Why Is Railfreight So Expensive?

[Trog]

What gauge was Great Central Main Line built to? I wonder if it could be converted to a rolling highway arrangement. I know there have been suggestions to re-open it as a freight only route.

Much the same as the other standard gauge main lines.

 

[GearJammer]

This thread is getting tedious, your not going to get freight onto the rail in the way you lot are talking about, it just WON'T happen, there is not the capacity to run it, and you won't get new railways built just for freight, look at the costs and objections to HS2, nobody in there right mind is going to push for a new freight line.

It seems to me that the real problem is the amount of cars on the road and as has been said on here, you will not get people to give up their cars so instead people think the solution is to remove trucks/freight when in reality there just avoiding the real issue, all the problems that exist on the road network will still be there, even if you remove every truck off the road.

 

[HSTEd]

The rolling highways in Austria and Switzerland are presumably only UIC gauge C? However many trailers in the UK are higher than European standard so maybe that wouldn't work here.

For reasons that aren't clear to me, the Channel Tunnel HGV shuttles have open frame walls and a roof. If this requrement didn't apply, as on said rolling highways, then UK-sized trailers could be carried on something smaller than Channel Tunnel gauge. I can't see any justification for anything as large as AAR H in this country.

I think the Chunnel HGV Shuttles have to have partial sides and roofs because otherwise the effects of travelling in a confined space like the tunnel at relatively high speed would cause damage or loss of cargo. Especially when the lorries can include curtain siders.

The rolling highway businesses in Europe do operate with smaller loading gauges but they also tend to lose money, although nowhere near as much money as they do in the UK.
The reason to go for AAR H is simple, there is little reason not to, and the loading gauge is the largest that can be practically used with standard gauge, meaning that you avoid ever having to rebuild the line which is always stupendously expensive.

The savings from double stack operation are so large that we would be fools to save a tiny amount by marginally reducing the cost of the line by shrinking it's loading gauge and thus prevent it from ever being employed.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the Chunnel HGV Shuttles have to have partial sides and roofs because otherwise the effects of travelling in a confined space like the tunnel at relatively high speed would cause damage or loss of cargo. Especially when the lorries can include curtain siders.

The rolling highway businesses in Europe do operate with smaller loading gauges but they also tend to lose money, although nowhere near as much money as they do in the UK.
The reason to go for AAR H is simple, there is little reason not to, and the loading gauge is the largest that can be practically used with standard gauge, meaning that you avoid ever having to rebuild the line which is always stupendously expensive.

The savings from double stack operation are so large that we would be fools to save a tiny amount by marginally reducing the cost of the line by shrinking it's loading gauge and thus prevent it from ever being employed.

But the Switzerland/Austria rolling highways seem to work without tops/sides to the wagons, presumably at similar speeds and probably also passing in double track tunnels which the Channel ones obviously don't. I guess it may just be something they could do with little extra difficulty (the gauge probably being dictated by the double-deck car shuttles) so they just did.

I would probably agree with AAR H for a brand new freight route, but I don't think anyone is considering one of those. Even the fairly radical Central Railway proposal would have been largely on existing routes (GC, Midland slow lines Leicester-Sheffield, Woodhead) so there would be a significant cost attached to a larger gauge.

 

[Domeyhead]

Away from containerised freight I was disappointed to see the loss of the (final?) fuel train to the West Country from Fawley. This ran as far as Penzance and I believe it supplied gas oil to the train operators themselves at Exeter and points west rather than to an onward fuel distributor. THis followed the loss of the bitumen flow to Plymouth that ceased a while ago. Knowing the poor road traffic conditions to the west especially in summer if railfreight could not make a business case on this railhead to railhead flow it is unsurprising it cannot attract new business elsewhere.

 

[daccer]

Reading this thread you could start to believe that railfreight inn the UK is struggling. The latest report published by the ORR showed a big increase in both tonnage lifted and distance/tonnage measures. Perrhaps with relevance to this thread the only sector to see a year on year decrease was domestic intermodal

New flows seem to be starting on a regular basis. We do seem to concentrate more on the loss of what are insignificant tonnages such as the Fawley-FGW fuel flow than the successes that seem to be occuring on a regular basis. Guess thats just human nature.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Reading through this thread it becomes clear that Britain's railways don't have the route flexibility, gauge clearance or capacity to compete properly against road haulage, especially when the economics are largely skewed in favour of the roads. The cost of increasing clearances on existing routes or building/rebuilding freight lines is colossal, and seems unlikely to happen. So, we're stuck with what we've got, and have to make the best of it.

 

[GB]

The cost of increasing clearances on existing routes or building/rebuilding freight lines is colossal, and seems unlikely to happen. So, we're stuck with what we've got, and have to make the best of it.

But gauge enhancements and other freight enhancements are already being done or completed. The trouble is as you say, the cost and it takes along time to secure funding, plan the works and carry it all out. The wheels turn...just very slowly.

There is also newly designed wagons that can increase loading capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

Those gauge clearance projects are not anywhere near enough.
We will never be able to to get to the sizes we need by gauge clearances.

 

[GB]

What sizes do we "need"?

 

[edwin_m]

The immediate objective is W10 and W12 on intermodal routes so as to handle the largest containers and swap bodies on standard height wagons.

UIC B+ would be nice, to allow standard European wagons to run in the UK, but would be extremely difficult for many reasons but one of the biggest is the incompatibility of platforms.

As I suggested earlier, anything larger would be a nice to have for a brand new freight route, but we aren't getting one of those and the costs would far outweigh the benefits for upgrading an existing one.

 

[HSTEd]

New build routes are probably the best option in the long run but as we all know, that would require capital spending with is apparently an anaethema in Britain these days.

 

[RichmondCommu]

New flows seem to be starting on a regular basis. We do seem to concentrate more on the loss of what are insignificant tonnages such as the Fawley-FGW fuel flow than the successes that seem to be occuring on a regular basis. Guess thats just human nature.

The issue is how many of those flows (assuming that they are on a trial basis) go on to be successful? We often hear of trial flows such as the Colas service into Euston that in the long term amount to nothing.

 

[daccer]

One criticism levelled at the railways over the years has been inflexibility and the inability to respond to short term requirements or run flows on a speculative basis. The advent of privatisation and competition does seem to have partly addressed this issue. If DBS dont consider a flow to be viable there are other who will take up the cudgels and can make it pay due to a variety of reasons.

Trial flows are by their very nature just as likely to fail as to succeed. Often the FOC is taking the risk (such as many intermodal services) and if demand doesnt meet expectations then the service will stop.

 

[Beveridges]

Reading this thread you could start to believe that railfreight inn the UK is struggling. The latest report published by the ORR showed a big increase in both tonnage lifted and distance/tonnage measures. Perrhaps with relevance to this thread the only sector to see a year on year decrease was domestic intermodal

Everyone knows the statistics have been rigged

 

[tbtc]

Reading this thread you could start to believe that railfreight inn the UK is struggling. The latest report published by the ORR showed a big increase in both tonnage lifted and distance/tonnage measures

...though the fact that our power stations now use coal imported through ports on the edge of the country, rather than coal mined in the middle of the country has skewed the figures a little.

All of a sudden, coal trains are travelling twice the distance that they used to (but its not because the railway is any more efficient).

 

[HSTEd]

And the fact that the railfreight operators are now the beneficiary of huge subsidies (in real terms more than double the losses of Speedlink when it was dismantled) to manage this increase in transport.
This is despite the increase in road haulage costs due to increased fuel and other charges and the aforementioned increase in coal transport distances distorting the tonne mile figures.

 

[Domeyhead]

And the fact that the railfreight operators are now the beneficiary of huge subsidies (in real terms more than double the losses of Speedlink when it was dismantled) to manage this increase in transport.
This is despite the increase in road haulage costs due to increased fuel and other charges and the aforementioned increase in coal transport distances distorting the tonne mile figures.

I was interested in this so I checked the ORR Periodic review for 2013, and there are no "massive subsidies" - in fact track access charges for railfreight have risen. THe only subsidy I can find is a reference to capital grants for infrastructure provided by Central Government - and these have fallen hugely this century.
Can you provide more detail about the subsidies - what they are , how much, who receives etc etc. Cheers.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Freight , generally paid avoidable costs on main etc lines - and full costs on freight only lines.

 

[GB]

I was interested in this so I checked the ORR Periodic review for 2013, and there are no "massive subsidies" - in fact track access charges for railfreight have risen. THe only subsidy I can find is a reference to capital grants for infrastructure provided by Central Government - and these have fallen hugely this century.
Can you provide more detail about the subsidies - what they are , how much, who receives etc etc. Cheers.

This might be of interest...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-mode-shift-revenue-support-msrs-scheme

Basically rail freight companies receive a payment for each container moved between certain areas. Its to help offset the operating costs of taking containers off the road and putting them on rail.

 

[edwin_m]

This might be of interest...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-mode-shift-revenue-support-msrs-scheme

Basically rail freight companies receive a payment for each container moved between certain areas. Its to help offset the operating costs of taking containers off the road and putting them on rail.

The level of subsidy is tied to the amount of environmental benefit that the transfer to rail would achieve.

 

[Moonshot]

That publication is a classic example of incentivising behaviours by the Government.....in this case backed up by our co signatory to the Kyoto Accord.

 

[HSTEd]

I was interested in this so I checked the ORR Periodic review for 2013, and there are no "massive subsidies" - in fact track access charges for railfreight have risen. THe only subsidy I can find is a reference to capital grants for infrastructure provided by Central Government - and these have fallen hugely this century.
Can you provide more detail about the subsidies - what they are , how much, who receives etc etc. Cheers.

There are no 'massive subsidies' for railfrieght in the same way that Virgin is a net benefit to the taxpayer.
In other words, only a result of fiddling of the accounts so that rial operators can make money despite the railway as a whole haemmorhaging it.

Apparently railfreight pays only something 20% of the costs inccured by Network Rail in running the trains in its access charges, with the rest essentially being provided by the state.

And then there are the modal shift benefits which are apparently required for people to move anything but trainload bulk goods by rail at all.

That publication is a classic example of incentivising behaviours by the Government.....in this case backed up by our co signatory to the Kyoto Accord.

The Kyoto accord is dead.
It has been for quite some time.

 

[moggie]

So where is the evidence in the reports and accounts showing the 'subsidies' paid to Railfreight companies? There are none. Rail Freight has to pay its way. Sure there are various incentives to support the transfer of freight from road to rail where it's viable to do so and costs for shared use of the rail network are apportioned so as to maximise the ability of freight to compete. HGV's only pay a proportion of the overall costs they impose on the road network in terms of congestion caused and the damage created (any one travelling on the nearside lane in the ruts left by HGV's will testify to that). Of course conveniently the costs of repair and maintenance of that damage and a lot more are shared by numerous agencies responsible for the planning, maintenance and renewal of road damage making it virtually impossible to apportion the true costs of that damage, rather conveniently for HGV operators (including the continental ones who presumably contribute a pittance towards those costs). When the subject of subsidies is thrown around it would be helpful if the measure was made on a level playing field. It won't though will it?

 

[Carlisle]

The argument you use about rail freight V the true costs of HGV s is decades if not centuries old one used to promote goods by rail but very little has changed in that time ,probably because hardly any factories or shops are directly rail served so lorries are almost always needed somewhere in the delivery chain meaning much higher costs on them will make virtually everything significantly more expensive therefore no government is going to take that course of action in the near future if they want to get re elected

 

[HSTEd]

So where is the evidence in the reports and accounts showing the 'subsidies' paid to Railfreight companies? There are none. Rail Freight has to pay its way.

So the Rail Regulators are all liars?

This report supports my position.
Rail freight does NOT pay its way and never will while Network Rail is forced to set track access and other charges far below the actual cost of operation.

Sure there are various incentives to support the transfer of freight from road to rail where it's viable to do so and costs for shared use of the rail network are apportioned so as to maximise the ability of freight to compete.

In other words money is thrown at the industry to prop it up for political reasons, in other words that privatisation led to the extinction of rail freight would not look very good?
Despite the fact that they can't match the delivery prices available on the roads?

HGV's only pay a proportion of the overall costs they impose on the road network in terms of congestion caused and the damage created (any one travelling on the nearside lane in the ruts left by HGV's will testify to that). Of course conveniently the costs of repair and maintenance of that damage and a lot more are shared by numerous agencies responsible for the planning, maintenance and renewal of road damage making it virtually impossible to apportion the true costs of that damage, rather conveniently for HGV operators (including the continental ones who presumably contribute a pittance towards those costs). When the subject of subsidies is thrown around it would be helpful if the measure was made on a level playing field. It won't though will it?

Considering the entire road network costs a similar amount to maintain as the rail industry consumes in subsidy at the current time.... it is rather unlikely that the subsidies will significantly change the result.

The uncomfortable truth is simply that railfreight is now just a subsidy junkie of a scale that would never have existed befoRe privatisation.

 

[Moonshot]

The uncomfortable truth is simply that railfreight is now just a subsidy junkie of a scale that would never have existed befoRe privatisation.

Which is exactly the same as what it was prior to what might be called privatisation.....so its no different. But of course, nowadays, rolling stock is funded in the private sector, railfreight is free to choose its own motive power subject to the usual safety rules etc...

As I mentioned earlier ( and one or two others as well ) , railfreight only pays the avoidable cost of using the network. But why should it pay any more WHEN it has no say in how government spends taxpayers money on grant investment?. And I would also point out there are already significant freight facilities being brought on stream which are funded from the private sector...

 

[yorksrob]

As I mentioned earlier ( and one or two others as well ) , railfreight only pays the avoidable cost of using the network. But why should it pay any more WHEN it has no say in how government spends taxpayers money on grant investment?. And I would also point out there are already significant freight facilities being brought on stream which are funded from the private sector...

Railfreight requires a working and up to date permanent way as much as any other rail user, so it's share should certainly be accounted for, regardless of whether it is economically desireable for the sector to actually pay that cost or not.

 

[HSTEd]

As I mentioned earlier ( and one or two others as well ) , railfreight only pays the avoidable cost of using the network. But why should it pay any more WHEN it has no say in how government spends taxpayers money on grant investment?. And I would also point out there are already significant freight facilities being brought on stream which are funded from the private sector...

Those things are not the expensive things in rail freight operations.the expensive things are the improvements to the permanent way and so forth which are definitely not funded by the private sector.

The Network Rail grant approtioned to freight operations easily overwhelms the tiny 'private investment' in the railways.
Freight operators cause numerous problems for other rail users and should certainly pay more than the 'avoidable' cost of the operations.
They should pay the full price for all those paths that cause numerous issues and the numerous train failures and derailments that block major routes for days.

 

[Donny Dave]

They should pay the full price for all those paths that cause numerous issues and the numerous train failures and derailments that block major routes for days.

So, passenger trains never derail or fail then?