Could / should more supermarket distribution centres have railheads ?

[GusB]

The last time I worked for a supermarket, it was the Co-op. I only ever had to deal with orders for ambient stock, but the stuff was either ordered from the national distribution centre in Coventry, or the regional centre (Cumbernauld, if I recall correctly), but the stock was shipped up to a more local distribution centre at Dalcross, just outside Inverness. From there it was loaded onto the local lorries for shipment out to the various stores in the region. Presumably the fresh/frozen stuff was similarly delivered to the "local" distribution centre to minimise the number of trucks being sent out to each store. It was some time ago, and I'm not certain that they use the same model these days, but rail would have been ideal, given the proximity of Dalcross to the main Inverness-Aberdeen line. Surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine that even smaller hubs could be utilised, with only the last few miles delivered by road?

 

[Dai Corner]

Except that VED is a fixed fee (unrelated to the number of miles driven) and fuel duty and VAT are only indirectly related to the weight and composition of the vehicle.

It's as near as we can get at the moment to per-mile road pricing if that's what you're advocating. Particularly expensive to build/maintain roads often attract a per-use charge on top of course. Personally, I'd benefit from pure per-mile as I don't drive that much.

In any case, revenue vastly exceeds expenditure as Bald Rick says.

 

[Bald Rick]

The last time I worked for a supermarket, it was the Co-op. I only ever had to deal with orders for ambient stock, but the stuff was either ordered from the national distribution centre in Coventry, or the regional centre (Cumbernauld, if I recall correctly), but the stock was shipped up to a more local distribution centre at Dalcross, just outside Inverness. From there it was loaded onto the local lorries for shipment out to the various stores in the region. Presumably the fresh/frozen stuff was similarly delivered to the "local" distribution centre to minimise the number of trucks being sent out to each store. It was some time ago, and I'm not certain that they use the same model these days, but rail would have been ideal, given the proximity of Dalcross to the main Inverness-Aberdeen line. Surely it's not beyond the realms of possibility to imagine that even smaller hubs could be utilised, with only the last few miles delivered by road?

That is, roughy, what Tescos do. It only works because of the distance of the trunk haul and concentration of traffic on it. You will know better, but I'd be surprised if there was sufficient volume for the Co Op for a train per day (20 containers). Maybe 2-3 trains a week, but then that calls into question the perishables, which reduces the volume further.

 

[Bald Rick]

Except that VED is a fixed fee (unrelated to the number of miles driven) and fuel duty and VAT are only indirectly related to the weight and composition of the vehicle.

Well, yes. And neither are directly related to the damage caused to the roads. Rather like track access charges!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Always quite surprised how the North Wales coast has never been to field a Daventry type working , to say Llandudno Junction or similar , as there is sufficient population on that coastal strip.

Anyway - trivia from the past - the ex Petfood train from Deanside Transit , Glasgow used to backload a wide array of consumer goods / foods from East Anglia -ranging from tinned peas / carrots / to pallets of soft drinks / coffee etc. All agglomerated at Wisbech and sent north on the train. No doubt all thundering up the A1 these days.

 

[GusB]

That is, roughy, what Tescos do. It only works because of the distance of the trunk haul and concentration of traffic on it. You will know better, but I'd be surprised if there was sufficient volume for the Co Op for a train per day (20 containers). Maybe 2-3 trains a week, but then that calls into question the perishables, which reduces the volume further.

It was some time ago now, so I couldn't honestly quote figures in terms of the number of containers required per day. I would agree that there aren't the same number of stores as big as the likes of Tesco, but the Co-op does have a considerable network of smaller stores in the area, from medium-sized supermarkets down to the ex-Alldays convenience stores. We had ambient deliveries three days a week, with the same wagon serving all three stores in the same town. Two to three trains a week might just be possible.

 

[furnessvale]

It was some time ago now, so I couldn't honestly quote figures in terms of the number of containers required per day. I would agree that there aren't the same number of stores as big as the likes of Tesco, but the Co-op does have a considerable network of smaller stores in the area, from medium-sized supermarkets down to the ex-Alldays convenience stores. We had ambient deliveries three days a week, with the same wagon serving all three stores in the same town. Two to three trains a week might just be possible.

A daily, or even more frequent, service is required, which the Co-op achieves by sharing the several daily non Tesco trains from Daventry with the likes of Argos, B & Q etc.

 

[corfield]

So basically, the road system isn’t funded from general taxation and taxes on road users are cross subsidising said taxation, which given the railways are very obviously subsidised, effectively means road users subsidise rail users who aren’t paying enough in fares to cover their costs.

So, you could argue keep raising fares until Govt subsidy isn’t needed; and/or to reduce road users’ taxes and fund wider expenditure (e.g. NHS, Defence) more transparently from more general taxes. Plus of course – the option of significantly increasing road construction/maintenance


An interesting question ref “road users” is, who is paying what? It appears on the surface as if HGVs (aka the haulage industry) are being significantly subsidised by citizens, given the damage HGVs do is far in excess of cars yet the VED and Fuel duty (VAT reclaimable I assume?) are not that different.

Granted the citizens benefit since raising the cost of haulage will likely raise the cost of goods – but is there a way to see a better estimate of the split?

It also raises the point that rail freight is competing against road freight, but road freight is piggybacking off massive private road use. I get that so is rail freight of passenger flows – but then given HGVs are a major source of pollution (not yet factored into the costs) and road congestion, are we really helping ourselves by this hidden cross subsidy effects? Would we not be better off with a level playing field, which could then drive road/rail improvements accordingly?

There is often on this board a lot of “rules of thumb” regarding freight economics and frankly on the face of it I can’t really see how the network could ever do much more freight given the priority that is passenger transport (without dedicated freight lines for instance) but it doesn’t seem clear that its on an equal footing to road freight, and thus things could be significantly different?

 

[Dai Corner]

To what extent do road and rail freight carriers really compete?

I get the impression that railfreight mostly prefers the bulk stone, coal, container and similar flows and road the lorryload including multi drops. The railways couldn't wait to get rid of wagonload traffic once they were released from the common carrier requirement and worked out how much it was losing them.

Where's the middle ground where customers have the choice and switch between road and rail from time to time?

 

[Bald Rick]

To what extent do road and rail freight carriers really compete?

I get the impression that railfreight mostly prefers the bulk stone, coal, container and similar flows and road the lorryload including multi drops. The railways couldn't wait to get rid of wagonload traffic once they were released from the common carrier requirement and worked out how much it was losing them.

Where's the middle ground where customers have the choice and switch between road and rail from time to time?

Oh they compete all right. Sure it is more difficult for road on the big bulk haul flows, and on some dedicated intermodal flows, eg the Tesco traffic as discussed above. But for some container traffic it is absolutely cut throat. The rail hauliers have people in the ports to negotiate with freight forwarders on a box to box basis. And there are road hauliers at the port (some of whom are sole traders) who are trying to do the same deals.

 

[squizzler]

So basically, the road system isn’t funded from general taxation and taxes on road users are cross subsidising said taxation, which given the railways are very obviously subsidised, effectively means road users subsidise rail users who aren’t paying enough in fares to cover their costs.

Highways are very much a public good paid for out of general taxation and - with the exception of the national highways - part of the local authority budget where it competes with their other commitments. This is because everybody who lives in that local authority area benefits from the roads: children walking to school, bicycle messengers, boy racers, motorbikers, etc. Unfortunately the Clarkson types like to claim the road system is paid for by car and lorry users and this makes them the de-facto owners and every other road user is a guest.

Winston Churchill saw this coming:

"It will be only a step from this for [motorists] to claim in a few years the moral ownership of the roads their contributions have created"

"Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed...and the yield devoted to the general revenue. But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the tax on motors devoted to roads? This is an outrage upon...common sense."

With regard to the original post, the logistics industry are very good at telling us why shutting more freight to rail would make their business uncompetitive. If the financial incentives to change were put in place then then everybody who wishes to operate in the UK would be in the same position. Incidentally, I am no fan of it politically, but if should this Brexit come to pass, we as a country would be in a good position to place disincentives on lorry use as Switzerland has done. This might include reversing the growth in the size of lorries that Europe has pushed us towards. The European agreements on freedom of movement have also allow overseas lorries to arrive on a cross channel trip with a full tank of untaxed fuel, compete with the UK operators till they are running on fumes, then pick up the next job going across the channel. None of which pays a bean towards the UK exchequer.

Many of us might derive a wry amusement from the arguments from the logistics industry to defend the status quo. While the industry makes big claims of its supposed flexibility, innovation and resilience, and rails against government regulation as a restriction on "choice", it apparently requires everybody to be doing the same thing by using lorries exclusively.

 

[Dai Corner]

Highways are very much a public good paid for out of general taxation and - with the exception of the national highways - part of the local authority budget where it competes with their other commitments. This is because everybody who lives in that local authority area benefits from the roads: children walking to school, bicycle messengers, boy racers, motorbikers, etc. Unfortunately the Clarkson types like to claim the road system is paid for by car and lorry users and this makes them the de-facto owners and every other road user is a guest.

Winston Churchill saw this coming:




With regard to the original post, the logistics industry are very good at telling us why shutting more freight to rail would make their business uncompetitive. If the financial incentives to change were put in place then then everybody who wishes to operate in the UK would be in the same position. Incidentally, I am no fan of it politically, but if should this Brexit come to pass, we as a country would be in a good position to place disincentives on lorry use as Switzerland has done. This might include reversing the growth in the size of lorries that Europe has pushed us towards. The European agreements on freedom of movement have also allow overseas lorries to arrive on a cross channel trip with a full tank of untaxed fuel, compete with the UK operators till they are running on fumes, then pick up the next job going across the channel. None of which pays a bean towards the UK exchequer.

Many of us might derive a wry amusement from the arguments from the logistics industry to defend the status quo. While the industry makes big claims of its supposed flexibility, innovation and resilience, and rails against government regulation as a restriction on "choice", it apparently requires everybody to be doing the same thing by using lorries exclusively.

Presumably British hauliers do their patriotic duty by filling up at the last opportunity before the tunnel/ferry, do their continental run on British-taxed fuel and arrive back at Calais with just enough to get them to the first filling station in Kent?

 

[richieb1971]

How did our railway go from having Marshaling yards with random carrying goods vans to having only unified freight trains, and its still too expensive to compete with the road? I'm all for the unified freight trains, but I don't think it should cost more than hauling by road. The government should change the rulings in order to get freight off the roads as that would provide benefits elsewhere, not just in pockets.

 

[edwin_m]

How did our railway go from having Marshaling yards with random carrying goods vans to having only unified freight trains, and its still too expensive to compete with the road? I'm all for the unified freight trains, but I don't think it should cost more than hauling by road. The government should change the rulings in order to get freight off the roads as that would provide benefits elsewhere, not just in pockets.

Rail can compete with road on bulk loads (a train at a time) between rail-connected terminals - I don't think you see much aggregate going from the Mendips to London by truck. These commodities are relatively low value so the transport cost is a big part of the selling price, and they aren't particularly time critical (it doesn't matter if each consignment takes two days instead of one, as long as it arrives reliably in that time). However this is a fairly small part of the total freight market, declining because of the replacement of coal by other methods of supplying electricity.

When viewed from a purely UK perspective, maritime intermodal has a common origin or destination at the port and a wide range of destinations/origins at the other end of its journey. Someone has to provide a truck for that local haul, so rail can't compete over shorter distances where it's just as easy for that truck to continue to/from tjhe port. Intermodal is also higher-value than bulk commodities, and despite the transit move itself being fairly quick, the time from offloading the ship to reaching destination can be longer by rail due to the constraints of when the train is timetabled. So the more time-sensitive intermdoal goods tend to go by truck. All these factors probably mean that rail is unlikely to surpass the market share of around 35% it already has at Felixstowe and Southampton.

Domestic intermodal is one step further down the scale for rail competitiveness. Flows are distributed at both ends, and although the use of distribution centres means much of the goods passes through these nodes it is still not as concentrated as a ship at a port. So only the largest distribution centre flows make up enough bulk to fill a train a day - and at less than that rail loses the perishable traffic (as mentioned) and it gets that much more difficult for rail haulage to wash its face.

The old wagonload business only really made sense if both ends of a flow had a private siding where the wagons could be loaded and unloaded. Also with the railway becoming increasingly busy it's difficult to see how it could accommodate a large number of slow and short trains tripping wagons to and from these sidings if they still existed. I suspect the writing was on the wall for wagonload as soon as trucks were devloped that could reliably carry a good load over a long distance (after WW1?) and roads were improved enough to achieve this in a reasonable time (50s-70s). The situation might be different in continental Europe and North America where some of the hauls are long enough to justify the extra cost at each end and make some wagonload flows and more domestic intermodal flows viable.

 

[paul1609]

Presumably British hauliers do their patriotic duty by filling up at the last opportunity before the tunnel/ferry, do their continental run on British-taxed fuel and arrive back at Calais with just enough to get them to the first filling station in Kent?

It probably evens out at the moment. Supermarket Diesel in Calais is almost exactly the same price as supermarket diesel in Kent.

 

[jimm]

With regard to the original post, the logistics industry are very good at telling us why shutting more freight to rail would make their business uncompetitive. If the financial incentives to change were put in place then then everybody who wishes to operate in the UK would be in the same position. Incidentally, I am no fan of it politically, but if should this Brexit come to pass, we as a country would be in a good position to place disincentives on lorry use as Switzerland has done. This might include reversing the growth in the size of lorries that Europe has pushed us towards. The European agreements on freedom of movement have also allow overseas lorries to arrive on a cross channel trip with a full tank of untaxed fuel, compete with the UK operators till they are running on fumes, then pick up the next job going across the channel. None of which pays a bean towards the UK exchequer.

Many of us might derive a wry amusement from the arguments from the logistics industry to defend the status quo. While the industry makes big claims of its supposed flexibility, innovation and resilience, and rails against government regulation as a restriction on "choice", it apparently requires everybody to be doing the same thing by using lorries exclusively.

If you think that it is the fault of the EU that we have 44-tonne lorries, you really do need to wake up and look at the policies the Road Haulage Association has been pursuing for many years - and will continue to do so, whatever future political arrangements are.

The Tories are never going to want to put hauliers' noses out of joint and I doubt Labour will ever have the guts to do anything, for all their bluster about radical change. Blair and Brown ran scared of doing all sorts of things for fear of upsetting the business community, the Sun and the Daily Mail - even with an enormous Commons majority.

That the Swiss are able to impose constraints on lorries is more to do with their position as a great big physical roadblock in the middle of western Europe than anything else - the alternative routes are too horrendous to contemplate, especially between Northern Europe and Italy, so the hauliers swallow the pill and play by the Swiss rules. Rail does indeed benefit from those rules but there are still a lot of lorries on the roads too.

Individual EU member states still have plenty of say over what lorries are and aren't allowed to do on their roads - France, Germany and Italy, among others, have lorry bans on Sundays and public holidays covering pretty much any lorry over 7.5t. France and Italy allow exemptions for perishables and a few other limited categories. The UK's roads are a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week free-for-all for HGVs

Finland and Sweden allow taller and longer lorries than other EU member states - and the UK government allowed a trial of similar-sized HGVs a few years ago but for once the DfT saw sense and decided they were too big for our non-motorway roads.

You will see plenty of UK-registered lorries filling their tanks at the last opportunity in France or Belgium before getting on a ferry or heading to the Channel Tunnel. And that won't change whether or not we are in the EU - or should we demand that all lorries drain their tanks before crossing, then refill with Boris Petroleum at Dover?

 

[Bald Rick]

Highways are very much a public good paid for out of general taxation and - with the exception of the national highways - part of the local authority budget where it competes with their other commitments. This is because everybody who lives in that local authority area benefits from the roads: children walking to school, bicycle messengers, boy racers, motorbikers, etc. Unfortunately the Clarkson types like to claim the road system is paid for by car and lorry users and this makes them the de-facto owners and every other road user is a guest.

Winston Churchill saw this coming:




With regard to the original post, the logistics industry are very good at telling us why shutting more freight to rail would make their business uncompetitive. If the financial incentives to change were put in place then then everybody who wishes to operate in the UK would be in the same position. Incidentally, I am no fan of it politically, but if should this Brexit come to pass, we as a country would be in a good position to place disincentives on lorry use as Switzerland has done. This might include reversing the growth in the size of lorries that Europe has pushed us towards. The European agreements on freedom of movement have also allow overseas lorries to arrive on a cross channel trip with a full tank of untaxed fuel, compete with the UK operators till they are running on fumes, then pick up the next job going across the channel. None of which pays a bean towards the UK exchequer.

Many of us might derive a wry amusement from the arguments from the logistics industry to defend the status quo. While the industry makes big claims of its supposed flexibility, innovation and resilience, and rails against government regulation as a restriction on "choice", it apparently requires everybody to be doing the same thing by using lorries exclusively.

A rather jaundiced view, with some alternative facts.

Untaxed fuel? I don't think so, unless they've driven all the way from Russia or Belarus on one tank. Diesel is almost exactly the same price in France, Belgium and the Netherlands as it is here. (Petrol is more expensive over there incidentally). The reason some European hauliers are cheaper is that their drivers are paid less.

It is true that roads are treated as a public good and paid for almost entirely out of taxation. Similarly around a third of the rail network is paid for out of general taxation. Nevertheless some tax is collected directly, and some indirectly, from road users, and it is a statement of fact that the amount collected directly from road users for using roads (VED, fuel duty, and tolls for publicly owned roads) exceeds that spent on the road network by a substantial margin.

If you think that it is the fault of the EU that we have 44-tonne lorries, you really do need to wake up and look at the policies the Road Haulage Association has been pursuing for many years - and will continue to do so, whatever future political arrangements are.

The Tories are never going to want to put hauliers' noses out of joint and I doubt Labour will ever have the guts to do anything, for all their bluster about radical change. Blair and Brown ran scared of doing all sorts of things for fear of upsetting the business community, the Sun and the Daily Mail - even with an enormous Commons majority.

That the Swiss are able to impose constraints on lorries is more to do with their position as a great big physical roadblock in the middle of western Europe than anything else - the alternative routes are too horrendous to contemplate, especially between Northern Europe and Italy, so the hauliers swallow the pill and play by the Swiss rules. Rail does indeed benefit from those rules but there are still a lot of lorries on the roads too.

Individual EU member states still have plenty of say over what lorries are and aren't allowed to do on their roads - France, Germany and Italy, among others, have lorry bans on Sundays and public holidays covering pretty much any lorry over 7.5t. France and Italy allow exemptions for perishables and a few other limited categories. The UK's roads are a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week free-for-all for HGVs

Finland and Sweden allow taller and longer lorries than other EU member states - and the UK government allowed a trial of similar-sized HGVs a few years ago but for once the DfT saw sense and decided they were too big for our non-motorway roads.

You will see plenty of UK-registered lorries filling their tanks at the last opportunity in France or Belgium before getting on a ferry or heading to the Channel Tunnel. And that won't change whether or not we are in the EU - or should we demand that all lorries drain their tanks before crossing, then refill with Boris Petroleum at Dover?

Exactly. Good post.

 

[najaB]

...and it is a statement of fact that the amount collected directly from road users for using roads (VED, fuel duty, and tolls for publicly owned roads) exceeds that spent on the road network by a substantial margin.

Though it is a matter of opinion if that represents roads subsidising general expenditure or general expenditure stealing from roads. Given the state of many roads I personally think it's the latter.

 

[squizzler]

If you think that it is the fault of the EU that we have 44-tonne lorries, you really do need to wake up and look at the policies the Road Haulage Association has been pursuing for many years - and will continue to do so, whatever future political arrangements are.

I said I am not a fan of "brexit", however one of the core principles of the EU is the free flow of goods, and a key way this manifests itself is in a push for all EU nations to allow access for the biggest lorries. The Road Haulage association naturally push for the legalisation of the biggest possible wagons, just as their equivalents in the rail freight association push for the biggest structure gauges. If the rail freight lobby had the chutzpah of the lorry association they would be pushing for USA double stack clearances!

That the Swiss are able to impose constraints on lorries is more to do with their position as a great big physical roadblock in the middle of western Europe than anything else - the alternative routes are too horrendous to contemplate, especially between Northern Europe and Italy, so the hauliers swallow the pill and play by the Swiss rules. Rail does indeed benefit from those rules but there are still a lot of lorries on the roads too.

I doubt that, in a counterfactual situation where Switzerland joined the EU, they would have been anything like as pro-active in pushing freight onto the rail corridors.

Individual EU member states still have plenty of say over what lorries are and aren't allowed to do on their roads - France, Germany and Italy, among others, have lorry bans on Sundays and public holidays covering pretty much any lorry over 7.5t. France and Italy allow exemptions for perishables and a few other limited categories. The UK's roads are a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week free-for-all for HGVs

There is certainly freedom to tinker round the edges. However the European principle of encouraging Union wide access for the largest lorries remains in place.

Finland and Sweden allow taller and longer lorries than other EU member states - and the UK government allowed a trial of similar-sized HGVs a few years ago but for once the DfT saw sense and decided they were too big for our non-motorway roads.

Unfortunately it is always a ratchet that goes upwards never down. As soon as we are used to a particular tonnage it's on to agitating the the next size up..

 

[najaB]

However the European principle of encouraging Union wide access for the largest lorries remains in place.

That's interesting, where can I read more about this principle?

 

[squizzler]

Untaxed fuel? I don't think so, unless they've driven all the way from Russia or Belarus on one tank. Diesel is almost exactly the same price in France, Belgium and the Netherlands as it is here. (Petrol is more expensive over there incidentally). The reason some European hauliers are cheaper is that their drivers are paid less.

That was careless of me, I meant UK tax of course. We are an island and there are much worse problems with crossing borders to take advantage of differential taxation inside the EU. I seem to recall reading that only an idiot would run a petrol station in France within a certain distance of the Luxembourg border for instance. This shows that the system of raising revenue from vehicle licensing and fuel duty is well and truly broken. It simply foremost a race to the bottom where countries with the lowest licensing and fuel taxes win.

It is true that roads are treated as a public good and paid for almost entirely out of taxation. Similarly around a third of the rail network is paid for out of general taxation. Nevertheless some tax is collected directly, and some indirectly, from road users, and it is a statement of fact that the amount collected directly from road users for using roads (VED, fuel duty, and tolls for publicly owned roads) exceeds that spent on the road network by a substantial margin.

Yes, but so what? Tobacco and alcohol duty for instance exceeds what the government puts back into pubs.

 

[coppercapped]

Highways are very much a public good paid for out of general taxation and - with the exception of the national highways - part of the local authority budget where it competes with their other commitments. This is because everybody who lives in that local authority area benefits from the roads: children walking to school, bicycle messengers, boy racers, motorbikers, etc. Unfortunately the Clarkson types like to claim the road system is paid for by car and lorry users and this makes them the de-facto owners and every other road user is a guest.

Winston Churchill saw this coming:




With regard to the original post, the logistics industry are very good at telling us why shutting more freight to rail would make their business uncompetitive. If the financial incentives to change were put in place then then everybody who wishes to operate in the UK would be in the same position. Incidentally, I am no fan of it politically, but if should this Brexit come to pass, we as a country would be in a good position to place disincentives on lorry use as Switzerland has done. This might include reversing the growth in the size of lorries that Europe has pushed us towards. The European agreements on freedom of movement have also allow overseas lorries to arrive on a cross channel trip with a full tank of untaxed fuel, compete with the UK operators till they are running on fumes, then pick up the next job going across the channel. None of which pays a bean towards the UK exchequer.

This is not quite the whole story.

Diesel fuel is also taxed on the Continent - but the rate for HGVs can vary from that charged for cars (which certainly was, and may well still be, the case in Belgium). The general rate may also be slightly lower than it is here but the difference is getting smaller. Gasoil/diesel in France for my car is not far from the UK price now, but a couple of years ago it was some 15% cheaper.

The are also considerable disincentives for HGVs in Germany where they are banned from the Autobahnen and major trunk roads all day on Sundays - that's every Sunday and it needed no 'Germexit' to introduce. The only exceptions are for those HGVs carrying perishable foodstuffs. In spite of this encouragement and being allowed to run on Sundays DBAG has only a minor share of the freight market.

Many of us might derive a wry amusement from the arguments from the logistics industry to defend the status quo. While the industry makes big claims of its supposed flexibility, innovation and resilience, and rails against government regulation as a restriction on "choice", it apparently requires everybody to be doing the same thing by using lorries exclusively.

 

[route:oxford]

How did our railway go from having Marshaling yards with random carrying goods vans to having only unified freight trains, and its still too expensive to compete with the road? I'm all for the unified freight trains, but I don't think it should cost more than hauling by road. The government should change the rulings in order to get freight off the roads as that would provide benefits elsewhere, not just in pockets.

The population more than doubled & expectations changed.

It would take me an hour to walk to my nearest railway station, it takes me 10 minutes to walk to a choice of three supermarkets.

Don't forget, the general public hate the idea of a railway yard near their homes. The lives of hundreds of people in Blackford are going to be ruined (according to local residents) thanks to the shipment of Highland Spring goods to England using a new railhead.

 

[squizzler]

That's interesting, where can I read more about this principle?

I am most familiar with the various TEN's

The Trans-European Networks (TEN) were created by the European Union by Articles 154-156 of the Treaty of Rome (1957), with the stated goals of the creation of an internal market and the reinforcement of economic and social cohesion. To various supporters of this policy, it made little sense to talk of a big EU market, with freedom of movement within it for goods, persons and services, unless the various regions and national networks making up that market were properly linked by modern and efficient infrastructure. The construction of Trans-European Networks was also seen as an important element for economic growth and the creation of employment.

 

[furnessvale]

If you think that it is the fault of the EU that we have 44-tonne lorries, you really do need to wake up and look at the policies the Road Haulage Association has been pursuing for many years - and will continue to do so, whatever future political arrangements are.
<SNIP>
The Tories are never going to want to put hauliers' noses out of joint and I doubt Labour will ever have the guts to do anything, for all their bluster about radical change. Blair and Brown ran scared of doing all sorts of things for fear of upsetting the business community, the Sun and the Daily Mail - even with an enormous Commons majority.
<SNIP>

Finland and Sweden allow taller and longer lorries than other EU member states - and the UK government allowed a trial of similar-sized HGVs a few years ago but for once the DfT saw sense and decided they were too big for our non-motorway roads.

The 44 tonnes HGV for general use as opposed to combined transport, was introduced to the UK by a Labour government by John Prescott. At the time, the EU standard was 40 tonnes and HGVs bound for the continent were 4 tonnes lighter than domestic UK vehicles.

The UK has NO height limit on the roads. Only the practicality of getting under bridges constrains hauliers and the largest semi trailer in the UK is now 4.9m high and 15.65m long. Just how safe that is for other road users in windy conditions is open to question.

 

[najaB]

I am most familiar with the various TEN's

AFAIK, the TEN-T is only concerned with ensuring certain minimum standards are met, not with "encouraging Union wide access for the largest lorries" but I'm happy for you explain why I'm wrong.

 

[Poiskey]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I worked for a haulage and warehousing firm that was/is heavily involved in delivering into supermarkets, so thought I'd give the opposing viewpoint. Other members have already stated some of this...

The company that I worked for was a consolidator - they worked with manufacturers who may make less than a vanload of stock a week, up to many lorryloads a day. All the major supermarkets require the smaller manufacturers to go via a consolidator to reduce the number of deliveries going into their own distribution centres, below a certain level they're simply not allowed to deliver directly. What that level is obviously depends on the individual supermarket's policy. Larger companies have the option of delivering directly, but this is strongly discouraged unless they can deliver mostly full lorryloads by themselves.

Having received the stock, it is then mixed together into the most efficient combination of products so that it requires the minimum possible number of deliveries to any given DC (i.e. ideally every lorry is full, no wasted space). For some of the larger DCs, even after this process it can still be what would easily make a trainload of stock per day. The problem is that due to having multiple warehouses, the starting point of those loads comes from different locations all around the country, it isn't all in one place. Currently that gets delivered directly by road, to put it on a train it would have to be driven to some other central location first. The end result would probably be to burn just as much fuel and cover just as many miles driving to that central location, as by delivering directly. Except now there is the extra energy usage and time of the train journey too.

The other problem which has been mentioned much less than cost, is time. All of the major supermarkets are moving towards day 1 for day 1 deliveries, for food and drink at least. This is defined as delivery within 24 hours of the order being placed. That's to any supermarket DC in the UK. This is a tight turnaround even with the stock moving all the time that it is between the source and destination warehouse. There simply isn't time for the goods to be parked awaiting transfer from road to rail, and then also back again at the other end, if the railhead is not on site at the destination.

I can imagine it might work for general merchandise in large quantities, or really anything where the time constraint is not so tight. And if the supermarkets can make it work internally when they have huge flows of goods (like with Daventry-Mossend) then they will. But for deliveries into DCs, unless the supermarkets relax the time requirements, rail doesn't really make sense.

I can't seem to set a signature so for legal purposes - all views are my own and not those of my employer.

 

[furnessvale]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

I worked for a haulage and warehousing firm that was/is heavily involved in delivering into supermarkets, so thought I'd give the opposing viewpoint. Other members have already stated some of this...

The company that I worked for was a consolidator - they worked with manufacturers who may make less than a vanload of stock a week, up to many lorryloads a day. All the major supermarkets require the smaller manufacturers to go via a consolidator to reduce the number of deliveries going into their own distribution centres, below a certain level they're simply not allowed to deliver directly. What that level is obviously depends on the individual supermarket's policy. Larger companies have the option of delivering directly, but this is strongly discouraged unless they can deliver mostly full lorryloads by themselves.

Having received the stock, it is then mixed together into the most efficient combination of products so that it requires the minimum possible number of deliveries to any given DC (i.e. ideally every lorry is full, no wasted space). For some of the larger DCs, even after this process it can still be what would easily make a trainload of stock per day. The problem is that due to having multiple warehouses, the starting point of those loads comes from different locations all around the country, it isn't all in one place. Currently that gets delivered directly by road, to put it on a train it would have to be driven to some other central location first. The end result would probably be to burn just as much fuel and cover just as many miles driving to that central location, as by delivering directly. Except now there is the extra energy usage and time of the train journey too.

The other problem which has been mentioned much less than cost, is time. All of the major supermarkets are moving towards day 1 for day 1 deliveries, for food and drink at least. This is defined as delivery within 24 hours of the order being placed. That's to any supermarket DC in the UK. This is a tight turnaround even with the stock moving all the time that it is between the source and destination warehouse. There simply isn't time for the goods to be parked awaiting transfer from road to rail, and then also back again at the other end, if the railhead is not on site at the destination.

I can imagine it might work for general merchandise in large quantities, or really anything where the time constraint is not so tight. And if the supermarkets can make it work internally when they have huge flows of goods (like with Daventry-Mossend) then they will. But for deliveries into DCs, unless the supermarkets relax the time requirements, rail doesn't really make sense.

I can't seem to set a signature so for legal purposes - all views are my own and not those of my employer.

Thanks for the post. It does show the mountain the railways have to climb to regain this traffic. The whole distribution system is based around the HGV, DCs etc being built near motorway junctions with no thought about potential rail access. Daventry is a notable exception but it will need a lot more of them before the tide turns.

Interesting final comment you make. Time is money to supermarkets. Perhaps when the full cost of HGVs to the community as a whole is factored into the equation, they may be more amenable to looking at other options.

 

[coppercapped]

Thanks for the post. It does show the mountain the railways have to climb to regain this traffic. The whole distribution system is based around the HGV, DCs etc being built near motorway junctions with no thought about potential rail access. Daventry is a notable exception but it will need a lot more of them before the tide turns.

Interesting final comment you make. Time is money to supermarkets. Perhaps when the full cost of HGVs to the community as a whole is factored into the equation, they may be more amenable to looking at other options.

Time is money - not only to supermarkets but to every commercial endeavour. There is always a cost to time - except when it's your time and you spend it sitting beside the river fishing.

I don't buy the implicit assumption in the last argument that the usage of HGVs would drop if only they were properly charged.

No supermarket, or shopping 'mall' or corner shop has it's own rail connection. This means that goods have to be delivered by lorry to the retail outlet even if part of their journey has been on rail. If the 'true' costs of HGVs were added to their current cost of operation the costs of delivering the goods to the retail outlet would increase. In a perfect world the level of general taxation would fall by that amount which goes into road maintenance so the consumer, as taxpayer, benefits.

So in the end, the consumer still has to spend the same amount of money - it's just that the split between taxation and direct consumption has been shifted slightly.

There might be an argument that trunk hauls might favour rail a bit more - but until rail can match the mode of business described by Poiskey in post #57, all that will happen is the goods you buy will be marginally more expensive.

 

[furnessvale]

There might be an argument that trunk hauls might favour rail a bit more - but until rail can match the mode of business described by Poiskey in post #57, all that will happen is the goods you buy will be marginally more expensive.

If the government is subsidising HGVs less I will be paying less tax (or alternatively the NHS will be better funded) so I can pay the marginal increase!