Freight Trains versus HGVs

[SJDCornwall]

I have just read online news that the Government is considering 48 tonne lorries now.

As plenty has been said about pollution especially from roads I would have thought that this is the last thing we need, and not to mention even more potholes from the increase in weight.

It is about time this HGV type transport was put back on the rails. Our roads were never built for these dangerous monstrosities.

As rail is better for the environment surely we need a return to freight by rail. With fork lift trucks and palletised operations surely a lot of goods could be delivered by rail instead of to the odd few big centralised depots meaning long HGV journeys on our roads.

This should be a no brainer. It would not need goods yards like the railways had back in the 1950s but a simple siding at the larger towns around the uk with goods then transferred to sensible sized vehicles for onward transport.

I understand the arguments about money etc but common sense is needed with a lot of things right now in the UK and this is one of them.

The railways were originally built for freight rather than passengers, freight trains should be able to run at night to avoid delaying passenger services, it just needs some thought.

 

[LAX54]

I x average 'Container' train = at least 20 HGV's, and if you have 20' boxes, will equate to even more lorries !

 

[Master29]

What do you expect after years of cronyism. It all started with Marples and has continued ever since. A case of reaping the whirlwind.

 

[JamesT]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ntermodal-freight-trial-consultation-document says that 48 tonne lorries are only being considered in conjunction with rail freight.

Some organisations have identified that allowing 6-axle articulated lorries to be operated at 48 tonnes during domestic intermodal journeys would improve efficiency and support rail freight.

This could be permitted for repetitive container loads that travel along a set route. Increasing the load capacity for each lorry involved could reduce the number of lorry movements to service each train, with the operations liable to happen frequently, feeding into scheduled trains operating on one or more days a week.

Presumably the issue is that some train loads have to be broken down to fit inside the current 44 tonne limit, so if you raise the limit you will get greater efficiencies that will make rail freight more attractive.

I would tend to disagree with many of your generalisations. Is rail freight still more environmentally friendly when your haulage is a 60-year-old Class 37, compared to a modern Euro-6 lorry?
The railways may have originally been built for freight, but the direction for at least the last 50 years has been towards passenger operations. Whose commute are you going to disrupt to find extra freight paths? Where is the space for these mythical sidings when land around stations has been sold off?
If you're running freight through the night, when do Network Rail get access to perform maintenance?

 

[Ducatist4]

Spread the weight of the lorry over more axles and you get less road damage. In theory!
I once asked a large BMW dealer why they didn't use rail to ship their cars around (the moved over 1500 cars a week). They'd looked at it but the railway just wasn't reliable enough for them.

 

[SJDCornwall]

What do you expect after years of cronyism. It all started with Marples and has continued ever since. A case of reaping the whirlwind.

Exactly, its time though for change though especially as they keep on about being green. I fell to see how even bigger and heavier lorries can be green. One freight train can do away with many of these monstrosities. Also I wonder how much of our country has been destroyed with so called road improvements to accommodate these polluting trucks. Again I am well aware of the need to be able to deliver raw materials to businesses and finished goods to point of sale, it just seems ironic that the government are even considering this instead of using our railway network to its best potential. Also I will remind the HGV supporters out there that road improvements are paid for by the public. So what is the problem with public money being used on the rail network. There is never going to be enough room for everything to travel by road and it is about time those at the top realised this physical FACT. The transport ministry needs a good clearing out and new brains bringing in. We are a small densely populated country and we cannot emulate the USA with its huge freeways and large shopping malls. Physical FACT.

 

[furnessvale]

Spread the weight of the lorry over more axles and you get less road damage. In theory!
I once asked a large BMW dealer why they didn't use rail to ship their cars around (the moved over 1500 cars a week). They'd looked at it but the railway just wasn't reliable enough for them.

The old "I remember a wagonload of potatoes being lost in a siding in Lesser Snoring for 3 weeks in 1964" syndrome.

When did this dealer last use rail? Perhaps he should look at existing car manufacturer users of railfreight. Then again BMW are probably not big enough to justify trainload movements.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The old "I remember a wagonload of potatoes being lost in a siding in Lesser Snoring for 3 weeks in 1964" syndrome.

When did this dealer last use rail? Perhaps he should look at existing car manufacturer users of railfreight. Then again BMW are probably not big enough to justify trainload movements.

BMW cars were certainly conveyed in trainload from mainland Europe once the Channel Tunnel opened, though tended to be only at times of high demand (registration year indicator change). Not sure what happened to the traffic after EWS took over Railfreight Distribution, though.

 

[furnessvale]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ntermodal-freight-trial-consultation-document says that 48 tonne lorries are only being considered in conjunction with rail freight.

I would tend to disagree with many of your generalisations. Is rail freight still more environmentally friendly when your haulage is a 60-year-old Class 37, compared to a modern Euro-6 lorry?

Given the massive advantage rail holds over road in fuel consumption per tonne/km, even a class 37 is more environmentally friendly than a Euro 6 HGV, not that 37s are used on revenue freight these days.

 

[Master29]

Sadly this isn't likely to change any time soon despite the governments usual lip service to green transportation. Years of cronyism has put paid to that. We've been backwards in rail thinking since the war.

 

[HSTEd]

I have just read online news that the Government is considering 48 tonne lorries now. As plenty has been said about pollution especially from roads I would have thought that this is the last thing we need, and not to mention even more potholes from the increase in weight. It is about time this HGV type transport was put back on the rails. Our roads were never built for these dangerous monstrosities. As rail is better for the environment surely we need a return to freight by rail. With fork lift trucks and palletised operations surely a lot of goods could be delivered by rail instead of to the odd few big centralised depots meaning long HGV journeys on our roads. This should be a no brainer. It would not need goods yards like the railways had back in the 1950s but a simple siding at the larger towns around the uk with goods then transferred to sensible sized vehicles for onward transport. I understand the arguments about money etc but common sense is needed with a lot of things right now in the UK and this is one of them. The railways were originally built for freight rather than passengers, freight trains should be able to run at night to avoid delaying passenger services, it just needs some thought.

There are many loads which will be stunningly inefficientt o move by rail given our terrible loading gauge, light trains and lack of any loading unloading facilities.
(Hence the trend to 4.9m lorries)

You could probably build a rail freight system that could cover its day to day operational costs and move substantial amounts of currently roadbound traffic, but it would have to be built from scratch.
The British rail infrastructure is simply not up to the job and is almost impossible to make up to the job.

It would be far cheaper to cover the strategic road network with eHighway type equipment.

Indeed the cheapest way to have cost-covering railfreight is probably to go completely mad and embrace the Chunnel solution for railfreight moves.
It certainly is not reasonable to pour money into "conventional" railfreight so a bunch of train operators can pretend they are in the 50s on the public purse.

Given the massive advantage rail holds over road in fuel consumption per tonne/km, even a class 37 is more environmentally friendly than a Euro 6 HGV, not that 37s are used on revenue freight these days.

In terms of carbon yes.

But a Class 37 or Class 66 spews poison into the sky, given their ancient diesel engines/engine designs.
Particulates, NOx etc.

 

[deltic]

My very dodgy back of the fag packet calculation suggests there are only around 7,500 HGV trips a day over 300km (190 miles) long - around the distance where rail stands any chance of being competitive when double handling of goods is required. The chances of those trips travelling between a common origin and destination is even more remote. Unless the rail sector can fully automate shunting and the loading and unloading of trains it is never going to compete in the part train load market. There is then the incredibly slow end to end journey times of many freight services. Manchester to Felixstowe is 250 miles by motorway standard roads - rail services are booked to take around 10+ hours for the same journey.

 

[HSTEd]

Unless the rail sector can fully automate shunting and the loading and unloading of trains it is never going to compete in the part train load market.

We could do that.

But good luck getting that past ASLEF and the RMT.

 

[SuspectUsual]

My very dodgy back of the fag packet calculation suggests there are only around 7,500 HGV trips a day over 300km (190 miles) long - around the distance where rail stands any chance of being competitive when double handling of goods is required. The chances of those trips travelling between a common origin and destination is even more remote. Unless the rail sector can fully automate shunting and the loading and unloading of trains it is never going to compete in the part train load market. There is then the incredibly slow end to end journey times of many freight services. Manchester to Felixstowe is 250 miles by motorway standard roads - rail services are booked to take around 10+ hours for the same journey.

This

Fundamentally, Britain isn’t quite big enough for rail to be cost (or time) effective other than for a limited number of movements like the Tesco stuff up to Scotland and bulk point to point loads.

 

[furnessvale]

This

Fundamentally, Britain isn’t quite big enough for rail to be cost (or time) effective other than for a limited number of movements like the Tesco stuff up to Scotland and bulk point to point loads.

Don't forget the more than 50% of tonnes/kms of deep sea container traffic within GB that moves by rail.

 

[deltic]

We could do that.

But good luck getting that past ASLEF and the RMT.

Which is one of the most frustrating aspects of the rail sector - automation will lead to more traffic and more jobs overall - short term attitudes has held the rail sector back and will lead to its demise

 

[furnessvale]

In terms of carbon yes.

But a Class 37 or Class 66 spews poison into the sky, given their ancient diesel engines/engine designs.
Particulates, NOx etc.

Is that before or after the use of various cheat devices routinely employed by the haulage industry?

I suppose it would be churlish to add in tyre wear pollution?

 

[geordieblue]

Whilst time is obviously an issue, for some railfreight it doesn't need to be. Why can't cars, or whisky, or timber, or computers, or *insert whatever you want* take four days to be transported?
Obviously perishables along the lines of fresh fruit, vegetables, and milk are going to find long journeys difficult but surely the goverment could step in and make this worthwhile for companies. If time is money, then reimburse companies for the longer time taken by railfreight (e.g. by tax cuts). Alternatively nationalise e.g. the timber industry, produce however much we need, and transport it when we can.
I realise I have essentially outlined an economic planning scheme as seen in the USSR but I don't immediately see why this wouldn't work (barring the inevitable right-versus-left arguments). Happy to be corrected though

 

[stuu]

Whilst time is obviously an issue, for some railfreight it doesn't need to be. Why can't cars, or whisky, or timber, or computers, or *insert whatever you want* take four days to be transported?

Because it is a very inefficient use of the wagons for a start, that has to be paid for and it only makes rail more expensive

 

[deltic]

Whilst time is obviously an issue, for some railfreight it doesn't need to be. Why can't cars, or whisky, or timber, or computers, or *insert whatever you want* take four days to be transported?
Obviously perishables along the lines of fresh fruit, vegetables, and milk are going to find long journeys difficult but surely the goverment could step in and make this worthwhile for companies. If time is money, then reimburse companies for the longer time taken by railfreight (e.g. by tax cuts). Alternatively nationalise e.g. the timber industry, produce however much we need, and transport it when we can.
I realise I have essentially outlined an economic planning scheme as seen in the USSR but I don't immediately see why this wouldn't work (barring the inevitable right-versus-left arguments). Happy to be corrected though

Time is very much money. Having £millions tied up in stock sitting in a siding costs money. British Rail lost a fortune to the NCB due to the latter's use of the formers wagons as coal storage facilities. Remind me how the USSR performed economically?

 

[swt_passenger]

Sadly this isn't likely to change any time soon despite the governments usual lip service to green transportation. Years of cronyism has put paid to that. We've been backwards in rail thinking since the war.

Years of crayonism in these forums won’t put the clock back to 1950s either...

 

[CW2]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consu...ntermodal-freight-trial-consultation-document says that 48 tonne lorries are only being considered in conjunction with rail freight.

Presumably the issue is that some train loads have to be broken down to fit inside the current 44 tonne limit, so if you raise the limit you will get greater efficiencies that will make rail freight more attractive.

I would tend to disagree with many of your generalisations. Is rail freight still more environmentally friendly when your haulage is a 60-year-old Class 37, compared to a modern Euro-6 lorry?
The railways may have originally been built for freight, but the direction for at least the last 50 years has been towards passenger operations. Whose commute are you going to disrupt to find extra freight paths? Where is the space for these mythical sidings when land around stations has been sold off?
If you're running freight through the night, when do Network Rail get access to perform maintenance?

That is another Trojan Horse if ever I saw one.
The existing 44 tonne limit started off as only for conveyance of traffic to / from intermodal rail terminals, as part of the opening of the Channel Tunnel and special provisions for freight traffic as a result. After a few years it came into general use. I predict the same will happen with this 48 tonne proposal.

 

[geordieblue]

Remind me how the USSR performed economically?

Clearly you missed the bit of my post where I asked not to make this a right-left thing.
Time as money is in of itself inefficient. It means we rush things that could be thought through better. I'm not suggesting tying stock up in sidings, though (and I definitely didn't suggest using wagons as coal storage facilities!); I'm saying that there is a better way of doing railfreight than making it ridiculously time sensitive. It is already less time sensitive than passenger transportation and that gives us flexibility to use our resources more effectively.
Wagons are already idle for most of the time. I'd rather they were on a job, so to speak, with immediate plans for their use, than rotting away in Tyne Yard.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Don't forget the more than 50% of tonnes/kms of deep sea container traffic within GB that moves by rail.

Indeed. I’d considered that as “bulk point to point”.

 

[Ducatist4]

I don't think the actual time taken was the issue, it was more that fact that the loads wouldn't always arrive when they were told they were going to. This particular dealer did pre delivery inspections on all the new cars coming into the UK. Like i say, typically 1500 a week.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Fundamentally, Britain isn’t quite big enough for rail to be cost (or time) effective other than for a limited number of movements like the Tesco stuff up to Scotland and bulk point to point loads.

I think that's precisely the point: the distances travelled and the time and bother involved in, say, factory > rail depot > rail depot > distribution centre, let alone anything more complex, make it uneconomic compared to factory > distribution centre by road, even with well-equipped railway depots.

 

[notadriver]

Increasing HGV traffic makes our roads more dangerous. Increasing freight on our railways does not have any effect on safety.

 

[HSTEd]

Increasing HGV traffic makes our roads more dangerous. Increasing freight on our railways does not have any effect on safety.

Well it does.
Operating more freight trains inevitably means operating fewer passenger trains, which inevitably drives more people onto the roads.

 

[Romsey]

I can see why I don't visit this forum often.

1) BMW do use railfreight. How do you think minis get moved from Cowley to Southampton Docks for export? (Mainly to the Far East and North America.)

2) If this is a railway forum, haven't you forgotten TOPS and TSDB for train monitoring?

3) Freight traffic does run through the night and it involves considerable work planning possessions and train timings to ensure it can run as the customer requires. (From experience timing freight services and planning engineering works.) Running in daytime does not "inevitably" impact on passenger service frequencies if the timetable is properly planned. The principle of first on the graph applies and if the freight service was there before an altered passenger service. The TOC should ask the freight operator if they can flex their timings. Often the answer is yes.

4) Not all railfreight is the length of the country What about Cliffe or Angerstien Wharf to Stewarts Lane or Park Royal aggregate traffic?

5) Container trains have a + / - 15 minute timekeeping contract with the shippers at many ports. Many container services to and from Felixstowe, Thamesport and Southampton run to the logistics triangle between Birmingham, Derby and Daventry and are often well loaded. Port to inland terminal and return is a round trip got a HGV driver.

Yes 48 GVW lorries are a threat to railfreight. Road hauliers see the railway network with fewer passenger services and more capacity for freight services due to covid as a threat to their viability.
There is room for each mode of transport. Good logistics planners will use both and costal shipping to best advantage for time, price, speed and security.

 

[furnessvale]

Well it does.
Operating more freight trains inevitably means operating fewer passenger trains, which inevitably drives more people onto the roads.

We are continually increasing road capacity to match projected traffic, "predict and provide".

Perhaps we could use the same model on railways rather than using price increase to suppress demand.

I can see why I don't visit this forum often.

1) BMW do use railfreight. How do you think minis get moved from Cowley to Southampton Docks for export? (Mainly to the Far East and North America.)

2) If this is a railway forum, haven't you forgotten TOPS and TSDB for train monitoring?

3) Freight traffic does run through the night and it involves considerable work planning possessions and train timings to ensure it can run as the customer requires. (From experience timing freight services and planning engineering works.) Running in daytime does not "inevitably" impact on passenger service frequencies if the timetable is properly planned. The principle of first on the graph applies and if the freight service was there before an altered passenger service. The TOC should ask the freight operator if they can flex their timings. Often the answer is yes.

4) Not all railfreight is the length of the country What about Cliffe or Angerstien Wharf to Stewarts Lane or Park Royal aggregate traffic?

5) Container trains have a + / - 15 minute timekeeping contract with the shippers at many ports. Many container services to and from Felixstowe, Thamesport and Southampton run to the logistics triangle between Birmingham, Derby and Daventry and are often well loaded. Port to inland terminal and return is a round trip got a HGV driver.

Yes 48 GVW lorries are a threat to railfreight. Road hauliers see the railway network with fewer passenger services and more capacity for freight services due to covid as a threat to their viability.
There is room for each mode of transport. Good logistics planners will use both and costal shipping to best advantage for time, price, speed and security.

Thanks for that. You deploy more patience than I can muster in responding to this thread.

Incidentally, BMW also run trains from Cowley to Purfleet with their European exports.