it was the pathetic ineptitude of EWS that drove the mail traffic away not the actions of RM

 

[The Planner]

Main reason for using railfreight is green washing & ability to rent low/subsidised cost unloading storage sites in cities..Southampton & Acton for stone come to mind & of course royal mail depot at Wembley which has token rail services to allow them to use it for pathetically low rental, but 95% of long distance mail from Wembley carried by road.

Strikes, higher cost, unreliability from FOCs but specially NR, & theft have driven most of the traffic away

Why are Royal Mail putting in 5 trains each way to Scotland a day from Daventry if thats the case?

 

[HSTEd]

Freight operations proceed on the railway because they pay virtually nothing for the infrastructure they use or have reserved for them. Total freight access charges are around ~£43-45m a year, only 30% higher than the track access charges paid in total by the two Open Access Operators.

If the passenger railway falls apart then that would lead to questions about the magnitude of the subsidies being given to the freight operators.

 

[stj]

Most of Railfreights former customers dont even exist anymore so where would new traffic come from? Modern Distribution Centres
are built next to Motorways not Railways.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Most of Railfreights former customers dont even exist anymore so where would new traffic come from? Modern Distribution Centres
are built next to Motorways not Railways.

So why was 'non-coal' traffic at its highest level in more than 50 years last year? There have been many new/re-activated aggregate terminals (both origin and destination), new/re-activated intermodal facilities (Solent Stevedores, London Gateway, Tilbury 2, Teesport, Liverpool, iPort, East Midlands Gateway, Tinsley + others under construction, a growing spread of loading points for timber, Highland Spring at Blackford and so on.

You couldn't describe it as a tidal wave but definitely a growth environment. Many established/core flows like Felixstowe-Trafford Park or Daventry-Scottish Central Belt have been 'thickened up' too.

 

[The Planner]

Most of Railfreights former customers dont even exist anymore so where would new traffic come from? Modern Distribution Centres
are built next to Motorways not Railways.

Northampton Gateway, rail and next to the M1. Four Ashes, rail and M54/M6. Daventry, rail and M1. Hinckley, rail and M69. Ardley, rail and M40. Castle Donnington rail and M1. Doncaster iPort, rail and A1/M18 etc etc

 

[edwin_m]

Even if there was unlimited rail capacity available, rail couldn't make much of a dent in the amount of freight on the roads. Most of it goes to or from places with no rail connection and/or is too small a flow to carry by train without hopelessly unproductive multi-commodity trains. This applies even to intermodal - rail generally isn't competitive if the road journey can be done out and back in a single driver shift, and anything time-critical probably goes on the road because it isn't tied to train timetables.

There is some scope at the margin, such as distribution that's near but not quite at breakeven for rail, but it probably also needs some sort of stick measures to make going by road less attractive.

 

[HSTEd]

From the perspective of the railway wishing to avoid a death spiral into utter irrelevance, I would suggest it would be best to do as little as possible to encourage new freight traffic.

It's hopelessly unrenumerative considering the enormous capital costs associated with new infrastructure to enable more freight operations - the Werrington Dive Under (£200m) used up something like 4.5 years of the entire freight access revenue of Network Rail by itself.

We have a freight system that consumes huge numbers of paths, all of which have to be timetabled even though a very large fraction are not used on any given day, and utilises such low performance rolling stock that it makes timetabling in places like Shap et al a complete nightmare.
In addition, the desire of FOCs to avoid spending on capital has held up necessary innovations for years, see ETCS, and is likely to prevent any near term innovations (L2/3H and other reduction in trackside equipment etc etc) which could help staunch the railway's financial bleeding.

Just as I think franchising was a disaster for the railway in terms of inducing operational and strategic paralysis, so the notional "independence" of "commercial" freight operators will render necessary rail innovations impossible to implement. If we are going to make a serious go at the railfreight business, it needs to be integrated properly into the rest of the rail system. Under DfT control if need be.

 

[43096]

In addition, the desire of FOCs to avoid spending on capital has held up necessary innovations for years, see ETCS, and is likely to prevent any near term innovations (L2/3H and other reduction in trackside equipment etc etc) which could help staunch the railway's financial bleeding.

The FOCs (and your perception they seek to avoid capital expenditure) have got nothing to do with ETCS delays. ETCS fleet fitment is funded by the ETCS implementation projects, as it is for all passenger fleets.

 

[zwk500]

The FOCs (and your perception they seek to avoid capital expenditure) have got nothing to do with ETCS delays. ETCS fleet fitment is funded by the ETCS implementation projects, as it is for all passenger fleets.

I thought first-of-class was funded by ETCS projects, but only some of the cost for the rest of the fleet was covered.

 

[furnessvale]

Freight operations proceed on the railway because they pay virtually nothing for the infrastructure they use or have reserved for them. Total freight access charges are around ~£43-45m a year, only 30% higher than the track access charges paid in total by the two Open Access Operators.

If the passenger railway falls apart then that would lead to questions about the magnitude of the subsidies being given to the freight operators.

Exactly the same can be said about road transport. The "track" for HGVs is heavily cross subsidised by the private motorist whose taxes pay for the provision and maintenance of roads, whilst most of the damage is done by the heavy axle loads of HGVs. Asking private motorists if they would prefer some of their taxes to be diverted to removing HGVs off road onto rail would produce an interesting reply.

Regarding your second point. A freight only railway requires a much lesser standard of maintenance and investment in many areas, hence a lot cheaper to run. For example, I have personally witnessed hand points on the Union Pacific mainline in Utah leading into a cement works. In the UK, such an installation would have so many bells and whistles to satisfy the passenger operation as to be unaffordable.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Freight operations proceed on the railway because they pay virtually nothing for the infrastructure they use or have reserved for them. Total freight access charges are around ~£43-45m a year, only 30% higher than the track access charges paid in total by the two Open Access Operators.

That's a very interesting statistic.

I worked in rail freight marketing for, broadly, the last three decades of the 20th century. Profitability was measured by operating ratio and expressed as a percentage. It was the proportion of revenue represented by costs, so that an O.R. of 20% represented traffic where costs represented 20% of revenue. The most remunerative sector was electricity coal with an O.R. of around 20% - 25%. Construction, in which I spent my early years, usually weighed in at 45% - 55%. No bulk traffic was less than 60%, it would not be carried.

Costs were then much more specific; for instance, if a bridge on a freight-only line needed replacement the traffic had to bear the cost.

The profits from freight were used to fill the black holes in the passenger businesses' accounts. We even subsidised highly profitable Inter City by moving, free, infrastructure materials for the line upgrades they benefited from.

When the model moved to Railtrack infrastructure, the charge was raised as a rate per tonne-mile (of the total train load). They had considerable inconsistencies but were in my day far from nominal. It was difficult to appreciate the basis sometimes; for instance, a track-bashing loco would generate a very high price per tonne-mile, which of course applied not only to the loco. but also to the wagons, and the relationship between apparently similar movements was opaque. Obviously, Railtrack charges only represented the infrastructure element of costs, human and mobile resource costs still being with the freight operator.

From what you say, things changed considerably after I left; but possibly it was to give a more even playing field with road haulage. As an example of the old days, if the cost of bridge replacement (as mentioned above) made the traffic uneconomic (rate too high for the customer) it went to road. The road haulier would then have heavy vehicles driving in the same area and, if this resulted in road bridges needing replacement because of damage by heavy vehicles, the road haulier was not charged but the cost fell on the domestic property tax payer or general taxation. These taxpayers, generally, only used the roads with light vehicles such as cars, so the cost of bridge-strengthening was of no direct benefit to them.

 

[yorksrob]

Getting lorries off of the road is of great benefit to other road users and the wider public, so railfreight will always be politically popular.

However, it's not really a money spinner and it seems to need the passenger railway to subsidise its infrastructure.

 

[HSTEd]

Exactly the same can be said about road transport. The "track" for HGVs is heavily cross subsidised by the private motorist whose taxes pay for the provision and maintenance of roads, whilst most of the damage is done by the heavy axle loads of HGVs. Asking private motorists if they would prefer some of their taxes to be diverted to removing HGVs off road onto rail would produce an interesting reply.

Lorries on the roads pay a far greater portion of their infrastructure costs than freight trains do.
Lorries pay fuel duty and other associated costs, freight trains pay none of that - given that they are provided with incredibly cheap diesel.

Regarding your second point. A freight only railway requires a much lesser standard of maintenance and investment in many areas, hence a lot cheaper to run. For example, I have personally witnessed hand points on the Union Pacific mainline in Utah leading into a cement works. In the UK, such an installation would have so many bells and whistles to satisfy the passenger operation as to be unaffordable.

The US railway safety environment is rather different to ours, it is true.
But the reality is that operating in a safety case business like the UK railway is going to trend towards ever increasing safety system installations - because thati s what the safety cases have to resort to to achieve the desired level of safety.
We have an extremely intensively operated railway, it is nothing like the US where the train might be the only one for a hundred miles.

To sum up, then Lac Megantic happens, and the railway is finished.

EDIT:

To clarify, the problem is, you can relax the safety environment for freight trains to try and save costs, but if a serious incident like the Lac Megantic disaster were to occur, the political backlash would destroy the railway.
A massive risk to take for comparatively small savings.

 

[yorksrob]

And then Lac Megantic happens, and the railway is finished.

Isn't that a Jean Michelle Jarre album ?

 

[david1212]

The green / CO2 issue will not go away.

Unless there is a government policy change or significant deferral within 20 years most cars and light vans will be battery-electric. There probably will be some larger / more powerful battery-electric rigid HGV's and artic tractors but these will be short range. For even 50 miles range at 44 tonne gross weight how much battery capacity and hence both volume and weight is required? Remember that the battery weight will reduce the maximum actual load weight.

Maybe I'm wrong but I see too many issues stringing up motorways and major roads with two overhead wires like for trolleybuses even without built up areas, junctions, bridges and anything else that is awkward as every vehicle will have to have say 10 miles full load battery capacity.

Following on the priority for rail beyond the large urban areas would become freight with passengers fitted in. Road congestion would increase but as the cars would not be emitting CO2 the green box is ticked. 100 cars would consume more electricity than one train but for government policy perhaps only electricty supply would be a consideration.
Some rail routes not needed for freight could be closed which would remove the costs of either electrification or hybrid trains. Just as examples Matlock - Ambergate Junction, Stratford-upon-Avon - Tyseley and Hatton.

 

[zwk500]

Following on the priority for rail beyond the large urban areas would become freight with passengers fitted in. Road congestion would increase but as the cars would not be emitting CO2 the green box is ticked. 100 cars would consume more electricity than one train but for government policy perhaps only electricty supply would be a consideration.
Some rail routes not needed for freight could be closed which would remove the costs of either electricication or hybrid trains. Just as examples Matlock - Ambergate Junction, Stratford-upon-Avon - Tyseley and Hatton.

Both those lines are busy with passengers, and connect to lines where they are not really competing for capacity with freight. Matlock-Derby can be avoided via Castle Donington and Toton, while Stratford-Tyseley runs onto a 4-track section. Tyseley-Hatton is the only place where there's serious competition for capacity and even then there's room to 4-track that section.
You also won't see closure of passenger lines to give priority to freight for poltical reasons.

Multi-Mode locos are coming, so electrification should focus on lines with high traffic density and wiring for freight can be focused on smaller infill schemes.

 

[HSTEd]

Multi-Mode locos are coming, so electrification should focus on lines with high traffic density and wiring for freight can be focused on smaller infill schemes.

How many "high traffic density" unelectrified lines are even left?

Multi-mode locomotives kill the network effect stone dead, and I'm not sure how far we are from the "economic optimum" electrification penetration in that environment.

 

[zwk500]

How many "high traffic density" unelectrified lines are even left?

Depends what your cut-off is, but I'd say the Cross-country route, Birmingham Snow Hill lines, Chiltern lines ex-Marylebone, Bristol Area, and a fair few lines in Yorkshire and Manchester that are already scheduled as part of IRP/NPR/TRU etc. Obviously MML is already committed.

Multi-mode locomotives kill the network effect stone dead, and I'm not sure how far we are from the "economic optimum" electrification penetration in that environment.

Multi-mode doesn't kill the network affect completely, because pure electric will still have advantages, but it does significantly depress the impetus for it. Lines like Peterborough-Leicester which might have been candidates for freight-led electrification probably drop off the list, but Leicester-Birmingham still holds it's worth to be wired.

 

[david1212]

...
You also won't see closure of passenger lines to give priority to freight for political reasons. ....

I was taking the viewpoint of that if a non-urban line is not needed for freight it is not needed at all.
As to the politics if a passenger only line can not operate without subsidy regardless of what the local MP's might want the treasury could overrule.

Multi-Mode locos are coming, so electrification should focus on lines with high traffic density and wiring for freight can be focused on smaller infill schemes.

...
Multi-mode locomotives kill the network effect stone dead, and I'm not sure how far we are from the "economic optimum" electrification penetration in that environment.

Indeed Multi-Mode locos are coming but only time will tell their capability away from the wires. Battery will cover terminal work and getting onto the main network but how much more? The diesel engine power will be significantly less powerful than a class 66 or 70 then there is the green issue of long distance running on diesel.
Another issue is having both third rail and overhead on the same lines. Will a multi-mode loco running stand-alone be capable of dragging a full train from Southampton docks to just north of Basingstoke?

 

[zwk500]

I was taking the viewpoint of that if a non-urban line is not needed for freight it is not needed at all.
As to the politics if a passenger only line can not operate without subsidy regardless of what the local MP's might want the treasury could overrule.

Closure is itself extremely costly and very expensive to reverse, and mothballing doesn't really save very much money in the scheme of things. The system isn't fundamentally bloated in the way it was in the 60s, it's just operated at less than optimal efficiency. Isolated cases for certain line closures can be made, but the value of such closures would be low unless it permitted substantially smaller fleet sizes or massively simplified resignalling/remodelling projects.

Fundamentally, and quite ironically, it is the capital expenditure for major upgrades to make the railway more efficient that will be witheld.

Indeed Multi-Mode locos are coming but only time will tell their capability away from the wires. Battery will cover terminal work and getting onto the main network but how much more? The diesel engine power will be significantly less powerful than a class 66 or 70 then there is the green issue of long distance running on diesel.

It doesn't need to have a long capability away from the wires to be able to run on a vast amount of the network, especially if operators make sensible use of nodal yards.

Another issue is having both third rail and overhead on the same lines. Will a multi-mode loco running stand-alone be capable of dragging a full train from Southampton docks to just north of Basingstoke?

I see no particular reason why it wouldn't. It's about 50km, which even with 1800 tonnes on the back is not completely absurd. There's also no reason you can't have a dual-voltage loco with batteries.