Freight tunnels through London?

[fandroid]

Freight struggles to find paths through London both for longer distance services and to serve the city itself. Where would be the best links be, both to free paths elsewhere for passenger trains and to provide useful freight routes?

Freight tunnels should be good value as they do not need any stations underground.

 

[Intercity110]

Freight struggles to find paths through London both for longer distance services and to serve the city itself. Where would be the best links be, both to free paths elsewhere for passenger trains and to provide useful freight routes?

Freight tunnels should be good value as they do not need any stations underground.

Cost, if unelectrified fumes from diesels and massive portals would put a stop to it but the portal could be around wembley and come out near croydon if locals don’t oppose it.

 

[JonathanH]

Cost, if unelectrified fumes from diesels and massive portals would put a stop to it but the portal could be around wembley and come out near croydon if locals don’t oppose it.

Croydon? Where is the freight going after that?

There are no significant container ports on the coast between Southampton and South Essex. There is obviously the Channel Tunnel but not much of that freight goes through Croydon.

The hourly freight path through Croydon is, I think, mainly aggregates traffic.

It isn't exactly clear where a freight tunnel would best emerge on the eastern side as the significant flows are Felixstowe, places on the Tilbury Loop, the Channel Tunnel, so there isn't one location for a portal that could serve all those places.

 

[HSTEd]

The hourly freight path through Croydon is, I think, mainly aggregates traffic

Perhaps we should consider the creation of a network of long distance conveyers for the shipment of aggregates?

Would get the slow moving, low performance, freight trains off the railway and would have comparable (or even better) environmental impact.

Conveyer systems many kilometres long exist in other parts of the world, and they can be suspended above ground, at ground level or in tunnels underground as the situation requires.

 

[Intercity110]

Croydon? Where is the freight going after that?

There are no significant container ports on the coast between Southampton and South Essex. There is obviously the Channel Tunnel but not much of that freight goes through Croydon.

The hourly freight path through Croydon is, I think, mainly aggregates traffic.

It isn't exactly clear where a freight tunnel would best emerge on the eastern side as the significant flows are Felixstowe, places on the Tilbury Loop, the Channel Tunnel, so there isn't one location for a portal that could serve all those places.

I meant just south london- prehaps a series of portals could be better

 

[JonathanH]

I meant just south london- prehaps a series of portals could be better

Yes, but where is the freight going to come from into those portals in South London? A 'series of portals' means underground junctions which further adds to the cost.

 

[furnessvale]

Perhaps we should consider the creation of a network of long distance conveyers for the shipment of aggregates?

Would get the slow moving, low performance, freight trains off the railway and would have comparable (or even better) environmental impact.

Conveyer systems many kilometres long exist in other parts of the world, and they can be suspended above ground, at ground level or in tunnels underground as the situation requires.

The longest conveyor belt in the world is 61 miles long. The Mendips to London is twice that distance and the Peak District 3x. Add in the diversity of end destinations and your idea is a non starter before you even get near local opposition or the cost.

You also need to get rid of oil trains, steel trains and anything else limited to 60mph. Then you are still left with pesky 75mph container trains getting under the feet of 125mph passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

The longest conveyor belt in the world is 61 miles long. The Mendips to London is twice that distance and the Peak District 3x

There is no hard limit on the length of a conveyer, especially with more modern technology than the early 70s stuff used in Morocco.

Doppelmayr now offer rope suspended conveyers that can be built with long spans between towers and chains of 20km segments.

and your idea is a non starter before you even get near local opposition or the cost.

Cost as a reason to discard it is a bit much given we are in a thread discussing tens of billions of pounds worth of freight tunnels to try and eek out more freight capacity!
The conveyer would also have major advantages in personnel requirements, and in avoided railway improvements that are extremely expensive and are becoming even more so.

You also need to get rid of oil trains, steel trains and anything else limited to 60mph

How many steel trains are even left at this point?
Of the 16.87 billion net tonne-km of revenue freight moved on the railway, 6.5 billion are intermodal.
Of the remaining 10.37 billion, almost half is Construction material (5.13bn).

Biomass is 1.13 billion, Oil is 0.93 billion, Coal is 0.3bn and Steel products are 1.42bn.

Decarbonisation and the fall-from-favour of biomass are likely to seriously reduce those three categories, leaving only steel and some minor industrial minerals, waste and other non-descript traffic.

In that environment construction material (dominated by aggregates and other very low value mineral commodities like gypsum) is likely to be a very large fraction of total tonnage moved

Then you are still left with pesky 75mph container trains getting under the feet of 125mph passengers.

75mph is a lot more acceptable than low performance drag freights moved by single locomotives.
However, as you bring it up, DB operates a fleet of 100mph container flats in Germany.

 

[SargeNpton]

Conveyor belts are fixed to go from point A to point B, with rights of way required.

Aggregates trains go from where the required minerals are currently being dug up to wherever they are currently needed - along existing rights of way.

 

[HSTEd]

Aggregates trains go from where the required minerals are currently being dug up to wherever they are currently needed - along existing rights of way.

The reality is that these locations don't change, dramatically, very often.

The majority of construction projects purchase their aggregate for shipment from an aggregate depot by lorry.

And aggregates are increasingly produced in a comparatively small number of long-operational-life quarries, which tend to be clustered together for geological reasons.

 

[MisterSheeps]

small number of long-operational-life quarries

Which rely on rail for transport, for environmental reasons (Peak District to West Yorks or Manchester) or low cost. They developed due to rail, and the demise of lines often led to the demise of quarries. Construction aggregate long term will come from superquarries feeding ships, not from places like the Peak (high purity limestone better used for chemicals than building).

 

[furnessvale]

The reality is that these locations don't change, dramatically, very often.

The majority of construction projects purchase their aggregate for shipment from an aggregate depot by lorry.

And aggregates are increasingly produced in a comparatively small number of long-operational-life quarries, which tend to be clustered together for geological reasons.

Correct about the small number of super quarries. However new destinations are constantly being added to the network, using existing lines of route, and ofter reopening dormant sidings. Conveyors would be hard pressed to match that sort of service. For example, I would love to see the conveyor system that would need to be installed to serve the new Leyland stone terminal from both Tunstead and Rylstone.

 

[HSTEd]

For example, I would love to see the conveyor system that would need to be installed to serve the new Leyland stone terminal from both Tunstead and Rylstone.

Can't really meaningfully make those kinds of calculations without a whole-system look at aggregate flows in the UK. And the dataset for that is not really practically available in one place.

(Location of all significant quarries, location of all significant downstream aggregate depots and material flows between each pair)

Every depot would not have its own dedicated conveyer system to all possible source quarries.

And thats before we get into the second-order impacts on how the existance of such a system would alter the economic dynamics of the aggregate industry beyond the gross terms (it would likely speed the consolidation, given that something like half of all crushed rock permitted reserves in England and Wales are at 115 sites with permissions expiring in 2042).

EDIT:
At best I have this, but this obviously gives no clear indication on how each site is related.

EDIT #2:

This is also rather off topic - so perhaps we should park this, create a new thread or a mod should split this one?

 

[furnessvale]

Can't really meaningfully make those kinds of calculations without a whole-system look at aggregate flows in the UK. And the dataset for that is not really practically available in one place.

(Location of all significant quarries, location of all significant downstream aggregate depots and material flows between each pair)

Every depot would not have its own dedicated conveyer system to all possible source quarries.

And thats before we get into the second-order impacts on how the existance of such a system would alter the economic dynamics of the aggregate industry beyond the gross terms (it would likely speed the consolidation, given that something like half of all crushed rock permitted reserves in England and Wales are at 115 sites with permissions expiring in 2042).

EDIT:
At best I have this, but this obviously gives no clear indication on how each site is related.

EDIT #2:

This is also rather off topic - so perhaps we should park this, create a new thread or a mod should split this one?

Please don't split on my behalf! I find the idea so preposterous that I am out. Knowing how many objections a new electric grid line receives, I can't see a nationwide system of conveyors getting very far.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Croydon? Where is the freight going after that?

There are no significant container ports on the coast between Southampton and South Essex. There is obviously the Channel Tunnel but not much of that freight goes through Croydon.

The hourly freight path through Croydon is, I think, mainly aggregates traffic.

It isn't exactly clear where a freight tunnel would best emerge on the eastern side as the significant flows are Felixstowe, places on the Tilbury Loop, the Channel Tunnel, so there isn't one location for a portal that could serve all those places.

You'd have to build a line from Brentford down to the Tilbury area, and a line from the Swanley area to the same place. It's the only location where routes to all three points can dovetail. The problem then you're in Tilbury, and that would be a very long tunnel to presumably the Willesden area.

 

[mr_jrt]

My arbitrary suggestion elsewhere was Ripple Lane to Willesden. Ripple Lane is easy to get to from Tilbury/London Gateway, Thamesport traffic can get to it via HS1/Ebbsfleet (obviously, so can HS1 freight), and that just leaves Felixstowe. That could be handled with an additional tunnel from east of Harold Wood to Ripple Lane, or a long windy surface route alongside the M25 (but I think land costs would make the more direct tunnel option far more preferable).

 

[Trainbike46]

To what extend can freight trains use existing lines in london?
And in what ways could capacity be increased without massive investment (like would be needed for new tunnels)

Can freight operate via the Elizabeth line and Thameslink route?
Obviously that wouldn't fit during the day, but at night when the network is closed/much reduced in frequency this may be more possible.

Are there paths were a single slow path could be replaced by two paths for trains with better acceleration, achieved by double-heading or electric traction?

 

[SynthD]

To what extend can freight trains use existing lines in london?
And in what ways could capacity be increased without massive investment (like would be needed for new tunnels)

Can freight operate via the Elizabeth line and Thameslink route?
Obviously that wouldn't fit during the day, but at night when the network is closed/much reduced in frequency this may be more possible.

Are there paths were a single slow path could be replaced by two paths for trains with better acceleration, achieved by double-heading or electric traction?

They can cut passenger services to permit more freight. Is it possible that some of the unused freight paths are causing other freight difficulty? I’m especially thinking of the high priority, pre HS1, eurotunnel paths.

No to the Liz line as it has strict loading gauge requirements. Probably no to Thameslink as it has a less strict gauge but more hours of operation.

The two halves are probably going different places, or they’d be doing that already.

 

[Trainbike46]

They can cut passenger services to permit more freight. Is it possible that some of the unused freight paths are causing other freight difficulty? I’m especially thinking of the high priority, pre HS1, eurotunnel paths.

that is a good question actually. If so, using those would be the cheapest option obviously. I'm not personally a fan of cutting passenger services to permit more freight. We need more passengers, and cutting services isn't the way to get them

No to the Liz line as it has strict loading gauge requirements. Probably no to Thameslink as it has a less strict gauge but more hours of operation.

While I don't think thameslink ever really shuts, there's definitely fewer trains at night, so may be able to fit a few freights through that way. Unfortunate that nothing would fit via lizzy line

The two halves are probably going different places, or they’d be doing that already.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

 

[SynthD]

I'm not sure what you mean here?

Can you find a pair of freight services with the same start and end on the same day anywhere in the country? I think they are rare. Train lengths may also be an issue.

 

[JonathanH]

While I don't think thameslink ever really shuts, there's definitely fewer trains at night, so may be able to fit a few freights through that way.

The gradient at Blackfriars would be an interesting challenge for a heavy freight train.

 

[Trainbike46]

Can you find a pair of freight services with the same start and end on the same day anywhere in the country? I think they are rare. Train lengths may also be an issue.

How is that relevant to what I was suggesting, which is:
take a single freight path that is slow, replace the traction so that it is faster, and fit two separate freight paths in instead. Of course at the ends the freight may head in different directions depending on FOC needs

The gradient at Blackfriars would be an interesting challenge for a heavy freight train.

that may not be very fast no!

or imagine standing at Farringdon and a heavy freight train passes by

 

[mr_jrt]

Wasn't the Snow Hill tunnel originally built largely for freight?

The ‘City Line’ was still a vital north-south freight link with some 90 trains a day in 1962, but all regular freight and parcels services were withdrawn in 1969.

https://www.subbrit.org.uk/sites/snow-hill-station/

 

[whoosh]

Wasn't the Snow Hill tunnel originally built largely for freight?


https://www.subbrit.org.uk/sites/snow-hill-station/

I think it was. But the line used to go over the road at Ludgate Hill - now it goes underneath in City Thameslink Station. Blackfriars to City Thameslink, and City Thameslink into Snow Hill tunnel are both very steep gradients.

Then there's Farringdon into Clerkenwell tunnel (which has always been there), which is very steep too.

I can't remember which one, but one of those three is the steepest in the country (1in twenty-something).

Not a place for long heavy trains, especially the southbound climb out of City Thameslink on third rail (not much oomph!).

 

[Bald Rick]

The gradient at Blackfriars would be an interesting challenge for a heavy freight train.

as would the northbound pull into Farringdon.

Thats before we mention gauge. The line may have had freight on it as recently as 50 odd years ago, but a) freight trains are rather different now and b) the Thameslink core has been rebuilt, twice.

And then we have the timetable. Routing a long heavy freight train across Blackfriars junction is going to be interesting at any time of day. And where would it be going anyway?

 

[zwk500]

My arbitrary suggestion elsewhere was Ripple Lane to Willesden. Ripple Lane is easy to get to from Tilbury/London Gateway, Thamesport traffic can get to it via HS1/Ebbsfleet (obviously, so can HS1 freight), and that just leaves Felixstowe. That could be handled with an additional tunnel from east of Harold Wood to Ripple Lane, or a long windy surface route alongside the M25 (but I think land costs would make the more direct tunnel option far more preferable).

Where are you putting the portals at either end? There's also a genuine question if there is enough earth to put the tunnels in without taking a big detour to the north. Freight via HS1 is problematic for capacity - a 200kph passenger train bears down rather quickly on a 120kph freight, even just the hop between Ebbsfleet and Ripple Lane.

 

[mr_jrt]

Portals...somewhere in the respective yards. AFAIA, HS1 has freight paths and I imagined using those, and probably heavily weighted to overnight use.