Should we reduce railfreight on crowded lines?

[mrmartin]

It seems to me that railfreight is just a pretty bad idea. The amount of times I've been delayed on the GEML/NLL/WLL because of freight train problems is high.

Even worse is the lack of capacity it is causing, the NLL is probably the worst offender I know personally. It's absolutely crazy that people (1000s) are being packed in to horrendous conditions while an empty freight train goes past instead of using that path for more (off)peak time services.

A freight train carries what, maybe 30 containers, when full? So that would be 30 more lorries on the roads, which wouldn't be a huge amount in the scheme of things to allow 100s more people to get home/to work easier.

Obviously if there's plenty of capacity available then freight is fine. But increasingly that is the exception to the rule and it seems backwards to me to be prioritising it over adding more passenger capacity which is desperately needed?

 

[RichmondCommu]

It seems to me that railfreight is just a pretty bad idea. The amount of times I've been delayed on the GEML/NLL/WLL because of freight train problems is high.

Even worse is the lack of capacity it is causing, the NLL is probably the worst offender I know personally. It's absolutely crazy that people (1000s) are being packed in to horrendous conditions while an empty freight train goes past instead of using that path for more (off)peak time services.

A freight train carries what, maybe 30 containers, when full? So that would be 30 more lorries on the roads, which wouldn't be a huge amount in the scheme of things to allow 100s more people to get home/to work easier.

Obviously if there's plenty of capacity available then freight is fine. But increasingly that is the exception to the rule and it seems backwards to me to be prioritising it over adding more passenger capacity which is desperately needed?

A quick question before I close my eye's and enjoy my dreams. Have you ever driven on a motorway? What is the difference between an empty freight train and an empty lorry? How do you know if the freight train is empty if its an intermodal service?

What evidence do you have to suggest that freight is being given priority over freight? Can you quantify how many times freight has caused delays on services that you use? What about lorries slowing down traffic on the motorway.

I would suggest that a full intermodal service carries more than 30 containers.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

A freight train carries what, maybe 30 containers, when full? So that would be 30 more lorries on the roads, which wouldn't be a huge amount in the scheme of things to allow 100s more people to get home/to work easier.

Equivalent to 50 HGVs when nearing full capacity I believe. It certainly does become a huge amount when you're talking about doing that day in, day out *, especially when you factor in EU desires and the obvious green issues for example. If anything rail freight will expand in future, not regress (I'd argue rightly so). It's just a pain that such a busy passenger corridor in the NLL's case is also such an important freight line for getting goods down to Essex and Felixstowe, though hopefully the likes of the Bacon Curve at Ipswich and works out towards the East Midlands will relieve it over the coming years.

* - Imagine say 100 extra lorry trips per day to Felixstowe or Immingham!

 

[mrmartin]

A quick question before I close my eye's and enjoy my dreams. Have you ever driven on a motorway? What is the difference between an empty freight train and an empty lorry? How do you know if the freight train is empty if its an intermodal service?

What evidence do you have to suggest that freight is being given priority over freight? Can you quantify how many times freight has caused delays on services that you use? What about lorries slowing down traffic on the motorway.

I would suggest that a full intermodal service carries more than 30 containers.

...because there's no containers on the back? Unless these are invisible containers perhaps?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Equivalent to 50 HGVs when nearing full capacity I believe. It certainly does become a huge amount when you're talking about doing that day in, day out *, especially when you factor in EU desires and the obvious green issues for example. If anything rail freight will expand in future, not regress (I'd argue rightly so). It's just a pain that such a busy passenger corridor in the NLL's case is also such an important freight line for getting goods down to Essex and Felixstowe, though hopefully the likes of the Bacon Curve at Ipswich and works out towards the East Midlands will relieve it over the coming years.

* - Imagine say 100 extra lorry trips per day to Felixstowe or Immingham!

Considering the A14 currently carries 85,000 vehicles per day, 100 more lorries would be a staggering ~0.1% of extra load. Removing those freight trains from the NLL allow a hugely improved service (both frequency and capacity) with very little added extra infrastructure (new trains, perhaps improvements at Stratford).

It seems like a total nobrainer to me.

 

[DropTheTap]

It seems to me that railfreight is just a pretty bad idea. The amount of times I've been delayed on the GEML/NLL/WLL because of freight train problems is high.

Even worse is the lack of capacity it is causing, the NLL is probably the worst offender I know personally. It's absolutely crazy that people (1000s) are being packed in to horrendous conditions while an empty freight train goes past instead of using that path for more (off)peak time services.

A freight train carries what, maybe 30 containers, when full? So that would be 30 more lorries on the roads, which wouldn't be a huge amount in the scheme of things to allow 100s more people to get home/to work easier.

Obviously if there's plenty of capacity available then freight is fine. But increasingly that is the exception to the rule and it seems backwards to me to be prioritising it over adding more passenger capacity which is desperately needed?

I can't tell if this is trolling or not...

 

[Tomnick]

...because there's no containers on the back? Unless these are invisible containers perhaps?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Considering the A14 currently carries 85,000 vehicles per day, 100 more lorries would be a staggering ~0.1% of extra load. Removing those freight trains from the NLL allow a hugely improved service (both frequency and capacity) with very little added extra infrastructure (new trains, perhaps improvements at Stratford).

It seems like a total nobrainer to me.

100 single lorry trips per train equates to 3000 single lorry trips per day if 30 intermodal trains run over the NLL each way per day. That's not quite such an insignificant figure! Either way, the sensible solution is to divert them to other routes (such as via Leicester), which is exactly what's gradually happening, rather than knocking them on the head altogether.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even worse is the lack of capacity it is causing, the NLL is probably the worst offender I know personally. It's absolutely crazy that people (1000s) are being packed in to horrendous conditions while an empty freight train goes past instead of using that path for more (off)peak time services.

Is perhaps a more palatable answer longer passenger trains on the NLL?

Like wot is being done now?

 

[apk55]

A single Lorry produces very much more congestion than a car. With poor acceleration and manoverability and a massive size that can often block two lanes in urban areas they contribute much more to traffic congestion. And they contribute much more to road wear and tare as this is exponentaly dependant on axel loading.

 

[PHILIPE]

I presume we've all read on the Forum about severe delays to passenger on the Marches Line due to numerous Freight Train failures.
In these days of privatisation a freight Company has just as many rights to travel along a route as a passenger train if they pay their access charges.

 

[NSEFAN]

I recall reading on here that track access charges for freight are disproportionately low for the wear and tear the trains cause on the track. This is in effect a backdoor subsidy, so railfreight would almost certainly reduce if FOCs were expected to pay the true cost of transporting goods. This of course ignores the benefits of trainload freight, namely reduced congestion as others have pointed out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I presume we've all read on the Forum about severe delays to passenger on the Marches Line due to numerous Freight Train failures.
In these days of privatisation a freight Company has just as many rights to travel along a route as a passenger train if they pay their access charges.

Indeed, though a passenger MU tends to have more than one engine and is rather more resilient. If freights really are causing a problem by breaking down (are they?) should they all be required to have two locomotives?

Neil

 

[jopsuk]

I recall reading on here that track access charges for freight are disproportionately low for the wear and tear the trains cause on the track. This is in effect a backdoor subsidy, so railfreight would almost certainly reduce if FOCs were expected to pay the true cost of transporting goods. This of course ignores the benefits of trainload freight, namely reduced congestion as others have pointed out.

Road freight is subsidised massively in a similar way, perhaps to a greater extent. If rail freight should be made to pay its way, so should road haulage!

 

[GB]

I can't tell if this is trolling or not...

Indeed! But it certainly smacks of a typical passenger attitude that the railway should revolve around him and to hell with everyone else.

 

[AM9]

Indeed! But it certainly smacks of a typical passenger attitude that the railway should revolve around him and to hell with everyone else.

Maybe if the NLL is so hard for him he should travel by bus and queue behind all the other traffic including HGVs. He could then whinge in the 'General Discussion' forum.

 

[TheEdge]

Considering the A14 currently carries 85,000 vehicles per day, 100 more lorries would be a staggering ~0.1% of extra load. Removing those freight trains from the NLL allow a hugely improved service (both frequency and capacity) with very little added extra infrastructure (new trains, perhaps improvements at Stratford).

It seems like a total nobrainer to me.

Someone has mention 30 trains as a vague figure over the NLL...

I've just had a look at the freight paths passing Stratford, covering Felixstowe, Harwich, London Gateway and Dagenham and a few others, there are just shy of 100. Stick that all on the roads and from our earlier pub maths, there is 10,000 extra lorries heading across the East of England.

Then remember that some of those trains are specialised. The car transporters heading for Dagenham, I guess they would probably spill over a fair bit more than container freight. Then we've got the aggregate trains from and to Marks Tey, which again, I guess would spill out a fair bit more. Finally there a a few paths for the "coal" trains from Crewe to and from Sizewell. So thats nuclear fuel and waste, do you want that in a lorry on the A14?

 

[Johnny_w]

As someone who uses the A14....

I *LOVE* seeing freight trains! I doubt they are 'taking up extra capacity' as there are not magically 100's of trains just waiting to take this space anyways.

And I was under the impression that freight still had a lower classification in the signalling world?

However - The line from Ely to Peterborough has had a couple of breakdowns these past weeks. But then look at the fun when a lorry loses a tire of the A14. So it don't make a lot of odds either way when freight has a wobble?

Just my own thoughts and opinions.

JW

 

[Ash Bridge]

Plus on top of everything else, what about the safety aspect, Iam no statistics expert, but then again I don't need to be to work out that rail transport is by far safer than road, be it freight or passenger.

 

[TheEdge]

And I was under the impression that freight still had a lower classification in the signalling world?

It does, a Class 4 or 6 freight will be treated as lower priority as a 1 or 2 service. But for various reasons it came be difficult. Things like loop lengths, regulation instructions and all that came impact the simple theory.

 

[The Planner]

In overall terms the difference is marginal, the NLL isnt the most rapid of lines and once you factor in the station stops a freight train isnt eating as much capacity as you may think.

 

[Wolfie]

I recall reading on here that track access charges for freight are disproportionately low for the wear and tear the trains cause on the track. This is in effect a backdoor subsidy, so railfreight would almost certainly reduce if FOCs were expected to pay the true cost of transporting goods. This of course ignores the benefits of trainload freight, namely reduced congestion as others have pointed out.

You are correct. Of course, a very similiar hidden subsidy is given to HGVs also, as the level of tax they pay in no way refects the added damage etc they do to the roads, and indeed non-UK registered vehicles currently, as I understand it, pay nothing....

 

[Johnny_w]

It does, a Class 4 or 6 freight will be treated as lower priority as a 1 or 2 service. But for various reasons it came be difficult. Things like loop lengths, regulation instructions and all that came impact the simple theory.

Thanks

 

[Aictos]

If anything, there should be not less but more freight trains especially as it's more economical and better for the environment to have a single train then 40 plus HGVs on the roads.

It's just tough that one of the main freight lines in London also happens to be a busy passenger line too.

 

[HSTEd]

A large number of people still subscribe to the idea that railfreight is worthwhile in an island as small and heavily infrastructured (is that a word?) as Great Britain - whereas in reality the majority of freight was lost in the 60s, leaving only coal and stone as a major flow.

Thus vast sums of public money are expended propping up the profits of private railfreight operators and even larger sums are expended on capacity upgrades required only to allow large scale freight operations, while passenger operations on the line are denied paths for additional trains. (GOBLIN is an obvious example).

If we want to reap the full benefits of 'Sprinterisation' (which is essential for the economic survival of the railway) then I am afraid railfreight will either have to obtain MU levels of acceleration or they will have to get out of the way.
A high intensity passenger service is almost certainly better at reducing environmental damage than dozens of empty freight paths that have to be accommodated to allow maybe one train to run on any given day.

 

[Donny Dave]

If anything, there should be not less but more freight trains especially as it's more economical and better for the environment to have a single train then 40 plus HGVs on the roads.

I've said it before numerous times, and I'll keep repeating myself. Apart from the freight that already goes by rail, what other goods can be economically carried by rail? Just because the inside lane of the M1 is nose to tail with lorries between junctions 28 and 32 (example only), doesn't mean that they all start at the same place, or end up at the same destination.

Where I work, a single 10 wagon train to Birmingham could possibly be justified, except the following rule that option out.

• Time taken to transport the goods from the factory to the railhead - 15 minutes. A single lorry would be on the M180 approaching Crowle at this point.
• Time taken to tranship the pallets and secure them - 45 minutes. A lorry would be approaching the M1/M18 junction at this point.
• Time taken to tranship the goods at the destination (probably Washwood Heath) - Another 45 minutes. A lorry would be approaching Derby on the A38 or be at the M1/A42 junction.
• Time taken for the goods to be transported from Washwood Heath to the destination - Varies, as there are 6 factories/warehouses we deliver to in Birmingham, so upto 1 hour. The lorry would have reached it's destination, or be very close.
• Cost of running the train, as well as keeping a fleet of lorries available ot both ends.
• Customer requirements - They don't want everything delivered at the same time.
• Load planning. Some loads for Birmingham are combined with others. 2 examples I can give are .... 1 Birmingham load is combined with a delivery in Sheffield as well, plus other lorries after delivering to Birmingham are then sent else where for a collection to bring back to the factory here in Scunthorpe.

If our products were to go by rail, then it would massively increase to costs, so your fresh poultry and ready meals at various supermarkets would need to have a massive increase in price so they (and my employer) could absorb all this and still make a small profit.

Are you willing to pay a lot more for your food? I'm not ....

PS. This is a simplified list of factors mitigating against wagon load freight (especially of short and medium distances), I'm sure there are thing's I've missed out.

PPS. It's not just Birminham we deliver to. Of the top of my head, to the major depots we produce poultry for, there would be 1, possibly 2 wagon loads for Livingston, the same for Southampton, Dagenham, Peterborough, Hinckley and Widnes. Avonmouth would have 2, possibly 3 wagon loads. Plus how would we send the 4 or 5 pallets we have a day to Belfast?

 

[Aictos]

What about the recent trials into Euston using former Great Western GUVs which seem to be successful.

Bottom line is rail freight is here to stay and best thing to do is to find a way to coexist peacefully - ideally it be nice if freight and passenger lines were kept completely separate but for obvious reasons that has as much chance as renationalisation happening!

Network Rail are already delivering schemes which will help in long run but you've got to be patient after all I love a half hourly service off peak between HFN and SVG but I'm aware nothing will be done until 2016/2018 at earliest but you won't see me throw my toys of the pram :roll:

 

[edwin_m]

I've said it before numerous times, and I'll keep repeating myself. Apart from the freight that already goes by rail, what other goods can be economically carried by rail?

Probably not a vast amount, but some. This is the view of colleague of mine who was in the road freight industry for many years but is now a freight consultant looking at all modes.

Most bulk commodities that travel over suitable distances are already on rail and most of the places that source or receive these are rail- (or sea-) connected, so there's not much scope for growth there.

However with intermodal the picture is different. There is a huge amount of goods moving by road and some of it is on fairly concentrated point-to-point flows such as between supermarket distribution centres. There are various factors that mean the costs of road freight will increase gradually over time: driver hours restrictions, increasing congestion, increasing fuel prices etc. Combined with effeciency improvements on the rail network, this means that the critical distance above which rail is competitive should gradually reduce.

A few years ago intermodal rail was only competitive for deep sea with the advantages of having a very concentrated source/destination at the port. However domestic intermodal then started with the longest flows such as Daventry to Scotland, it has now spread to Daventry to Cardiff and is quite likely to appear on shorter flows in future. However I think it is unlikely that rail will ever be competitive for intermodal traffic on journeys where out and back by road is possible within a single shift.

 

[LLivery]

The North London Line trains could and should be lengthened beyond 5 cars, it already has six (eight at peaks) trains per hour. Higher frequency isn't needed - just longer trains. Imagine if Virgin tried to have 5 car Pendos on the WCML and then said they need a higher frequency...

 

[Legzr1]

A large number of people still subscribe to the idea that railfreight is worthwhile in an island as small and heavily infrastructured (is that a word?) as Great Britain - whereas in reality the majority of freight was lost in the 60s, leaving only coal and stone as a major flow.

Thus vast sums of public money are expended propping up the profits of private railfreight operators and even larger sums are expended on capacity upgrades required only to allow large scale freight operations, while passenger operations on the line are denied paths for additional trains. (GOBLIN is an obvious example).

If we want to reap the full benefits of 'Sprinterisation' (which is essential for the economic survival of the railway) then I am afraid railfreight will either have to obtain MU levels of acceleration or they will have to get out of the way.
A high intensity passenger service is almost certainly better at reducing environmental damage than dozens of empty freight paths that have to be accommodated to allow maybe one train to run on any given day.

Been a while since I've read such a narrow minded and inaccurate statement so well done for that.

If all freight was taken from rail (to appease those who's life is so important that a slight delay is the end of the world) and transferred to the road network then Id seriously consider emigration.

Saying that, perhaps I'm over-reacting - it would only be 'coal and stone' the railway would be losing

Be interesting to see how these mega-accelerating, uber-sprinters would get 1000 tonne of rail and ballast to a possession for track renewals...

 

[455driver]

I can't tell if this is trolling or not...

My thoughts exactly!
he has taken such a narrow view of the situation that I am struggling to believe anyone could be so short sighted!

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and answer a part of his post-

Just because the container train is empty in that direction what do you think will happen when it gets to the port?
How would they shift the containers if they didnt get the trains to the port in the first place?

 

[The Ham]

100 single lorry trips per train equates to 3000 single lorry trips per day if 30 intermodal trains run over the NLL each way per day. That's not quite such an insignificant figure! Either way, the sensible solution is to divert them to other routes (such as via Leicester), which is exactly what's gradually happening, rather than knocking them on the head altogether.

Not only do you have to consider the number of lorries but then there is the fact that when estimating the lifespan of the full road construction (i.e. not just a bit of resurfacing) it is only the number of lorries which is used.

Therefore if there were a more lorries then there will be more road works, which will increase delays further. As implied above the frequency to undertake a rebuild of the whole road construction would increase