I am unfortunate enough to have been stood on the platform at Stockport when a household waste train passed through, bringing all its unpleasant odours with it, only to be told of a platform alteration (caused by a 150 substitution on a Carmarthen service which couldn’t keep to the 100mph timings and was 40 minutes late) only minutes later meaning I could have been stood on the other side of the station all along.
I watched that the other day. I’d always been wondering how it reversed after seeing the siding during a visit to the site of the Headbolt Lane station. There is of course a reversing siding parallel to the main line as well as the one leading to the recycling facility. Part of the Headbolt Lane work will require the construction of a 3 track embankment.
It would seem that the trial train uncoupled the locomotive at the factory site then ran round via Parbold and Wigan. The loco would have been stationary at Parbold for 3 minutes or so. However this would have involved a wrong direction move back towards Wigan, so may be thought undesirable for regular operation. Then again, it may be absolutely fine.
Thanks for that.
The loco running light would be making a right direction move from Parbold to Wigan, but once it's coupled to the Wigan end of the wagons it has to either propel them all the way to Parbold or make a wrong direction move on the Southport-bound line towards Wigan until the next crossover. Neither is great, but either may be permitted with appropriate safeguards.
That would presumably be the plan.
But once the one off has happened, nobody is disturbed again. People will get used to it yes, but there's still a difference between regular passes and a loco standing for a sustained period of time in terms of noise nuisance.
Having looked into the volumes of raw materials and finished product involved with this factory and also the pronouncements of Kraft Heinz on their intended use of rail, even a 10% transfer to rail would more than justify a siding arrangement as provided at Highland Spring.
Might it better to drag the wagons to Parbold, just east of the crossover, before uncoupling and performing the runaround move? Then the propelling move is much shorter, just to get the train past the crossover, and within the view of the signaller in the Parbold box.
Possible, depends on staff, sighting, risk assessment and all sorts. I've got no idea if the project has got as far as these things yet so this is just speculation at this point.
Was stood at Stockport yesterday when binliner train came through. All I can say is I wouldnt want to be there on a hot day!
On a number of occasions I have been on Stockport Platform 1 or 2 when a Runcorn-bound binliner has been brought to a stand for several minutes in the platform, awaiting its path through Edgeley Jn. Not a pleasant experience!
They will ultimately have to redouble the section towards Rainford to avoid this.
It would be MUCH cheaper to install a train washer of some description at the departure siding. This would have the benefit of de-ponging the train for its entire journey not just Headbolt Lane.
Why, if it's not preventing trains from running?
Even if Headbolt Lane to Rainford were redoubled, a departing binliner would still spend considerable time reversing in the headshunt adjacent to the Headbolt Lane platform. The locomotive has to propel the wagons from Knowsley into the headshunt, at extremely low speed (5mph?)
I don't think the pong comes from the outside of the containers. You could not wash the refuse inside them!
I stand to be corrected, but I believe the problem would be much reduced if the containers and wagons were regularly washed down to remove accumulated and rotting refuse. What is INSIDE the containers is fresh and enclosed in a steel box behind closed doors.
I think the main issue is that the containers are vented not hermetically sealed. Most of them look reasonably clean on the outside, with no evidence of refuse spillage. They are loaded/unloaded from the train by forklift, so little risk of contamination of the wagon chassis or bogies.
In this case, redouble the line and install bidirectional running capability on the up line to allow passenger trains in both directions to pass the freight blocking the down. This would also be an option if only a pad was provided for the Heinz factory, but require more crossovers to be installed than just one leading to a siding, so that is surely the only option of passenger traffic to Southport is not to be obstructed.
I think there's been a confusion between the binliner, which reverses in a siding off the main line, and the Heinz train, which would only operate after the passenger service had finished for the night.
But for what reason would it only run at night when it could run in the day like the Knowsley binliner train through use of a crossover?
Because Heinz will be unlikely to want to pay for a crossover that isn't absolutely necessary. It will easily be several million quid, and Heinz are a private business who must make money to survive.
I know it will be a private siding for a private business, but is there any reason why Heinz which is conscious of decarbonisation wouldn’t want to run multiple trains a week for many, many years? Surely that would be the best option to reduce HGV flows?
They will only run trains if there is something to move. Even a National Distribution Centre is unlikely to justify 3+ trains a week reliably.
No idea, I'm afraid. However Heinz almost certainly contract their logistics out to a third party, so it would depend whether those drivers and vehicles had moved on/out by the time the train was canned ('scuse the pun).
If there is a long enough time slot, a propelling move is possible. I don't know what the score would be like for signalling such a manoeuvre, however, as "setting back" generally requires direct authorisation from the signaller.
When the Heinz NDC was at the conceptual stage in the late 90’s there was some discussion about providing rail access but the company, at that time, believed close proximity to the (now clogged up) motorway system was more important. The cost of providing a siding with a loop would have been a fraction of the total cost of the building, and easily amortised over the years.
I think we get into quite complicated bits of the rule book about setting back outside the home signal and so on with this. The rules are different on continously detected track to AB areas.
