End of the "golden age" of road haulage could create opportunities for rail?

[The Planner]

Gauge clearance is just something that has a cost, and one we don't tend to spend on. It doesn't mean that you are rebuilding every structure either which is often the assumption.

 

[Grumbler]

I think we are at least ten years away from large driverless automated road vehicles, even on motorways. Although there are now small battery electric delivery robotic vehicles operating in some places around the word, including in Milton Keynes, these travel at pedestrian speed. Here is a search link to a number of videos.

Similar concepts and technology to what you describe could be used for other transport systems though. Including rail. Arrive at the "transshipment" location. Detach your purpose designed trailer or wait for the fully automated robotic system to unload your module (most likely very similar to existing standard containers). Electronically confirm the details via your internet connected pad. Leave. Then the fully automated robotic system can assemble a multimode train. Once ready, said train will receive a final safety check from the depot staff. Then the driverless ERTMS fitted automated train will depart.

It will then travel to the next required "transshipment" location where items will either be loaded or unloaded or both. Again, the changes will be by a fully automated robotic system. After a final safety check from the depot staff, the train will continue it's journey.

The train will be in continuous contact via radio communications so that the control centre both knows it's location and so a human can amend or adjust anything if needed.

How competitive this could be compared to road transport I don't know. And obviously a substantial upfront investment would be needed for both the train and the "transshipment" locations. Also, it would only be economic to use existing railway lines, which limits the areas where this service could be offered. But if running costs are lower than running a conventional road distribution system, it may happen at some point in the future.

Driverless self-propelled sets of wagons could proceed to hubs for joining up into longer trains for the long haul to other hubs where they would split for the final trip to the destination. All this could be carried out automatically, rather like packets of data being routed between computer networks.

 

[Dai Corner]

Driverless self-propelled sets of wagons could proceed to hubs for joining up into longer trains for the long haul to other hubs where they would split for the final trip to the destination. All this could be carried out automatically, rather like packets of data being routed between computer networks.

That's what we used to call 'trip workings' and 'marshalling yards', albeit it under human control. Previous posters have said how inefficient that was but could computer algorithms make it more efficient and doing away with the biological interface between the signalling system and traction controls reduce operating costs enough? I don't know.

 

[zwk500]

You still need paths for it all however you process it in London. That means less paths for passenger trains.

But if your paths are in an easily accessible location you don't need to impact passenger trains as severely as you suggest. Especially if your yard feeds into a line that's having a relief line built for the busiest 100 miles. The critical constraint on Wembley Yard would be North London Line paths, which is harder to resolve.

Gauge clearance is just something that has a cost, and one we don't tend to spend on. It doesn't mean that you are rebuilding every structure either which is often the assumption.

Any cost will not help railfreight compete with road haulage. Although yes, on many routes there are many structures that would already be clear, especially on routes that are being electrified.

 

[The Planner]

But if your paths are in an easily accessible location you don't need to impact passenger trains as severely as you suggest. Especially if your yard feeds into a line that's having a relief line built for the busiest 100 miles. The critical constraint on Wembley Yard would be North London Line paths, which is harder to resolve.

Any cost will not help railfreight compete with road haulage. Although yes, on many routes there are many structures that would already be clear, especially on routes that are being electrified.

Railfreight wouldn't be paying for it though, NR would be.

 

[Roast Veg]

That's what we used to call 'trip workings' and 'marshalling yards', albeit it under human control. Previous posters have said how inefficient that was but could computer algorithms make it more efficient and doing away with the biological interface between the signalling system and traction controls reduce operating costs enough? I don't know.

The problem is that you need your marshalling "yard" to actually stretch over a wide area of delivery and pick-up locations, not just a place to chop and change two freight trains into two different freight trains - that can be done quite happily with a crane. Self driving lorries in controlled environments would be a pretty niche solution.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think the point has long been made - forget marshalling yards for wagon sorting , think container terminals for container sorting , storage, holding etc - on either hard standing or on internal or external use trailers.

For shuffling train portions around , think "Network Yard" for gentle train positioning and reforming.

 

[HSTEd]

You could probably do something using the technology being pushed by "CargoBeamer".

Basically park your lorry trailer or other load on a tray and then it gets shunted sideways on and off trains etc.

Obviously proper TOFC/Rolling Highway operations are not possible in the UK due to our terrible loading gauge.

 

[furnessvale]

You could probably do something using the technology being pushed by "CargoBeamer".

Basically park your lorry trailer or other load on a tray and then it gets shunted sideways on and off trains etc.

Obviously proper TOFC/Rolling Highway operations are not possible in the UK due to our terrible loading gauge.

Neither is Cargobeamer (using standard road trailers) possible within the UK due to the same loading gauge problem.

The only intermodal solutions available in the UK involve swap bodies or ISO containers as demonstrated by Tesco and others.

 

[HSTEd]

Neither is Cargobeamer (using standard road trailers) possible within the UK due to the same loading gauge problem.

You could put a container on a Cargobeamer style sled.

The point being automated container movement, given lift costs are the expensive part of operating an intermodal terminal.

You could build a system like that to move sleds between trains etc.

 

[Irascible]

Doesn't really offer much improvement on what happens today.

The likes of Stobart or Wincanton have far more trailers than tractor units. What they'll tend to do is drop a trailer at its destination and pick up one for return either from the customer they've just delivered to (who may be moving pallets or roll cages around as well as full loads) or a different customer.

It was about the most useful example of a centralised road haulage system I could think of. The improvement is not needing a driver and their time limits for the long distance parts & given it's a known set of routes, you can optimise things like overhead wire charging sections & whatever, and you're also not having to pay a driver if a tractor unit has to run somewhere without a load. The human drivers run the customer ends which need much more flexibility & someone to check the load for safety etc ( and do the admin signoffs ), which is not something that'll ever be fully automated anyway, I think. We're just about there with car autopilots on the motorway already technology-wise, regulatory & so on is a bit of a different story.

Not the only solution to the overall problem by any means, I've probably said somewhere in here I'd like to see far more granular container operations which would need some new machinery for transshipment for sure. Easier container movement would open up opportunities for combinations too - there's no need for self-driving wagons I think ( they'd get in the way *everywhere* ) outside of some possible niches when an end user is close to a terminal, we need to think of consists of container flats as the actual railway when it comes to wagonload freight.

 

[furnessvale]

You could put a container on a Cargobeamer style sled.

The point being automated container movement, given lift costs are the expensive part of operating an intermodal terminal.

You could build a system like that to move sleds between trains etc.

What do you use to put the container on the sled.......a reachstacker, which is already on site loading and unloading HGVs, putting containers to stacks etc(something you can't do with HGV trailers), and loading trains. You have simply added another level of complexity and capital equipment cost to an existing system.

 

[Annetts key]

We're just about there with car autopilots on the motorway already technology-wise, regulatory & so on is a bit of a different story.

I disagree. At the moment this technology is classed as a driver aid / driver assistance. It’s a significant difference compared to a fully autonomous vehicle that has absolutely no real time (live) monitoring by a human.

Even where a high speed fully autonomous train is easier and currently possible using existing technology, we currently don’t have any in operation (although we do have fully autonomous metro systems).

On our mainline railways, we have limited fitment of ERTMS/ETCS or ATP.
AWS and TPWS are not fail safe systems. If the equipment is removed from the track, or the train receiver fails to detect the signal (maybe due to a damaged sensor/receiver), the on train equipment will not miss or detect that it has traveled beyond where it should have received a signal (AWS) and TPWS does not transmit anything at signals showing a main proceed aspect.

Hence AWS and TPWS are also classed as driver aids.

 

[HSTEd]

What do you use to put the container on the sled.......a reachstacker, which is already on site loading and unloading HGVs, putting containers to stacks etc(something you can't do with HGV trailers), and loading trains. You have simply added another level of complexity and capital equipment cost to an existing system.

And where will all your personnel to operate these reachstackers come from?

How will you pay for all the demurrage for trains sitting around in yards whilst reach stackers remove containers one at a time, or load containers one at a time?

If you want container shipping by rail to be anything but a tiny niche, you need to be able to sort containers between trains rapidly and with the minimum of labour required.

Asking for capital spending when it will reduce ongoing costs is one thing, but if your ongoing costs are hopelessly uneconomic it doesn't matter how little capital spending you need.

 

[Irascible]

I disagree. At the moment this technology is classed as a driver aid / driver assistance. It’s a significant difference compared to a fully autonomous vehicle that has absolutely no real time (live) monitoring by a human.

Is it even permitted to sell something as an autopilot? legally you probably have to be fully in control of the vehicle at all times ( I didn't look that up, that's just guessing ), definitely not really any regulatory framework to support autonomy right now. I think the technology required to perform the tasks is there, the robustness I doubt ( and after spending a good 30% of my life in software, autonomous anything does not make me relax in any way ) and you can just imagine the fights about liability to come...

 

[furnessvale]

And where will all your personnel to operate these reachstackers come from?

How will you pay for all the demurrage for trains sitting around in yards whilst reach stackers remove containers one at a time, or load containers one at a time?

If you want container shipping by rail to be anything but a tiny niche, you need to be able to sort containers between trains rapidly and with the minimum of labour required.

Asking for capital spending when it will reduce ongoing costs is one thing, but if your ongoing costs are hopelessly uneconomic it doesn't matter how little capital spending you need.

Cargobeamer may have a place in carrying standard road trailers but applying it to containers is a technology too far. The attached video shows the complexity of the system. The fact that the technology is duplicated at every rail wagon position and even the rail wagons have additional complexities means that you will employ more mechanics than I will reachstacker drivers. Speedier trans-shipment, if needed at all in the confines of the UK, can be achieved by selective portion swapping of rail wagons.

As for rail container traffic being a tiny niche, more than 25% of deep sea containers from the major ports move by rail when measured by numbers. Measure by tonnes-kms (the only realistic measure) and the proportion rises to 50%.