Is anyone able to explain this train on a suburban road?

[norbitonflyer]

A particular problem in this case would be the need for two translator vehicles with different couplings, compatible with the driving and non-driving ends of the vehicle, as the two translator vehicles couldn't travel to and from the job coupled together.

Any rail vehicle which cannot run on its own wheels, or has damage taking it out of gauge, or even simply heavy components missing which cause it to sit too high, or lopsided, on its suspension, cannot go by rail. You can't simply load it on the back of a wagon.

I did see an exception once. I was at Shrewsbury, and one of the Rheidol Valley line's carriages (still at the time a BR line) was on a well wagon in a siding. I assume it was on its way to or from overhaul at a BR workshop somewhere

 

[Clarence Yard]

The cost of moving a vehicle by road hasn’t got anything to privatisation, track access charges or any particular policy. It’s down to cost and ease of movement and road wins hands down.

It’s been like that since the trunk and trip freight network declined and for the past 35 years, unless you had a train load, road is your first option. Between 1989 and 1994 I saw about 300 on or off low loaders at the Oak and both Allely’s and Moveright had it sussed to perfection - they could put a pre-positioned vehicle on in about half an hour.

Nowadays the real problem with moving a unit by rail is getting route clearance. It has to be absolute for that class and sometimes you don’t want the cost of getting it specially cleared or the delay that clearance puts into the move. You can also have the route cleared and, following re-measuring, you suddenly find the route is now blocked for that class! So, either way, you dial up your road transport.

 

[Llanigraham]

I did see an exception once. I was at Shrewsbury, and one of the Rheidol Valley line's carriages (still at the time a BR line) was on a well wagon in a siding. I assume it was on its way to or from overhaul at a BR workshop somewhere

Blimey, that must have been a long time ago!!

 

[6Gman]

And that's supposing you can avoid having reversals or having to run round the stock, route conductors and so on, so could need more than one locomotive and quite a lot of traincrew to handle the traction knowledge, route knowledge and any shunting movements enroute. Which is, I hear, a bit difficult in the times of COVID-19, with the days of these sorts of moves being undertaken, Jolly Boys style, with a half dozen staff in the lead loco now rather banned.

I don't know what the craic is these days on movements of single vehicles with different couplers at either end either, particularly the often thorny problem of the internal bar coupler on an EMU vehicle. What's available in terms of coupling adapters and translator vehicles to stick on the inside end of a Class 319/769 DTSO vehicle ?

A further good point.

I recall a loco and support coach move from Bury which may have set some sort of record - we had 4 men on the loco and 3 on the support coach!

And two of them were just to route conduct over less than ten miles, where none of the others had route knowledge!

A particular problem in this case would be the need for two translator vehicles with different couplings, compatible with the driving and non-driving ends of the vehicle, as the two translator vehicles couldn't travel to and from the job coupled together.

Any rail vehicle which cannot run on its own wheels, or has damage taking it out of gauge, or even simply heavy components missing which cause it to sit too high, or lopsided, on its suspension, cannot go by rail. You can't simply load it on the back of a wagon.

I did see an exception once. I was at Shrewsbury, and one of the Rheidol Valley line's carriages (still at the time a BR line) was on a well wagon in a siding. I assume it was on its way to or from overhaul at a BR workshop somewhere

Pretty sure they used to do VoR carriage overhauls in the bays at the south end of Shrewsbury's Platform 3 (the bays which were, I assume, 1 and 2 in earlier days).

Of course, narrow gauge carriages are rather easier to move within gauge!

 

[millemille]

So, I've been working out of course moves - delivering new trains, moving existing trains to works etc. - with translator and barrier vehicles and by road for the best part of 30 years and feel qualified to comment.

Moving a single carriage from a multiple unit isn't a translator vehicle move. Translator vehicles (or loco's equipped with translator equipment such as RDG have these days) translate locomotive and coaching/wagon stock air brake control pressure into multiple unit electrical brake control signals, hence the name "translator", and back again if the planned move requires movement in both directions. But you need a complete multiple unit in the middle, between the translators, so that you have round train continuity of the brake and control circuits both to get brake control and to ensure that in the event of break-away within the formation the brakes will apply and bring the separate parts of a train to stand.

But a single carriage from a multiple unit doesn't have round train continuity, because there are vehicles missing from the multiple unit, so a translator won't work.

You'd need barrier vehicles to move a single carriage; where the carriage is not braked, as it's dead in formation (a "swinger"), and is topped and tailed by carriages or waggons with brake control from the loco achieved by running a temporary air pipe from leading barrier vehicles through the carriage and to the trailing barriers. You need enough barrier vehicles topping and tailing the carriage to give sufficient brake force to stop the carriage in the event of a break-away within the formation (the brakes being applied by the temporary air pipe breaking as the wagons and carriage separate).

To move the carriage in the photo you'd need a set of barrier vehicles with a tightlock coupler connection and another set with a bar coupler connection to make the mechanical coupling to the carriage at either end.

But to get them to the starting point of the carriage move the two sets of barrier vehicles need to be able to couple to each other to run in formation OR you need to start using two locomotives to bring them to site on two separate moves. Starting to get complicated...

I don't know what the starting point for the move was but a common problem experienced with loco hauled multiple unit moves is that multiple unit depot track isn't capable of taking the much higher axle loading of a loco when compared to a typical multiple unit. I've been project engineer of C4 overhaul programs which required translator moves and the multiple units had to first be moved, under their own power, from their home depot to a relatively local set of sidings that were capable of taking the axle weight of the loco. More complexity...

And it goes on. Gauging clearance, route knowledge etc. etc.

So for a single carriage move it's invariably cheaper, quicker and generally all round easier to ring Allely's or similar and get the carriage moved by road.

 

[alangla]

A particular problem in this case would be the need for two translator vehicles with different couplings, compatible with the driving and non-driving ends of the vehicle, as the two translator vehicles couldn't travel to and from the job coupled together.

Any rail vehicle which cannot run on its own wheels, or has damage taking it out of gauge, or even simply heavy components missing which cause it to sit too high, or lopsided, on its suspension, cannot go by rail. You can't simply load it on the back of a wagon.

I did see an exception once. I was at Shrewsbury, and one of the Rheidol Valley line's carriages (still at the time a BR line) was on a well wagon in a siding. I assume it was on its way to or from overhaul at a BR workshop somewhere

In this country anyway... Were the Class 70s not moved from the factory to the docks on the back of wagons? Obviously a dramatically more generous loading gauge on US railroads.

And while the enthusiast in me would love to see a train going past my front door, it's hardly ideal to have such a massive load crawling through narrow residential streets

I had a track machine drive past my house in the early hours a couple of times. Road-rail OHLE cherry pickers, complete with pantograph, were being parked in a nearby car park and driven under their own power down the road to a railway access point to go on track. They also got driven on the road to go on the low loader when the job was complete.

 

[MotCO]

So, I've been working out of course moves - delivering new trains, moving existing trains to works etc. - with translator and barrier vehicles and by road for the best part of 30 years and feel qualified to comment.

Moving a single carriage from a multiple unit isn't a translator vehicle move. Translator vehicles (or loco's equipped with translator equipment such as RDG have these days) translate locomotive and coaching/wagon stock air brake control pressure into multiple unit electrical brake control signals, hence the name "translator", and back again if the planned move requires movement in both directions. But you need a complete multiple unit in the middle, between the translators, so that you have round train continuity of the brake and control circuits both to get brake control and to ensure that in the event of break-away within the formation the brakes will apply and bring the separate parts of a train to stand.

But a single carriage from a multiple unit doesn't have round train continuity, because there are vehicles missing from the multiple unit, so a translator won't work.

You'd need barrier vehicles to move a single carriage; where the carriage is not braked, as it's dead in formation (a "swinger"), and is topped and tailed by carriages or waggons with brake control from the loco achieved by running a temporary air pipe from leading barrier vehicles through the carriage and to the trailing barriers. You need enough barrier vehicles topping and tailing the carriage to give sufficient brake force to stop the carriage in the event of a break-away within the formation (the brakes being applied by the temporary air pipe breaking as the wagons and carriage separate).

To move the carriage in the photo you'd need a set of barrier vehicles with a tightlock coupler connection and another set with a bar coupler connection to make the mechanical coupling to the carriage at either end.

But to get them to the starting point of the carriage move the two sets of barrier vehicles need to be able to couple to each other to run in formation OR you need to start using two locomotives to bring them to site on two separate moves. Starting to get complicated...

I don't know what the starting point for the move was but a common problem experienced with loco hauled multiple unit moves is that multiple unit depot track isn't capable of taking the much higher axle loading of a loco when compared to a typical multiple unit. I've been project engineer of C4 overhaul programs which required translator moves and the multiple units had to first be moved, under their own power, from their home depot to a relatively local set of sidings that were capable of taking the axle weight of the loco. More complexity...

And it goes on. Gauging clearance, route knowledge etc. etc.

So for a single carriage move it's invariably cheaper, quicker and generally all round easier to ring Allely's or similar and get the carriage moved by road.

I think this settles the argument.

 

[NoRoute]

Unfortunately your original argument is very much akin to the view that a train service *must* exist from, say, Grimsby to Cirencester, simply because once a year Granny Smith and Grandpa Joe make the journey to go on holiday.


Railways are designed for and indeed work best with consistent mass movements - I thought enthusiasts and so on would be "in the know" enough to realise that's how it works. Evidently armchair fantasy takes precidence.

But its worth remembering that was precisely how the railways did work upto the 1960s because they were under a common carrier obligation to move freight of all types and sizes, so if you see articles, reports or photos of major engineering projects back before the 1960s, you see all sorts of large or unusual loads being transported by rail. Loads which are now transported by road.

It's also interesting that in other countries you do still see rail used for transporting loads which in the UK are now pretty much exclusively moved by road, where rail wouldn't even be considered. So while the idea of moving a one off load from one point to another by rail might not be possible in the UK, it is still very much possible in comparable countries.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Were the Class 70s not moved from the factory to the docks on the back of wagons? Obviously a dramatically more generous loading gauge on US railroads.

GE Transportation need to do that anyway for broad gauge and narrow gauge locomotives (photo), so perhaps putting Class 70s on flatcars for the short journey to the port was easier than trying to get permission to move locomotives that didn't comply with US standards.

EMD, on the other hand, moved Class 66s dead in train with translator wagons.

 

[DarloRich]

By explain, I mean suggest reasons for!

Moderators: Sorry if I'm not meant to add images like this directly to forum posts. Please advise if I should link it differently (assumed as the option was there it would be allowed )

View attachment 87626

One of our units is missing

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

One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing is a 1975 British-American comedy film which is set in the early 1920s, about the theft of a dinosaur skeleton from the Natural History Museum. The film was produced by Walt Disney Productions and released by Buena Vista Distribution Company. The title is a parody of the film title One of Our Aircraft Is Missing, in which both Peter Ustinov and Hugh Burden also appeared. The film was based on the 1970 novel The Great Dinosaur Robbery by David Forrest (pseudonym of David Eliades and Robert Forrest Webb).

 

[Taunton]

Why not use the easier and cheaper method?

Exactly my attitude to getting myself and family around and beyond London. Which is why I use the car ...

 

[6Gman]

Exactly my attitude to getting myself and family around and beyond London. Which is why I use the car ...

And why we use the train.

 

[talltim]

How was the rest of the unit moved?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Blimey, that must have been a long time ago!!

It would have been late 1970s.

 

[D365]

How was the rest of the unit moved?

Road haulage, presumably. Either that, or it was the single carriage that demanded additional attention.

I have to admit that I do find it fascinating, the dramatic posts that seem to emerge when a single carriage or unit is seen to be moved by road...

 

[Spartacus]

But its worth remembering that was precisely how the railways did work upto the 1960s because they were under a common carrier obligation to move freight of all types and sizes, so if you see articles, reports or photos of major engineering projects back before the 1960s, you see all sorts of large or unusual loads being transported by rail. Loads which are now transported by road.

It’s also worth remembering the railways had little control over the fees for such services, being the same per mile wether the goods move on an existing A to B service or needed half a dozen shunts up various branch lines, so a lot were seriously loss makers, even without the additional cost of providing facilities and staff and nearly every station just in case. Additionally they were published publicly, so any perspective haulier could look up the traffic, look through the rates book and work out how much they could charge less than the railways and still make money without a wheel even having to turn, or simply turn down what they couldn’t make money on.

 

[coppercapped]

But its worth remembering that was precisely how the railways did work upto the 1960s because they were under a common carrier obligation to move freight of all types and sizes, so if you see articles, reports or photos of major engineering projects back before the 1960s, you see all sorts of large or unusual loads being transported by rail. Loads which are now transported by road.

It's also interesting that in other countries you do still see rail used for transporting loads which in the UK are now pretty much exclusively moved by road, where rail wouldn't even be considered. So while the idea of moving a one off load from one point to another by rail might not be possible in the UK, it is still very much possible in comparable countries.

The 'Common Carrier' obligation did not force the railways to carry freight of 'all types and sizes' but did mean that all potential customers had to be treated equally. It originated with the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854 as the Victorians were concerned that the railways and canals would use their monopoly position to pick and chose what they carried to the disadvantage of some companies or industries as indeed had been the case.

There were three unintended consequences of the 1854 Act:

• with increasing road competition the financial position of the ‘Big Four’ was a lot weaker than it could have been as the Traffic Commissioners did not always grant the rates increases desired or in a timely manner
• as Spartacus states in post #76 the rates charged were publicised so the emerging road hauliers could easily undercut the railways and bore little relation to the costs of the movement
• management accounting as known in other industries did not exist.

Road traffic in this period was also tightly controlled but ‘own account’ operators had much more freedom.

There is a separate issue of moving oversize loads - the various European main line loading gauges are essentially straight sided down to rail level, they are not constrained in width below platform level. This makes it easier to carry large objects such as transformers. But if you think that outsized loads do not exist on roads and motorways in other countries you are sorely mistaken. For example a common sight on roads in Germany are wind turbines - column sections, blades, the cranes used to assemble them - as there are few railway lines which run to the tops of hills. And there are tens of thousands of wind turbines dotted across the landscape...

 

[NoRoute]

But if you think that outsized loads do not exist on roads and motorways in other countries you are sorely mistaken. For example a common sight on roads in Germany are wind turbines - column sections, blades, the cranes used to assemble them - as there are few railway lines which run to the tops of hills. And there are tens of thousands of wind turbines dotted across the landscape...

Not sure how you jumped to that incorrect assumption, I'm well aware that abnormal loads are moved by road in other countries. Going back to my original post, and putting it back into context as it was a response to another post, I pointed out that in other countries rail is used for one off movements of abnormal loads, something much rarer in the UK and therefore to suggest that rail might be used for a, one off movements and b, abnormal loads is not unreasonable. That UK loading gauges and UK practices make this uncompetitive or unviable is a constraint from the UK rail industry, rather than a feature of rail networks in general.

 

[coppercapped]

Your statement in post no. https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-train-on-a-suburban-road.212569/post-4920892 read:

It's also interesting that in other countries you do still see rail used for transporting loads which in the UK are now pretty much exclusively moved by road, where rail wouldn't even be considered. So while the idea of moving a one off load from one point to another by rail might not be possible in the UK, it is still very much possible in comparable countries.

I suggest that this is the core of your argument. Can you give some examples of what you mean? From my observations of trains in some continental European countries - mainly Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Germany - freight trains look pretty similar to those here. Mineral wagons of various types, flat wagons with steel products, sometimes agricultural machinery but a lot of car transporters, some tank wagons and many, many containers and swap bodies. In the neighbourhood of the large ports - Antwerp, Rotterdam and Hamburg - container traffic outweighs all the others.

In addition the market penetration of freight services varies considerably between countries - for example rail freight has less than 10% of the market in France, comparable to that in the UK but in a country with a much greater land mass which should benefit rail. Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have higher figures to which international transit traffic contributes strongly. Eurostat figures show that Denmark registered the highest share of transit traffic in 2019, with 85 %, followed by Switzerland (65 %), Slovakia (43 %), Austria (35 %) and Hungary (33 %). This latter traffic exists neither in the UK as it is an island nor in Norway for obvious reasons.

There is also a difference in manufacturing between the countries, the large scale industrial products made here have largely vanished. There is occasionally demand for oil and gas pipes for the North Sea but this traffic is essentially extinct. I’m finding it hard to visualise what special one-off traffic, and especially outsize items, could be rail hauled in the UK. Long bridge beams possibly - but unless they are needed on the railway a transfer to road vehicles for the last stretch would be obligatory anyway at additional cost and time.

You state in post no. #78 :

That UK loading gauges and UK practices make this uncompetitive or unviable is a constraint from the UK rail industry, rather than a feature of rail networks in general.

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here. The loading gauge issue is a result of being the first to develop railways; other countries took note and used larger gauges - sometimes without realising at the time what they were doing. For example railways built in the various German states were built cheaply - contempory books suggested about a third of the cost in England. In some cases this was achieved by edict that land was to be handed over and in others by avoiding tunnels and overbridges so, happily, reducing the number of instances of height constraints. They never had high platforms which were a user friendly way of boarding trains rather than the clamber up from rail level in other places.

Your phrasing implies that the size of the loading gauge is an intentional, possibly malevolent, constraint by ‘the industry’ so making it not easily or economically possible to move large one-off loads. I suggest that you have created a straw man for purely rhetorical purposes. Think for a moment about the costs involved in opening up the loading gauge over even a few routes to the smallest UIC loading gauge - and contrast those costs with the income that might be generated by the occasional one-off move of a large item. You would rightly be shouting from the housetops about the waste of tax-payers money - as it would be the tax-payer who pays for the enlargement.