Did BR ever consider using container flats for all freight?

[montyburns56]

I came across this picture of a COBRA train which used containers to carry coke and it got me wondering if BR ever thought about using the container concept for all/most freight trains? I know that there have been steel coil flats/tanktainers/open wagons etc. used on container wagons, but did BR ever think about going all in with the idea? I know that there would still be the need for the odd specialist wagon type, but I should imagine that perhaps about 75%?? of freight could have used interchangeable bodies on flat wagons?

46038 Normanton

A working of the empties on the COBRA service. One of the Normanton Brick works is clagging nicely. St Johns colliery can be spotted over the hill. Still in place is the early station footbridge and 2 BR vans parked up for the playing of cards and reading of newspapers.

flic.kr

 

[furnessvale]

I came across this picture of a COBRA train which used containers to carry coke and it got me wondering if BR ever thought about using the container concept for all/most freight trains? I know that there have been steel coil flats/tanktainers/open wagons etc. used on container wagons, but did BR ever think about going all in with the idea? I know that there would still be the need for the odd specialist wagon type, but I should imagine that perhaps about 75%?? of freight could have used interchangeable bodies on flat wagons?

46038 Normanton

A working of the empties on the COBRA service. One of the Normanton Brick works is clagging nicely. St Johns colliery can be spotted over the hill. Still in place is the early station footbridge and 2 BR vans parked up for the playing of cards and reading of newspapers.

flic.kr

I have considered this in the past, but to be honest, I am much more interested in utilising the space generated by lower deck height container wagons within the body of a conventional wagon.

Considering the UK has the most restricted loading gauge in Europe, it amazes me that the deck height of a standard wagon, eg a VGA or a ferrywagon is so high, severely restricting the space available for payload.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I came across this picture of a COBRA train which used containers to carry coke and it got me wondering if BR ever thought about using the container concept for all/most freight trains? I know that there have been steel coil flats/tanktainers/open wagons etc. used on container wagons, but did BR ever think about going all in with the idea? I know that there would still be the need for the odd specialist wagon type, but I should imagine that perhaps about 75%?? of freight could have used interchangeable bodies on flat wagons?

46038 Normanton

A working of the empties on the COBRA service. One of the Normanton Brick works is clagging nicely. St Johns colliery can be spotted over the hill. Still in place is the early station footbridge and 2 BR vans parked up for the playing of cards and reading of newspapers.

flic.kr

Very simply, "no". Hopper wagons are ideal for most bulk materials - being quick and cheap to both load and unload. This is obviously incompatible with a 'deck' or 'spine' under the load. As I recall the COBRA containers were designed as 'tippers', with end doors. They could only be discharged by being transferred to a road vehicle with a tipper chassis. This was OK (if slightly expensive) for smaller, non-rail-connected customers needing the odd load of coke but hardly relevant for block train movements to a power station, steelworks, etc.

Whilst the low floor of some container flats undoubtedly has some benefits in terms of cubic capacity within the gauge it most definitely comes at a price in terms of maintenance of small wheel sets, braking issues and higher track wear.

 

[edwin_m]

I have considered this in the past, but to be honest, I am much more interested in utilising the space generated by lower deck height container wagons within the body of a conventional wagon.

Considering the UK has the most restricted loading gauge in Europe, it amazes me that the deck height of a standard wagon, eg a VGA or a ferrywagon is so high, severely restricting the space available for payload.

The space below solebar level would have to be narrower due to the tapering of the gauge below platform level, which probably makes it less useful. There were some big vans for Rover that used this space - I think a piece of the floor that lowered into it - but they were taken out of use some years back and converted to timber carriers or scrapped.

Hoppers do use some of the volume below the solebar for cargo, but have to put the brake gear elsewhere. This is possible because the sloping end of the hopper leaves some dead space, but might be more awkward on vans for general goods.

 

[furnessvale]

The space below solebar level would have to be narrower due to the tapering of the gauge below platform level, which probably makes it less useful. There were some big vans for Rover that used this space - I think a piece of the floor that lowered into it - but they were taken out of use some years back and converted to timber carriers or scrapped.

Hoppers do use some of the volume below the solebar for cargo, but have to put the brake gear elsewhere. This is possible because the sloping end of the hopper leaves some dead space, but might be more awkward on vans for general goods.

I was not thinking of going the whole hog like the Rover high cubes. Just looking at a standard Freightliner flat, deck height 1m. It can carry a container 2.5m wide and has a deck height at least 150mm lower than standard.

It's all too late now but I do wonder whether such a deck height would have been useful on VGAs for example.

 

[edwin_m]

I was not thinking of going the whole hog like the Rover high cubes. Just looking at a standard Freightliner flat, deck height 1m. It can carry a container 2.5m wide and has a deck height at least 150mm lower than standard.

It's all too late now but I do wonder whether such a deck height would have been useful on VGAs for example.

One issue might be that small wheels are limited in axle load. Containers are fairly light - but I take you point that maybe something like a pallet van could have done this.

 

[furnessvale]

One issue might be that small wheels are limited in axle load. Containers are fairly light - but I take you point that maybe something like a pallet van could have done this.

Yes, that is why I confined my thoughts to FGA/FFA type wagons. If my memory serves me right, these allow 17.5t axle load at 75mph. Could this rise to a better axle load at 60mph?

 

[furnessvale]

It appears that Germany is looking at the concept. Perhaps this topic needs moving from history to "future"?

Modular multi-function wagons on test

GERMANY: Trials have begun with a modular platform wagon that can be adapted for use with a variety of cargoes. In a joint development programme called M2, DB Cargo and wagon leasing group VTG have completed initial dynamic tests with the first vehicles and will now commence noise and static...

www.railwaygazette.com

 

[montyburns56]

Very simply, "no". Hopper wagons are ideal for most bulk materials - being quick and cheap to both load and unload. This is obviously incompatible with a 'deck' or 'spine' under the load. As I recall the COBRA containers were designed as 'tippers', with end doors. They could only be discharged by being transferred to a road vehicle with a tipper chassis. This was OK (if slightly expensive) for smaller, non-rail-connected customers needing the odd load of coke but hardly relevant for block train movements to a power station, steelworks, etc.

Whilst the low floor of some container flats undoubtedly has some benefits in terms of cubic capacity within the gauge it most definitely comes at a price in terms of maintenance of small wheel sets, braking issues and higher track wear.

I get that there would still have to be some specialist wagons such as hoppers etc, but I was thinking more about general goods wagons. Plus they could be used for short term customers such as the aforementioned coke loads and then used for other traffic when not required. A lot of wagons have been rebuilt with new bodies over the years and having wagons with a standard reusable chassis would save a lot of the cost.

 

[Spartacus]

I get that there would still have to be some specialist wagons such as hoppers etc, but I was thinking more about general goods wagons. Plus they could be used for short term customers such as the aforementioned coke loads and then used for other traffic when not required. A lot of wagons have been rebuilt with new bodies over the years and having wagons with a standard reusable chassis would save a lot of the cost.

Trouble is to create a standard chassis you would have to make a series of compromises that would negatively effect both the ability to carry other loads. Want it to carry heavy bulk loads? Then it’s going to have to have a heavy, bulky chassis, and that’s going to be expensive, and impact on the size of things you can put on it. With typical British loading gauges that could be a very big problem. It’s no good it being able to carry cars if it can only carry them single deck instead of double and you have to run two trains instead of one.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

One of the key issues on containerisation is the provision of lifting facillities - large sunk costs at Ports / Terminals in the 1960's on first Drott and then Stothert&Pitt cranes etc (other suppliers were available)

"Front loaders" came in a bit later , certainly Felixstowe and other container depots had them in the early 1980's , - BR / FLL looked hard at a rail / road transfer crane on a special rail wagon , (some firm based in Shepton Mallet I think) - but again costs were an issue. As they were for front loaders , especially those for loaded containers as opposed to lightweight empty boxes.

 

[montyburns56]

Trouble is to create a standard chassis you would have to make a series of compromises that would negatively effect both the ability to carry other loads. Want it to carry heavy bulk loads? Then it’s going to have to have a heavy, bulky chassis, and that’s going to be expensive, and impact on the size of things you can put on it. With typical British loading gauges that could be a very big problem. It’s no good it being able to carry cars if it can only carry them single deck instead of double and you have to run two trains instead of one.

Well they could have two different types of chassis for high or low mass loads and as for cars well that's another specialist type of vehicle as they have often have low deck wagons, but there are quite a few single deck wagons for vehicles.

 

[montyburns56]

One of the key issues on containerisation is the provision of lifting facillities - large sunk costs at Ports / Terminals in the 1960's on first Drott and then Stothert&Pitt cranes etc (other suppliers were available)

"Front loaders" came in a bit later , certainly Felixstowe and other container depots had them in the early 1980's , - BR / FLL looked hard at a rail / road transfer crane on a special rail wagon , (some firm based in Shepton Mallet I think) - but again costs were an issue. As they were for front loaders , especially those for loaded containers as opposed to lightweight empty boxes.

The idea isn't so much about removing the loads, it's more about having standardized wagon chassis that can be used for various types of traffic. For example a palletised load can just be removed with a forklift even if the van body is sat on a container wagon chassis.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The idea isn't so much about removing the loads, it's more about having standardized wagon chassis that can be used for various types of traffic. For example a palletised load can just be removed with a forklift even if the van body is sat on a container wagon chassis.

So we are now talking about some bespoke 'van' bodies, presumably with side doors, rather than standard ISO containers (which are generally designed with one set of end doors). But to gain any real benefit of 'convertability' these bodies would still have to have ISO lifting points, be strong enough to be stackable, etc.

Such specialised kit for the body seems to be at odds with the supposed benefits of a standardised chassis. The range of suitable traffics seems very limited to me. Quite a 'niche' idea really.

 

[furnessvale]

So we are now talking about some bespoke 'van' bodies, presumably with side doors, rather than standard ISO containers (which are generally designed with one set of end doors). But to gain any real benefit of 'convertibility' these bodies would still have to have ISO lifting points, be strong enough to be stackable, etc.

Such specialised kit for the body seems to be at odds with the supposed benefits of a standardised chassis. The range of suitable traffics seems very limited to me. Quite a 'niche' idea really.

Be interesting to see how Germany gets on with the idea I mentioned in #8.

 

[edwin_m]

Getting a bit towards this concept when the HEA hoppers became redundant after the demise of coal distribution traffic, and many of them were re-bodied as MEA box wagons.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Getting a bit towards this concept when the HEA hoppers became redundant after the demise of coal distribution traffic, and many of them were re-bodied as MEA box wagons.

Re-using a chassis (or just bogies, brake gear and so forth) is quite common. Recent 'cut-and-shut' work to adapt long bogie medium density coal hoppers into shorter high density stone hoppers is another example. In the past some redundant petroleum tanker frames have been used for stone wagons too.
But rather different from pre-meditated 'intermodal flats for everything'.

 

[30907]

Be interesting to see how Germany gets on with the idea I mentioned in #8.

Which seems to be about a modular chassis - or underframe as we used to call it. So economy of production rather than flexibility once in use, if I've understood the report correctly.

 

[CW2]

In brief, intermodal trains tend to be faster, lower axle load, higher load bed, restricted routes because of gauge.
Block trains can be slower, heavier axle load, higher capacity.
Bulk movement of raw materials is ideally suited to bulk trainload in high-capacity wagons.
Movement of finished products is better suited to intermodal solutions.
There's nothing to be gained and a lote to lose by trying to impose a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

[montyburns56]

So we are now talking about some bespoke 'van' bodies, presumably with side doors, rather than standard ISO containers (which are generally designed with one set of end doors). But to gain any real benefit of 'convertability' these bodies would still have to have ISO lifting points, be strong enough to be stackable, etc.

Such specialised kit for the body seems to be at odds with the supposed benefits of a standardised chassis. The range of suitable traffics seems very limited to me. Quite a 'niche' idea really.

Well they wouldn't necessarily have to be stackable and they could just modify existing container designs to have side loading doors. BR have previously had curtain sided containers so it's not a new idea.

Stobart Rail Shipping Container

Thurrock Services - 23-06-2012

flic.kr

 

[Dr Hoo]

Well they wouldn't necessarily have to be stackable and they could just modify existing container designs to have side loading doors. BR have previously had curtain sided containers so it's not a new idea.

Stobart Rail Shipping Container

Thurrock Services - 23-06-2012

flic.kr

OK, they would HAVE to be stackable but if the aim was to have a flexible fleet that could be tactically re-purposed it would be sensible to optimise storage of spare bodies. Also, by the time you've got top corner castings for standard lifting it's not that difficult to make the units stackable.

Curtain-siders are not particularly suitable for traditional wagonload van traffic that is going to spend ages hanging around in yards and sidings. The security issues are rather different from a block intermodal train running more-or-less directly between high security terminals.

As I have tried to convey, this still sounds like a niche 'improvement' to a vaguely-defined problem that has its own downsides.