Transpennine W12 freight

[zwk500]

It may work out more beneficial for them to split or switch the loads further away. More so with the comment from Rick about the renting of containers, it would be cheaper to unload the container quicker. If journey times are decreased though, it may mean they continue to

It's chicken and egg I think. Why would companies invest containers/swapbodies when there is no way to make use of them. Why would the Govt invest when there is no train. That's the difficult point here. It's a very hard one to make it work since a train is unviable right now and so there is unlikely to see any service come about until any changes are made.

The key part about this is that if you introduce a 2nd stage of handling the price will go up. So it would only be worth it if you get a higher price for the containers (delivered to the end customer quicker) or you can make the final delivery stage a lot cheaper. It's also woth pointing out an economic container load is in the several dozen range.

What is the most popular market then for containers since it seems strange for there to be a focus on W10/12 gauge clearance if there isn't much market for it. A lot of cost for no benefit.

Once you're rebuilding the bridge, as I've mentioned, it doesn't really cost much more to build it higher or wider so you may as well unless there's a good reason not to (e.g. the road over the rail line would be too steep/hump-backed). The cost is in paying people and hiring equipment to put the thing in, the actual slabs of concrete cost pennies by comparison.

What financial incentives does Tesco have? Swap body or containers, they can share a train.

Tesco don't want to share a train, because it slows down their deliveries for an addtional transfer or an extra stop in the freight path. They have no particular interest in helping Sainsbury's lower their prices, either. It's only worth it to them if they can send a full train of their own goods, or the roads are bad enough to make the train comparable (Inverness).

 

[Bald Rick]

What is the most popular market then for containers since it seems strange for there to be a focus on W10/12 gauge clearance if there isn't much market for it. A lot of cost for no benefit.

Sorry I didn’t make myself clear, my fault. There is very much a market for W10. Not for W12, as the railway can’t carry them! W12 is usually only the reefers (refrigerated goods containers). But there isn’t much of a market for W10, or W12, to be landed at a port on one side of the Pennines then carried across to the other side of the Pennines for loading on to another’s ship or distribution there locally.

What financial incentives does Tesco have? Swap body or containers, they can share a train.

Well, Tesco is the biggest supermarket chain in the country, and just about the single largest logisitcs operation in the country, and therefore generates economies of scale most other logistics operators cannot achieve. It has 4 return services a day, three of which concentrate deliveries to stores from the main distribution centre for certain types of products (in Daventry) to Regional centres for onward delivery to stores. These are Daventry - Mossend (for Livingston) / Wentloog (Monmouth & Bristol) / Thameside (Barking and Tilbury).

The fourth is Mossend to Inverness, which is well suited to a trunk haul of some of the swapbodies that arrived from Daventry, plus others from their Scotland Regional Distribution Centre at Livingston, up to Inverness for onward dispersal direct to the dozen or so stores in the north of Scotland.

Their financial incentive is the economy of scale most other logistics operators don’t have, plus it enables them to go large on the green credentials, although in reality it is a relatively small contribution to their environmental effort.

Tesco - and to be frank most other major logistics firms - don’t need to do trunk hauls across the Pennines as they have Regional distribution centres either side, often served directly from a main hub in the Midlands / London area or from suppliers direct wherever they are located. Some will come from ports - but not much, and certainly not enough for a train load.

 

[furnessvale]

Sorry I didn’t make myself clear, my fault. There is very much a market for W10. Not for W12, as the railway can’t carry them! W12 is usually only the reefers (refrigerated goods containers). But there isn’t much of a market for W10, or W12, to be landed at a port on one side of the Pennines then carried across to the other side of the Pennines for loading on to another’s ship or distribution there locally.



Well, Tesco is the biggest supermarket chain in the country, and just about the single largest logisitcs operation in the country, and therefore generates economies of scale most other logistics operators cannot achieve. It has 4 return services a day, three of which concentrate deliveries to stores from the main distribution centre for certain types of products (in Daventry) to Regional centres for onward delivery to stores. These are Daventry - Mossend (for Livingston) / Wentloog (Monmouth & Bristol) / Thameside (Barking and Tilbury).

The fourth is Mossend to Inverness, which is well suited to a trunk haul of some of the swapbodies that arrived from Daventry, plus others from their Scotland Regional Distribution Centre at Livingston, up to Inverness for onward dispersal direct to the dozen or so stores in the north of Scotland.

Their financial incentive is the economy of scale most other logistics operators don’t have, plus it enables them to go large on the green credentials, although in reality it is a relatively small contribution to their environmental effort.

Tesco - and to be frank most other major logistics firms - don’t need to do trunk hauls across the Pennines as they have Regional distribution centres either side, often served directly from a main hub in the Midlands / London area or from suppliers direct wherever they are located. Some will come from ports - but not much, and certainly not enough for a train load.

Thanks for the detail on Tesco services.

How do the fairly recent additions of Daventry-Doncaster-Tees and Mossend-Tees fit this pattern?

 

[markymark2000]

The key part about this is that if you introduce a 2nd stage of handling the price will go up. So it would only be worth it if you get a higher price for the containers (delivered to the end customer quicker) or you can make the final delivery stage a lot cheaper. It's also woth pointing out an economic container load is in the several dozen range.

You do add costs but it depends on how many trucks you are sending and how quickly you can manage that. Every company will have their judgment on whether it's viable to send goods on a train or using trucks.

Tesco don't want to share a train, because it slows down their deliveries for an addtional transfer or an extra stop in the freight path. They have no particular interest in helping Sainsbury's lower their prices, either. It's only worth it to them if they can send a full train of their own goods, or the roads are bad enough to make the train comparable (Inverness).

Tesco have "particularly good rates" (source below) on return loads on their trains so to say 'they don't want to share a train' must be somewhat false else they wouldn't be offering return loads.
Tesco are unlikely to want to help Sainsburys though as they are direct competitors.

Source: http://freightfilter.com/uk-rail-freight-guide/

Sorry I didn’t make myself clear, my fault. There is very much a market for W10. Not for W12, as the railway can’t carry them! W12 is usually only the reefers (refrigerated goods containers). But there isn’t much of a market for W10, or W12, to be landed at a port on one side of the Pennines then carried across to the other side of the Pennines for loading on to another’s ship or distribution there locally.

But if ships are diverting away from the original major ports which had the infrastructure and trains to send goods to the north west or north east, the same amount of containers need moving, it's just the infrastructure isn't there for the trains. If a shipping firm currently offloads 1000 containers in Felixstowe with 70 of those then going by train to the North East and that shipping firm then diverts that ship to Liverpool instead, it would still offload 1000 containers and 70 of those would still go to the north east. Just.... they would have to do so by road because there isn't infrastructure in place.

Well, Tesco is the biggest supermarket chain in the country, and just about the single largest logisitcs operation in the country, and therefore generates economies of scale most other logistics operators cannot achieve. It has 4 return services a day, three of which concentrate deliveries to stores from the main distribution centre for certain types of products (in Daventry) to Regional centres for onward delivery to stores. These are Daventry - Mossend (for Livingston) / Wentloog (Monmouth & Bristol) / Thameside (Barking and Tilbury).

The fourth is Mossend to Inverness, which is well suited to a trunk haul of some of the swapbodies that arrived from Daventry, plus others from their Scotland Regional Distribution Centre at Livingston, up to Inverness for onward dispersal direct to the dozen or so stores in the north of Scotland.

Their financial incentive is the economy of scale most other logistics operators don’t have, plus it enables them to go large on the green credentials, although in reality it is a relatively small contribution to their environmental effort.

Tesco - and to be frank most other major logistics firms - don’t need to do trunk hauls across the Pennines as they have Regional distribution centres either side, often served directly from a main hub in the Midlands / London area or from suppliers direct wherever they are located. Some will come from ports - but not much, and certainly not enough for a train load.

Ok so Tesco can have their own trains as they have the economies of scale but mixed companies intermodal/swap bodies are possible too. What's stopping a few companies working together to create a service which is very similar but using a few companies with 1/3 of a train each. Each has the same aims and it still fills a train. Just it isn't down as 1 brand.
Whats to stop someone doing a swap body and intermodal train where they literally just sell space on the train then any company can use it for domestic swap bodies or shipping firms pay for a slot on the train for containers. There are ways that intermodal (swapbody or container) trains could work on the Pennines but it relies on the infrastructure being in place. That then goes back to what I said earlier about chicken and egg.

As for your point on hauls across the Pennines, there are a lot of HGVs making those journeys across the Pennines. You'd have to do very detailed analysis though to establish the true start and end point of each lorry, if the goods can be moved by rail and then work out if the costs are suitable.

 

[zwk500]

Tesco have "particularly good rates" (source below) on return loads on their trains so to say 'they don't want to share a train' must be somewhat false else they wouldn't be offering return loads.
Tesco are unlikely to want to help Sainsburys though as they are direct competitors.

Source: http://freightfilter.com/uk-rail-freight-guide/

I'm guessing that Tesco's patterns are almost exclusively single-direction. They'll be selling space that would otherwise just be running empty, so it's just a few extra quid for free, effectively. I doubt there's much produce moving from Tesco shops back to Daventry/Felixstowe.

 

[Bald Rick]

But if ships are diverting away from the original major ports

They aren’t, at least not in any significant numbers.

Ok so Tesco can have their own trains as they have the economies of scale but mixed companies intermodal/swap bodies are possible too. What's stopping a few companies working together to create a service which is very similar but using a few companies with 1/3 of a train each. Each has the same aims and it still fills a train. Just it isn't down as 1 brand.

They could, and indeed have done, on similar trunk flows. It is more difficult though, as you have to line up two different logistics networks.

As for your point on hauls across the Pennines, there are a lot of HGVs making those journeys across the Pennines. You'd have to do very detailed analysis though to establish the true start and end point of each lorry, if the goods can be moved by rail and then work out if the costs are suitable.

There are. There won’t be too many with swapbodies on the back though. HGVs are, again, a different part of the logistics market. And yes you would have to do a decent analysis - albeit not of every lorry! But, yes, logistics firms do this sort of market intelligence, otherwise they’d be out of business in short order. And they’ll tell you that the cross Pennines market is not trunk flows like those to and from ports or between major distribution centres, but lots of smaller flows; from factory to various distributi9n centres, from distribution centres to end customers, that sort of thing.

Whats to stop someone doing a swap body and intermodal train where they literally just sell space on the train then any company can use it for domestic swap bodies or shipping firms pay for a slot on the train for containers

Nothing, and it happens now - albeit almost entirely with international containers from port to inland terminal. But this is a crucial point - there is little domestic container traffic, and little swap body traffic to the ports. So the logistics routes don’t often align. The answer to “what’s to stop it” is that there is insufficient demand for it, even on the very busiest trunk routes. There will be no market for it across the Pennines.

There are ways that intermodal (swapbody or container) trains could work on the Pennines but it relies on the infrastructure being in place.

There’s several hundred HGVs go down my road every day, and there’s a railway very close by, but it is inconceivable that any of them would transfer to rail even if it was cleared to GC gauge.

I doubt there's much produce moving from Tesco shops back to Daventry/Felixstowe.

A fair few empty roll cages of course, and a good trade in a wee dram or two on the backhaul. Although a lot of that is in boxes ex Coatbridge.

 

[furnessvale]

I'm guessing that Tesco's patterns are almost exclusively single-direction. They'll be selling space that would otherwise just be running empty, so it's just a few extra quid for free, effectively. I doubt there's much produce moving from Tesco shops back to Daventry/Felixstowe.

As I understand it, the Tesco model relies on backloads from various suppliers at the far end of the routes who are sending traffic to Daventry. An example could be say, IrnBru, who would send several HGVs to supermarket main centres where it would be broken down for local distribution. It is ironic that some of these products will inevitably find their way onto another train going back where they cam from.

 

[Bald Rick]

As I understand it, the Tesco model relies on backloads from various suppliers at the far end of the routes who are sending traffic to Daventry. An example could be say, IrnBru, who would send several HGVs to supermarket main centres where it would be broken down for local distribution. It is ironic that some of these products will inevitably find their way onto another train going back where they cam from.

Indeed. I wonder if the Highland Spring siding facility at Blackford will make use of the backhaul from Inverness. In a remarkable coincidence, Tesco’s “Perthshire Mineral Water” comes from the same plant!

 

[zwk500]

A fair few empty roll cages of course, and a good trade in a wee dram or two on the backhaul. Although a lot of that is in boxes ex Coatbridge.

As I understand it, the Tesco model relies on backloads from various suppliers at the far end of the routes who are sending traffic to Daventry. An example could be say, IrnBru, who would send several HGVs to supermarket main centres where it would be broken down for local distribution. It is ironic that some of these products will inevitably find their way onto another train going back where they cam from.

Indeed. I wonder if the Highland Spring siding facility at Blackford will make use of the backhaul from Inverness. In a remarkable coincidence, Tesco’s “Perthshire Mineral Water” comes from the same plant!

Cheers for this, I did expect Tesco to be trying to get the most out of the return flows, interesting to know who actually does make use of it. Isn't Blackford meant to be hosting a Freightliner site at some point?

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn't Blackford meant to be hosting a Freightliner site at some point?

It’s operator agnostic of course. But the facility must be nearly ready. Designed for containers, but it would seem an obvious win to fill some of the returning swapbodies from Inverness if there is time in the cycle to do so (there may not be).

Most of the water produced by the plant already travels by rail, albeit it is taken by road to Coatbridge and loaded there. The siding is about taking lorries off the A9 / M9 / M80 / M73, and particularly out of the village of Blackford itself.

 

[markymark2000]

They aren’t, at least not in any significant numbers.

They seem to be. Liverpool has had a huge boom in container ships and I feel that will only continue with Liverpool2

They could, and indeed have done, on similar trunk flows. It is more difficult though, as you have to line up two different logistics networks.

Difficult, not impossible though as you say. If 2 companies are focussing on creating a greener supply chain, it's good press for them both and so if rail can be competative, more people will move. I'll keep saying it, why will anyone invest in the infrastructure for intermodal when there is so little potential in terms of routes for the trains to go. You end up paying up a lot of money and all it does is make your supply chain less flexible. If you have lots of routes though where intermodal can be used, you are more likely to use intermodal.

There are. There won’t be too many with swapbodies on the back though. HGVs are, again, a different part of the logistics market. And yes you would have to do a decent analysis - albeit not of every lorry! But, yes, logistics firms do this sort of market intelligence, otherwise they’d be out of business in short order. And they’ll tell you that the cross Pennines market is not trunk flows like those to and from ports or between major distribution centres, but lots of smaller flows; from factory to various distributi9n centres, from distribution centres to end customers, that sort of thing.

Lots of smaller flows all making the change could enable some larger flows.

Nothing, and it happens now - albeit almost entirely with international containers from port to inland terminal. But this is a crucial point - there is little domestic container traffic, and little swap body traffic to the ports. So the logistics routes don’t often align. The answer to “what’s to stop it” is that there is insufficient demand for it, even on the very busiest trunk routes. There will be no market for it across the Pennines.

There is little domestic traffic because by and large, the routes don't exist and people haven't put focus on it because it's too difficult to make it work. IF there were more routes available and more companies could use intermodal for more links, more companies would invest. It's a large upfront cost for little benefit right now. More routes though means more potential for companies to make more use and therefore any investment is better spent and they will see more return. If a company in Teesside can make use of a service to Daventry, it's a lot of cost for the swapbodies/containers for that one single flow. If however the also make use of a service to Liverpool, the investment becomes more viable.


As i've said before, I think it's just you personally being against any improvements to the railways and against any move towards more domestic intermodal. It's no wonder that the govt doesn't invest in the railways when even NR employees have no ambition for rail usage to expand. Let's all sit back and let domestic intermodal pass us by and then in 15 years time, we can have a discussion about how trans pennine intermodal should have been done many years earlier to take advantage of the now gone opportunity to improve modal shift.

 

[zwk500]

As i've said before, I think it's just you personally being against any improvements to the railways and against any move towards more domestic intermodal. It's no wonder that the govt doesn't invest in the railways when even NR employees have no ambition for rail usage to expand. Let's all sit back and let domestic intermodal pass us by and then in 15 years time, we can have a discussion about how trans pennine intermodal should have been done many years earlier to take advantage of the now gone opportunity to improve modal shift.

The problem with 'lack of ambition' arguments is that they fail to answer the 'lack of money' argument. NR employees are required, as part of NR's obligations to the taxpayer, to identify the best way to spend the pot that it has. A new route from Colne to Skipton (the fact that there's a rough trench already there is, fundamentally, irrelevant), and gauge clearing Skipton-Leeds does not meet that objective. Electrification of Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester, however, opens up opportunities for cost-effective 775m and W10/12 clearance. After that work is done, plugging the gaps around Manchester and Wakefield becomes a much more affordable prospect.

 

[Greybeard33]

They seem to be. Liverpool has had a huge boom in container ships and I feel that will only continue with Liverpool2


Difficult, not impossible though as you say. If 2 companies are focussing on creating a greener supply chain, it's good press for them both and so if rail can be competative, more people will move. I'll keep saying it, why will anyone invest in the infrastructure for intermodal when there is so little potential in terms of routes for the trains to go. You end up paying up a lot of money and all it does is make your supply chain less flexible. If you have lots of routes though where intermodal can be used, you are more likely to use intermodal.


Lots of smaller flows all making the change could enable some larger flows.


There is little domestic traffic because by and large, the routes don't exist and people haven't put focus on it because it's too difficult to make it work. IF there were more routes available and more companies could use intermodal for more links, more companies would invest. It's a large upfront cost for little benefit right now. More routes though means more potential for companies to make more use and therefore any investment is better spent and they will see more return. If a company in Teesside can make use of a service to Daventry, it's a lot of cost for the swapbodies/containers for that one single flow. If however the also make use of a service to Liverpool, the investment becomes more viable.


As i've said before, I think it's just you personally being against any improvements to the railways and against any move towards more domestic intermodal. It's no wonder that the govt doesn't invest in the railways when even NR employees have no ambition for rail usage to expand. Let's all sit back and let domestic intermodal pass us by and then in 15 years time, we can have a discussion about how trans pennine intermodal should have been done many years earlier to take advantage of the now gone opportunity to improve modal shift.

Good luck with selling the business case for investment in transpennine gauge clearance to HM Treasury when the benefit side of the BCR amounts to little more than "if we build it, they might come."

There are plenty of surefire green investment projects competing for public investment that could reduce carbon emissions far more than rail freight ever will.

 

[markymark2000]

Good luck with selling the business case for investment in transpennine gauge clearance to HM Treasury when the benefit side of the BCR amounts to little more than "if we build it, they might come."

There are plenty of surefire green investment projects competing for public investment that could reduce carbon emissions far more than rail freight ever will.

Well no one is going to come if the infrastructure isn't in place.

There was no guarantee of the Tweedbank line having usage when that got built, they still built in in the hope people use it. The UK govt is funding lots of little stations in the middle no where with a village of 30 as part of the rebuild your railway thing. If there is money to waste on fantasy projects such as station in the tiniest of tiny towns, there is money to spend on improving loading gauge to create more freight routes.

The problem with 'lack of ambition' arguments is that they fail to answer the 'lack of money' argument. NR employees are required, as part of NR's obligations to the taxpayer, to identify the best way to spend the pot that it has. A new route from Colne to Skipton (the fact that there's a rough trench already there is, fundamentally, irrelevant), and gauge clearing Skipton-Leeds does not meet that objective. Electrification of Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester, however, opens up opportunities for cost-effective 775m and W10/12 clearance. After that work is done, plugging the gaps around Manchester and Wakefield becomes a much more affordable prospect.

If they sort out Leeds - Manchester with W10/12 clearange, that's fine. I have no preference really on the routing of any trans Pennine freight routing. I've only mentioned the potential routings and someone else mentioned Skipton to Colne. I am not really fussed if Skipton-Colne is built or isn't, just pick whichever routing could get W10 (or W12) clearance at the best price and the most potential for any freight routing (no good having clearance if there is then no paths available).

 

[zwk500]

Well no one is going to come if the infrastructure isn't in place.

There was no guarantee of the Tweedbank line having usage when that got built, they still built in in the hope people use it. The UK govt is funding lots of little stations in the middle no where with a village of 30 as part of the rebuild your railway thing. If there is money to waste on fantasy projects such as station in the tiniest of tiny towns, there is money to spend on improving loading gauge to create more freight routes.

The borders line was almost entirely a political project.

If they sort out Leeds - Manchester with W10/12 clearange, that's fine. I have no preference really on the routing of any trans Pennine freight routing. I've only mentioned the potential routings and someone else mentioned Skipton to Colne. I am not really fussed if Skipton-Colne is built or isn't, just pick whichever routing could get W10 (or W12) clearance at the best price and the most potential for any freight routing (no good having clearance if there is then no paths available).

As ever with the railway, the problem is that a route isn't any good until the very last bridge is big enough. Liverpool to east of Manchester avoiding Oxford Road is going to need lots of little bits that will quickly add up.

 

[Bald Rick]

They seem to be. Liverpool has had a huge boom in container ships and I feel that will only continue with Liverpool2

How many of those are diversions from east coast ports, and how many are new services altogether? Felixstowe, Southampton and Gateway are as busy as ever...

I'll keep saying it, why will anyone invest in the infrastructure for intermodal when there is so little potential in terms of routes for the trains to go.

And I keep saying it, and hopefully it will sink in... Plenty of logistics firms, and the U.K. Government, invest in intermodal infrastructure. However they invest where they know or expect the demand will be, and where they can be reasonably sure they will get a suitable return on that investment. They don’t make substantial speculative investment on the chance that a market might exist, one day. That is a one way trip toinsolvency.

There is little domestic traffic because by and large, the routes don't exist and people haven't put focus on it because it's too difficult to make it work.

You misunderstand. There is little domestic container traffic in the country by any mode, it’s not just a rail thing; it’s the nature of the geography and economy of the country. A significant majority of ISO boxes you see on the back of a lorry in this country are on a trip to or from a port, or an inland container terminal having recently arrived there on a train from a port. Perhaps I’ll give you the details of my friend who used to run an international container company so he can explain how the container market works.

As i've said before, I think it's just you personally being against any improvements to the railways and against any move towards more domestic intermodal.

As I’ve said before, you don’t know me or what I’ve done. Those that do know me know that what you say above is incorrect. I won’t list the improvements to the railways that I have been personally responsible for, or involved in, as we’d be here all night. I’d genuinely be delighted if there was a case for enabling more intermodal to cross the Pennines by rail. But, at present, there is not enough of a market for this - by any mode - to justify the sort of investment that it entails. If it can be done more cheaply off the back of Transpennine electrification or NPR, then that would be great.

However I think it’s rather poor form to criticise someone you don’t know, when they are trying to explain (perhaps a little too patiently) the realities behind the U.K. logisitcs market, and how that relates to rail. Perhaps you could tell us all what you do for a living, then I can suggest you’re not doing your job properly?

Lots of smaller flows all making the change could enable some larger flows.

As indeed it already does on routes where there are heavy flows of boxes or swapbodies, all starting and/or finishing at the same place, and preferably over a reasonably long distance. As I’ve explained upthread, this simply isn’t the case across the Pennines, by any mode, at least not sufficiently so to justify independent investment in a route via Skipton / Colne etc. that would be getting on for a billion quid. Perhaps I’ll give you the details of another friend who runs a major logistics firm so he can explain what the U.K. logisitics market looks like, and where the big flows are in this country. Or another friend who runs a rail freight company so that he can explain where the market for rail is (and isn’t).

I've only mentioned the potential routings and someone else mentioned Skipton to Colne.

The OP in post #1. It’s the whole premise of the thread.

If a company in Teesside can make use of a service to Daventry, it's a lot of cost for the swapbodies/containers for that one single flow. If however the also make use of a service to Liverpool, the investment becomes more viable.

That’s not how the container market works, and not really how it works for swapbodies either. But they are different. As I said before, containers are largely rented by the people who use them. Container ‘investment’ is done by a relatively small number of large container operators, the big shipping lines and companies like TRIU etc. It’s a worldwide market. People who need containers rent them from these companies or intermediaries. No investment required.

Swapbodies are much more likely to be owned by the logistics firms themselves - Stobart, Malcolm, Russell etc., so yes, som investment is required. However, to use your example, the investment by a company in swapbodies for a Teeside - Daventry service would likely be entirely independent of a Teeside - Liverpool service. The swapbodies would be bought for the specific flow and commodity and quite probably dedicated to it. The economy of scale comes at the terminals, but in this example, they are already built.

There was no guarantee of the Tweedbank line having usage when that got built, they still built it

There’s no guarantees about anything, especially right now. However, using the Borders line as an example, there was a lot of research, forecasting and modelling done to demonstrate that a market existed for the line. And that research has proved to be reasonably accurate.

It’s the same in the freight market. No logistics firm starts a route, or makes an investment, without having done their homework first. Usually they will have a customer lined up to kick it off. I can assure you that this research has been (and continues to be) done for all sorts of routes and markets around the rail network. And where there is a case to deliver the investment, it tends to happen. All those W10 routes around the country didn’t exist 20 years ago, and us taxpayers have spent hundreds of millions of pounds enabling it. Some of us have even been responsible for some of the work

 

[markymark2000]

You misunderstand. There is little domestic container traffic in the country by any mode, it’s not just a rail thing; it’s the nature of the geography and economy of the country. A significant majority of ISO boxes you see on the back of a lorry in this country are on a trip to or from a port, or an inland container terminal having recently arrived there on a train from a port. Perhaps I’ll give you the details of my friend who used to run an international container company so he can explain how the container market works.

There are very limited routes though for domestic intermodal because of the gauge clearance. Why invest in something which is very restrictive. If rail was less restrictive, more people would consider it an option. It's a barrier to change I guess is what I am saying. Like with passengers, we talk about barriers to travel, this is a barrier to modal shift. The more barriers that can be knocked down, the more people will be open to change.

I do get your side and it comes down to chicken and egg. No one will invest while the line is so restrictive and the line won't become less restrictive until there is a service and proven demand. The only way to prove demand is by making a service which right now would have to use smaller swapbodies/containers or would have to divert miles off course via Burton and Derby which would eliminate basically any speed or environmental benefits and so it's a lot of cost for no benefit and the service operator just hoping that it leads to the Govt/NR investing in gauge clearance. It's a no win situation for anyone. Whoever takes the first step is taking a huge financial gamble. Maybe a compromise could be reached of NR and the Govt guaranteeing that if a service comes along, they will fund gauge improvements. Better than it being in limbo like now with both sides hoping the other does the right thing.

Swapbodies are much more likely to be owned by the logistics firms themselves - Stobart, Malcolm, Russell etc., so yes, som investment is required. However, to use your example, the investment by a company in swapbodies for a Teeside - Daventry service would likely be entirely independent of a Teeside - Liverpool service. The swapbodies would be bought for the specific flow and commodity and quite probably dedicated to it. The economy of scale comes at the terminals, but in this example, they are already built.

It depends on how frequent a flow is and how quickly the containers/swapbodies can be returned. For very frequent flows, you wouldn't have them as separates but in some instances, it may work out cheaper or quicker if you have 2 flows to mix the things between the routes. You don't want containers/swapbodies sat around for days between trains and so it may work out better than when flow 1 returns, the containers then load up and go back out as flow 2, come back in, load up and go out on flow 1 etc. It's a possible way of operation and relies on a lot of variables to make the most out of any investment.

 

[Bald Rick]

There are very limited routes though for domestic intermodal because of the gauge clearance.

I’m sorry, but I’ll say it again. There are limited markets for domestic containers. It’s not just a rail issue.
There’s little point the rail industry investing in a market that barely exists. Setting up a route network for domestic containers would be similar to setting up a network of routes for domestic coal.

It depends on how frequent a flow is and how quickly the containers/swapbodies can be returned. For very frequent flows, you wouldn't have them as separates but in some instances, it may work out cheaper or quicker if you have 2 flows to mix the things between the routes. You don't want containers/swapbodies sat around for days between trains and so it may work out better than when flow 1 returns, the containers then load up and go back out as flow 2, come back in, load up and go out on flow 1 etc. It's a possible way of operation and relies on a lot of variables to make the most out of any investment.

Can I ask - do you, or have you, worked in the logistics industry?

 

[markymark2000]

I’m sorry, but I’ll say it again. There are limited markets for domestic containers. It’s not just a rail issue.
There’s little point the rail industry investing in a market that barely exists. Setting up a route network for domestic containers would be similar to setting up a network of routes for domestic coal.

Difference being coal is dying out really in this country as we try to switch to renewables. Intermodal has huge potential to grow if the infrastructure is in place. You keep saying there are limited markets but what do you expect when the railway doesn't have the gauge clearance for domestic intermodal.

We're certainly going to agree to disagree here as we're going round in circles.

Can I ask - do you, or have you, worked in the logistics industry?

My job and previous employment does not have to be disclosed on the internet.

 

[Bald Rick]

Difference being coal is dying out really in this country as we try to switch to renewables

Domestic coal, ie coal for heating homes and workplaces, has been essentially negligible for two decades.

You keep saying there are limited markets but what do you expect when the railway doesn't have the gauge clearance for domestic intermodal.

I keep saying it because it’s true! And I’ll repeat, it is not a rail thing. If there was a massive flow of containers across the Pennines, the rail freight hauliers would be making a lot of noise about it. They aren’t, because it is not a potential big market, and they know that investment in freight is better spent elsewhere. Sorting Ely for example (on two key intermodal routes where there is demand, all modes). Longer sidings at Southampton (where there is intermodal demand, all modes). Electrifying some heavily used freight lines to make the operation more efficient and thus more competitive against road. Hope Valley capacity. Continental gauge trains into Ripple Lane. And so on.

My job and previous employment does not have to be disclosed on the internet.

Fair enough. Don’t make unfounded criticisms of those who have, then.

 

[HSTEd]

One thing that has shown up in international shipping is the containerisation of what were once considered "bulk" loads.
Including grain, cement, coal and other stuff like that.

Has that shown up in the UK rail market?

 

[zwk500]

I keep saying it because it’s true! And I’ll repeat, it is not a rail thing.

I think the desire for this solution is so strong that nothing will convince him that there is no problem to be solved.

One thing that has shown up in international shipping is the containerisation of what were once considered "bulk" loads.
Including grain, cement, coal and other stuff like that.

Has that shown up in the UK rail market?

Not across the Pennines, I believe.

 

[markymark2000]

I keep saying it because it’s true! And I’ll repeat, it is not a rail thing. If there was a massive flow of containers across the Pennines, the rail freight hauliers would be making a lot of noise about it. They aren’t, because it is not a potential big market, and they know that investment in freight is better spent elsewhere. Sorting Ely for example (on two key intermodal routes where there is demand, all modes). Longer sidings at Southampton (where there is intermodal demand, all modes). Electrifying some heavily used freight lines to make the operation more efficient and thus more competitive against road. Hope Valley capacity. Continental gauge trains into Ripple Lane. And so on.

There wasn't for a long time because north east and west ports weren't half as busy. Containers to Liverpool, Teesside, Hull and Immingham has grown quite a lot in the past few years. 2020 data isn't yet available but 2018-2019, there was between an 8 and 14% increase in containers to these ports. Liverpool aiming for 1mil TEU is as well with the development of Liverpool 2. More containers are going through these northern ports and so it's important that the infrastructure is available to support these additional containers.


I have never said about other schemes which I agree are very important, this should be an as well as, not an instead of. Like I said, this discussion is going around in circles and we could be here until it's 5 pages long saying the same thing over and over. Clearly a difference of opinion and neither is going to win the other one over.


As for making noise on the situation, the Rail Freight Group has done quite an in depth analysis on it and has called for W10/12 on a trans pennine route: http://www.rfg.org.uk/rfg-position-papers-transpennine-upgrade/

 

[zwk500]

As for making noise on the situation, the Rail Freight Group has done quite an in depth analysis on it and has called for W10/12 on a trans pennine route: http://www.rfg.org.uk/rfg-position-papers-transpennine-upgrade/

The key takeaway from those reports: if you want gauge clearance for freight, you need it to be part of electrification.
And that Diggle is the ONLY viable transpennine route. Paths between Liverpool and Stalybridge for a freight train are few and far between. One of Man Vic, Oxford Road, or Stockport needs to be traversed/bypassed.

 

[Dr Hoo]

One thing that has shown up in international shipping is the containerisation of what were once considered "bulk" loads.
Including grain, cement, coal and other stuff like that.

Has that shown up in the UK rail market?

Worth noting that denser bulk loads tend not to need W12 dimensions.

The Knowsley-Wilton refuse-derived-fuel flow is a transpennine containerised operation already, using 'smaller' boxes.

 

[HSTEd]

Worth noting that denser bulk loads tend not to need W12 dimensions.

The Knowsley-Wilton refuse-derived-fuel flow is a transpennine containerised operation already, using 'smaller' boxes.

Many bulk goods would load to an intermodal container's rated weight in rather less than half the height of a high cube though. At which point we can embrace our inner yankee and double stack them!

 

[furnessvale]

Many bulk goods would load to an intermodal container's rated weight in rather less than half the height of a high cube though. At which point we can embrace our inner yankee and double stack them!

And then exceed the UK axle load, especially if U.S. styled articulated well wagons were used.