Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
More than likely, the solution is not going to involve railways much, except on the periphery.
Are there any countries in the world doing any substantial proportion of Goods distribution by rail, with less than 500 mile haul? Not talking about raw materials.
I think from my perspective, a lot of the issues with moving freight from road to rail comes from many things including but not limited to
1. Distributors not having a knowledge on how to make Rail freight work. It includes working with another company and most companies seem to try and keep as much internal logistics within the company and not include 3rd parties.
2. It adds a layer into the overall transportation of goods. Why use trucks to a container port to then use trains across the country to then move it back onto a truck. It's simpler for companies to keep the loads on trucks.
3. Trucks have a lot more flexibility in that they can drop off en route if needs be.
4. If you look at the routes on a map, your cargo could be going miles off course (to get to a container port and get back from
5. Curtainsiders are much more suited than containers when it comes to some loading/unloading areas. Containers are 99% front or rear load but of course, curtainsiders you park up and you just unload at the side with forklifts and you don't need any ramps. Containers (based on the fact most trucks hauling skeleton trainers don't have container lifting equipment and there is no rear lift) you need a ramp to get forklifts up to the container or you need a level dock.
6. Containers are generally suited to longer distances and so you would be purchasing them for a specific use. Trucks and trailers are more free as they are suitable for longer distance and then finish that trip and then go onto a local multi drop.
7. The distance to inland container ports makes it hard for many companies to make it work.
I think one of the final and key points is most companies see transporting good as 'why fix what isn't broken' and by that I of course mean if trucks work, why invest a lot of money into moving freight onto rail when instead, you could just keep what system you have going.
I feel like our rail freight companies are not great at encouraging new customers onto the railways for domestic flows or non container port flows. They seem to just be happy winning contracts from existing railway customers and expanding with some of the containers from ports. The way they promote their services as well on social media and through specific rail freight groups to me is just a useless exercise. Targeting people who are already of the same mindset is a bit useless and I would say that they need to instead be targeting new customers and trying to adapt to work with those new customers. Someone who is already seeing the benefits is much more likely to naturally expand their partnership with you without any nudging compared to a new customer who will need a lot more work to help encourage and get them to see the benefits. I can only speak from what I can see as an outsider but there seems to be a lot more focus on keeping existing contracts and winning existing rail contracts than trying to encourage brand new customers onto the network.
I think from my perspective, a lot of the issues with moving freight from road to rail comes from many things including but not limited to
1. Distributors not having a knowledge on how to make Rail freight work. It includes working with another company and most companies seem to try and keep as much internal logistics within the company and not include 3rd parties.
2. It adds a layer into the overall transportation of goods. Why use trucks to a container port to then use trains across the country to then move it back onto a truck. It's simpler for companies to keep the loads on trucks.
3. Trucks have a lot more flexibility in that they can drop off en route if needs be.
4. If you look at the routes on a map, your cargo could be going miles off course (to get to a container port and get back from
5. Curtainsiders are much more suited than containers when it comes to some loading/unloading areas. Containers are 99% front or rear load but of course, curtainsiders you park up and you just unload at the side with forklifts and you don't need any ramps. Containers (based on the fact most trucks hauling skeleton trainers don't have container lifting equipment and there is no rear lift) you need a ramp to get forklifts up to the container or you need a level dock.
6. Containers are generally suited to longer distances and so you would be purchasing them for a specific use. Trucks and trailers are more free as they are suitable for longer distance and then finish that trip and then go onto a local multi drop.
7. The distance to inland container ports makes it hard for many companies to make it work.
I think one of the final and key points is most companies see transporting good as 'why fix what isn't broken' and by that I of course mean if trucks work, why invest a lot of money into moving freight onto rail when instead, you could just keep what system you have going.
I feel like our rail freight companies are not great at encouraging new customers onto the railways for domestic flows or non container port flows. They seem to just be happy winning contracts from existing railway customers and expanding with some of the containers from ports. The way they promote their services as well on social media and through specific rail freight groups to me is just a useless exercise. Targeting people who are already of the same mindset is a bit useless and I would say that they need to instead be targeting new customers and trying to adapt to work with those new customers. Someone who is already seeing the benefits is much more likely to naturally expand their partnership with you without any nudging compared to a new customer who will need a lot more work to help encourage and get them to see the benefits. I can only speak from what I can see as an outsider but there seems to be a lot more focus on keeping existing contracts and winning existing rail contracts than trying to encourage brand new customers onto the network.
I think there are other issues too -
8. A perception that the railways are unreliable, that delays caused by signal failures, locomotive failures, overhead line faults, trespassers, derailments and other incidents are magnified out of proportion to comparable incidents on the road network, where the incident will directly affect one or two loads only and diversion can be set up far easier and with much less delay. How long has it taken to re-open the line at Carmont? Inconceivable on the road network.
9. A perception that control over the load is being given away to railway management and railway trade unions, whose priorities may not be the same as that of the consignor or consignee. This feeling of loss of control is completely different than when dealing with a road haulage contractor, and certainly an 'own account' trucking operation.
The concepts of 'there is no path available' and passengers taking precedence over freight at times of disruption [to the extent that this exists] simply do not exist on the road network. The bad press of passenger operations, and the rhetoric of the railway Trade Unions does not help this perception at all.
I think from my perspective, a lot of the issues with moving freight from road to rail comes from many things including but not limited to
1. Distributors not having a knowledge on how to make Rail freight work. It includes working with another company and most companies seem to try and keep as much internal logistics within the company and not include 3rd parties.
2. It adds a layer into the overall transportation of goods. Why use trucks to a container port to then use trains across the country to then move it back onto a truck. It's simpler for companies to keep the loads on trucks.
3. Trucks have a lot more flexibility in that they can drop off en route if needs be.
4. If you look at the routes on a map, your cargo could be going miles off course (to get to a container port and get back from
5. Curtainsiders are much more suited than containers when it comes to some loading/unloading areas. Containers are 99% front or rear load but of course, curtainsiders you park up and you just unload at the side with forklifts and you don't need any ramps. Containers (based on the fact most trucks hauling skeleton trainers don't have container lifting equipment and there is no rear lift) you need a ramp to get forklifts up to the container or you need a level dock.
6. Containers are generally suited to longer distances and so you would be purchasing them for a specific use. Trucks and trailers are more free as they are suitable for longer distance and then finish that trip and then go onto a local multi drop.
7. The distance to inland container ports makes it hard for many companies to make it work.
I think one of the final and key points is most companies see transporting good as 'why fix what isn't broken' and by that I of course mean if trucks work, why invest a lot of money into moving freight onto rail when instead, you could just keep what system you have going.
I feel like our rail freight companies are not great at encouraging new customers onto the railways for domestic flows or non container port flows. They seem to just be happy winning contracts from existing railway customers and expanding with some of the containers from ports. The way they promote their services as well on social media and through specific rail freight groups to me is just a useless exercise. Targeting people who are already of the same mindset is a bit useless and I would say that they need to instead be targeting new customers and trying to adapt to work with those new customers. Someone who is already seeing the benefits is much more likely to naturally expand their partnership with you without any nudging compared to a new customer who will need a lot more work to help encourage and get them to see the benefits. I can only speak from what I can see as an outsider but there seems to be a lot more focus on keeping existing contracts and winning existing rail contracts than trying to encourage brand new customers onto the network.
You make some valid points, and I would comment as follows -
1) This is valid. The railway success is not well known, however a large amount of retailer logistics is done by 3PL - often in retailer livery.
2) Utilisation of trucks needs to increase. One way to do this is to use on local work, doing more collections / deliveries per day and leaving the long distance haul to the train.
3) This is valid, but full loads from point A to point B are very common. Often 200-300 miles.
4) Inland terminals do need to be more common, and several new ones have opened in the last few years.
5) Curtainside rail containers are operating today for several companies including large retailers.
6) This happens with rail units and forms the basis of the return load. Short haul by rail (under 100 miles) is working today and operating daily
7) In part this is true, from the south west for example.
New customers have been added to several new services in the last few years including well know retailers, particularly through 3PLs.
Keeping existing contracts is essential, with new customers always welcome.
I think we have to accept that there are serious challenges in road freight, but road freight is essential to the first and final mile of an intermodal journey. It won't work between Birmingham and Coventry, but it does work today across many routes from Midlands to London/Wales/Scotland/North East, Liverpool to Scotland, central belt Scotland to North Scotland as examples.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I think there are other issues too -
8. A perception that the railways are unreliable, that delays caused by signal failures, locomotive failures, overhead line faults, trespassers, derailments and other incidents are magnified out of proportion to comparable incidents on the road network, where the incident will directly affect one or two loads only and diversion can be set up far easier and with much less delay. How long has it taken to re-open the line at Carmont? Inconceivable on the road network.
9. A perception that control over the load is being given away to railway management and railway trade unions, whose priorities may not be the same as that of the consignor or consignee. This feeling of loss of control is completely different than when dealing with a road haulage contractor, and certainly an 'own account' trucking operation.
The concepts of 'there is no path available' and passengers taking precedence over freight at times of disruption [to the extent that this exists] simply do not exist on the road network. The bad press of passenger operations, and the rhetoric of the railway Trade Unions does not help this perception at all.
Perception is absolutely critical to this conversation. The perception of many is that rail doesn't work, when it fact it does.
I agree the the tragic events we have seen recently take too long to recover from. However, with 1,770 reported road deaths. 26,610 people killed or seriously injured in 2019 i think we should recognise that we would see much more distressing news reporting if each of these events were reported in the same way. Road delays are only reported locally, or when subject to major disruption such as fires / blocked with snow/flooding.
We love to criticise rail transport for being delayed, yet I dont believe we compare our road journeys in the same way. I wonder how many travellers expect to arrive to the minute on a car journey, and for those that do how many times is this achieved. Losing time on a road journey is a regular thing for me, mainly due to congestion, an incident, breakdown etc. In this example there is also no where to go for compensation.
A lot of railway operations are now organised through 3PLs, and the railway operators are held to perfomance contracts. Unions have generally been supportive of bringing new customers to rail in order to support employment.
Think you mean Carbon Dioxide, I would hope neither are producing large amounts of carbon. The engines may be older but larger engines often have lower compression ratios meaning less NOx and also they're more likely to be running at a constant speed in a loco rather than cycling reducing emissions further. Maybe a comparison is needed?
Think you mean Carbon Dioxide, I would hope neither are producing large amounts of carbon. The engines may be older but larger engines often have lower compression ratios meaning less NOx and also they're more likely to be running at a constant speed in a loco rather than cycling reducing emissions further. Maybe a comparison is needed?
Think you mean Carbon Dioxide, I would hope neither are producing large amounts of carbon. The engines may be older but larger engines often have lower compression ratios meaning less NOx and also they're more likely to be running at a constant speed in a loco rather than cycling reducing emissions further. Maybe a comparison is needed?
No, they are appalling in terms of particulates and other pollutants because they are fundamentally engines designed in the 50s before anyone had any care about atmospheric pollution from such engines.
Even the comparatively 'modern' Class 66 has a two stroke diesel engine from the 80s.
If you've ever seen a Class 66 trying tom ove a heavy train, it looks like a steam engine because of the amount of smoke pouring from the exhaust
RSSB says 40% of the engines on the network are not certified to any emissions standard at all
Once again, your hyperbole does your cause no good.
Yes, some individual locos can be excessively smokey, but not every loco and not to match a steam engine.
Given that this heavy train to which you refer is replacing 76 maximum weight HGVs, the pollution emitted by each HGV has to be multiplied by 76 to make a fair comparison with a diesel loco. This is before we consider railfreight use of electric locos, or the widespread use by the road haulage industry of emissions cheat devices which multiply actual emissions by so called clean HGVs by a factor of 20x.
Once again, your hyperbole does your cause no good.
Yes, some individual locos can be excessively smokey, but not every loco and not to match a steam engine.
Given that this heavy train to which you refer is replacing 76 maximum weight HGVs, the pollution emitted by each HGV has to be multiplied by 76 to make a fair comparison with a diesel loco. This is before we consider railfreight use of electric locos, or the widespread use by the road haulage industry of emissions cheat devices which multiply actual emissions by so called clean HGVs by a factor of 20x.
Saying a small fraction of lorries subvert emissions requirements therefore the railway should not be bound by them at all is rather absurd.
As to railfreight use of electric locomotives that is rare and only becoming more so.
Rail freight companies don't really care about their emissions, they can just hide behind grandfather rights and laugh all the way to the bank.
Euro VII is coming, and all the older lorries in the fleet get replaced rather more rapidly than rail companies deign to replace obsolete junkers.
There are apparently Class 37s still running around for god's sake.
There should be no pre 1990 diesel locomotives in service at all.
And all pre 2000 ones should be on the way out of the door soon.
Saying a small fraction of lorries subvert emissions requirements therefore the railway should not be bound by them at all is rather absurd.
As to railfreight use of electric locomotives that is rare and only becoming more so.
Rail freight companies don't really care about their emissions, they can just hide behind grandfather rights and laugh all the way to the bank.
Euro VII is coming, and all the older lorries in the fleet get replaced rather more rapidly than rail companies deign to replace obsolete junkers.
There are apparently Class 37s still running around for god's sake.
There should be no pre 1990 diesel locomotives in service at all.
And all pre 2000 ones should be on the way out of the door soon.
Why are you getting in such a twist about 37s? The remaining ones are all on niche duties such as infrastructure monitoring, nuclear flask and special duties. They make up a small fraction of the freight locomotive fleet. Smaller, in fact, than the 1 in 13 number you say is "functionally negligible".
No, they are appalling in terms of particulates and other pollutants because they are fundamentally engines designed in the 50s before anyone had any care about atmospheric pollution from such engines.
Even the comparatively 'modern' Class 66 has a two stroke diesel engine from the 80s.
If you've ever seen a Class 66 trying tom ove a heavy train, it looks like a steam engine because of the amount of smoke pouring from the exhaust
RSSB says 40% of the engines on the network are not certified to any emissions standard at all
Visible smoke isn't actually an issue it's the finer particulates that you can't see that cause respiratory issues. The engines may not be certified but has anyone tested them? My argument was there are no actual figures for comparison. I'm not trying to say old engines are clean but wanted to see a comparison.
Saying a small fraction of lorries subvert emissions requirements therefore the railway should not be bound by them at all is rather absurd.
As to railfreight use of electric locomotives that is rare and only becoming more so.
Rail freight companies don't really care about their emissions, they can just hide behind grandfather rights and laugh all the way to the bank.
Euro VII is coming, and all the older lorries in the fleet get replaced rather more rapidly than rail companies deign to replace obsolete junkers.
There are apparently Class 37s still running around for god's sake.
There should be no pre 1990 diesel locomotives in service at all.
And all pre 2000 ones should be on the way out of the door soon.
Why are you getting in such a twist about 37s? The remaining ones are all on niche duties such as infrastructure monitoring, nuclear flask and special duties. They make up a small fraction of the freight locomotive fleet. Smaller, in fact, than the 1 in 13 number you say is "functionally negligible".
Because they are symptomatic of the railway's arrogance.
They should be allowed to do whatever they want and everyone should just suck it up and continuing pouring money into the industry for their convenience.
There is no real reason for an engine from the 60s to be anywhere except in a museum.
I wonder if they would still be in use if railways didn't have access to such cheap diesel.
I have no evidence that those units will ever be withdrawn.
In ten years time the lorry fleet will have largely turned over and will be dominated by Euro VI and VII vehicles, the rail fleet will be pretty much the same as it is now.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Visible smoke isn't actually an issue it's the finer particulates that you can't see that cause respiratory issues. The engines may not be certified but has anyone tested them? My argument was there are no actual figures for comparison. I'm not trying to say old engines are clean but wanted to see a comparison.
Studies are available but the last head to head study in the rail context I've seen was from circa 2007 by the RSSB.
There was supposed to be one around 2017 but I can only find the opening document, I don't know if it produced a report.
But a lot has changed in road freight since 2007!
Because they are symptomatic of the railway's arrogance.
They should be allowed to do whatever they want and everyone should just suck it up and continuing pouring money into the industry for their convenience.
There is no real reason for an engine from the 60s to be anywhere except in a museum.
I wonder if they would still be in use if railways didn't have access to such cheap diesel.
I have no evidence that those units will ever be withdrawn.
In ten years time the lorry fleet will have largely turned over and will be dominated by Euro VI and VII vehicles, the rail fleet will be pretty much the same as it is now.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Studies are available but the last head to head study in the rail context I've seen was from circa 2007 by the RSSB.
There was supposed to be one around 2017 but I can only find the opening document, I don't know if it produced a report.
But a lot has changed in road freight since 2007!
To be honest there are lots of countries using old diesels. Suppose the issue is locomotives are long term investments and if they work they are not fiddled with. Re-engining a small fleet is not likely to be cost effective. In reality the small additional pollution that they produce which is also usually away from any population is fairly insignificant. It would be better if it wasn't happening but that isn't economic reality? As I said earlier maybe we could get some actual figures for emissions from older diesel locomotives to see how big an issue it is. Real answer is more electrification.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.canlogic.eu