Why are Northern's new Class 195 trains being delivered by road, and not by rail?

[Karl]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/northern-class-195-construction-introduction-updates.128808/

Why do trains not use the railway for delivery?

It seems crazy seeing them being delivered by road.

 

[Bantamzen]

Why do trains not use the railway for delivery? It seems crazy seeing them being delivered by road.

Does it matter one way or another? After all it could be worse, they could be delivered by barge as many of Airbus' aircraft parts are.

But I imagine it comes down to time and cost, organising paths for drags when units are arriving by boat will be a bit more difficult to organise than flatbed trucks. And so long as the units get to where they are needed, how they get there isn't the biggest factor.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Does it matter one way or another? After all it could be worse, they could be delivered by barge as many of Airbus' aircraft parts are.

But I imagine it comes down to time and cost, organising paths for drags when units are arriving by boat will be a bit more difficult to organise than flatbed trucks. And so long as the units get to where they are needed, how they get there isn't the biggest factor.

Yes, it does matter. If it is too much trouble or too expensive for the railway to move its own vehicles by rail it is hardly a good advertisement for rail or a particularly promising indication that it can win any freight traffic from road hauliers.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes, it does matter. If it is too much trouble or too expensive for the railway to move its own vehicles by rail it is hardly a good advertisement for rail or a particularly promising indication that it can win any freight traffic from road hauliers.

No it doesn't, it might irk a few enthusiasts, but for the general public out there they do not care one jot how trains get from production line to their morning commute. For all they know they are airdropped in by the RAF!

There are of course logistical reasons why road haulage is chosen, for a start as I said it would likely be easier to arrange trucks for units arriving by sea. By its very nature sea haulage isn't as easily predictable in terms of exact ETAs. It will cost a lot more time and money to have a loco or two, along with any intermediate barrier coaches sitting around at a port for hours or even days (assuming there are even tracks to drop the units onto at the port), whereas trucks can be leased from any number of hauliers around the country when required.

And then of course there is the small matter of route clearance, making sure all potential routes from port to depot are cleared would take time & money. Or they could be loaded onto flatbeds and be on the move much quicker. But if it annoys you so, by all means make representation to the respective TOCs, hauliers and the DfT to demand that all future deliveries be made only by rail, regardless of cost and logistical issues.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Of course it matters and it has nothing to do with enthusiasts. You can make up as many excuses as you want but as has already been pointed out the Mk 5a's and 397s arrive at the same port as the 195s and 331s and they are delivered by rail, so all your excuses are just that.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Of course it matters and it has nothing to do with enthusiasts. You can make up as many excuses as you want but as has already been pointed out the Mk 5a's and 397s arrive at the same port as the 195s and 331s and they are delivered by rail, so all your excuses are just that.

Sometimes rail deliveries will be practical and affordable, other times a low-loader will be the best option: as several posters have pointed out. It will depend on the specifics of what needs moving, when and why.

You seem to be going out of your way to find something to moan about.

 

[37057]

Of course it matters and it has nothing to do with enthusiasts. You can make up as many excuses as you want but as has already been pointed out the Mk 5a's and 397s arrive at the same port as the 195s and 331s and they are delivered by rail, so all your excuses are just that.

Maybe the key people involved with the project aren't aware of this forum so didn't know any better.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I am with Mr Bus. Every rail vehicle moved by road is a negative advertisement for the railway, not to mention hold ups and disruption on the road, which adds to the negative advertising. The rail industry needs the self confidence to present itself well and this is one of numerous ways in which it presents itself poorly. IIRC 250 Class 66 locomotives, perhaps many more were put on rails at the dockside and moved by rail. Many/most were started up and driven from the dockside.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I am with Mr Bus. Every rail vehicle moved by road is a negative advertisement for the railway, not to mention hold ups and disruption on the road, which adds to the negative advertising. The rail industry needs the self confidence to present itself well and this is one of numerous ways in which it presents itself poorly. IIRC 250 Class 66 locomotives, perhaps many more were put on rails at the dockside and moved by rail. Many/most were started up and driven from the dockside.

On the other hand, many road vehicles (particularly private cars and light vans) and components for road vehicles are delivered by train.

A 3-car passenger unit being delivered by rail instead of road will remove three lorry journeys, which isn't much.

Yes, it looks odd to see a brand new train on the back of a low-loader, but once you think about why it happens and understand things like route and traction knowledge and why it isn't always so simple, it becomes more understandable.

I seriously doubt any logistics manager at any business would see a passenger train on a lorry and think "well, I was going to sign a contract with Freightliner to move 500,000 tonnes of our concrete across the country, but now I'm going to give the deal to Eddie Stobart even though they'll cost 50% more".

 

[The_Train]

A 3-car passenger unit being delivered by rail instead of road will remove three lorry journeys, which isn't much.

But if there are 100 of these 3 car passenger units being delivered (this is a hypothetical figure) then suddenly that is a lot of lorry journeys added to the roads

 

[Metal_gee_man]

It's impressive how certain companies choose to do things, I guess the Flirts were authorised to be dragged through the channel tunnel, to Dollands Moor, then up HS1 overnight where some shunting allowed them to get onto the Anglia lines via the Temple Mills link in Stratford Int Station.
But I've seen a Eurostar train being transported on a car ferry across the Channel, I guess it can be about a lack of clearance on traditional lines

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But if there are 100 of these 3 car passenger units being delivered (this is a hypothetical figure) then suddenly that is a lot of lorry journeys added to the roads

Fair point, but if the freight train driver who would be dragging said units by rail from the docks is instead driving an actual freight train, that removes significantly more.

 

[Class 170101]

It's impressive how certain companies choose to do things, I guess the Flirts were authorised to be dragged through the channel tunnel, to Dollands Moor, then up HS1 overnight where some shunting allowed them to get onto the Anglia lines via the Temple Mills link in Stratford Int Station.

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H11141/2019/09/11/advanced
forms
https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H12009/2019/09/12/advanced

Does not run via Stratford International the link is made at Ripple Lane onto the LTS lines thence to Crown Point via Barking, Stratford, Bow Depot, Shenfield and Ipswich.

 

[GrimShady]

No it doesn't, it might irk a few enthusiasts, but for the general public out there they do not care one jot how trains get from production line to their morning commute. For all they know they are airdropped in by the RAF!

There are of course logistical reasons why road haulage is chosen, for a start as I said it would likely be easier to arrange trucks for units arriving by sea. By its very nature sea haulage isn't as easily predictable in terms of exact ETAs. It will cost a lot more time and money to have a loco or two, along with any intermediate barrier coaches sitting around at a port for hours or even days (assuming there are even tracks to drop the units onto at the port), whereas trucks can be leased from any number of hauliers around the country when required.

And then of course there is the small matter of route clearance, making sure all potential routes from port to depot are cleared would take time & money. Or they could be loaded onto flatbeds and be on the move much quicker. But if it annoys you so, by all means make representation to the respective TOCs, hauliers and the DfT to demand that all future deliveries be made only by rail, regardless of cost and logistical issues.

Actually Marine Transport is very prectidable in terms of exact ETAs.

 

[mmh]

No it doesn't, it might irk a few enthusiasts, but for the general public out there they do not care one jot how trains get from production line to their morning commute. For all they know they are airdropped in by the RAF!

Members of the general public who've been stuck behind a train carriage struggling to navigate a road junction would disagree with you.

I lived nearby when the final mk1 EMUs were being scrapped from Selhurst depot by road. They could, and did, cause awful traffic jams.

 

[Spartacus]

Of course it matters and it has nothing to do with enthusiasts. You can make up as many excuses as you want but as has already been pointed out the Mk 5a's and 397s arrive at the same port as the 195s and 331s and they are delivered by rail, so all your excuses are just that.

You might just have found the reason without realising it. Mk5as and 397s are 5 car sets, 195s and 331s are 2 to 4 car sets, perhaps it's just economics. We should all be aware that railfreight is more economical the more of a given load is moved, and road is more economical for lower volumes. Perhaps 4-5 vehicles is simply the border between it being more economical to move a set by road or by rail over this sort of distance, especially when balanced against other issues such as clearances.

Perhaps you need to change your mindset from seeing excuses to seeing reasons.

 

[hwl]

You might just have found the reason without realising it. Mk5as and 397s are 5 car sets, 195s and 331s are 2 to 4 car sets, perhaps it's just economics. We should all be aware that railfreight is more economical the more of a given load is moved, and road is more economical for lower volumes. Perhaps 4-5 vehicles is simply the border between it being more economical to move a set by road or by rail over this sort of distance, especially when balanced against other issues such as clearances.

Perhaps you need to change your mindset from seeing excuses to seeing reasons.

Aren't the 397s delivered by road to the former Aluminium smelting plan on Anglesey, then delivered by rail.

All the CAF units will need several days post off loading to prep them for rail movement, hence easier to take then straight to the depot.

It is also worth remembering that the rail delivery of the one of the 802 went very expensively wrong for Hitachi.

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course it matters and it has nothing to do with enthusiasts. You can make up as many excuses as you want but as has already been pointed out the Mk 5a's and 397s arrive at the same port as the 195s and 331s and they are delivered by rail, so all your excuses are just that.

Again I disagree, it doesn't matter. What matters is getting the units to where they are needed when they are needed. It may well be that other units make the full journey by rail, and that is the decision for the relevant stakeholders. But outside of a handful of people on this forum, no-one is losing any sleep over this.

Sometimes rail deliveries will be practical and affordable, other times a low-loader will be the best option: as several posters have pointed out. It will depend on the specifics of what needs moving, when and why.

You seem to be going out of your way to find something to moan about.

Indeed, and this isn't the first time this subject has come up. It seems every time a unit moves by road, someone decries the decision to do so, citing "bad image" as the reason for doing so.

I am with Mr Bus. Every rail vehicle moved by road is a negative advertisement for the railway, not to mention hold ups and disruption on the road, which adds to the negative advertising. The rail industry needs the self confidence to present itself well and this is one of numerous ways in which it presents itself poorly. IIRC 250 Class 66 locomotives, perhaps many more were put on rails at the dockside and moved by rail. Many/most were started up and driven from the dockside.

I've covered my thoughts on this, so need say nothing more than I disagree with you too.

Actually Marine Transport is very prectidable in terms of exact ETAs.

OK, let me rephrase what I said. By its very nature sea haulage isn't as easily predictable in terms of exact ETAs when leaving port, especially when trying to align with planned ECS moves where paths may be limited.

Members of the general public who've been stuck behind a train carriage struggling to navigate a road junction would disagree with you.

I lived nearby when the final mk1 EMUs were being scrapped from Selhurst depot by road. They could, and did, cause awful traffic jams.

Well that's true of any large road moves, and I'm afraid it is not exclusive to people sitting behind units being delivered. Sadly our rail infrastructure and financing is what it is, and sometimes moves will be made by road. And I'm afraid if you want answers as to why you will need to approach the relevant stakeholders.

 

[Karl]

I'm still confused. It's just been built in its workshop. Why can't it be wheeled out and drive to its new home depot on the very rails it's been designed to run on? Why waste money hiring Allely's or whoever to transport it by road? Sorry for moaning.

 

[Spartacus]

I'm still confused. It's just been built in its workshop. Why can't it be wheeled out and drive to its new home depot on the very rails it's been designed to run on? Why waste money hiring Allely's or whoever to transport it by road? Sorry for moaning.

You'll have to get the stock cleared for the route and drivers who sign both the stock and the route for starters, something that will be very difficult and possibly time consuming and expensive. Even if it's hauled by something else you'll still have to get the stock cleared then you'll have to pay money hiring ROG or whoever to haul it by rail, who's costs for a single trip will be greater than for doing it by road, which is one reason why I think longer sets are more likely to go via rail and shorter ones by road.

 

[a_c_skinner]

I really think the rail industry needs to look again at its image in the eyes of the public. I know that rail moves cost money; I know that the early examples need gauging and weighing (though all the stuff I buy is sized and weighed by the people who sell it), I know you need to identify paths and staff (someone has to learn to drive the things at some point after all) to move stuff but it still makes the industry look poor in the eyes of the public. I could add lots of other things that damage rail's image but that would be off topic would go further off topic.

 

[hwl]

I'm still confused. It's just been built in its workshop. Why can't it be wheeled out and drive to its new home depot on the very rails it's been designed to run on? Why waste money hiring Allely's or whoever to transport it by road? Sorry for moaning.

Spain is mostly broad gauge so limited testing opportunities pre-delivery for UK stock. Hence the individual cars need coupling (solid bars) all the connections making and some basic testing all while possibly sat in the way on the dockside for days with engineers dragged away from home base for a few days.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm still confused. It's just been built in its workshop. Why can't it be wheeled out and drive to its new home depot on the very rails it's been designed to run on? Why waste money hiring Allely's or whoever to transport it by road? Sorry for moaning.

Well for a starter, most are being built in Spain so it's a fair way further not to mention the gauging and clearance issues. Other reasons are articulated above.

 

[Spartacus]

I really think the rail industry needs to look again at its image in the eyes of the public. I know that rail moves cost money; I know that the early examples need gauging and weighing (though all the stuff I buy is sized and weighed by the people who sell it), I know you need to identify paths and staff (someone has to learn to drive the things at some point after all) to move stuff but it still makes the industry look poor in the eyes of the public. I could add lots of other things that damage rail's image but that would be off topic would go further off topic.

It doesn't look very good when it appears in the Daily Mail and others that taxpayers' money is paying for stock to be moved in a more expensive way than necessary though.

Something that hasn't been touched on yet is that in the past stock that has been moved across Europe by rail has sometimes had a tendency to arrive less complete than when it set off..... GBRf's coal wagons were apparently particularly affected.

 

[a_c_skinner]

It doesn't look very good when it appears in the Daily Mail and others that taxpayers' money is paying for stock to be moved in a more expensive way than necessary though.

Nothing looks good in the Mail. I think the public's take would be that the fault again lies with the railway that moving the sets was so expensive by rail not that road was an opportunity being missed.

Edit: Sorry, I mean that is the line the Mail would feed its readers.

 

[pdeaves]

It is also worth remembering that the rail delivery of the one of the 802 went very expensively wrong for Hitachi.

What happened? Do tell (or re-tell) for those of us who missed it!

 

[hwl]

What happened? Do tell (or re-tell) for those of us who missed it!

The pantograph was only strapped down with one ratchet tie and stayed down all the way from Italy till the train changed direction in West London and the the pantograph went knuckle end into the wires as the IEP picked up speed going past Hanwell (listed so still has the 1990s headspan OHLE) and ripped the headspans down causing several days worth of cancellations and delays till the repair was completed.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

When I ran a business I made decisions based upon facts presented to me, and would have objected to unqualified armchair experts telling me they knew better. Surely the people that make decisions on how to get goods from A to B, base those decisions on the facts, not what the public may or may not think (as if they would even care outside of this forum). Throughout the rail industry there are many highly qualified and trained experts, who work tirelessly to complete their work, and they really must laugh if they look here and see completely unqualified people, telling them there is a better way of doing things. Just let them get on with the job.

 

[YorkshireBear]

When I ran a business I made decisions based upon facts presented to me, and would have objected to unqualified armchair experts telling me they knew better. Surely the people that make decisions on how to get goods from A to B, base those decisions on the facts, not what the public may or may not think (as if they would even care outside of this forum). Throughout the rail industry there are many highly qualified and trained experts, who work tirelessly to complete their work, and they really must laugh if they look here and see completely unqualified people, telling them there is a better way of doing things. Just let them get on with the job.

Good Post.

My wife, a member of the public with some absorbed knowledge from me saw a northern New train the other day on a lorry.
Her comment to me was 'I saw a new train on a lorry today. It must be off to the depot for more testing before running on the railway.'

At no point were her arms thurst upwards in disgust at a train being on the back of a lorry. I'd say her view is more representative than any of ours.

 

[notlob.divad]

You might just have found the reason without realising it. Mk5as and 397s are 5 car sets, 195s and 331s are 2 to 4 car sets, perhaps it's just economics. We should all be aware that railfreight is more economical the more of a given load is moved, and road is more economical for lower volumes. Perhaps 4-5 vehicles is simply the border between it being more economical to move a set by road or by rail over this sort of distance, especially when balanced against other issues such as clearances.

Perhaps you need to change your mindset from seeing excuses to seeing reasons.

There is a simple answer to that one. Wait until there are 2 or 3 sets, put them together and drag them as a 6 / 8 car set. Then the economics is even better.