Proper National Strategic Freight Railway

[matacaster]

Whilst lots of talk about HS2 meaning more paths for freight, a particular problem is that the existing network cannot handle piggyback freight at all nor outsize traffic like military tanks etc. I am not sure if HS1 can handle piggy-back freight (please advise!).

How much better to create a network of 100-125 mph freight only lines of piggyback-capable size which would take much of the hated long distance freight away from the motorways, reduce emissions and avoid the temptation of illegal and excessive lorry driver working hours. At the moment an independent spine freight network seems impossible because there is too little rail freight, but take a look at the M62 which I think has a fairly serious accident on average once every 2 days and has major traffic hold ups simply because of volume. In fact most motorways are pretty near capacity.

The large piggy-back stuff would only be on the spine itself, coming off rail at the transfer points (such as freight hubs at Ports and major regional centres). It would probably need to cover Southampton, London, Bristol, Swansea, Liverpool, Hull, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen.

So, why build a (proper-sized) freight spine instead of HS2?
- a freight spine might use some parts of disused routes and infrastructure such was Woodhead and
Great Central IF THAT MADE SENSE
- it would not require expensive stations in centre of cities like HS2
- it would free up some capacity on WCML and ECML and MML
- it would run through less populated and less expensive areas and also require less tunnelling
- it would allow proper timed deliveries without getting stuck behind passenger trains all over the
place
- It would allow seamless journeys to and from Europe and as far as China for large items making rail the mode of choice instead of highly polluting shipping.
- likely overwhelming public approval
- It would make the Midlands, North and Scotland more able to take advantage of the channel tunnel
- non-oversized loads could still use the normal network to a more local rail distribution centre
- it would genuine help the midlands, north and scotland, rather than gravitating everything to London as HS2 does

On the other hand

- it would be costly, but possibly less disruptive as there might be less objection to having long
tunnels (if these were the cheaper option).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Upgrade F2N would be a great start

 

[B&I]

Why not build this as well as HS2 ? And tax lorry traffic to pay for it ?

 

[DerekC]

Government had the opportunity to do exactly this fifteen or so years ago with the "Central Railway" proposal - I think there is still some material on the web about it - but DfT took a "Not Invented Here" approach and killed it. Personally I think it would have been a great idea, but it wasn't to be.

The problem is the business case which won't be good enough to attract private investors, and the associated revenue risk. Rail freight already finds it hard to compete with road over UK-type distances even though it only pays marginal costs for its infrastructure paths and a new freight network isn't going to get the level of public funding that would be needed to meet the capital cost.

It's been suggested that the need to decarbonise will drive freight onto rail, but current government thinking isn't in that direction at all. It's all focused on innovative solutions for road.

 

[WatcherZero]

The government did try to push this a few years ago with the 'Electric Spine', electrifying from Southampton to Sheffield primarily for freight as well as greater gauge clearance for shipping containers to relieve pressure on the East and West Coasts while encouraging more modal shift to 'greener' rail.

While sounding like a good idea the reality is that all the final miles to freight yards and onward connections wernt included so the freight industry itself was actually highly critical of the project as Crayonista and it ended up getting killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_Spine


The other thing to consider is it financially worth it?
Rail freight had about 9% of the freight market, they had a turnover of £826m, operating costs of £811m (including £100m to Network Rail in track access charges) and with the help of a government subsidy of £20m they made a profit of £33m.

Now based on that how far would limited operator resources stretch and would any largescale public investment in dedicated rail routes pay off this century?

 

[HSTEd]

This is where I bring out that amazing US Army study from the 70s about transporting tanks at 125mph.

But in all seriousness, although a piggyback/doublestack network might be able to cover it's operating costs, the capital cost of the settup necessary to drive it's operating costs low enough to allow that would be far more than a British government will ever deign to spend.
(It would have to be Chunnel style rolling highways to cut travel times enough to be attractive in the UK)

 

[furnessvale]

This is where I bring out that amazing US Army study from the 70s about transporting tanks at 125mph.

But in all seriousness, although a piggyback/doublestack network might be able to cover it's operating costs, the capital cost of the settup necessary to drive it's operating costs low enough to allow that would be far more than a British government will ever deign to spend.
(It would have to be Chunnel style rolling highways to cut travel times enough to be attractive in the UK)

I have to agree that the capital cost of such a scheme would be off the scale and impossible in the UK.

Where I disagree is the need for rolling road solutions. The answer to your major competitor is not to load him lock stock and barrell onto your back and carry him around. Rolling roads only exist in Europe because of massive subsidies.

Give me a loading gauge suitable for a rolling road, and I will undercut that rolling road by carrying the freight in larger conventional wagons or swap bodies and saving the weight, space absorbing and cost of tractor units and road wheels etc and the road drivers wages. Whether I could undercut carrying that same load entirely by road is a totally different question.

 

[HSTEd]

Give me a loading gauge suitable for a rolling road, and I will undercut that rolling road by carrying the freight in larger conventional wagons or swap bodies and saving the weight, space absorbing and cost of tractor units and road wheels etc and the road drivers wages. Whether I could undercut carrying that same load entirely by road is a totally different question.

You will get crushed in the length of the load-unload cycle though.
Conventional freight trains take a substantial length of time to load and unload, at which point your rolling stock and yard space requirements go way up and you will have a hard time selling your product to anyone.

Especially in the UK where the distances are much smaller, the rolling highway could be most of the way back to point A with the return load by the time you even finish unloading at Point B.

Also who says road drivers need to travel with the train?

 

[furnessvale]

You will get crushed in the length of the load-unload cycle though.
Conventional freight trains take a substantial length of time to load and unload, at which point your rolling stock and yard space requirements go way up and you will have a hard time selling your product to anyone.

Especially in the UK where the distances are much smaller, the rolling highway could be most of the way back to point A with the return load by the time you even finish unloading at Point B.

Also who says road drivers need to travel with the train?

Loading/unloading a container/swap body train is of course much quicker. During the time this is occuring the prime mover (loco) and driver are elsewhere moving another train. Loading a rolling road from one end is little faster than a couple of lifters working the equivalent length container train.

The road driver does not HAVE to accompany his HGV on a rolling road but this is the norm in Europe. His expensive tractor unit does have to make the unnecessary trip. With containers/swap bodies on rail, a lesser number of tractor units and drivers are making local deliveries at each end.

 

[HSTEd]

Loading/unloading a container/swap body train is of course much quicker. During the time this is occuring the prime mover (loco) and driver are elsewhere moving another train.

By the time you uncouple the locomotive and drive it somewhere else, then replace it with another loco and perform all the relevent break tests, you will be not much better off than simply leaving the train attached.

Loading a rolling road from one end is little faster than a couple of lifters working the equivalent length container train.

Why on earth would you be loading from one end?
Are you trying to make the system as unattractive to operators as possible?

The example of the Channel Shuttle is instructive.
Loading and unloading would proceed simultaneously, with at least two loading points on each train.
The loading time is set by a couple of minutes to get the doors open, then the speed at which a lorry can drive down the train.
Even at a conservative 2km/h, with 400m loading segments, you would be looking at something like ~12 minutes.
So a 20 minute turnaround is not looking at all unreasonable.

As we have total control of the loading gauge we can provide a fully enclosed vehicle allowing the driver to move to and from his cab in transit.
The train driver (or should I say the train attendant as we will be under ATO) will barely have time to leave his cab to go to the toilet and grab a sandwich from the messroom provided for the purpose.

The road driver does not HAVE to accompany his HGV on a rolling road but this is the norm in Europe. His expensive tractor unit does have to make the unnecessary trip. With containers/swap bodies on rail, a lesser number of tractor units and drivers are making local deliveries at each end.

Remember that time in transit could be arranged to qualify as rest period for the driver under the relevant regulations, and in the era of electric HGV tractors, the loss of productivity is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the train, with its 25kV or even 50kV power supply, can easily charge the lorries in transit.

With a top speed of 80mph or so and 20 minute turnarounds, with the train in the balloon loop, transit times much faster than road freight are obtainable, which is limited to an absolute maximum of only 56mph.
Fast transits are important because it allows the lorries to make larger detours to use the service.

London-Manchester woudl have a train cycle time of something like 6 hours. So a trainset could easily make three round trips each day.
Also since we have flat decks for the lorries to drive over, we have space below the solebar to fit traction gear if we want, so we could have a faster accelerating multiple unit that would permit unloading of part of the train at an intermediate stop - again helped by the short unload/load time.

London-Manchester-Glasgow could load and unload at Manchester in 20 minutes, still permitting an end to end cycle time of something like 12 hours, allowing one and a half round trips a day with each trainset.

It's not a model that is similar in any way to the way existing rail freight operates, but this is what it has to do if it wants to compete over the short distances in the UK.

 

[furnessvale]

By the time you uncouple the locomotive and drive it somewhere else, then replace it with another loco and perform all the relevent break tests, you will be not much better off than simply leaving the train attached.


Why on earth would you be loading from one end?
Are you trying to make the system as unattractive to operators as possible?

The example of the Channel Shuttle is instructive.
Loading and unloading would proceed simultaneously, with at least two loading points on each train.
The loading time is set by a couple of minutes to get the doors open, then the speed at which a lorry can drive down the train.
Even at a conservative 2km/h, with 400m loading segments, you would be looking at something like ~12 minutes.
So a 20 minute turnaround is not looking at all unreasonable.

As we have total control of the loading gauge we can provide a fully enclosed vehicle allowing the driver to move to and from his cab in transit.
The train driver (or should I say the train attendant as we will be under ATO) will barely have time to leave his cab to go to the toilet and grab a sandwich from the messroom provided for the purpose.

Remember that time in transit could be arranged to qualify as rest period for the driver under the relevant regulations, and in the era of electric HGV tractors, the loss of productivity is somewhat ameliorated by the fact that the train, with its 25kV or even 50kV power supply, can easily charge the lorries in transit.

With a top speed of 80mph or so and 20 minute turnarounds, with the train in the balloon loop, transit times much faster than road freight are obtainable, which is limited to an absolute maximum of only 56mph.
Fast transits are important because it allows the lorries to make larger detours to use the service.

London-Manchester woudl have a train cycle time of something like 6 hours. So a trainset could easily make three round trips each day.
Also since we have flat decks for the lorries to drive over, we have space below the solebar to fit traction gear if we want, so we could have a faster accelerating multiple unit that would permit unloading of part of the train at an intermediate stop - again helped by the short unload/load time.

London-Manchester-Glasgow could load and unload at Manchester in 20 minutes, still permitting an end to end cycle time of something like 12 hours, allowing one and a half round trips a day with each trainset.

It's not a model that is similar in any way to the way existing rail freight operates, but this is what it has to do if it wants to compete over the short distances in the UK.

If you can make it work, fine. I have no objection, after all it IS freight on rail even if it has road wheels, drivers etc attached. I sincerely hope it works but we both know it will never happen due to capital cost of the required loading gauge.

 

[Meerkat]

The problem is the business case which won't be good enough to attract private investors, and the associated revenue risk

I thought the Central Railway scheme reckoned it could finance privately. But the government’s excuse was they didn’t believe them and were scared of having to bail it out.
A cynic might suggest the route went through too much of the Home Counties.....