Passengers and Railfreight - how to prioritise

RLBH · 4 Jul 2019

HSTEd said:
The average 20' container is light enough that a HGV can load two of them, and you can distribute your containers across lorries to ensure they remain within tare weight restrictions.

In practice, that doesn't work out a lot of the time. The maximum permitted weight is the same for 20' and 40' containers (it's a function of the corner casting strength) but the 20' container is lighter. So normally heavy loads go in 20' containers, bulky loads in 40' ones. To get two 20' containers on one HGV they have to be loaded to less than half of their weight capacity - so usually either empties, or two loads of low density goods from different origins and/or destinations going in the same direction.

The maximum permitted load on a container flat will allow for two fully loaded containers, either two 20' or a 20' and a 40'.

HSTEd said:
It just means someone is willing to pay for the trains to run, not that they are a good idea.

If nobody thought they were a good idea, then nobody would be willing to pay for them to run. If somebody was willing to pay more to run passsenger trains than to run freight trains, then the freight trains wouldn't be running.

As far as train length goes, that longer trains are desirable isn't a surprise to anyone, and the industry has been working towards it. 775m trains are the current infrastructure planning baseline, and there's an aspiration for 1,500m trains.

RailUK Forums

Carlisle · 4 Jul 2019

tbtc said:
And, to be blunt, if putting a hundred lorries on the roads takes over a thousand cars off the roads (because of the improved passenger services that could run if they weren’t constrained by freight) then maybe that’s a trade-off worth doing. .

I’m struggling to think of an existing uk passenger line that could temp a sizeable number of dedicated motorists out of their cars just by adding a few extra services in place of any freight. To achieve that you’d either need to lower fares & parking charges and /or open new stations to allow additional communities access to the route in question, or significantly increase the cost of motoring.

tbtc · 4 Jul 2019

Carlisle said:
I’m struggling to think of an existing uk passenger line that could temp a sizeable number of dedicated motorists out of their cars just by adding a few extra services in place of any freight. To achieve that you’d either need to lower fares & parking charges and /or open new stations to allow additional communities access to the route in question, or significantly increase the cost of motoring.

It's funny - pretty much every discussion about lines will attract comments about how there's massive untapped demand, we should increase supply of seats, "if you build it, they will come" etc.

Yet when those additional services are at the expense of freight paths, people don't seem to think that there's any point in increased passenger services (because additional trains won't attract people out of their cars)?

Greybeard33 said:
Let us take a concrete example - the Castlefield corridor through Manchester, a highly congested piece of railway, often cited by opponents of rail freight.

Currently there is one freight path per hour in each direction to serve the Trafford Park container terminals (though not between 1700 and 1800, at the height of the evening peak). If those terminals were served by road haulage instead, maybe an additional two passenger trains per hour could run through the corridor in each direction.

Taking 2nd July as a random example, RTT shows that 24 trains actually ran to/from Trafford Park over a 24 hour period (sum of both directions). So an average of one container train per hour. If that train were fully loaded, about 50 artics would be needed to replace it. But in practice some wagons run empty, so let us assume an average of 30 extra lorries per hour, on the roads between Manchester and Felixstowe or Southampton (sum of both directions).

In your words, "maybe that's a trade-off worth doing" if the four additional passenger trains took 300 cars off the roads, i.e. 75 cars per additional train.

But is it even remotely credible that an average of 75 car drivers would switch to each extra train, just because the timing was slightly more convenient than the current services?

Many existing off peak services to/from Manchester carry no more than 75 passengers total. Some of the passengers on the extra services would be cannibalised from existing rail services earlier and later. Some would switch from other public transport services (bus/coach/air) that would probably continue to run. And some would be new travellers, who would not have made that journey at all but for the enhanced service (induced demand). None of these groups would reduce congestion/pollution on the roads at all.

You're spoiling the Forum belief that Manchester Piccadilly needs platforms 15 and 16, if the majority of off-peak services carry such light loads that they could be accommodated on a single coach 153 (and increasing the number of trains won't attract motorists)?

Some people on here clearly believe that all freight is great. I personally believe that there are times when using the paths for passenger services would be better (e.g. if an irregular freight service means a hole in the clock face timetable and an additional passenger train per hour could run in place of a freight service that may only run a handful of times per week) then we should consider prioritising passenger services. Similarly, there's a tipping point at which a bus/ tram would be better than a passenger train - there's no one-size-fits-all solution. But I appreciate I'm in a minority on here!

I'll be honest and admit that I don't know Felixstowe well enough to know whether I'm looking at the right drop-downs on RTT _ I could only find a couple of Felixstowe - Trafford FLT services today, but it may be that there are services that I'm not picking up - looking at Trafford FLT and the "freight" services at Manchester Piccadilly, there are a lot of Q-code services that didn't run (but have to be given space in the timetable in case they are required) - that's part of the problem that I have with the irregular/ infrequent freight - great if there are routes where there's enough freight trains on a weekday to justify a regular path - but there are routes that don't see the relatively regular/dependable flows like Felixstowe has (a line so busy with freight that there was talk of removing passenger services from the timetable - for similarly reasons, I'd be happy with removing passenger services if it meant the paths could be used better by freight.

Tomnick · 5 Jul 2019

tbtc said:
It's funny - pretty much every discussion about lines will attract comments about how there's massive untapped demand, we should increase supply of seats, "if you build it, they will come" etc.

Yet when those additional services are at the expense of freight paths, people don't seem to think that there's any point in increased passenger services (because additional trains won't attract people out of their cars)?

You're spoiling the Forum belief that Manchester Piccadilly needs platforms 15 and 16, if the majority of off-peak services carry such light loads that they could be accommodated on a single coach 153 (and increasing the number of trains won't attract motorists)?

Some people on here clearly believe that all freight is great. I personally believe that there are times when using the paths for passenger services would be better (e.g. if an irregular freight service means a hole in the clock face timetable and an additional passenger train per hour could run in place of a freight service that may only run a handful of times per week) then we should consider prioritising passenger services. Similarly, there's a tipping point at which a bus/ tram would be better than a passenger train - there's no one-size-fits-all solution. But I appreciate I'm in a minority on here!

I'll be honest and admit that I don't know Felixstowe well enough to know whether I'm looking at the right drop-downs on RTT _ I could only find a couple of Felixstowe - Trafford FLT services today, but it may be that there are services that I'm not picking up - looking at Trafford FLT and the "freight" services at Manchester Piccadilly, there are a lot of Q-code services that didn't run (but have to be given space in the timetable in case they are required) - that's part of the problem that I have with the irregular/ infrequent freight - great if there are routes where there's enough freight trains on a weekday to justify a regular path - but there are routes that don't see the relatively regular/dependable flows like Felixstowe has (a line so busy with freight that there was talk of removing passenger services from the timetable - for similarly reasons, I'd be happy with removing passenger services if it meant the paths could be used better by freight.

Is it such a bad thing if holes are left in a clockface timetable during the off-peak? There’s usually extra services, or different calling patterns, during the peak hours that will fill them anyway. Any commuter railway that has no spare capacity (which could be used to accommodate freight trains) during the day is inevitably going to struggle during the peaks!

Dr Hoo · 5 Jul 2019

Quite! Many freight paths are ‘no use’ for passenger trains anyway. Lots of hanging around at junctions and being looped and overtaken. Take a busy shared route like Derby to Birmingham. Most freights seem to get looped at Burton or Elford and/or sent via Whitacre let alone continuing via Bordesley, Camp Hill or Sutton Park because there are no spare paths through Birmingham New Street anyway. How could this capacity be used for any attractive passenger services? Most of the passenger trains are 2, 3, 4 or 5-car units that could be lengthened if necessary.

Greybeard33 · 5 Jul 2019

tbtc said:
You're spoiling the Forum belief that Manchester Piccadilly needs platforms 15 and 16, if the majority of off-peak services carry such light loads that they could be accommodated on a single coach 153 (and increasing the number of trains won't attract motorists)?

I said "many" not "the majority". Perhaps that was an exaggeration, but passenger flows on Northern services to/from Manchester are very "peaky". It depends on the route, but in the middle of the day it is certainly not unusual to have a double or triple seat to yourself in a 2-car, or for seat rows to be unoccupied in a 3- or 4-car. Whereas the same train can be crush loaded in its peak workings.

The other side of the coin from irregularly used freight paths is that most passenger paths are completely unused between about midnight and 0500, whereas many freight services run round the clock. But if you take away the daytime freight paths, it will likely make the whole flow unviable.

An hourly freight path that "runs as required" is not using the infrastructure efficiently, but neither is an hourly passenger path that is only used for 18 hours out of 24, and is only used by well loaded trains for 3 of those hours.

furnessvale · 6 Jul 2019

HSTEd said:
EDIT:

Also note that a 2100 feet train, if composed of a typical wagon like an FLA, would only load 44 FEU. Train length is significantly longer than container length because the containers don't go over the couplers for obvious reasons - they would lock up on curves! 1900 feet loads about 40.

Indeed this 2011 study that is quite widely cited in the literature suggests the average container train capacity is about 60TEU/30FEU.
And whilst I accept that the capacity factor may have improved since then, it was much less than 100% at the time.

Never heard the term "FEU" before. In my experience containers are measured in TEUs.

Most deep sea container trains today are approved for 90 TEUs.

HSTEd · 6 Jul 2019

furnessvale said:
Never heard the term "FEU" before. In my experience containers are measured in TEUs.

Most deep sea container trains today are approved for 90 TEUs.

FEU is becoming more common these days because more and more containers are 40' long.

It helps because TEU can sometimes give misleading results as containers can't really be broken in half

GB · 6 Jul 2019

40 foot containers are becoming more common, but the way space is measured is still predominantly TEU, in fact I have never heard FEU mentioned in the 15 years I have been dealing with them. You can't say TEU brings misleading results because "containers can't really be broken in half" and then go on to say a 32 wagon train is the equivalent 44FEU;... because by the same token you can't just add up the remaining 20ft spaces and create a 40 foot spaces.

TEU works because they are more accurate to describe the space actually available.

A 4 standard wagon train is 12 TEUs, you can't say its 6FEUs

Geoff DC · 6 Jul 2019

Rather like the difference between Imperial & Metric - TEU will always be more accurate

RLBH · 8 Jul 2019

HSTEd said:
FEU is becoming more common these days because more and more containers are 40' long.

It helps because TEU can sometimes give misleading results as containers can't really be broken in half

What's really unhelpful is silly things like 53-foot containers. The old Freightliner 30-foot ones must have been a nuisance for sea transport, but at least two of them were 3 TEU.

Dr Hoo · 8 Jul 2019

53-foot containers, whilst common in North America, are hardly relevant to British freight operations. On the other hand the use of 45-foot units, especially on consumer logistics flows (including many units on the Daventry-Scotland axis and similar runs) presents a real challenge in optimising wagon mix and train loads.

ChiefPlanner · 8 Jul 2019

RLBH said:
What's really unhelpful is silly things like 53-foot containers. The old Freightliner 30-foot ones must have been a nuisance for sea transport, but at least two of them were 3 TEU.

Certainly in my day at Ipswich and Felixstowe - there were good numbers of European trade 30 ft boxes - certainly for the Ford flows to and from Belgium and Germany , plus sea hauliers such as Geest, Danzas , Seawheel and International Ferry Freight. Handy fits for the 60ft wagons of the day.

40 ft domestic containers ("F" types) were fairly rare - but then I am talking about the early 1980's. Considerably outnumbered then by the 30 ft "N" types.

GB · 8 Jul 2019

Honestly can't remember the last time I saw a 30ft container...they seem more rare these days than 9'6" 20fts.

hwl · 8 Jul 2019

GB said:
Honestly can't remember the last time I saw a 30ft container...they seem more rare these days than 9'6" 20fts.

Ditto. Since the greater roll out of higher containers (and the ability to transport by rail) you can squeeze a bit more in 20' so for heavy cargos 30' swapping to 20' hicube makes sense.

HSTEd · 8 Jul 2019

GB said:
A 4 standard wagon train is 12 TEUs, you can't say its 6FEUs

The trend in places like the US is towards articulated freight stock that takes a single container on each platform/pocket.
Then they have specialised "spine" wagons meant for hauling trailers or containers that only have to be supported at the corners.

If the trend towards 40' containers continues, having 60' conventional wagons might become something of a problem in terms of keeping loadings up.

Ofcourse you could engage in some shenanigans with 60' long half height containers, but they might be a little problematic in terms of loading/unloading.

EDIT:
Deck height of a KQA pocket wagon is apparently 475mm, as opposed to 980mm for a conventional wagon. Which means we gain about 20" of extra headroom.
That takes us from 9'6" to 11'2". So if anyone wants a 5'7" exterior height container we could fit two of them on top of each other...... probably still tall enough for a lot of the pallets I've worked on in time at various factories but loading the containers might be a challenge.

furnessvale · 8 Jul 2019

HSTEd said:
The trend in places like the US is towards articulated freight stock that takes a single container on each platform/pocket.
Then they have specialised "spine" wagons meant for hauling trailers or containers that only have to be supported at the corners.

If the trend towards 40' containers continues, having 60' conventional wagons might become something of a problem in terms of keeping loadings up.

Ofcourse you could engage in some shenanigans with 60' long half height containers, but they might be a little problematic in terms of loading/unloading.

EDIT:
Deck height of a KQA pocket wagon is apparently 475mm, as opposed to 980mm for a conventional wagon. Which means we gain about 20" of extra headroom.
That takes us from 9'6" to 11'2". So if anyone wants a 5'7" exterior height container we could fit two of them on top of each other...... probably still tall enough for a lot of the pallets I've worked on in time at various factories but loading the containers might be a challenge.

On many of the points you raise, UK and European axle loading becomes the limiting factor. The US works to a higher axle load, 35 tons on many main lines compared to the UK 25 tons and even less for 75mph running.

The move to a predominance of 40ft containers in deep sea traffic has been recognised and the latest builds of VTG Ecoflats are 40ft platforms.

Greybeard33 · 8 Jul 2019

For a given length of train, pocket wagons waste capacity because the space above the bogies is unused. Nearly all British routes currently used by container trains are cleared to W10/W12 gauge to enable Hi-Cube containers to be carried on flat wagons. This maximises the TEUs per train within the infrastructure train length constraints.

HSTEd · 8 Jul 2019

Greybeard33 said:
For a given length of train, pocket wagons waste capacity because the space above the bogies is unused. Nearly all British routes currently used by container trains are cleared to W10/W12 gauge to enable Hi-Cube containers to be carried on flat wagons. This maximises the TEUs per train within the infrastructure train length constraints.

Well that is one of the reasons for the trend towards articulation on pocket wagons, because obviously the fewer bogies you have the more train length you get.
The well wagon only really comes into it's own if you are able to double stack them, since not only can you get two wagons on top of each other, the upper container can potentially be somewhat longer as it can overhang the bogies.

Greybeard33 · 9 Jul 2019

HSTEd said:
Well that is one of the reasons for the trend towards articulation on pocket wagons, because obviously the fewer bogies you have the more train length you get.
The well wagon only really comes into it's own if you are able to double stack them, since not only can you get two wagons on top of each other, the upper container can potentially be somewhat longer as it can overhang the bogies.

I am unaware of a trend to articulated pocket wagons anywhere in Europe. The vast majority of international shipping utilises either standard height (8'6") or Hi-Cube (9'6") containers. I see no point in further discussion of a strawman proposal based on double stacking non-standard 5'7" high containers. Ain't gonna happen.

The future in Britain is single stacked flat wagons, with infrastructure improvements to enable increased train length.

GB · 9 Jul 2019

HSTEd said:
Well that is one of the reasons for the trend towards articulation on pocket wagons, because obviously the fewer bogies you have the more train length you get.
.

Articulated wagons would probably come at the expense of carrying weight and lower permitted speed. Seriously doubt you could have up to 100 tonnes loaded over a central boggie and not run into some kind of problem/restriction. Would generate RA10 at the very least which would cripple the service.

FWA eco-fret wagons were designed to help combat this. A triple set is the same length in total as a pair of standard wagons...can take either two 40s and two 20s as per the two standard wagons or 3 40s. The new lot coming over next year will allow all three platforms to take all 20fts. This is the way foward as it offers great flexibility and can adapt to changing markets.

No point at all discussing double stacking, it is not going to happen. You will never see double stacks container trains on our network in our life time.

HSTEd · 9 Jul 2019

GB said:
Articulated wagons would probably come at the expense of carrying weight and lower permitted speed. Seriously doubt you could have up to 100 tonnes loaded over a central boggie and not run into some kind of problem/restriction. Would generate RA10 at the very least which would cripple the service.

How to you get to an average bogie loading of 100t?

The maximum weight of a container is 30t.
40' pockets are only going to mass 60t at the absolute maximum and normally much less with the rise of 40' container traffic.

GB said:
No point at all discussing double stacking, it is not going to happen. You will never see double stacks container trains on our network in our life time.

And as a result freight will not substantially increase its market share as it physically can't compete under any reasonable assumption set.
Even the current market share is only maintained with increasingly large capital and subsidy spend to the industry.

The UK railway is simply not built to enable substantial amounts of freight to be moved efficiently.
Short of a UK Butuweroute we aren't going to get anywhere.

Passengers and Railfreight - how to prioritise

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member