Could the UK Rail System cope with mail and parcels?

[ChiefPlanner]

Royal Mail tried some road / rail swapbodies as a trial - I gave J Prescott a cabride on one of my 313's to Willesden Jct to launch it. (from the Euroterminal) - circa 1998....

Got knowhere .....road bias in RM perhaps...?

 

[bavvo]

Don't know a lot about this subject, but on mail:-
1) From Penzance sorting office all mail is taken to Plymouth to be sorted, even local post
2) The privatisation of Royal Mail would preclude the govt in any form directing it or even seeking to persuade it to adopt rail or any other form of transport:TNT etc would soon be sticking their oar in
3) Certainly west of Exeter, would Royal Mail enter into a rail contract and go to huge expense while no alternative route to Plymouth etc is any nearer than it was this time last year, shortly before you-know-what?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Therefore had to be got rid of for ideological reasons

1) It's not unusual for freight or mail sorting to be consolidated at larger facilities even where the distances travelled is further. For better or worse, labour costs more than fuel these days. In some respects this favours rail, as larger shipments from a few hubs can be consolidated into decent trainload quantities.

2) Although the govt. can't directly compel companies to use rail, it can still influence things via road tolls, road taxation, fuel duties etc, which could make rail more attractive. Also direct grants to build freight facilities can be used to enable new rail freight yards to be created. Hopefully future governments will improve the situation here, at least to get road transport to cover a greater percentage of its indirect costs.

3) True. Sadly, alternate routes were wiped out previously, and have left a legacy of vulnerable rail services. Rail will struggle to compete until this is addressed. This was the worst error of the Beeching era. Engineers use duplication to avoid service failure. Accountants eliminate duplication as 'waste'.

As for Red Star, I am not sure how effective it could be now. It would require a fairly high manpower to be committed in order to run it these days, plus of course luggage vans have disappeared on most modern trains as well (a regrettable move).

 

[RichmondCommu]

1) It's not unusual for freight or mail sorting to be consolidated at larger facilities even where the distances travelled is further. For better or worse, labour costs more than fuel these days. In some respects this favours rail, as larger shipments from a few hubs can be consolidated into decent trainload quantities.

2) Although the govt. can't directly compel companies to use rail, it can still influence things via road tolls, road taxation, fuel duties etc, which could make rail more attractive. Also direct grants to build freight facilities can be used to enable new rail freight yards to be created. Hopefully future governments will improve the situation here, at least to get road transport to cover a greater percentage of its indirect costs.

The problem is if you try to create a level playing field by forcing up the cost of road transport this will simply fuel inflation. Whilst we certainly don't want to see negative inflation the low fuel prices at the moment are certainly helping the economy. Any attempt to force up the cost of transport will have an affect on you and I, in the other words the consumer.

The other issue is we already have a few new build rail freight terminals and more are planned but the vast majority see very little use if at all.

 

[HowardGWR]

Royal Mail tried some road / rail swapbodies as a trial - I gave J Prescott a cabride on one of my 313's to Willesden Jct to launch it. (from the Euroterminal) - circa 1998....

Got nowhere .....road bias in RM perhaps...?

Your very own 313 (and you had more)? Wow!

 

[bavvo]

The problem is if you try to create a level playing field by forcing up the cost of road transport this will simply fuel inflation. Whilst we certainly don't want to see negative inflation the low fuel prices at the moment are certainly helping the economy. Any attempt to force up the cost of transport will have affect you and I, in the other words the consumer.

The other issue is we already have a few new build rail freight terminals and more are planned but the vast majority see very little use if at all.

I agree. Although you could in theory use any income from increased fuel taxes to lower other taxes, i.e. keep it a tax neutral measure. The trick is to do it slowly enough to allows the market to adjust without too much pain.

 

[BantamMenace]

What you need to do is make one format as cheap as the existing format, not make the existing format as expensive as the format you want to be taken up.

 

[bavvo]

What you need to do is make one format as cheap as the existing format, not make the existing format as expensive as the format you want to be taken up.

Yes, but the argument is that existing formats do not cover their indirect costs (pollution/CO2, congestion, accidents etc). If they did, then rail would be more competative, something that was highlighted back in the sixties (In the Reshaping report).

 

[RichmondCommu]

Yes, but the argument is that existing formats do not cover their indirect costs (pollution/CO2, congestion, accidents etc). If they did, then rail would be more competative, something that was highlighted back in the sixties (In the Reshaping report).

It would be interesting to see how the treasury went about calculating those indirect costs, in particular congestion and accidents. I think that especially in terms of congestion it would be very hard to differentiate between the causes of congestion. The haulage companies would probably argue that if there were less cars on the roads there would be less congestion and accidents. It's interesting to think that the Reshaping report was apparently predicting congestion on our roads, despite it having been published in the 1960's.

 

[kermit]

It would be interesting to see how the treasury went about calculating those indirect costs, in particular congestion and accidents. I think that especially in terms of congestion it would be very hard to differentiate between the causes of congestion. The haulage companies would probably argue that if there were less cars on the roads there would be less congestion and accidents. It's interesting to think that the Reshaping report was apparently predicting congestion on our roads, despite it having been published in the 1960's.

Should the argument really be framed more in environmental terms, as kg of carbon dioxide per kg/mile of goods conveyed?

To me there's something hell-in-a-handcart-ish about blithe acceptance that it's OK to load letters and parcels on a plane within a country the size of ours.

 

[deltic]

Should the argument really be framed more in environmental terms, as kg of carbon dioxide per kg/mile of goods conveyed?

To me there's something hell-in-a-handcart-ish about blithe acceptance that it's OK to load letters and parcels on a plane within a country the size of ours.

Royal Mail commissioned an environmental study when the switch was made from rail to air which showed the latter as being more environmentally friendly - didnt convince many people.

 

[kermit]

Comparisons for passengers rather than mail can be entered into this interesting comparison site;

http://www.ecopassenger.org/

And according to "The Man in Seat 61";

"Cut your CO2 emissions by taking the train, by up to 90%...
Eurostar has done its homework and commissioned independent research to assess the CO2 per passenger produced by a London-Paris Eurostar journey versus that emitted by a passenger on a London-Paris flight. The research looked at actual Eurostar passenger loadings, actual Eurostar power consumption, the way Eurostar's electricity is generated, actual aircraft loadings, actual aircraft fuel consumption, and so on. The conclusion was remarkable: Taking the train to Paris instead of flying cuts CO2 emissions per passenger not just by a measly 10% or 20% or even 50%, but by a staggering 90%...

And with airport security tightened, check-ins up to 2 hours even for a 1-hour flight, plus the time and cost involved in getting to and from remote airports at each end, taking the train city centre to city centre will probably cut your stress levels by a similar percentage.

Incidentally, the environmental benefit of taking the train instead of a plane may be much greater than 90%. Airliners emit their CO2 directly into the upper atmosphere, where it is likely to do over twice the damage of the same quantity of CO2 emitted at ground level (estimates vary between 2 & 3 times the damage, but 2.7 is the factor normally used). This factor isn't included in the Eurostar findings."

 

[bavvo]

It would be interesting to see how the treasury went about calculating those indirect costs, in particular congestion and accidents. I think that especially in terms of congestion it would be very hard to differentiate between the causes of congestion. The haulage companies would probably argue that if there were less cars on the roads there would be less congestion and accidents. It's interesting to think that the Reshaping report was apparently predicting congestion on our roads, despite it having been published in the 1960's.

I think the priorities in the sixties were slightly different. Oil was cheap, but almost all imported which had an impact on our poor balance of payments, and the report was prepared before the completion of the motorway network, so much traffic was still on congested A roads running through towns.

Nowadays pollution is considered more important, particularly diesal particulates in built up areas, and CO2 of course.
The difficulty for us now is rail freight has practically zero presence in town and city centres, so trucks will continue dominate there, where they do the most damage, for the foreseeable future, unless something radical is done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Royal Mail commissioned an environmental study when the switch was made from rail to air which showed the latter as being more environmentally friendly - didnt convince many people.

I'd be interested in seeing that. I wonder if it was based on using empty space on passenger flights already flying? A typical airliner with a full load of passengers rarely has that much luggage, so there is usually space onboard for extra freight, a valuable extra income for the airlines. I assume their calculations were based solely on the extra fuel burnt purely to carry the mail, which is only a fraction of what the total fuel burn would be for that trip.

 

[kermit]

I think the priorities in the sixties were slightly different. Oil was cheap, but almost all imported which had an impact on our poor balance of payments, and the report was prepared before the completion of the motorway network, so much traffic was still on congested A roads running through towns.

Nowadays pollution is considered more important, particularly diesal particulates in built up areas, and CO2 of course.
The difficulty for us now is rail freight has practically zero presence in town and city centres, so trucks will continue dominate there, where they do the most damage, for the foreseeable future, unless something radical is done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'd be interested in seeing that. I wonder if it was based on using empty space on passenger flights already flying? A typical airliner with a full load of passengers rarely has that much luggage, so there is usually space onboard for extra freight, a valuable extra income for the airlines. I assume their calculations were based solely on the extra fuel burnt purely to carry the mail, which is only a fraction of what the total fuel burn would be for that trip.

And if being compared with rail rather than road, that's a comparison factor that should balance out, as space in guards compartments should be used. No real equivalent for that on the roads.

 

[bavvo]

And if being compared with rail rather than road, that's a comparison factor that should balance out, as space in guards compartments should be used. No real equivalent for that on the roads.

I hate to be negative as I would like this to happen, but there are still two big problems with this idea.

1. The fragmented industry means you would need to negotiate separate agreements with all the individual TOCs to handle parcels, including providing guards where they may not even be present, storage space at stations etc.

2. Guards compartments have mostly disappeared on modern stock as well. I don't think the IEP will come with any significant storage space as they are orientated primarilly to provide passenger seats at the expense of storage space. Same goes for most multiple unit stock.

 

[kermit]

I hate to be negative as I would like this to happen, but there are still two big problems with this idea.

1. The fragmented industry means you would need to negotiate separate agreements with all the individual TOCs to handle parcels, including providing guards where they may not even be present, storage space at stations etc.

2. Guards compartments have mostly disappeared on modern stock as well. I don't think the IEP will come with any significant storage space as they are orientated primarilly to provide passenger seats at the expense of storage space. Same goes for most multiple unit stock.

One of my other suggestions - Renationalisation - fixes 1)

If we ever get as far as 2), internal redesignation of space on whatever stock trundles about at the time would be one of the smaller challenges to overcome, I suspect....

 

[Andrewlong]

One of my other suggestions - Renationalisation - fixes 1)

If we ever get as far as 2), internal redesignation of space on whatever stock trundles about at the time would be one of the smaller challenges to overcome, I suspect....

Cost of fix 1 - got to be paid for and is it good use of taxpayers money?

Rather than post - what about a pilot to see whether motorrail would be worth a punt. London to Devon/Cornwall holiday resorts in summer season.

 

[kermit]

Cost of fix 1 - got to be paid for and is it good use of taxpayers money?

Rather than post - what about a pilot to see whether motorrail would be worth a punt. London to Devon/Cornwall holiday resorts in summer season.

I don't think many people have grasped quite what eye-watering sums of money are being funnelled to the shareholders of the privatised TOCs under the current arrangements.

Whilst I may be misty-eyed about parcels vans, I think Motorail truly suited an era when most cars needed to stop to cool down if you drove them for 2 hours at 60mph, and needed a full service every 1500 miles.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Rather than post - what about a pilot to see whether motorrail would be worth a punt. London to Devon/Cornwall holiday resorts in summer season.

Given the likely cost of the service against the cost of actually driving to the SW from London I think it would be a none starter, especially if you are travelling with your family. If you've bothered to load up the car for a holiday in the SW I think very, very few people would think it worth paying the congestion charge to drive to Paddington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Should the argument really be framed more in environmental terms, as kg of carbon dioxide per kg/mile of goods conveyed?

To me there's something hell-in-a-handcart-ish about blithe acceptance that it's OK to load letters and parcels on a plane within a country the size of ours.

Ask yourself this question and give yourself an honest answer, how many people who enjoy reliable and speedy next day delivery services care about the air pollution that goes with airfreight? In my experience those individuals are few and far between.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Just imagine for a moment a proactive government decision to direct mail and parcels carriers to use rail instead of road / air wherever possible.

The nostalgist in me would fondly imagine platforms once again littered with parcels trolleys, Red Star facilities at every staffed station, Travelling Post Offices with a letterbox on the side, etc etc.

But I have an awful suspicion that someone's going to tell me there are no paths available for the trains, and no space at the stations to cope with the current passenger numbers and all the old stuff.

Still, the sight of a Voyager hauling a couple of parcels vans would lift my spirits enormously!

Yes I think it could manage, depends on the time of day these trains will be moving about, I would hazard a guess sometime after 7pm would be the earliest loading time so travel during the night as passenger services draw to a close

Might be logistically impossible though nowadays, just looking at Peterborough the Royal Mail depot was next to the station but no longer is, by the time they have loaded the lorry then unload it and take it through unfriendly doors with passengers etc onto the station it will be a nightmare, easier to keep it on the lorry to be honest

Only way it would benefit is that if the depot was next to the line for direct access but many aren't these days to make it viable

 

[Busaholic]

Given the likely cost of the service against the cost of actually driving to the SW from London I think it would be a none starter, especially if you are travelling with your family. If you've bothered to load up the car for a holiday in the SW I think very, very few people would think it worth paying the congestion charge to drive to Paddington.

The motorail service from Paddington to Penzance was very popular when re-introduced in the 1990s, attached to the Night Riviera sleeper. My father, then in his late seventies, used it a couple of times to come and visit me, as he would not by then have wanted the fag of driving from London, but wanted to have a car to go see places in Cornwall while here.I seem to remember a dramatic increase in price over a couple of years, probably meant to kill it off and they succeeded in their plan - it ceased in 2005.
By the way, the congestion charge would not be operative at the time in the evening when loading would take place.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The motorail service from Paddington to Penzance was very popular when re-introduced in the 1990s, attached to the Night Riviera sleeper. My father, then in his late seventies, used it a couple of times to come and visit me, as he would not by then have wanted the fag of driving from London, but wanted to have a car to go see places in Cornwall while here.I seem to remember a dramatic increase in price over a couple of years, probably meant to kill it off and they succeeded in their plan - it ceased in 2005.
By the way, the congestion charge would not be operative at the time in the evening when loading would take place.

In all honesty I had assumed that such a service would run during the day.

 

[kermit]

Given the likely cost of the service against the cost of actually driving to the SW from London I think it would be a none starter, especially if you are travelling with your family. If you've bothered to load up the car for a holiday in the SW I think very, very few people would think it worth paying the congestion charge to drive to Paddington.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ask yourself this question and give yourself an honest answer, how many people who enjoy reliable and speedy next day delivery services care about the air pollution that goes with airfreight? In my experience those individuals are few and far between.

Hell.

Handcart.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Hell.

Handcart.

I don't have my UK Railway Forums phrase book to hand so perhaps you could explain this in a little more detail?

 

[Emyr]

He's calling out the key words in the well known thread that I believe has already been used in this thread.

 

[bavvo]

I think Handcart is the rumoured Pacer replacement.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I think Handcart is the rumoured Pacer replacement.

An innovative zero emissions solution with dynamic customer interactivity.

 

[kermit]

I don't have my UK Railway Forums phrase book to hand so perhaps you could explain this in a little more detail?

Apologies, I had thought that the phrase "Going to Hell in a Handcart" was in sufficiently common currency for my meaning to be clear.

Wikipedia offers "a situation headed for disaster inescapably or precipitately", which I think about covers it.

As it pertains to this discussion, it was a response to

"Ask yourself this question and give yourself an honest answer, how many people who enjoy reliable and speedy next day delivery services care about the air pollution that goes with airfreight? In my experience those individuals are few and far between."

If it really is true that as long as people get their parcels the next day, they couldn't give two hoots about the environmental damage caused on the way, then we are profligate, greedy, stupid, irresponsible, and heading for Hell in whatever metaphorical vehicle you might choose. Indeed, Hell in a 747 may be more apposite than Hell in a Pacer!