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

[Dai Corner]

These suggestions of consolidating loads from different origins for different destinations into trainloads sounds very much like wagonload traffic. We know what happened to that in the 1950s and 1960s after huge investment in marshalling yards to handle it more efficiently.

 

[A0wen]

Where load limits are an issue then having smaller boxes within a container (as long as it could be unloaded automatically and easily) could allow one container to carry products for two customers by mixing some heavy and some light loads.

If the smaller box could be loaded directly to a van, then we could see more centralised hubs with everything being shipped long distance and then loaded to smaller vans for local distribution. Most would likely be by road, but even some small shift to rail (even if that requires a short hop by road to start with) could be possible when it currently wouldn't be.

But if the container is full i.e. at its weight limit then you *cannot* add more to it - it's that simple. No ifs no buts. So you're trying to solve a problem which cannot be legally solved.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

The intermodal section is on the increase but there are comparatively few terminals. All you really need is a siding, a flat paved area and a couple of reach stackers. Once it's there the cost of running freight is massively reduced.

If I were in charge of increasing rail freight I'd be looking to subsidise a lot of new terminals.

 

[The Planner]

The intermodal section is on the increase but there are comparatively few terminals. All you really need is a siding, a flat paved area and a couple of reach stackers. Once it's there the cost of running freight is massively reduced.

If I were in charge of increasing rail freight I'd be looking to subsidise a lot of new terminals.

An intermodal terminal capable of handling a decent amount of trains per day isnt small. Plus you have to deal with the extra infrastructure on the non rail side and getting that through a DCO.

 

[Irascible]

These suggestions of consolidating loads from different origins for different destinations into trainloads sounds very much like wagonload traffic. We know what happened to that in the 1950s and 1960s after huge investment in marshalling yards to handle it more efficiently.

Container traffic basically *is* wagonload - just that the track is now the train itself. Consolidating inside containers sounds like another transshipment penalty, unfortunately - if we can a) reduce transshipment penalties, b) find locations for small loop terminals convenient for onward distribution and c) still find paths then I can see room for more smaller terminals, but there is a lot of risk & investment involved there. Has there been a shock to our logistics systems like this in reasonably recent history? will be interested to see if this is treated as an abberation ( likely ) or a warning that the system itself needs looking at.

 

[HSTEd]

It's worth noting that 40' containers used in rail shipping and road trailers are no longer comparable.

A longer trailer from the recent UK trial, which is being permitted for general adoption now, has a length of 15.65m, a height of up to 4m (between deck and roof) and 2.55m wide. That's a volume of up to ~160m3

Even a 45' high cube is ~97m3, and a 40' is ~86m3 or less external volume.

We would need bigger containers to compete with that, and they won't fit the loading gauge.

Although adopting 48 or even 50' containers would be a reasonable step

 

[Dr Hoo]

The intermodal section is on the increase but there are comparatively few terminals. All you really need is a siding, a flat paved area and a couple of reach stackers. Once it's there the cost of running freight is massively reduced.

Whilst Tinsley is probably the current poster child for this 'cheap and cheerful' approach, significant modal switch and avoidance of worthwhile volumes of HGV traffic requires the terminal to be both large and immediately adjacent to/integral with primary distribution warehouses - see DIRFT, East Midlands Gateway and Doncaster iPort.

 

[geoffk]

I've read all the above with interest and would add the following.

A three-month trial of transporting live lobsters and other shellfish from Cornwall to restaurants in London in the guard's vans of HSTs was launched in December 2015. The shellfish were packed into insulated crates and loaded onto a late afternoon departure from Penzance, arriving at Paddington before midnight for collection and distribution to customers. This was a sustainable solution for restaurants wishing to serve the best Cornish produce, according to GWR MD Mark Hopwood.

InterCity RailFreight had begun by carrying time-critical medical samples from Nottingham to laboratories in London using East Midlands Trains. It expanded to deliver other time and temperature sensitive consignments for demanding customers, including financial and legal documents and engineering components.

We always did things like this in the past before the railway became so fragmented. The trains are running anyway so why not use the space in HST power cars in this way?

What went wrong? The HSTs were replaced by Hitachi IETs which were designed by accountants and have no guard's van, and hence no space for anything other than passengers (not even their surfboards). I assume the lobsters now go by road. I believe there was also a maker of specialised cakes in Cornwall who used to send her wares to London by rail (presumably kept well away from the lobsters). Were the IETs ordered before the lobster traffic started? Using the Sleeper might be an option but arrival in Paddington probably too late.

The Inverness portion of the Highland sleeper had been carrying shellfish for sale in London the following day but the use of daytime trains was a new initiative. Does the sleeper still carry shellfish and what happened to Inter-City RailFreight? Is Orion its successor?

I realise that carrying lobsters and cakes by rail makes a barely noticeable dent in the number of HGVs on the road but this is an example of how rigid compartmentalisation has lost the railway some useful traffic.

Finally, I understand that most, if not all, of the railway's own diesel fuel is delivered by road! Transferring this to rail might be a good start.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I've read all the above with interest and would add the following.

A three-month trial of transporting live lobsters and other shellfish from Cornwall to restaurants in London in the guard's vans of HSTs was launched in December 2015. The shellfish were packed into insulated crates and loaded onto a late afternoon departure from Penzance, arriving at Paddington before midnight for collection and distribution to customers. This was a sustainable solution for restaurants wishing to serve the best Cornish produce, according to GWR MD Mark Hopwood.

InterCity RailFreight had begun by carrying time-critical medical samples from Nottingham to laboratories in London using East Midlands Trains. It expanded to deliver other time and temperature sensitive consignments for demanding customers, including financial and legal documents and engineering components.

We always did things like this in the past before the railway became so fragmented. The trains are running anyway so why not use the space in HST power cars in this way?

What went wrong? The HSTs were replaced by Hitachi IETs which were designed by accountants and have no guard's van, and hence no space for anything other than passengers (not even their surfboards). I assume the lobsters now go by road. I believe there was also a maker of specialised cakes in Cornwall who used to send her wares to London by rail (presumably kept well away from the lobsters). Were the IETs ordered before the lobster traffic started? Using the Sleeper might be an option but arrival in Paddington probably too late.

The Inverness portion of the Highland sleeper had been carrying shellfish for sale in London the following day but the use of daytime trains was a new initiative. Does the sleeper still carry shellfish and what happened to Inter-City RailFreight? Is Orion its successor?

I realise that carrying lobsters and cakes by rail makes a barely noticeable dent in the number of HGVs on the road but this is an example of how rigid compartmentalisation has lost the railway some useful traffic.

Finally, I understand that most, if not all, of the railway's own diesel fuel is delivered by road! Transferring this to rail might be a good start.

Parcels and break bulk are horrifically uneconomic to ship on regular trains like that. Of all the traffic flows railways might seek to take back from the roads, this is likely the last thing they'd ever want. Except from the specific low volume, high value flows that they currently have.

 

[furnessvale]

It's worth noting that 40' containers used in rail shipping and road trailers are no longer comparable.

A longer trailer from the recent UK trial, which is being permitted for general adoption now, has a length of 15.65m, a height of up to 4m (between deck and roof) and 2.55m wide. That's a volume of up to ~160m3

Even a 45' high cube is ~97m3, and a 40' is ~86m3 or less external volume.

We would need bigger containers to compete with that, and they won't fit the loading gauge.

Although adopting 48 or even 50' containers would be a reasonable step

The first thing to note is that there is no general increase in road vehicle weight so the increased volume is to serve a specific market in lighter goods. Even today, many standard 13.6m long x 4.2m high road trailers have dead space at the top when loaded to weight capacity with many traffics.

40' containers are mainly used in worldwide deep sea shipping. This is driven by world forces and UK railways can accommodate them on all major routes. 45' containers are used throughout Europe, including the UK and again, up to 9' 6" they can be accommodated on UK rails. There is a problem with "mega cube" containers and without another round of gauge clearance I can't see them getting past Barking.

50' containers are already in use by WH Malcolm on Anglo-Scottish rail traffic demonstrating they are available when required.

Returning to the general use of larger semi trailers. There is no maximum height in the UK but practicalities limit overall height to around 4.7m from which the road wheels must be deducted meaning a 4m high useable body space is an overestimate. With deductions for the construction depth of the body, the maximum useable volume of such a trailer is around 130 cu.m. Such trailers regularly pass through my village carrying tissue paper and similar products.

What is always forgotten in this debate is that the train can still carry the same volumes as road vehicles, even if it means adding two more containers to the end of the train. The resultant slightly shorter or lower containers when put on road for final delivery will be far more manoeverable in many locations than a 15.65m (+tractor) long x 4.7m high HGV.

 

[geoffk]

Parcels and break bulk are horrifically uneconomic to ship on regular trains like that. Of all the traffic flows railways might seek to take back from the roads, this is likely the last thing they'd ever want. Except from the specific low volume, high value flows that they currently have.

But if the trains are running anyway and at the right time (which they were in the GWR case) and there's space on board then surely it makes sense - except there's no longer space. Obviously someone needs to be available to load/unload the lobsters or whatever.

 

[Dai Corner]

But if the trains are running anyway and at the right time (which they were in the GWR case) and there's space on board then surely it makes sense - except there's no longer space. Obviously someone needs to be available to load/unload the lobsters or whatever.

Though if you were designing a new train would you sacrifice some seats which could carry passengers back and fore all day in favour of space to carry lobsters in the Up direction only once a day?

The passengers load/unload themselves too!

 

[A0wen]

The first thing to note is that there is no general increase in road vehicle weight so the increased volume is to serve a specific market in lighter goods. Even today, many standard 13.6m long x 4.2m high road trailers have dead space at the top when loaded to weight capacity with many traffics.

To shed some light on this though - whilst sometimes weigh of the product is the factor which prevents usage of this other factors are the physical packaging of the products can prevent the container from being fully filled. Also, there is a consideration on how the goods need to be presented at the receiving warehouse and tip / turnaround times.

I was involved in a piece of work some years ago where a bedding supplier was sending duvets into a major retailer loose loaded - so you'd open up a 40' and see duvets top to bottom, front to back etc. The problem with this was the load had to be unloaded by hand, the products put in an appropriate stillage or palletised to then be put away in the warehouse. It was horrendous - it took ~ 6 hours to empty such a trailer - by comparison a trailer with a palletised load could be cleared in 30 mins.

Various options were explored and ultimately the supplier came up with a cardboard 'sleeve' box which fitted onto a standard 1.0 x 1.2 pallet, with a height of 1.2m IIRC. These could be double stacked in a trailer without any issue and reduced both the supplier's loading time and the retailer's unloading time.

Warehouses are usually configured to accept standard 1.0 x 1.2 pallets, but not normally to a height of more than 1.5m - though something like 1.2m is the sweet spot as you can double stack in a standard trailer if weight allows, more than that and it's too tall.

 

[Sm5]

Ofcousre, if the decline of in person retail continues it is likely that will release very large numbers of staff into the labour pool.

And end of furlough..

 

[furnessvale]

To shed some light on this though - whilst sometimes weigh of the product is the factor which prevents usage of this other factors are the physical packaging of the products can prevent the container from being fully filled. Also, there is a consideration on how the goods need to be presented at the receiving warehouse and tip / turnaround times.

I was involved in a piece of work some years ago where a bedding supplier was sending duvets into a major retailer loose loaded - so you'd open up a 40' and see duvets top to bottom, front to back etc. The problem with this was the load had to be unloaded by hand, the products put in an appropriate stillage or palletised to then be put away in the warehouse. It was horrendous - it took ~ 6 hours to empty such a trailer - by comparison a trailer with a palletised load could be cleared in 30 mins.

Various options were explored and ultimately the supplier came up with a cardboard 'sleeve' box which fitted onto a standard 1.0 x 1.2 pallet, with a height of 1.2m IIRC. These could be double stacked in a trailer without any issue and reduced both the supplier's loading time and the retailer's unloading time.

Warehouses are usually configured to accept standard 1.0 x 1.2 pallets, but not normally to a height of more than 1.5m - though something like 1.2m is the sweet spot as you can double stack in a standard trailer if weight allows, more than that and it's too tall.

Thanks for that. A good example of the specialised market these larger trailers can serve.

Rail has far more to fear from the inevitable cries that will follow from the road haulage industry, "But we need a weight increase, these larger trailers are running round half empty".

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

But if the trains are running anyway and at the right time (which they were in the GWR case) and there's space on board then surely it makes sense - except there's no longer space. Obviously someone needs to be available to load/unload the lobsters or whatever.

It works alright if you have something that's valuable, low-ish volume and needs delivered fast. Expensive seafood is a good example, or medical samples. Opening up the service to hundreds of little lose loads though would cost far more in admin than the railway would make back.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Whilst Tinsley is probably the current poster child for this 'cheap and cheerful' approach, significant modal switch and avoidance of worthwhile volumes of HGV traffic requires the terminal to be both large and immediately adjacent to/integral with primary distribution warehouses - see DIRFT, East Midlands Gateway and Doncaster

I guess the big issue is that rail works for feeding into distribution warehouses but delivery to your local supermarket is always more economical by road as you load once and unload once.

I've always thought there could be opportunities for parcel companies though, instead of sending the double deck trailers to the central sorting depots and back you could have enough for a train load.

 

[PeterC]

Though if you were designing a new train would you sacrifice some seats which could carry passengers back and fore all day in favour of space to carry lobsters in the Up direction only once a day?

They seem willing enough to sacrifice space to carry bikes.

 

[HSTEd]

I think the only way you could make a reasonable rail-backbone for lorry distribution in the UK even close to economic would be to go for either TOFC or full blown Chunnel Shuttle style operations.

But either of those would be so capital intensive to set up it simply wouldn't be worth it.

Road trains on motorways is probably the only sensible solution in all honesty.

You'd need a loading gauge of the Chunnel size or probably larger (maybe even larger than AAR Plate H - which is their doublestack gauge) given our trailers are taller than on the continent.
Which means almost all new infrastructure in most cases.

 

[furnessvale]

I think the only way you could make a reasonable rail-backbone for lorry distribution in the UK even close to economic would be to go for either TOFC or full blown Chunnel Shuttle style operations.

But either of those would be so capital intensive to set up it simply wouldn't be worth it.

Road trains on motorways is probably the only sensible solution in all honesty.

You'd need a loading gauge of the Chunnel size or probably larger (maybe even larger than AAR Plate H - which is their doublestack gauge) given our trailers are taller than on the continent.
Which means almost all new infrastructure in most cases.

Which is totally unnecessary. We can carry the body around (swap body) using the same crane to load it to rail as would be used for TOFC, and save all the weight and loading gauge penalty of road wheels.

 

[HSTEd]

Which is totally unnecessary. We can carry the body around (swap body) using the same crane to load it to rail as would be used for TOFC, and save all the weight and loading gauge penalty of road wheels.

And then you get eaten alive on the costs of loading and the slow loading process.

You don't need a crane to do TOFC necessarily - especially with those fancy switchblade trailers people keep proposing for use in Europe.
And even if you do, its still much easier to handle a trailer than a swap body, because it doesn't need lifting again if the customer has not yet arrived to collect it.

Unloading a train of swap bodies is an order of magnitude slower and more laborious than simply doing the Chunnel Shuttle thing.

And you still need completely rebuilt loading gauges to carry swap bodies comparable to modern trailers.

We now have 4.95m tall trailers with 3.98m above-deck height in common use

 

[dan5324]

No not a chance. Rail doesn’t even come close to the versatility of roads. And last time I checked pretty much every warehouse factory etc is on a road. Not a railway.

 

[furnessvale]

And then you get eaten alive on the costs of loading and the slow loading process.

You don't need a crane to do TOFC necessarily - especially with those fancy switchblade trailers people keep proposing for use in Europe.
And even if you do, its still much easier to handle a trailer than a swap body, because it doesn't need lifting again if the customer has not yet arrived to collect it.

Unloading a train of swap bodies is an order of magnitude slower and more laborious than simply doing the Chunnel Shuttle thing.

And you still need completely rebuilt loading gauges to carry swap bodies comparable to modern trailers.

We now have 4.95m tall trailers with 3.98m above-deck height in common use

We will simply have to agree to differ. British railways cannot accommodate the size of road vehicle to which you refer and rebuilding is not an option thus in your scenario the UK is condemned to the eternal misery of HGV clogged roads.

I'll just nip out and tell the major south east ports, who consign the majority of the TONNE/KMS of their deep sea container traffic by rail, that they are wasting their time.

No not a chance. Rail doesn’t even come close to the versatility of roads. And last time I checked pretty much every warehouse factory etc is on a road. Not a railway.

Which is why the discussion is about trunk by rail and last mile delivery by road.

 

[Bald Rick]

Which is why the discussion is about trunk by rail and last mile delivery by road.

This is the point. Many of the lorries you see on the roads today are “last mile”, ie from distribution centre to ultimate destination. It just so happens that in many cases the last mile is rather more than a mile.

 

[furnessvale]

This is the point. Many of the lorries you see on the roads today are “last mile”, ie from distribution centre to ultimate destination. It just so happens that in many cases the last mile is rather more than a mile.

Correct. As you know, "last mile" is a term rather than a description of the distance.

Years ago, there was a case of "intermodal" containers being trunked from Scotland to Didcot before being loaded to rail for export via the Tunnel. They qualified for the then 44t intermodal road weight limit. IF the proposed 48t intermodal weight limit is introduced, that sort of abuse needs to be strictly controlled.

 

[Bald Rick]

Correct. As you know, "last mile" is a term rather than a description of the distance.

Years ago, there was a case of "intermodal" containers being trunked from Scotland to Didcot before being loaded to rail for export via the Tunnel. They qualified for the then 44t intermodal road weight limit. IF the proposed 48t intermodal weight limit is introduced, that sort of abuse needs to be strictly controlled.

One of the first things I looked at on the railway was the Pedigree Petfoods proposal to use rail from Melton Mowbray to Corby, using 44t swap bodies, and then road everything from Corby, to make use of the then Governement relaxation from 38 to 44 tonnes for lorries that were using rail for part of the journey.

 

[Jozhua]

I think a key issue as well is that new distribution centres have been built around motorways instead of railways.

Now if the truck driver shortage results in:
-A permanent shortage of drivers.
-An increase in pay of drivers.
(Or likely both)
Then the economics of shipping will change. Worth noting that if carbon tax (or simply just increasing fuel duty in line with inflation), and if the government gets road haulage to pay for the damage it does to the roads, then the costs of road haulage will increase even more significantly.

My argument isn't that rail has to "convince" people to switch, it simply just needs to provide the availability to enable them to should they choose. The great thing with rail is that, providing the correct infrastructure is in place, the more freight it carries essentially the cheaper it gets.

Thanks for that. A good example of the specialised market these larger trailers can serve.

Rail has far more to fear from the inevitable cries that will follow from the road haulage industry, "But we need a weight increase, these larger trailers are running round half empty".

Lmao, and we wonder why all our roads are full of giant holes. - The Romans didn't have to deal with their roads being run over by a 40 ton truck at 50mph...

 

[jon0844]

We’ve done this before, several times, recently.

The U.K. logistics system simply isn’t configured in a way that could see anything other than some traffic at the margins shift to rail.

But you can make a dent without major infrastructure investment, simply by working with the likes of Amazon and others to come up with solutions that will get a lot of vehicles off the road or at least reduce the mileage.

Amazon has a huge hub in Milton Keynes and all the vans start there to pick up goods for 'local delivery' and then return later. I'm a good 50 odd miles away and probably not close to the total distance they cover.

With suggestions of adapting EMUs for freight, they could be ideal to replace loads of vans to a more local mini hub for the vans to pick up from. They would use a standard path and I'm sure found be given some off peak paths without much, if any, timetabling changes.

Obviously there needs to be a place to unload but that isn't going to be insurmountable and I'm sure in the current climate the likes of Amazon could be asked to pay or at least contribute.

 

[The Planner]

I think a key issue as well is that new distribution centres have been built around motorways instead of railways.

Now if the truck driver shortage results in:
-A permanent shortage of drivers.
-An increase in pay of drivers.
(Or likely both)
Then the economics of shipping will change. Worth noting that if carbon tax (or simply just increasing fuel duty in line with inflation), and if the government gets road haulage to pay for the damage it does to the roads, then the costs of road haulage will increase even more significantly.

My argument isn't that rail has to "convince" people to switch, it simply just needs to provide the availability to enable them to should they choose. The great thing with rail is that, providing the correct infrastructure is in place, the more freight it carries essentially the cheaper it gets.

Lmao, and we wonder why all our roads are full of giant holes. - The Romans didn't have to deal with their roads being run over by a 40 ton truck at 50mph...

Where else would you put them? the goods have to get from rail to road at some point so you put them next to the highest quality ones you can. Nothing is changing in the way locations are proposed for new terminals, look at Northampton Gateway next to J15 of the M1 and Four Ashes next to M6 J11 and M54 J2.

But you can make a dent without major infrastructure investment, simply by working with the likes of Amazon and others to come up with solutions that will get a lot of vehicles off the road or at least reduce the mileage.

Amazon has a huge hub in Milton Keynes and all the vans start there to pick up goods for 'local delivery' and then return later. I'm a good 50 odd miles away and probably not close to the total distance they cover.

With suggestions of adapting EMUs for freight, they could be ideal to replace loads of vans to a more local mini hub for the vans to pick up from. They would use a standard path and I'm sure found be given some off peak paths without much, if any, timetabling changes.

Obviously there needs to be a place to unload but that isn't going to be insurmountable and I'm sure in the current climate the likes of Amazon could be asked to pay or at least contribute.

If you need a platform to unload at then it will be very difficult as you are going to be sat in it for a reasonable amount of time, you won't get that during the day, off peak or not.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Where else would you put them? the goods have to get from rail to road at some point so you put them next to the highest quality ones you can. Nothing is changing in the way locations are proposed for new terminals, look at Northampton Gateway next to J15 of the M1 and Four Ashes next to M6 J11 and M54 J2.

If you need a platform to unload at then it will be very difficult as you are going to be sat in it for a reasonable amount of time, you won't get that during the day, off peak or not.

But thats the point, rail is great for trunking goods into warehouses and road for distribution out.