How could we increase the share of freight moved by rail?

[Jorge Da Silva]

I haven’t posted a thread in a while but been wondering how could UK boost its modal share of freight by rail from 8% to reduce carbon omission? Removing HGVs from motorways and on to rail but with capacity a severe issue what ideas or solutions could help increase it from 8%?

 

[CarrotPie]

Give freight more priority, both when planning the timetable and when operating the railway on a day-to-day basis.

 

[markymark2000]

I think one of the best things to do is only support freight operators who actively want to grow the market. As we saw at the proposed intermodal thing near Elton, Cheshire, they had a planning condition to use rail freight, but all of the freight operators declined to help. Why should any funds or support be given to any freight operators who are literally turning down potential customers because it's not worth their while.

Council approves proposal to stop North West rail freight link

An application to remove the requirement for a rail link to a proposed waste-to-energy site in Cheshire has been approved by Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaC) after a 10-year hunt for an operator to operate the terminal came to an end.

www.railmagazine.com

An application to remove the requirement for a rail link to a proposed waste-to-energy site in Cheshire has been approved by Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaC) after a 10-year hunt for an operator to operate the terminal came to an end.
...
Peel NRE successfully argued that no interested parties had come forward to develop the site as a rail terminal. The company had directed transport consultants Intermodality in 2021 to help advertise the site, however DB Cargo, Freightliner, DC Rail, Colas Rail and iPort Rail all declined to push forward in helping deliver the project.

I think if the industry wants to grow, it needs to get a grip and stop turning down new customers.

 

[RT4038]

I think one of the best things to do is only support freight operators who actively want to grow the market. As we saw at the proposed intermodal thing near Elton, Cheshire, they had a planning condition to use rail freight, but all of the freight operators declined to help. Why should any funds or support be given to any freight operators who are literally turning down potential customers because it's not worth their while.

Council approves proposal to stop North West rail freight link

An application to remove the requirement for a rail link to a proposed waste-to-energy site in Cheshire has been approved by Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaC) after a 10-year hunt for an operator to operate the terminal came to an end.

www.railmagazine.com

I think if the industry wants to grow, it needs to get a grip and stop turning down new customers.

You answer your own question. Make it 'worth their while' and the Freight Operators will be only too happy to serve it/operate it. Clearly the Freight Operators did not see any money in serving/operating the new facility and were not prepared to risk their money in committing to it. New customers are of no use if there is no money to be made from them. A fundamental business fact.

 

[Donny Dave]

Having seen this sort of topic quite a few times over the years on this, and other forums, I will answer with a question. What freight flows can be transferred to rail? Sadly the answer if very little, if any. Just about everything that goes in bulk is already transported by rail, the rest of the freight flows on the roads is usually wagon load, or shipments that are either not near a railhead, or required at a certain time.

I would like to see more freight go by rail, despite my working experience being mostly warehousing and distribution, but the reality is that a single wagon from Scunthorpe to Avonmouth (as an example) would be wildly uneconomic, even if several businesses were to join forces to send and receive goods at each end.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I haven’t posted a thread in a while but been wondering how could UK boost its modal share of freight by rail from 8% to reduce carbon omission? Removing HGVs from motorways and on to rail but with capacity a severe issue what ideas or solutions could help increase it from 8%?

One thing which should at least be considered is trying to relieve congested main lines by creating freight mainly routes out of little used sections of track. For example Syston North Junction to Crewe Independent Lines and Gateshead to Peterborough. This would not be cheap and would involve constructing burrowing and flyover junctions, but it would cost far less than completely new build routes.

My first example would necessitate a flyover from Trent Junction to the Castle Donnington route, a Werrington Junction type burrowing route from Stenson Junction to North Staffordshire Junction, single tracking through Meir Tunnel and possibly Longton Station which has a nasty curve, restoring 4 track immediately south of Stoke-on-Trent Station and extending the 4 track loops north of there and then a huge burrowing route under the WCML at Crewe to access the low-level Independent Lines. Very expensive absolutely but not relatively, and would use long sections of currently lightly used railway, providing relief to the Great Eastern Main Line, the North London Line and the West Coast Main Line.

 

[renegademaster]

We do have to consider whether it's worth displacing passenger for freight on congested lines.

A Pendolino replaces 200 cars but a Aggregate train might replace 20 trucks.

GWML and the Northern WCML would definitely benefit from throwing freight under the bus

 

[The Pelican]

Huge parts of the freight maket depend on what the British economy generally does. A Britain that tried to produce enough steel to produce our own consuption of cars, trains and naval ships but didn't make the electronics would end up having a far greater series of freight movements than an economy where we domestically produced the electronics but not the steel for those things, even if the cost was similar in both cases.

 

[The exile]

We do have to consider whether it's worth displacing passenger for freight on congested lines.

A Pendolino replaces 200 cars but a Aggregate train might replace 20 trucks.

GWML and the Northern WCML would definitely benefit from throwing freight under the bus

The environmental damage from those 20 trucks is probably far worse than from the 200 cars, though. And a fully loaded train surely represents a heck of a lot more than 20 trucks.

 

[furnessvale]

We do have to consider whether it's worth displacing passenger for freight on congested lines.

A Pendolino replaces 200 cars but a Aggregate train might replace 20 trucks.

GWML and the Northern WCML would definitely benefit from throwing freight under the bus

An average aggregates train from the Peak District replaces 50-60 trucks. Jumbo trains to the Southeast can replace double that.

Then you have to remember what goes one way loaded comes back empty so double those numbers again.

 

[The exile]

An average aggregates train from the Peak District replaces 50-60 trucks. Jumbo trains to the Southeast can replace double that.

Then you have to remember what goes one way loaded comes back empty so double those numbers again.

But then, so (probably) does the train.

 

[trainmania100]

Presume cost is a big factor. For example Newhaven marine old station could either be extended further than the existing yard ( I'm sure this was an idea at some point), into the land to the east.
A scrap company recently moved from the area, this could very easily have gone by rail. If paths etc were cheap enough.
A new level crossing from town yard junction over the incinerator road could open up access to EMR Newhaven and more aggregates there.

 

[Technologist]

The environmental damage from those 20 trucks is probably far worse than from the 200 cars, though. And a fully loaded train surely represents a heck of a lot more than 20 trucks.

The Pendolino replaces a lot more than 200 cars if it is full, also a question of how many other paths a freight train removes. A lorry takes up approximately two car spots on the road, most of the road space occupied by a road vehicle is to stopping distance ahead of it. The road wear of a lorry is proportionally a lot worse than a car but the infrastructure costs of road vehicles are a fraction of that of rail. The total bill to maintain the UK's rails and roads is pretty similar but you get about 10x as many freight and passenger miles out of the roads.

In context of planning timescales for railways it's safe to say that the "emissions" argument for rails vs road isn't really a factor, we have electric cars in large numbers and electric HGVs already have the required performance. It just a deployment question and in both cases the infrastructure for deploying the road vehicles is much less difficult than for the rail vehicles.

In short the relative difference between cars and trains in terms of space efficiency is a lot greater than the relative difference between HGVs and trains. We should be prioritising passenger rail.

 

[zwk500]

Make it cheaper and quicker to install/remove sidings around the network so that the railway can change with changing freight demand.

Upgrade/expand infrastructure to allow freight trains to maximise the paths they already have (gauge, weight, and length).

Increase resilience on the network (bi-di or diversionary capabilities).

Invest in last-mile locos and electrification to terminal gates.

But all of this will only make a difference if it makes Freight cheaper to go by rail than road. A big part of the problem is sourcing funding for upgrades to facilitate freight. The government doesn't get any votes in it and it isn't sexy PR, while most companies can't justify the up-front cost of rail capital investments unless they have seriously big tonnage to shift or are compelled to use rail.

 

[Noddy]

I haven’t posted a thread in a while but been wondering how could UK boost its modal share of freight by rail from 8% to reduce carbon omission? Removing HGVs from motorways and on to rail but with capacity a severe issue what ideas or solutions could help increase it from 8%?

The only way there could be a significant shift would be by compelling the use of rail. It does happen already in some scenarios, but I’m not sure how you could realistically roll it out much without causing more harm than good. But seeing 10s of thousands of cars and vans waiting to be loaded onto hundreds HGVs everytime I go past Avonmouth does make me slightly sad.

 

[markymark2000]

Make it 'worth their while' and the Freight Operators will be only too happy to serve it/operate it.

New customers are of no use if there is no money to be made from them. A fundamental business fact.

Depends. A new customer can start small and build up. No one is going to transfer their whole logistics chain to rail without giving it a try on smaller scale. Of course it has to be somewhat viable for them, but there are grants and stuff available. And as was pointed out by other people at the planning meeting, other similar sites are viable which suggested it was just rail freight operators not wanting to serve it.

 

[Mike Machin]

There’s a need to maximise capacity across the network. In many areas, capacity for freight is maxing out and there needs to be some radical re-thinking to create the paths necessary to deliver growth potential for freight.

Our railway now in many cases is indeed full of passenger trains, but often these services are much too short and too frequent.

Prioritising frequency over the last two or three decades has resulted in a network that in many cases is literally ‘bunged-up’ with a myriad of two car locals and four or five car express trains running at metro type frequencies. Fewer, longer passenger trains would provide room for growth.

 

[markymark2000]

There’s a need to maximise capacity across the network. In many areas, capacity for freight is maxing out and there needs to be some radical re-thinking to create the paths necessary to deliver growth potential for freight.

Even if we adopted an American style system of prioritising freight for everything, would that even return any decent results? I want to see rail freight grow, but there doesn't seem to be the ambition there for FOCs (not without them getting lots of handouts, but then why should they get handouts?). And is it just that UK companies seem to see the roads as being a better option as more things are within their control (UK companies love a micromanage)?

 

[JamesT]

There’s a need to maximise capacity across the network. In many areas, capacity for freight is maxing out and there needs to be some radical re-thinking to create the paths necessary to deliver growth potential for freight.

Our railway now in many cases is indeed full of passenger trains, but often these services are much too short and too frequent.

Prioritising frequency over the last two or three decades has resulted in a network that in many cases is literally ‘bunged-up’ with a myriad of two car locals and four or five car express trains running at metro type frequencies. Fewer, longer passenger trains would provide room for growth.

It would provide room by driving away the customers. Public transport already forces its users to work around the offered timetable in comparison to the flexibility of the car. Making that offering even more limited isn’t increasing the attraction.
Those last two or three decades saw passenger numbers rise to record levels, clearly something was going right with that model.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Taxation.

 

[furnessvale]

But then, so (probably) does the train.

Indeed it does, but NOT on our congested roads, emitting 25% of the CO2 as it does.

 

[Peter0124]

By making sure freights that travel over Shap and Beattock have enough power to bring their load up. It builds a bad reputation with the occasional breakdowns, particularly of 4S43.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Northern WCML would definitely benefit from throwing freight under the bus

This is why I think all freight should go via Settle Carlisle.

 

[The Planner]

This is why I think all freight should go via Settle Carlisle.

You would be rebuilding pretty much all the structures and tunnels for W10/12 clearance. You would be better off spending it on dynamic loops on the WCML for the same price.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You would be rebuilding pretty much all the structures and tunnels for W10/12 clearance. You would be better off spending it on dynamic loops on the WCML for the same price.

Of course the advantage of putting the freight on the Settle Carlisle is that it gives you a lot more flexibility about what you run on the west coast mainline passenger wise as you don’t have to have any freight paths.

 

[Alpine Rider]

Taxation is evidently the correct solution.

The madness is that the solution exists just across the channel, where since 1950s more than three quarters of all long distance motorways were "peage" roads built under a fixed term design build operate concessions. So rather than the public purse paying out millions to build and maintain motorways - the user directly pays the cost - with trucks paying a very significant chunk. For many years manning toll boths also provided a lot of taxable paid jobs for relatively low skilled workers - although sadly technology is increasingly eliminating these roles. The concession rules also required proper maintainence, hence apart from the "free" motorways which are often in a terrible state, potholes are extremely rare on paid peage roads.

As and when each fixed term concession expires (typically 30+ years), the autoroute concession reverts to the state and in all probability the state will take the option to retender them, meaning another chunk of money will feed into the state coffers allowing them the luxury of subsidising rail services both passenger and freight - indeed it is worth noting that 90% of existing peage concessions will expire in the 2030s.

Sadly the UK cannot rewrite history, but if the peage model was already present right across the UK then the current debates about road pricing systems to deal with the loss of tax revenue due to increasing numbers of electric vehicles might not be needed at all, and railfreight could/should be far more significant. Also unlike the UK motorway network, overseas registered vehicles are all required to pay to use peage routes and they indirectly subsidise railfreight

 

[JamesT]

Taxation is evidently the correct solution.

The madness is that the solution exists just across the channel, where since 1950s more than three quarters of all long distance motorways were "peage" roads built under a fixed term design build operate concessions. So rather than the public purse paying out millions to build and maintain motorways - the user directly pays the cost - with trucks paying a very significant chunk. For many years manning toll boths also provided a lot of taxable paid jobs for relatively low skilled workers - although sadly technology is increasingly eliminating these roles. The concession rules also required proper maintainence, hence apart from the "free" motorways which are often in a terrible state, potholes are extremely rare on paid peage roads.

As and when each fixed term concession expires (typically 30+ years), the autoroute concession reverts to the state and in all probability the state will take the option to retender them, meaning another chunk of money will feed into the state coffers allowing them the luxury of subsidising rail services both passenger and freight - indeed it is worth noting that 90% of existing peage concessions will expire in the 2030s.

Sadly the UK cannot rewrite history, but if the peage model was already present right across the UK then the current debates about road pricing systems to deal with the loss of tax revenue due to increasing numbers of electric vehicles might not be needed at all, and railfreight could/should be far more significant. Also unlike the UK motorway network, overseas registered vehicles are all required to pay to use peage routes and they indirectly subsidise railfreight

How much would a toll system on UK motorways merely drive the traffic onto smaller roads?
https://trans.info/en/rail-freight-france-382711 claims rail freight had a market share of 10.4% in 2022 in France.
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ansport-statistics-great-britain-2023-freight claims 8% for the UK.
So a tolled motorway system doesn't appear to be proving a killer motive for using railfreight. Especially considering France is more than twice the size, which should be advantageous for the railfreight over the lorry driver.

 

[MatthewHutton]

How much would a toll system on UK motorways merely drive the traffic onto smaller roads?
https://trans.info/en/rail-freight-france-382711 claims rail freight had a market share of 10.4% in 2022 in France.
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ansport-statistics-great-britain-2023-freight claims 8% for the UK.
So a tolled motorway system doesn't appear to be proving a killer motive for using railfreight. Especially considering France is more than twice the size, which should be advantageous for the railfreight over the lorry driver.

Also the political viability of taxing the motorways is zero.

 

[Grumpy]

I haven’t posted a thread in a while but been wondering how could UK boost its modal share of freight by rail from 8% to reduce carbon omission? Removing HGVs from motorways and on to rail but with capacity a severe issue what ideas or solutions could help increase it from 8%?

Is there any definition of “freight” or breakdown of the remaining 92%? For example by distance or size of load?

 

[The Planner]

Of course the advantage of putting the freight on the Settle Carlisle is that it gives you a lot more flexibility about what you run on the west coast mainline passenger wise as you don’t have to have any freight paths.

You still have it crossing at Farington and again at Carlisle.