West Coast freight paths vs passenger paths. How can things be improved?

[The Planner]

The solution to the freight problem is to stop it being underpowered, and insist on everything being hauled by two high power Co-Co electric locomotives on that section. The issues are starting out and getting up Shap - a 60 or 75mph freight path an hour could otherwise nicely slot into a flighted Takt. I often talk about Manchester Airport being a tail wagging a dog, but freights on the north WCML are even more so given that there's an easy and obvious solution to their eating up of paths. A single Class 66 might be cheap but is utterly unsuitable for the task.

mods note - split from here

You cannot impose that on them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You cannot impose that on them.

We need to impose it on them. Legislation, if necessary, but I'm sure it could be done by offering different contracts when the existing ones come up for renewal.

The railway is a limited resource. It cannot be squandered by the use of inappropriate haulage incapable of the task. You would never have underpowered old two-stroke diesels hauling heavy freights blocking the Vertaktung of ICEs in Germany - it simply wouldn't be countenanced. Nor would it be tolerated for Northern to be running 75mph 150s to Windermere these days however much they may want to.

The freight cannot be removed, but it needs to run using appropriate equipment to optimise the usage of such a busy line.

 

[The Planner]

We need to impose it on them. Legislation, if necessary, but I'm sure it could be done by offering different contracts when the existing ones come up for renewal.

The railway is a limited resource. It cannot be squandered by the use of inappropriate haulage incapable of the task. You would never have underpowered old two-stroke diesels hauling heavy freights blocking the Vertaktung of ICEs in Germany - it simply wouldn't be countenanced. Nor would it be tolerated for Northern to be running 75mph 150s to Windermere these days however much they may want to.

What contracts? Freight is effectively open access. Unless you completely put the Network Code in the bin then you would just end up in a legal dispute.

 

[zwk500]

The solution to the freight problem is to stop it being underpowered, and insist on everything being hauled by two high power Co-Co electric locomotives on that section. The issues are starting out and getting up Shap - a 60 or 75mph freight path an hour could otherwise nicely slot into a flighted Takt, and with enough power looping them wouldn't be a major problem. I often talk about Manchester Airport being a tail wagging a dog, but freights on the north WCML are even more so given that there's an easy and obvious solution to their eating up of paths. A single Class 66 might be cheap but is utterly unsuitable for the task.

We need to impose it on them. Legislation, if necessary, but I'm sure it could be done by offering different contracts when the existing ones come up for renewal.

If it was cheaper for the freights to be running electric, they would be doing so. As they aren't, somebody would need to pay the additional costs borne by changing locos at Crewe. Who do you propose does so?

The railway is a limited resource. It cannot be squandered by the use of inappropriate haulage incapable of the task. You would never have underpowered old two-stroke diesels hauling heavy freights blocking the Vertaktung of ICEs in Germany - it simply wouldn't be countenanced.

The Germans have 1. a lot more track and 2. a lot more knitting to avoid this problem quite as much. They also have a network geography that enables cost-effective wagonload traffic which means loco changes are much more of a marginal cost (Shunters already in place etc).

 

[Bletchleyite]

What contracts? Freight is effectively open access. Unless you completely put the Network Code in the bin then you would just end up in a legal dispute.

The contract signed between Network Rail and the freight operator for that open access.

There is no reason whatsoever why there should not be restrictions on what paths are offered and what minimum specifications of performance are required to take those paths, provided they are applied to all users of the line rather than just some.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

If it was cheaper for the freights to be running electric, they would be doing so. As they aren't, somebody would need to pay the additional costs borne by changing locos at Crewe. Who do you propose does so?

The freight operators, of course.

The Germans have 1. a lot more track and 2. a lot more knitting to avoid this problem quite as much. They also have a network geography that enables cost-effective wagonload traffic which means loco changes are much more of a marginal cost (Shunters already in place etc).

However, most freight is hauled by powerful, modern electric locomotives. We can do that bit - we already have Class 90s and you can use two, though new kit could be ordered in due course. Or if they absolutely must use old American two-stroke junk, use three.

 

[zwk500]

The contract signed between Network Rail and the freight operator for that open access.

There is no reason whatsoever why there should not be restrictions on what paths are offered and what minimum specifications of performance are required to take those paths, provided they are applied to all users of the line rather than just some.

There is - it's called the Network Code and it's a legal responsibility of Network Rail to abide by it. NR could refuse diesel-hauled paths on the basis of capacity if the passenger TOCs were to bid an incompatible timetable, but then it'd be up to the FOCs whether they rebid with electric traction or drop the flows outright.
NR could attempt to negotiate with FOCs to make electric traction palatable to them, but essentially the argument comes down to FOCs saying 'are you going to pay the extra cost' and NR saying 'erm... not really'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is - it's called the Network Code and it's a legal responsibility of Network Rail to abide by it. NR could refuse diesel-hauled paths on the basis of capacity if the passenger TOCs were to bid an incompatible timetable, but then it'd be up to the FOCs whether they rebid with electric traction or drop the flows outright.

So you're saying that Avanti, TPE and Northern could bid a clockface timetable, and the Network Code would allow NR to refuse the wasteful Class 66 paths, and the FOCs then can decide if they comply or bin it off entirely? Sounds good to me.

 

[The Planner]

So you're saying that Avanti, TPE and Northern could bid a clockface timetable, and the Network Code would allow NR to refuse the wasteful Class 66 paths, and the FOCs then can decide if they comply or bin it off entirely? Sounds good to me.

Freight would take NR to dispute, and would likely win.

 

[zwk500]

The freight operators, of course.

And if they refuse to bear that cost because, for example, it makes a flow unprofitable and simply drop the haulage contract outright? You've improved services on the Windermere branch, with it's modest usage, in exchange for shoving an awful lot more lorries on the M6 (and others).

However, most freight is hauled by powerful, modern electric locomotives. We can do that bit - we already have Class 90s and you can use two, though new kit could be ordered in due course. Or if they absolutely must use old American two-stroke junk, use three.

The issue is that it's difficult to diagram electric locos for good utilisation in the UK. And that's a problem that can only be fixed by either putting up more knitting or putting batteries/prime movers inside electric locos (ideally a lot of the former and a bit of the latter).

So you're saying that Avanti, TPE and Northern could bid a clockface timetable, and the Network Code would allow NR to refuse the wasteful Class 66 paths, and the FOCs then can decide if they comply or bin it off entirely? Sounds good to me.

If such action complied with the decision criteria, which are available in the Network Code from NR's public website. NR couldn't do it just for the sake of it. Removing paths has an established process and the FOCs get just as much a say in it as the TOCs. It would also require Avanti, TPE and Northern to get their ducks in a row so that the timetable they bid was actually a better option than today's timetable. It would take a substantial amount of planning capacity to do so, at a time when the industry generally but particularly NR have been bleeding that capacity heavily.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Freight would take NR to dispute, and would likely win.

That is ridiculous.

In that case, there needs to be reform. One for GBR to solve? The Network Code is not set in stone; any piece of legislation or things stemming from it can be changed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

And if they refuse to bear that cost because, for example, it makes a flow unprofitable and simply drop the haulage contract outright? You've improved services on the Windermere branch, with it's modest usage, in exchange for shoving an awful lot more lorries on the M6 (and others).

It's not just about the Windermere branch, it's about the whole north WCML and its hotchpotch, messy passenger service (and the impact that that has elsewhere).

If (and I know it's a big if) HS2 gets a replacement Golborne, it'll need doing anyway as that effectively adds another two fast 400m passenger paths.

The issue is that it's difficult to diagram electric locos for good utilisation in the UK. And that's a problem that can only be fixed by either putting up more knitting or putting batteries/prime movers inside electric locos (ideally a lot of the former and a bit of the latter).

Yes, bi-modes can certainly help, as would having diesels that were compatible with electrics so you'd just have both on throughout, driven from whatever was at the front. You could even in that case have the diesel powering as well, then it'd accelerate like an EMU!

 

[zwk500]

That is ridiculous.

In that case, there needs to be reform. One for GBR to solve? The Network Code is not set in stone; any piece of legislation or things stemming from it can be changed.

Be careful what you wish for. The current process has enabled FOCs to keep freight on the railway in other places that was of net benefit to the industry. If NR were allowed to just chuck FOCs out there would be significant negative impacts for passengers in other parts of the network as NR took the opportunity to get rid of infrastructure etc.

There are a number of options here - my preference, expensive as it is, would be 3-tracking to give climbing lanes (and the same for Carlisle-Carstairs). Another would be to negotiate with the FOCs for some of the costs to be covered - this would likely require NR taking back operation of Basford Hall and Mossend Yards from the FOCs (or Compensating the current operating managers) and investing in those yards to facilitate the Loco switches, stabling facilities, and staff facilities required. Another option would be to crack on with wiring freight routes so that FOCs can run electric traction throughout.

Remember that FOCs PREFER to run electric traction when they can. So if they aren't, they'll have good reasons for doing so.

 

[The Planner]

That is ridiculous.

In that case, there needs to be reform. One for GBR to solve? The Network Code is not set in stone; any piece of legislation or things stemming from it can be changed.

It isn't set in stone, that is correct, but its laborious to change, even the timetable process changes only went through with a 6-2 majority and still need ORR sign off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember that FOCs PREFER to run electric traction when they can. So if they aren't, they'll have good reasons for doing so.

Given how much diesel freight I see under the wires (like most of it) I have my doubts.

 

[zwk500]

Given how much diesel freight I see under the wires (like most of it) I have my doubts.

Have you looked at how much of the network is actually electrified? Have a look at https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ and see if you can't work out why electric traction is very rare on GB metals.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you looked at how much of the network is actually electrified? Have a look at https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ and see if you can't work out why electric traction is very rare on GB metals.

In mainland Europe they manage to do locomotive changes where required. It is still a thing for passenger too!

 

[zwk500]

In mainland Europe they manage to do locomotive changes where required. It is still a thing for passenger too!

In mainland Europe they have quite a different commercial setup. They're also gradually moving towards less loco changes - currently locos changes tend to happen at national borders in part because of incompatible electrical and signalling systems. As the multi-system locos and aligned technical standards are getting more commonplace loco changes are also lessening - e.g. Benelux services tend to operate without loco changes. Freight in Europe is also quite different economic conditions because of distance, network capability and ease of trade within the customs union.

 

[HSTEd]

What contracts? Freight is effectively open access. Unless you completely put the Network Code in the bin then you would just end up in a legal dispute.=

In that case, the Network Code is going to have to go in the bin, the railway is spending huge sums subsidising freight operators who can essentially do whatever they want and pay almost nothing for the use of enormously expensive infrastructure.

If freight operators want to use unsuitable equipment and working practices, they can pay the fully burdened commercial cost of doing so.
We can't afford to cripple the railway so they can pretend they are in the 1960s any more.

Alternatively we could just cut the Network Grant to zero.....

 

[zwk500]

In that case, the Network Code is going to have to go in the bin, the railway is spending huge sums subsidising freight operators who can do whatever they want and pay almost nothing for the use of enormously expensive infrastructure.

If freight operators want to use unsuitable equipment and working practices, they can pay the fully burdened commercial cost of doing so.
We can't afford to cripple the railway so they can pretend they are in the 1960s any more.

Alternatively we could just cut the Network Grant to zero.....

Again, be careful what you wish for with throwing the Network Code in the bin. It definitely needs revision, but there are a number of parts in the Network Code that have enabled the TOCs to protect services against proposals to change infrastructure/timetables etc.

 

[The Planner]

In that case, the Network Code is going to have to go in the bin, the railway is spending huge sums subsidising freight operators who can essentially do whatever they want and pay almost nothing for the use of enormously expensive infrastructure.

If freight operators want to use unsuitable equipment and working practices, they can pay the fully burdened commercial cost of doing so.
We can't afford to cripple the railway so they can pretend they are in the 1960s any more.

Alternatively we could just cut the Network Grant to zero.....

And I have told you what happens if you do that, lines close.

 

[HSTEd]

And I have told you what happens if you do that, lines close.

Why?
All that happens is the subsidy moves from the Network Rail column into the TOC column as the TOCs require more money to pay the higher access fees?

 

[zwk500]

Why?
All that happens is the subsidy moves from the Network Rail column into the TOC column as the TOCs require more money to pay the higher access fees?

In which case what's the point of doing it?

 

[Bertie the bus]

The solution to the freight problem is to stop it being underpowered, and insist on everything being hauled by two high power Co-Co electric locomotives on that section. The issues are starting out and getting up Shap - a 60 or 75mph freight path an hour could otherwise nicely slot into a flighted Takt, and with enough power looping them wouldn't be a major problem. I often talk about Manchester Airport being a tail wagging a dog, but freights on the north WCML are even more so given that there's an easy and obvious solution to their eating up of paths. A single Class 66 might be cheap but is utterly unsuitable for the task.

Oh dear. You talk about the tail wagging the dog with Manchester Airport and then argue huge changes should be made to WCML services so the Windermere branch can have departures at regular intervals. Calling the Windermere branch a tail is an exaggeration, it’s a docked tail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh dear. You talk about the tail wagging the dog with Manchester Airport and then argue huge changes should be made to WCML services so the Windermere branch can have departures at regular intervals. Calling the Windermere branch a tail is an exaggeration, it’s a docked tail.

To repeat, sorting out the mess that is the north WCML passenger timetable is not just of benefit to Windermere (though that is primarily the subject of this thread). It'd still be of major benefit even if you closed Windermere. It's truly dire.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It wouldn't be of major benefit at all. There is very little daytime freight on the northern section of the WCML and what there is doesn't affect passenger services. If you actually looked at the freight instead of making mostly unsubstantiated statements containing German words you would also see that when often electric hauled freight has diesels substituted it makes very little, if any, difference to the timings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It wouldn't be of major benefit at all. There is very little daytime freight on the northern section of the WCML and what there is doesn't affect passenger services. If you actually looked at the freight instead of making mostly unsubstantiated statements containing German words you would also see that when often electric hauled freight has diesels substituted it makes very little, if any, difference to the timings.

@The Planner I don't believe the above quote is correct, but what is your view? My understanding was always that the inability to bring the north WCML to a clockface timetable was due to freight paths, and @Bertie the bus is alleging otherwise. Can you confirm one way or t'other?

I can't imagine it being Avanti's choice, as it is the only part of their network that isn't near-fully clockface.

 

[zwk500]

Sure, but the capital cost of installing a new platform (and associated track, circa 500m minimum), the facilities required on it (likely a lift etc) and the loss of revenue if it eats into car park space etc will see it as a far more expensive solution than 500m or so of track to form a passing loop.

It's not just the loop though is it, it's the points, detection, signalling and everything that comes with the loop. Another platform at Oxenholme isn't going to happen either.

In terms of signalling manpower, I (perhaps wrongly) would assume that an ARS equipped route, signalled (minimally) throughout, would reduce the workload vice the time taken to release/return the token.

Carlisle isn't ARS-equipped, it's a relay-based PSB. If you have ARS you're working the line without tokens.

 

[The Planner]

Sure, but the capital cost of installing a new platform (and associated track, circa 500m minimum), the facilities required on it (likely a lift etc) and the loss of revenue if it eats into car park space etc will see it as a far more expensive solution than 500m or so of track to form a passing loop.

In terms of signalling manpower, I (perhaps wrongly) would assume that an ARS equipped route, signalled (minimally) throughout, would reduce the workload vice the time taken to release/return the token.

I doubt it very much. What is minimal? You are going to need at least 4 signals, 2 sets of S&C and likely obstacle detected crossings which has to be put in Carlisle. That itself is going to need hacking into the NX panel.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2023 ==

@The Planner I don't believe the above quote is correct, but what is your view? My understanding was always that the inability to bring the north WCML to a clockface timetable was due to freight paths, and @Bertie the bus is alleging otherwise. Can you confirm one way or t'other?

I can't imagine it being Avanti's choice, as it is the only part of their network that isn't near-fully clockface.

That and stopping patterns. A class 6 path complicates it a tad.

 

[Starmill]

There is no reason whatsoever why there should not be restrictions on what paths are offered and what minimum specifications of performance are required to take those paths, provided they are applied to all users of the line rather than just some.

The government (and thus Network Rail) are required to abide by competition law, and their own subsidy control rules. They're not allowed to rig the market in favour of their own state corporations such as Northern (and soon TPE, no doubt) to the commercial disadvantage of a private enterprise.

If you want to force the use of AC traction on particular schedules, realistically, you'll need to negotiate that with the FOCs directly. That will cost money. Though of course, I would say that it may well be money well spent.

 

[zwk500]

If you want to force the use of AC traction on particular schedules, realistically, you'll need to negotiate that with the FOCs directly. That will cost money. Though of course, I would say that it may well be money well spent.

This is an important point - if it was cheaper for the FOCs to be doing it, they'd do it themselves. If it was worth it to NR to fund it, they'd be offering to do so. The fact that it isn't being done suggests the benefits aren't as big as unlocking the whole northern WCML.
Not to say it would be pointless, but fundamentally you're going to need a lot more knitting to make it worthwhile. We're talking Felixstowe-Ely-Peterborough-Leicester-Nuneaton-Birmingham minimum. Also Didcot-Birmingham/Nuneaton, with some solution found for Southampton-Reading.

 

[Bald Rick]

Late to the party here; if the TOCs bid a clockface timetable, that prevents freight with access rights from operating, then passenger services would have to be rejected To make space for the freight.