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

[GRALISTAIR]

The more expensive solution would be more and/or longer passing loops.

 

[zwk500]

The more expensive solution would be more and/or longer passing loops.

Arguably the best overall solution is "climber lanes" (ie. 3-tracked with a Slow line up the hill) since they will let the freight operate more efficiently, although if you're going to that expense you might be better off building a tunnel from Meal Bank to Shap Beck.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Assuming HS2 gets built in full and something is put in place of the Golborne link, the real capacity crunch is north of Preston.

 

[Starmill]

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

Precisely. And all parties know it too!

As I said at the start, the rights are valuable. Where the FOCs have firm rights, they aren't just going to give them up. They could be persuaded to do things differently, but will of course want something in return.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Precisely. And all parties know it too!

As I said at the start, the rights are valuable. Where the FOCs have firm rights, they aren't just going to give them up. They could be persuaded to do things differently, but will of course want something in return.

Solution big tax on diesel fuel possibly? Though it could be argued that is sledgehammer / nut.

 

[Starmill]

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).

Indeed. Some of the passenger services we're talking about here are so low in capacity that in economic terms the freight is a higher priority. The TransPennine Express services are nearly all worked by trains which have just 264 standard class and 20 first class seats. Against that a freight train may require 30 - 50 HGVs at maximum permitted weight to replace it.

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

Solution big tax on diesel fuel possibly? Though it could be argued that is sledgehammer / nut.

Assuming you mean economy-wide here rather than rail specifically? It would shift the needle I'm sure, but only a bit. Politically the current government's inclination is to cut tax on diesel anyway. A deal where the Department agree to subsidise the traction electricity for FOCs would do the job, but be expensive. There's also Mode Shift Revenue Support, which could be expanded. These are rather unlikely on cost grounds.

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

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.

This position is genuinely ridiculous. Why do you think that FOCs do what they do given the system? What's your evidence that FOCs are paying almost nothing? Furthermore, as I keep pointing out, the government cannot rig the market, as it is unlawful to do so. There must be a level playing field between state companies and private ones. Or do you actually want FOCs to be forced out of the market? Tell me, how much freight do you think would be moved by rail and by whom then?

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

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

Which lines are going to be closing then? I'd like to hear your list.

 

[Nottingham59]

I know someone here will be able to explain why it's not done on the WCML, but the official mechanism to resolve this sort of issue is to declare the section of line as Congested Infrastructure and impose supplementary access charges.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Management-of-Congested-Infrastructure-Code-of-Practice-June-2021.pdf

4.4.1 Schedule 3 of the Regulations permits a scarcity charge to be levied for the use of congested infrastructure, where this charge has been set out in the applicable Network Statement.

Currently, there are only four lines declared as congested:

• Reading to Gatwick via Redhill
• Midland Mainline (Leicester to Cricklewood via Market Harborough and Corby)
• Castlefield Junction to Machester Piccadilly East Junction inclusive (The 'Castlefield Corridor')
• West Coast Main Line South Fast Lines (Camden South Junction to Ledburn Junction Inclusive)

and NR chooses not to impose congestion charges. Perhaps someone could explain why not?

 

[HSTEd]

This position is genuinely ridiculous. Why do you think that FOCs do what they do given the system?

Because they are businesses, they care about nothing other than their specific bottom line - as the market requires.
If loading all their externalities onto the taxpayer is the best way to operate they will do it.

What's your evidence that FOCs are paying almost nothing?

Network Rail's accounts, that reveal that FOCs paid a grand total of £53m to Network Rail in 2022. Which was actually waaay up on the previous year, when they deigned to pay £45m.

This constitutes a very small fraction of Network Rail costs, and given the amount of expensive infrastructure that has businesses cases largely justified by freight capacity improvements (see Werrington Dive Under amongst others), I don't think it is remotely credible to claim that freight operators come even close to covering their costs.

Furthermore, as I keep pointing out, the government cannot rig the market, as it is unlawful to do so. There must be a level playing field between state companies and private ones. Or do you actually want FOCs to be forced out of the market? Tell me, how much freight do you think would be moved by rail and by whom then?

Freight operations that are deemed to be in the public interest could be subsidised in the same way that passenger operations are without tripping any legal restrictions at all.
In return for those subsidies they would be required to operate in a manner that was in the interests of the rail system, and thus the public, as a whole.

But there would be no more writing a blank cheque for Freight Operators to do whatever they want, regardless of consequences to the railway and public as a whole.

Which lines are going to be closing then? I'd like to hear your list.

None?
Because the primary impact of this would be to move the subsidies out of the "Network Grant" column and into the "Train Operating Company subsidies" column.
The net subsidy to the industry would not change at all?

EDIT:

In 2022, income from franchised passenger operations was £2,768m, with freight revenue being £53m. So freight revenue was about 1.9-2% of the franchised passenger figure.
There were 33.6 million freight train kilometres and 468.1 million franchised passenger train kilometres. So the freight figure was about 7.2% of the franchised passenger figure. So a franchised passenger train pays three and a half times what the freight train does per km!

Freight Revenue is less than 0.6% of the total.

 

[The Planner]

I know someone here will be able to explain why it's not done on the WCML, but the official mechanism to resolve this sort of issue is to declare the section of line as Congested Infrastructure and impose supplementary access charges.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Management-of-Congested-Infrastructure-Code-of-Practice-June-2021.pdf

Currently, there are only four lines declared as congested:

• Reading to Gatwick via Redhill
• Midland Mainline (Leicester to Cricklewood via Market Harborough and Corby)
• Castlefield Junction to Machester Piccadilly East Junction inclusive (The 'Castlefield Corridor')
• West Coast Main Line South Fast Lines (Camden South Junction to Ledburn Junction Inclusive)

and NR chooses not to impose congestion charges. Perhaps someone could explain why not?

Permits, doesnt mean it has to impose it. Note section 1.1.3 at the start and this doesnt overrule Part D of the Network Code. Declaring congested infrstructure normally entails NR having to find a solution to it. Expect that list to grow larger soon....

 

[Meerkat]

If it is really an issue then have 92s at either end ready to pull the diesels over Shap, cost covered by all users. The freights seem to be looped regularly anyway so do it then. Get them set up as rescue locos too so they can clear the line of problems quicker.

Maybe some of the research money that gets thrown about should go on a concerted effort to find a safe way of simplifying and speeding up loco changes.

 

[JonathanH]

Currently, there are only four lines declared as congested:

At what point does a line get declared as no longer congested because the rail service has been reduced back to a manageable level?

 

[driverd]

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.

Sure, but the point I was making was I'm comparison to an extra platform, the loop would be the cheaper option. An extra platform at Oxenholme would have all the same costs, with none of the timetable gains.

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

That's precisely my point.

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.

But, all the signals, points etc would be needed for a loop at Oxenholme, but with the additional complecity of integrating into the WCML signalling, which wouldn't be the case if you just added a loop. And again, you wouldn't get the timetable uplift offered by the loop.

Bare in mind the focus of my point was a comparison of what the council suggested, vs an idea posted by another user. I'm not drawing a comparison to current line usage.

 

[zwk500]

But, all the signals, points etc would be needed for a loop at Oxenholme, but with the additional complecity of integrating into the WCML signalling, which wouldn't be the case if you just added a loop. And again, you wouldn't get the timetable uplift offered by the loop.

The branch is currently controlled by Track Circuit Block from Carlisle PSB. So any intervention, whether on the branch or at Oxenholme, is going to require integration with the WCML signalling.

It's arguably easier to change things at Oxenholme, where full detection and signalling is provided, than it is to try and amend the interlocking for the branch, which just has 1 occupation berth at the top and no detection along the branch itself.

 

[driverd]

The branch is currently controlled by Track Circuit Block from Carlisle PSB. So any intervention, whether on the branch or at Oxenholme, is going to require integration with the WCML signalling.

It's arguably easier to change things at Oxenholme, where full detection and signalling is provided, than it is to try and amend the interlocking for the branch, which just has 1 occupation berth at the top and no detection along the branch itself.

Isn't it electronic token working (beyond the signalling at Oxenholme)? Not that that would make too bigger difference in terms of these ideas.

The point I would make is a change at Oxenholme (which, gut instinct says wouldn't be significantly cheaper but I don't claim to be an expert at all), wouldn't offer the same benefits (ie: being able to double frequency). Sure, you'd get more resilience in the service but I'd argue that's about the limit - so the cost:benefit ratio is much smaller.

 

[zwk500]

Isn't it electronic token working (beyond the signalling at Oxenholme)? Not that that would make too bigger difference in terms of these ideas.

Having checked the Sectional Appendix, It's OTS with a Staff instrument at Oxenholme. So a loop on the branch would require a significant intervention.

The point I would make is a change at Oxenholme (which, gut instinct says wouldn't be significantly cheaper but I don't claim to be an expert at all), wouldn't offer the same benefits (ie: being able to double frequency). Sure, you'd get more resilience in the service but I'd argue that's about the limit - so the cost:benefit ratio is much smaller.

Big question is whether adding a whole lot of new detection and equipment into the PSB is going to be cheaper than amending the existing controlled area. I doubt either BCR is going to be positive in the end.

 

[ayubdaud]

I know someone here will be able to explain why it's not done on the WCML, but the official mechanism to resolve this sort of issue is to declare the section of line as Congested Infrastructure and impose supplementary access charges.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Management-of-Congested-Infrastructure-Code-of-Practice-June-2021.pdf

Currently, there are only four lines declared as congested:

• Reading to Gatwick via Redhill
• Midland Mainline (Leicester to Cricklewood via Market Harborough and Corby)
• Castlefield Junction to Machester Piccadilly East Junction inclusive (The 'Castlefield Corridor')
• West Coast Main Line South Fast Lines (Camden South Junction to Ledburn Junction Inclusive)

and NR chooses not to impose congestion charges. Perhaps someone could explain why not?

I would have thought with the start of the Dec 22 timetable that the congested infrastructure declaration would have been removed from Castlefield corridor and WCML?

By the way, I think Wrexham to Bidston was also declared congested.

 

[Starmill]

Network Rail's accounts, that reveal that FOCs paid a grand total of £53m to Network Rail in 2022. Which was actually waaay up on the previous year, when they deigned to pay £45m.

This constitutes a very small fraction of Network Rail costs, and given the amount of expensive infrastructure that has businesses cases largely justified by freight capacity improvements (see Werrington Dive Under amongst others), I don't think it is remotely credible to claim that freight operators come even close to covering their costs.

They don't have to cover all of their costs though. You said they pay almost nothing, which clearly isn't correct. The passenger services on some lines cover a smaller proportion of their costs than that...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

But there would be no more writing a blank cheque for Freight Operators to do whatever they want, regardless of consequences to the railway and public as a whole.

They cannot do whatever they want. This is a ridiculous caricature of the position. If they apply for new rights which conflict with existing firm rights this wouldn't be granted.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

None?
Because the primary impact of this would be to move the subsidies out of the "Network Grant" column and into the "Train Operating Company subsidies" column.
The net subsidy to the industry would not change at all?

You've completely missed the point of why fixed vs variable charges are applied in the way that they currently are I'm afraid. Sweeping that away would have all sorts of negative consequences.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

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.

Is it a mess? In what way?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it a mess? In what way?

Inconsistent stopping patterns and poor connections.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Inconsistent stopping patterns and poor connections.

Is the inconsistent stopping patterns really a problem provided the stations get the frequency they need?

Agree about poor connections but as there is relatively little daytime freight over ECML north is that not more down to TOC resource than anything else (branches like the Morecambe line are built around traincrew Personal Needs Breaks etc to control costs).

 

[furnessvale]

Because they are businesses, they care about nothing other than their specific bottom line - as the market requires.
If loading all their externalities onto the taxpayer is the best way to operate they will do it.


Network Rail's accounts, that reveal that FOCs paid a grand total of £53m to Network Rail in 2022. Which was actually waaay up on the previous year, when they deigned to pay £45m.

This constitutes a very small fraction of Network Rail costs, and given the amount of expensive infrastructure that has businesses cases largely justified by freight capacity improvements (see Werrington Dive Under amongst others), I don't think it is remotely credible to claim that freight operators come even close to covering their costs.

Freight operations that are deemed to be in the public interest could be subsidised in the same way that passenger operations are without tripping any legal restrictions at all.
In return for those subsidies they would be required to operate in a manner that was in the interests of the rail system, and thus the public, as a whole.

But there would be no more writing a blank cheque for Freight Operators to do whatever they want, regardless of consequences to the railway and public as a whole.


None?
Because the primary impact of this would be to move the subsidies out of the "Network Grant" column and into the "Train Operating Company subsidies" column.
The net subsidy to the industry would not change at all?

EDIT:

In 2022, income from franchised passenger operations was £2,768m, with freight revenue being £53m. So freight revenue was about 1.9-2% of the franchised passenger figure.
There were 33.6 million freight train kilometres and 468.1 million franchised passenger train kilometres. So the freight figure was about 7.2% of the franchised passenger figure. So a franchised passenger train pays three and a half times what the freight train does per km!

Freight Revenue is less than 0.6% of the total.

I'll accept your proposal that rail freight should not receive any subsidy, provided that simultaneously all subsidy is removed from road freight. Then let battle commence on a truly level playing field.

 

[Ken H]

Why do anythin on Preston - Carlisle via west coast main line. Just send the freights via Blea Moor

 

[Northumbriana]

What is a flighted takt?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is the inconsistent stopping patterns really a problem provided the stations get the frequency they need?

They pose issues for connections to popular destinations, be that the Windermere branch itself, the buses at the end of it, the buses to Keswick etc. The argument for clockface is really no different to anywhere else, and it's the only bit of the WCML that isn't proper clockface.

Agree about poor connections but as there is relatively little daytime freight over ECML north is that not more down to TOC resource than anything else (branches like the Morecambe line are built around traincrew Personal Needs Breaks etc to control costs).

With regard to Morecambe, you have the incoming Leeds services which can be slotted into clockface slots to allow for PNBs for staff on the shuttle service. Or you could just leave a few gaps. At present it's a total hotchpotch which really devalues it.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

They pose issues for connections to popular destinations, be that the Windermere branch itself, the buses at the end of it, the buses to Keswick etc. The argument for clockface is really no different to anywhere else, and it's the only bit of the WCML that isn't proper clockface.



With regard to Morecambe, you have the incoming Leeds services which can be slotted into clockface slots to allow for PNBs for staff on the shuttle service. Or you could just leave a few gaps. At present it's a total hotchpotch which really devalues it.

The crew on trains from Leeds generally need a PNB on arrival so that won’t really help with the branch shuttle.

WCML north has never really been clockface as Euston services only ever usually serve 2/3 stations between Preston and Carlisle to balance journey time v connectivity.

 

[Starmill]

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.

Worth noting that it's going to be explicitly in GBR's mission to grow the rail freight industry. The industry has been lobbying for a target of tripling traffic by 2050. Your proposals would lead to shrinking of the rail freight industry.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

At what point does a line get declared as no longer congested because the rail service has been reduced back to a manageable level?

It's to do with applications to use it so potentially never if there are more new applications.

 

[Jack Hay]

Assuming HS2 gets built in full and something is put in place of the Golborne link, the real capacity crunch is north of Preston.

It's an aside from this thread, but no, that's not quite right. One of the problems with the Golborne Link was that whilst it bypassed the two track section of railway from Winsford to Weaver Junction, it did nothing to relieve the two track section north of Wigan. Thus the amount of extra traffc that could be carried by construction of the Golborne Link was not very high, owing to the Wigan bottleneck, and as the Link also led to HS2 trains bypassing Warrington (a very big town, population 300,000 approx.) with likely loss of revenue, my guess is that the business case for the Golborne Link was poor or even negative. I agree that the two-track stretch north of Preston is busy too, but the one north of Wigan is busier.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Worth noting that it's going to be explicitly in GBR's mission to grow the rail freight industry. The industry has been lobbying for a target of tripling traffic by 2050. Your proposals would lead to shrinking of the rail freight industry.

I'm not talking about removing any freight. Indeed, if suitably powerful electric locomotives were used so a 75mph train can cover the whole north WCML at a constant 75mph, then you'd get MORE freight paths in, not fewer, by flighting them.

There'd be an argument to say that you could subsidise banking locomotive provision, but it is certainly not acceptable to waste paths simply because you can't be bothered using an appropriate locomotive. As I said, Northern bidding a 75mph Sprinter path to Windermere would no longer be accepted, so this shouldn't either.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Feb 2023 ==

WCML north has never really been clockface as Euston services only ever usually serve 2/3 stations between Preston and Carlisle to balance journey time v connectivity.

That's a similar argument, though, to the way Milton Keynes used to have random stops to all WCML destinations. The VHF timetable standardised it to the Manchester, North Wales and Birmingham once an hour each, and while it did result in some changes being needed I would say overall it worked better.

I think with a bit of thought a good quality 2 hour pattern could be developed that would give good connectivity to all stations. The skip stopping would tend to be Oxenholme and Penrith (Lancaster justifies all trains anyway, it's only ever been missed out for pathing reasons and I think everything stops at the moment). Thus if you had Windermere and Barrow back on the old 2 hour fast/slow pattern, which worked very well indeed, you would have the fast Scottish services stop at Oxenholme for a connection in the hour when the Windermere didn't extend back south, and in the hour when they did the timed connection would be at either Preston or Lancaster (or both). In the hour when the fast didn't do Oxenholme it'd do Penrith. The TPE is a regional express service so should arguably always do all of them. The Birmingham I guess would do the opposite of what the Glasgow did in any given hour.

The other option with Penrith would be that you don't stop the fast Glasgow at all, because the connection via Manchester isn't that much slower than a direct and is often a lot cheaper anyway, though I think that may be too political. It looks likely to happen post HS2 though.

Someone asked above about flighting - this is that the fast passenger services all run close together in the hour to keep the other half-ish of the hour for freight.

 

[The Planner]

Flighting freight is a lot harder than flighting passenger paths. You generally need the infrastructure to hide them first.

 

[Greybeard33]

The skip stopping would tend to be Oxenholme and Penrith (Lancaster justifies all trains anyway, it's only ever been missed out for pathing reasons and I think everything stops at the moment).

In the May 23 timetable, one southbound Avanti daily skips Lancaster:

Realtime Trains | 9M59 1557 Glasgow Central to London Euston | 23/06/2023

Real-time train running information for 9M59 1557 departure from Glasgow Central to London Euston on 23/06/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk