Freight the future of the railways ?

[HSTEd]

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.

Why do passenger operations not get to have subsidy when freight operators get all the infrastructure they want effectively for free?
My own view is freight operators should pay a far greater portion of their infrastructure costs or they should get off the railway.

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?

If this becomes an issue the simple answer would just be to fit third rail shoes to the locomotives, as the Class 92 already has.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

well, it's a pretty half-baked viewpoint, particularly as the freight operation's infrastructure seems to be bank rolled by the passenger network.

 

[Greybeard33]

Why do passenger operations not get to have subsidy when freight operators get all the infrastructure they want effectively for free?
My own view is freight operators should pay a far greater portion of their infrastructure costs or they should get off the railway.

Politically, I think that subsidy of freight operators is an easier "sell" to the electorate than subsidy of passenger operations. Many voters are private motorists who perceive that HGV traffic "gets in the way" on their car journeys; other voters object to the noise and pollution of HGVs in their neighbourhoods and their local town or city. Getting more freight on to the railways is a popular policy, even if it requires taxpayer subsidy.

On the other hand, other people's cars are less vilified as a cause of congestion, because the motorist does not want any restriction on their freedom to use their own vehicle. A non-train user may regard use of their taxes to subsidise passenger trains as effectively penalising them for their choice to use road transport, and take the view that those who choose to travel by train should pay the full cost through the farebox.

A further issue is that mile for mile, the infrastructure operation and maintenance cost of a passenger railway is much higher than for a freight only line, because of the higher safety standards (e.g. TPWS, facing point locks), linespeeds, service intensity and track quality requirements.

 

[HSTEd]

Politically, I think that subsidy of freight operators is an easier "sell" to the electorate than subsidy of passenger operations. Many voters are private motorists who perceive that HGV traffic "gets in the way" on their car journeys; other voters object to the noise and pollution of HGVs in their neighbourhoods and their local town or city. Getting more freight on to the railways is a popular policy, even if it requires taxpayer subsidy.

It's a popular policy because noone knows how much it costs to get freight onto the railways - since the subsidy is hidden in the published cost of the passenger system.
Destroy the passenger system and the true subsidy cost will become obvious and the political consensus for the freight railway will melt away.

Right now the freight railway receives subsidies of hundreds of millions to billions of pounds a year with no comment, that would not occur when the passenger railway is stripped away.

A further issue is that mile for mile, the infrastructure operation and maintenance cost of a passenger railway is much higher than for a freight only line, because of the higher safety standards (e.g. TPWS, facing point locks), linespeeds, service intensity and track quality requirements.

I'm not sure how true this is, any more.

Even the US has given in and required the installation of Positive Train Control over huge portions of the US rail system, including lines with no real passenger services.
Given the huge operational and safety implications of derailments and other train control accidents, even freight trains are likely to require facing point blocks and the like in the future.
[Given that FPLs are now built into standard point machines, I doubt they are a significant cost in the modern era!]

On train speeds, higher train speeds impose higher maintenance requirements to some degree, sure, but a 10 tonne axle load multiple unit does far less track damage than a 20 tonne axle load freight train.

And whilst freight infrastructure might be cheaper unit for unit, you need a hell of a lot more of it.
For example, between Oxenholme Lake District and the Carlisle approach, if not for freight operations you'd neeed a grand total of six point machines - for the third platform and a set of crossovers at Penrith.
The freight railway imposes requirements several times that, especially with all the sidings.

 

[Greybeard33]

On train speeds, higher train speeds impose higher maintenance requirements to some degree, sure, but a 10 tonne axle load multiple unit does far less track damage than a 20 tonne axle load freight train.

But far more axles per day on a passenger line. For the extra costs of passenger infrastructure, see the freight lines that have been/are proposed to be reopened for passenger services, e.g. Okehampton, Ashington, Portishead.

And whilst freight infrastructure might be cheaper unit for unit, you need a hell of a lot more of it.
For example, between Oxenholme Lake District and the Carlisle approach, if not for freight operations you'd neeed a grand total of six point machines - for the third platform and a set of crossovers at Penrith.
The freight railway imposes requirements several times that, especially with all the sidings.

Arguably the loops between Oxenholme and Carlisle are for the benefit of the passenger trains rather than the freight. The freights don't want to be recessed, it is the expresses that want to overtake them. And far fewer block sections would be needed just for freight.

Yes, freight needs sidings, but passenger operations need all those depots and carriage sidings, with lots of point machines.

Even if all rail freight were removed throughout the country, many of the existing 3/4-track sections would still be needed for expresses to overtake stopping services. In fact, on the mixed traffic railway it is really passenger expresses that fight for paths with all other traffic. Freight can happily coexist with passenger stoppers (e.g. London Overground) on a 2-track line.

 

[HSTEd]

And far fewer block sections would be needed just for freight.

If it wasn't for the freight operators desire to stay in the 1950s, there would be no powered trackside infrastructure for blocks, because we'd probably be using on board train integrity checking without axle counters by now!

In fact, on the mixed traffic railway it is really passenger expresses that fight for paths with all other traffic.

This is becoming increasingly less true as time goes on, increasingly stopping trains can accelerate so fast that the timing loss for stopping is far lower than it once was.

Once all your trains have acceleration performance of a Class 395 or an N700S, stopping trains are only barely slower than fast trains.

Freight can happily coexist with passenger stoppers (e.g. London Overground) on a 2-track line.

They "Happily Coexist" thanks to forced reductions in frequencies. For example, post HS2 there is a clear case for the WLL to run at very high intensity to relieve connections in central London by transporting people from HS2 to Clapham Junction for access to the bulk of the southern railway system. Because of unrenumerative freight operations, that is impossible.

 

[Sonik]

Lorries on the roads pay a far greater portion of their infrastructure costs than freight trains do.

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion.

The modal shift revenue support scheme explicitly aims to level the effective subsidy given to rail freight, with that given to road hauliers, net of all costs.

If road haulage didn't get more effective subsidy, there would be no case to make the additional modal shift grant to rail freight.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion.

Because railfreight pays almost nothing towards their infrastructure cost.

They spend £42m-45m on infrastructure costs each year, that's all.
Even accounting for the difference in tonne miles, roadfreight pays far more than that in fuel duty - which obviously rail operators don't pay because they are provided cheap diesel.

If road haulage didn't get more effective subsidy, there would be no case to make the additional modal shift grant to rail freight.

The existance of a government scheme claiming this and it actually being true is rather different, and I'm not sure how explicit it is given the description of what the scheme is makes no mention of "leveling" the subsidy.

Road freight purchases something like 12 million tonnes of fuel every year, which is about 15 billion litres, almost all diesel and pays approaching £10bn a year as a result.
Sure road freight moves something like 18x as much stuff as a rail, but you are still talking about hundreds of millions of pounds of contribution.

Close to ten times what the rail freight operators deign to pay.

 

[furnessvale]

Because railfreight pays almost nothing towards their infrastructure cost.

They spend £42m-45m on infrastructure costs each year, that's all.
Even accounting for the difference in tonne miles, roadfreight pays far more than that in fuel duty - which obviously rail operators don't pay because they are provided cheap diesel.



The existance of a government scheme claiming this and it actually being true, and I'm not sure how explicit it is given the description of what the scheme is makes no mention of "leveling" the subsidy.

Road freight purchases something like 12 million tonnes of fuel every year, which is about 15 billion litres, almost all diesel and pays well over £8bn in fuel duty as a result.

Rail pays per vehicle per km. When road charging is introduced, road will do the same.