Why Is Railfreight So Expensive?

[90019]

b) Damage to roads is the axle weight to the fourth power. So a lorry does thousands of times more damage to the road than a car.

Though the HGV spreads it's weight over quite a few more axles and many more wheels than a car.
There are also many more HGVs using air suspension systems, which cause less damage than conventional springs.

In 2010, there were 7,103 accidents involving at least one HGV, with 9,686 casualties. Of those casualties, 263 were fatalities.

The important thing there is that it is the number of collisions where an HGV is involved, not where it is caused by the HGV - I'd be much more interested in seeing the figures for collisions caused by HGVs compared to those caused by cars - I'd put money on the overall percentage being higher for cars.
From my own experience, the standard of driving amongst HGV drivers is significantly above that of car drivers and when there is a collision, the other party is often the one at fault - but hey, I've only covered going on 150k on the roads in the past 5 years, so what would I know about driving?

Rather than trying to penalise HGV drivers, how about introducing more thorough training for car drivers and a harder driving test?
Because the current one is ridiculously easy, and teaches you very little about how to actually control a car safely. It also doesn't teach you about other vehicles using the roads - things like giving large vehicles space on the road, or what a long vehicle may need to do when turning.
Truthfully, and without consulting anything, how many of those on here with just a car licence could tell me the speed limit of a bus on an NSL dual carriageway? Or an HGV on a single carriageway?

Oh, and while I'm at it, ban this 'fast pass' bollocks, because it doesn't teach people how to drive, it just teaches them enough to pass the test, and means they are usually a danger on the roads.

I think you may just be in a minority there!

He certainly isn't amongst those who drive professionally.

Assuming it is correct that road hauliers don't pay their fare share of repair costs. If their taxes and charges were increased (including those paid by foreign operators) to reflect the actual cost, then clearly everything that is hauled by road would cost more (and that means most things). But since the state pays for highway maintenance today, then other taxation would go down by the same amount. Most people, who are both taxpayers and consumers of goods hauled by road, would be affected only a little.

The thing that bugs me about this is that the majority of the revenue raised from the roads isn't reinvested in them, but goes elsewhere. Frustratingly I no longer have the figures I used to have about the amounts raised and the amount invested, but percentage wise, I believe it was down into single figures, possibly low doubles.
But going by that, I would argue that all road users are paying their way, but it isn't being given back, which is why we have such a poor road system in this country



As a side note, Moonshot, please can you learn how to use the quote button.

 

[Eagle]

The thing that bugs me about this is that the majority of the revenue raised from the roads isn't reinvested in them, but goes elsewhere. Frustratingly I no longer have the figures I used to have about the amounts raised and the amount invested, but percentage wise, I believe it was down into single figures, possibly low doubles.

Quick grab of figures from Wikipedia for 2009:

Vehicle excise duty raised £5.63bn
Fuel tax raised £25.89bn
VAT on fuel raised £3.89bn
Total revenue from road vehicles: £35.41bn

A figure for the total expenditure on roads is hard to come by (being as it's split up between the HA, devolved governments and local councils), but the total expenditure on all transport that year was £23bn. If you want to guess at how much of that went to roads, the HA's budget was £2.1bn.

 

[Moonshot]

Interesting bit in this link about how the worst offenders for breaking speed limits are in fact HGV drivers..

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/28/road-deaths-great-britain-data

Makes you wonder why HGV drivers now have to sit a CPC nowadays....

 

[Eagle]

That's surprising, considering that HGV drivers have a tachograph and any time they speed can be detected, as opposed to just when a police car or camera spots them as is the case with cars.

 

[90019]

The majority of that will be HGVs doing 56 on NSL single and dual carriageways, which I don't find particularly surprising.
On single carriageways, it can occasionally be more dangerous to stick to the speed limit, because of impatient car drivers who are unaware of the lower limit for HGVs and will attempt dangerous overtakes to get past, thinking the HGV is deliberately being slow to annoy them.
Regardless of that, speed in itself is not dangerous, excessive speed for the situation is the problem. Doing 30 in a 30 limit may be excessive, just as doing 85 in a 70 may not be, posted limits are not the be all and end all in terms of what is dangerous and/or excessive, despite what some may want you to believe.

The CPC is a joke. The initial CPC is the only vaguely worthwhile one, and it's still a waste of time. The whole thing is just a money making scheme.

 

[Moonshot]

The majority of that will be HGVs doing 56 on NSL single and dual carriageways, which I don't find particularly surprising.
On single carriageways, it can occasionally be more dangerous to stick to the speed limit, because of impatient car drivers who are unaware of the lower limit for HGVs and will attempt dangerous overtakes to get past, thinking the HGV is deliberately being slow to annoy them.
Regardless of that, speed in itself is not dangerous, excessive speed for the situation is the problem. Doing 30 in a 30 limit may be excessive, just as doing 85 in a 70 may not be, posted limits are not the be all and end all in terms of what is dangerous and/or excessive, despite what some may want you to believe.

The CPC is a joke. The initial CPC is the only vaguely worthwhile one, and it's still a waste of time. The whole thing is just a money making scheme.

No idea if its a joke or not.....I m only reporting on what has been brought out. But if money making was the priority , surely that would been stated as the reason for bringing the CPC out?

 

[90019]

No idea if its a joke or not.....I m only reporting on what has been brought out. But if money making was the priority , surely that would been stated as the reason for bringing the CPC out?

You think they'd admit that?

There is no pass or fail for the normal CPC, you just have to turn up.
You could do the same course monday to friday, turn up every day and sleep at the back of the room, but because you've been there you've done your 35 hours. You now have your CPC and don't have to do it again for 5 years.
Most people do 1 day a year, but it's the same idea - you can turn up and do nothing, ignore what's being said and still leave at the end of the day with another 7 hours done.

It's a total waste of time.

 

[Moonshot]

You think they'd admit that?

There is no pass or fail for the normal CPC, you just have to turn up.
You could do the same course monday to friday, turn up every day and sleep at the back of the room, but because you've been there you've done your 35 hours. You now have your CPC and don't have to do it again for 5 years.
Most people do 1 day a year, but it's the same idea - you can turn up and do nothing, ignore what's being said and still leave at the end of the day with another 7 hours done.

It's a total waste of time.

Proof will be in the pudding really .....whether it achieves what is set out to do.....which will probaby be found out as a result of an industry wide audit.

 

[Domeyhead]

Er excuse me, but how do YOU benefit from trucks NOT being on the road?

Because myself and every other road user - yes other lorries too - benefits from completing a journey in less time and able to perform more productive work in less time. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. I am paid for my particular expertise - I am not earning money for me or my employer when I am sat behind a wheel in a jam listening to music.

 

[edwin_m]

Quick grab of figures from Wikipedia for 2009:

Vehicle excise duty raised £5.63bn
Fuel tax raised £25.89bn
VAT on fuel raised £3.89bn
Total revenue from road vehicles: £35.41bn

A figure for the total expenditure on roads is hard to come by (being as it's split up between the HA, devolved governments and local councils), but the total central government expenditure on all transport that year was £23bn. If you want to guess at how much of that went to roads, the HA's budget was £2.1bn.

Thanks for those figures. Hope you don't mind my clarification in bold - I assume your source was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom.

As well as spending by local government, we mustn't forget the costs incurred by the police, NHS and measures (that mostly aren't taken but should be) to mitigate noise and pollution from the roads. The £23m above would also include grants and subsidies to bus and rail, which some would say should be taken out but I suggest should stay in as it helps to reduce roads congestion and wouldn't be needed if more people used public transport instead of driving.

 

[Domeyhead]

Depends how you look at it really does'nt it, you've done it to put things in your favour now let me turn it around and put it in road haulages favour....... lets get rid of a freight train and put the 35-40 trucks on the road, we'll replace the freight train with a passenger train that carries what? 400-500 passengers, so that removes lets be generous and say 300 cars from the road, so we lost 300 cars from the road and gained 35-40 trucks, lets remove another freight train and replace that with another passenger train, were now in the situation where we have gained 70-80 trucks on the road and lost around 600 cars........ shall i carry on?

Like i said, cars are the problem, not trucks!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Because its better for the environment.
It causes less congestion.
Hes not damaging the road.

You know, all the reasons you goive for freight moving onto the railway... it works both ways you know!

And please do feel free to explain what you mean by inconsiderate HGV drivers?

I haven't made any comments about truck drivers - in my experience they are the best drivers on the road by far and apart from those that pull out alongside another truck on an uphill grind and block two lanes for minutes at a time they are usually considerate too. But to take issue with your logic - you are assuming that cars are on the road because the passenger trains are full. That is wrong, or perhaps only very slightly right. There are many factors involved - the chief of which is end to end journey time and that may be something that HS2 would address on the journey I described in my original post, but I am unaware of any passenger train path to the north that has been desired by a TOC but declined because of a freight train path. THe passenger network is not constrained by freight. (yet).

 

[The Planner]

but I am unaware of any passenger train path to the north that has been desired by a TOC but declined because of a freight train path. THe passenger network is not constrained by freight. (yet).

Yes it is and they are. If a Freight train has level 1 contractual rights and it cannot be flexed by 30 minutes to a path that works and is acceptable to the FOC then the new path, passenger or freight gets a fat RE next to it.

 

[Domeyhead]

Yes it is and they are. If a Freight train has level 1 contractual rights and it cannot be flexed by 30 minutes to a path that works and is acceptable to the FOC then the new path, passenger or freight gets a fat RE next to it.

I don't understand your point. I'm not asking for clarification of the rules - I'm saying that I am not aware of specific TOC on the route from Southampton to the Midlands (XC, or FGW) wanting an additional path and being refused because of a freight path. If you are, what was the TOC, the route, the end to end journey and specific time that was applied for and refused?

 

[The Planner]

I am expected to remember the exact details from all the years I have been planning!? I know for a fact freight were a deciding factor in the Virgin paths recently.

 

[306024]

Freight is a deciding factor in many timetables. For example, the passenger timetable on the East Suffolk Line and the Felixstowe branch is optimised to provide the maximum possible capacity for freight between Ipswich and Westerfield. Likewise the GEML timetable is planned with regular freight paths.

 

[Domeyhead]

Freight is a deciding factor in many timetables. For example, the passenger timetable on the East Suffolk Line and the Felixstowe branch is optimised to provide the maximum possible capacity for freight between Ipswich and Westerfield. Likewise the GEML timetable is planned with regular freight paths.

There is a difference between deciding and delimiting. If there are places where TOCs have asked but are unable to run more trains due to freight paths then I suggest they are very few, if any. Retiming a train is not the same as not even running one at all because no paths are left. I'm not suggesting there is no congestion - everyone knows there is - but there are too many silly hyperbolic statements on this thread. The solution to increasing rail freight capacity without impeding passenger growth is to standardise (which has happened already) lengthening freight trains, shortening some signalling sections and improving acceleration and top speeds. Only an idiot would advocate removing the entire freight load to roads before these things were done. And to get back to my previous point - would passenger traffic suddenly expand in a huge step change to immediately consume all the vacated paths? No it wouldn't, so I'm not sure why that has been cited either. I'f like to see details of the 20-25 new passenger trains that TOCs have been trying unsuccesfully to run to the West Midlands all these years if only rail freight wasn't there.

 

[andypops]

While off-topic, this may be interesting to some...

Having read all 14 pages of this discussion, it's interesting to see arguments developing between the two "camps" of posters.

I would like to point out Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, which describes the levels people take when refuting each other's arguments.

Interestingly, in my opinion some arguments made by the 'pro HGV' camp often use lower tier arguments, to such an extent I initially thought they were trolling. Without making any comment on this, it does weaken their case in the eyes of a relative outsider like me who has no bias towards either side.

Just saying.

 

[The Planner]

Retiming a train is not the same as not even running one at all because no paths are left.

So what do we do then if we cannot re-time surrounding trains within their contractual rights to fit another train in? that suggests to me that there are no paths left. Short of wiping the graph clean and starting again you won't get around it.

I'f like to see details of the 20-25 new passenger trains that TOCs have been trying unsuccesfully to run to the West Midlands all these years if only rail freight wasn't there.

Centros aspirations to run extra local services to Nuneaton and Tamworth have fallen flat currently due to the existing freight traffic between Landor St, Water Orton, Whitacre and Tamworth. You cannot re-time the freight sufficiently and you cannot fit extra paths in. The constraints to freight now are length of loops, entry and exit speeds and flashing aspects on approach. God only knows what will happen north of Preston if HS2 phase 2 gets going....

The other thing that needs to happen is to remove the bias towards passenger traffic in business cases, plenty of junctions and loops could be improved that would benefit freight, but because there is no direct tangible benefit to passenger traffic in terms of journey time or capacity, only performance it all falls on its arse.

 

[Moonshot]

So what do we do then if we cannot re-time surrounding trains within their contractual rights to fit another train in? that suggests to me that there are no paths left. Short of wiping the graph clean and starting again you won't get around it.



Centros aspirations to run extra local services to Nuneaton and Tamworth have fallen flat currently due to the existing freight traffic between Landor St, Water Orton, Whitacre and Tamworth. You cannot re-time the freight sufficiently and you cannot fit extra paths in. The constraints to freight now are length of loops, entry and exit speeds and flashing aspects on approach. God only knows what will happen north of Preston if HS2 phase 2 gets going....

The other thing that needs to happen is to remove the bias towards passenger traffic in business cases, plenty of junctions and loops could be improved that would benefit freight, but because there is no direct tangible benefit to passenger traffic in terms of journey time or capacity, only performance it all falls on its arse.

Good post .... pretty much my train (pardon the pun but it is xmas ! ) of thought.

One thing I m not sure of....what is to stop a TOC ( or a number of TOCs ) subletting some of their off peak paths to FOCs?

 

[Bald Rick]

If there are places where TOCs have asked but are unable to run more trains due to freight paths then I suggest they are very few, if any. .

North London Line. West London Line. Gospel Oak - Barking. GEML. WCML south of Rugby. MML south of Leicester. Ely - Kings Lynn.

I'll stop now before I get too far north.

 

[GearJammer]

The majority of that will be HGVs doing 56 on NSL single and dual carriageways, which I don't find particularly surprising.
On single carriageways, it can occasionally be more dangerous to stick to the speed limit, because of impatient car drivers who are unaware of the lower limit for HGVs and will attempt dangerous overtakes to get past, thinking the HGV is deliberately being slow to annoy them.
Regardless of that, speed in itself is not dangerous, excessive speed for the situation is the problem. Doing 30 in a 30 limit may be excessive, just as doing 85 in a 70 may not be, posted limits are not the be all and end all in terms of what is dangerous and/or excessive, despite what some may want you to believe.

The CPC is a joke. The initial CPC is the only vaguely worthwhile one, and it's still a waste of time. The whole thing is just a money making scheme.

Nice to have another professional driver on here... i agree 110% with everything you said.
Funny bit is, they moan that we break the speed limit then in the next breath moan we are going to slow and causing congestion.

Sorry for delay in replying, ive been out for the past two days doing what the railways can't do when the weathers bad.... you know, providing transport to the container industry

 

[Domeyhead]

The majority of that will be HGVs doing 56 on NSL single and dual carriageways, which I don't find particularly surprising.
On single carriageways, it can occasionally be more dangerous to stick to the speed limit, because of impatient car drivers who are unaware of the lower limit for HGVs and will attempt dangerous overtakes to get past, thinking the HGV is deliberately being slow to annoy them.
Regardless of that, speed in itself is not dangerous, excessive speed for the situation is the problem. Doing 30 in a 30 limit may be excessive, just as doing 85 in a 70 may not be, posted limits are not the be all and end all in terms of what is dangerous and/or excessive, despite what some may want you to believe.

The CPC is a joke. The initial CPC is the only vaguely worthwhile one, and it's still a waste of time. The whole thing is just a money making scheme.

I agree. UK truck drivers as a group are probably the best and safest drivers on the road. I do get annoyed when one truck will pull out to overtake another despite an incline meaning it lacks the speed to complete the overtake, so a motorway effectively gets a rolling roadblock at the very place where it takes longest to clear. However to get back to an earlier point from Gearjammer. Assume A typical Post Panamax Container Ship with 14000 TEUs arrives in Southampton. Say 2000 units are all destined for the same midlands or northern terminal (name one, it doesn't matter). Does it make sense that each unit completes an identical journey up the A34 behind an independent truck with driver, or does it make sense to batch them up and despatch them up to 50 at a time? Before you crow about the supremacy of the truck you need to recognise that a trunk network and a hub and spoke distribution method optimises the strengths of each mode. A bit less polarisation will lead to better solutions for all.

 

[edwin_m]

A bit less polarisation will lead to better solutions for all.

+1 to that. It's a case of horses for courses. Rail is never going to serve anything other than the biggest generators of freight, whether bulk terminals, ports or intermodal transfer stations. But sensible use of both modes should allow their advantages to be combined.

 

[CalderRail]

Does it make sense that each unit completes an identical journey up the A34 behind an independent truck with driver, or does it make sense to batch them up and despatch them up to 50 at a time?

The answer to this depends on the opportunity cost. What else could be using the road or rail pathways involved?

 

[Domeyhead]

The answer to this depends on the opportunity cost. What else could be using the road or rail pathways involved?

Yes of course, but that is restating a previous argument in a slightly different way. Some on here are arguing that (every) freight path is effectively keeping a passenger train off the rails (a high opportunity cost in your definition). I argued that cases where an application by a TOC had actually been turned down was actually still fairly small, so the OC is fortunately still low - though I accept that it will grow if capacity improvements are not continuous and wide ranging. However every long distance peak time journey on our roads now encounters delays of some kind along the way, so it <<could>> be argued that every truck on that route imposes a small but clear opportunity cost in terms of a short delay - albeit perhaps only seconds - to the traffic around it. At times of severe congestion that may be repeated along the journey several times. Multiply it by 50 (a typical freight train load)and you have a tangible road freight user OC for trunk hauls.
Out of interest I travelled the London Overground route last week from Clapham to Stratford and the TFL timetable was pretty much clockface, so although the line is congested I'm still waiting to hear of actual examples of actual applications for paths made by TFL or other TOCs to NR that have been turned down due to freight train occupation. I am sure one or two exist but absolutely miniscule in the context of around 24,000 trains run per day.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes of course, but that is restating a previous argument in a slightly different way. Some on here are arguing that (every) freight path is effectively keeping a passenger train off the rails (a high opportunity cost in your definition). I argued that cases where an application by a TOC had actually been turned down was actually still fairly small, so the OC is fortunately still low - though I accept that it will grow if capacity improvements are not continuous and wide ranging. However every long distance peak time journey on our roads now encounters delays of some kind along the way, so it <<could>> be argued that every truck on that route imposes a small but clear opportunity cost in terms of a short delay - albeit perhaps only seconds - to the traffic around it. At times of severe congestion that may be repeated along the journey several times. Multiply it by 50 (a typical freight train load)and you have a tangible road freight user OC for trunk hauls.
Out of interest I travelled the London Overground route last week from Clapham to Stratford and the TFL timetable was pretty much clockface, so although the line is congested I'm still waiting to hear of actual examples of actual applications for paths made by TFL or other TOCs to NR that have been turned down due to freight train occupation. I am sure one or two exist but absolutely miniscule in the context of around 24,000 trains run per day.

Just one (rather significant) example. TfL wanted (presumably still want) to go 8tph on the NLL all day. They can't because of the freight. It didn't get to the applying for paths bit as they knew they wouldn't get them. Even the WTT times of the NLL in the peaks are not what TfL wanted, as some freight is around.

 

[Moonshot]

Just one (rather significant) example. TfL wanted (presumably still want) to go 8tph on the NLL all day. They can't because of the freight. It didn't get to the applying for paths bit as they knew they wouldn't get them. Even the WTT times of the NLL in the peaks are not what TfL wanted, as some freight is around.

In which case, surely paths should go to the operator ( passenger or freight ) who is prepared to pay the most for that access right?

 

[Bald Rick]

In which case, surely paths should go to the operator ( passenger or freight ) who is prepared to pay the most for that access right?

It's a regulated industry. The price of paths doesn't come into it. Besides, freight were there first!

 

[Moonshot]

It's a regulated industry. The price of paths doesn't come into it. Besides, freight were there first!

And there we go ..........an admission that regulating the industry causes more problems than it solves.

What would happen if the whole industry was in the private sector, and free from political interference?

 

[ainsworth74]

You'd kiss good bye to significant portions of the network!