• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Thought on emerging and future risks to UK rail freight operations? [open discussion]

iron naan

New Member
Joined
10 Oct 2024
Messages
3
Location
West Shire
Hi everyone, just a query more out of interest than anything. I've been working in the passenger operations side industry for a while now in risk management, and have often wondered of the lack of anticipatory risk thinking among the TOCs, and after some searching have discovered there isn't much out there on the freight side of things either.

Therefore, an open ask to anyone with some thinking to contribute! Does anyone have any thoughts on what could be some emerging or future risks to the UK rail freight industry, either individual FOCs or network-wide? Would be really interested to hear what others think - it could be blindingly obvious or something obscure / low probability. Similarly it could be something that could happen in the next 6 or 12 months, or 5 / 10 / 20 years out. Would be great to hear perspectives on some lesser known or longer-term risks. Really open to any thoughts or suggestions anyone has to flesh this landscape out a little.

Thanks!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
30,758
Location
Fenny Stratford
Have you been tasked to draw up a risk register on this subject ;)

EDIT: Government/national/critical infrastructure risk registers have plenty of hints for future problems that will apply to all sectors of UK industry
 
Last edited:

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
14,666
Location
Bristol
Hi everyone, just a query more out of interest than anything. I've been working in the passenger operations side industry for a while now in risk management, and have often wondered of the lack of anticipatory risk thinking among the TOCs, and after some searching have discovered there isn't much out there on the freight side of things either.
I expect that given how tight the margins are, FOCs aren't simply winging it but are much more careful what they put out in the public domain. Freight contracts change hands regularly, and investing in any aspect of rail freight operations is rather expensive, so if companies are to stay afloat they're not doing it with their eyes shut.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
1,094
We saw in 2020 with Carmont and 2022 with Nuneham Viaduct how infrastructure can fail due to a combination of delayed maintenance, insufficient monitoring and extreme weather.

This is a threat to all rail traffic, but I think especially freight. Passengers are relatively easy to get back onto the railway, whereas once you've done all the work shifting a freight operation to road haulage, you would need quite a strong incentive to shift it back to rail. Especially given the tight margins that @zwk500 mentioned.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
4,413
Location
The Fens
Anything that might severely curtail or sever the movement of containers through the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,936
I'd include:
- Pressure by politicians on passenger service improvements squeezing out freight.
- Pressure from eco zealots against diesel locomotives.
- Overpricing of various infrastructure access charges (Network Rail, Channel Tunnel, etc) to meet their own separate goals.
- Just one serious freight/passenger collision that would lead to calls for freight not to be on the same tracks/at the same time.
- A single key infrastructure failure, eg on the Felixstowe branch
- Loss of drivers to passenger operators offering better salaries, less night work, etc
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,336
As I see it, the main issue is that freight is only sustained because it pays essentially nothing for use of the infrastructure - the margins are far too tight, and in some ways nonexistent.

If the railway faces a prolonged period of reduced funding I could see a situation where questions will be asked - after all passenger services probably have more votes in them than railfreight that noone really sees.

Right now, freight is protected by extensive political support, but that is not guaranteed forever, as HS2 is finding out.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
1,094
Pressure from eco zealots against diesel locomotives.
I wouldn't consider this a major threat to be honest.
While there's definitely some people who think like this, almost all environmentally minded people can quickly be convinced that diesel rail freight is a lot better than the same goods going by road.

Electric road freight with overhead catenary might be a long term threat? I'm not totally sold on the idea that it will ever work, but I'm willing to concede it might. If it does, the railway's environmental credentials get a bit shakier (though road freight will still be worse).
 

sh24

Member
Joined
28 Sep 2023
Messages
458
Location
London
One long term macro trend is reshoring of manufacturing and production from the traditional Asia markets to the UK/E Europe/Med. That will put intermodal volumes under modest downward pressure as truck becomes the more economically viable route to market.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,344
Location
Nottingham
Electric road freight with overhead catenary might be a long term threat? I'm not totally sold on the idea that it will ever work, but I'm willing to concede it might. If it does, the railway's environmental credentials get a bit shakier (though road freight will still be worse).
Particularly a risk if it includes autonomous driving - a lot more containers go by rail if the journey can't be done out and back by road within one driver's hours.

However, mass road electrification could even be a benefit for rail, if it increases the size of the market for OLE and makes it cheaper and less risky to install.
 

Indigo Soup

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
1,293
While there's definitely some people who think like this, almost all environmentally minded people can quickly be convinced that diesel rail freight is a lot better than the same goods going by road.
There's probably also the converse threat: continued reliance on diesel traction while road haulage electrifies would undermine rail's environmental credentials and leave it exposed to increases in the price of fuel.

Potential increased concern about locomotive emissions (NOx/SOx/particulates) probably belongs here too. There's still a lot of old locomotives out there that wouldn't meet modern standards.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,049
Location
Birmingham
I'm not sure road electrification is a threat in the short-medium term. If we can't afford wiring up railway routes i'm not sure wiring up hundreds of miles motorways and trunk routes is feasible. As for battery electric, well we can see how well the likes of Tesla are doing with that. Not that we shouldn't be trying to electrify rail freight as much as possible of course.
 

Western 52

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2020
Messages
1,553
Location
Burry Port
As the country reduces its reliance on oil, there's certainly a threat to oil traffic on rail ahead. Similarly the steady decline in the steel industry will probably adversely impact rail.
 

AndrewP

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
399
Sounds like an interesting project.

Whenever I do risk analysis I always capture as many risks as I can then rank the based on the overall risk rating of impact x likelihood so they can be prioritised

Although not an expert in this area I would be looking at risks in the following areas:
  • Infrastructure (including capacity)
  • Legal (including environmental legislation)
  • Political (UK and overseas)
  • Business (demand trends - positive and negative)
  • People and staffing
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,687
However, mass road electrification could even be a benefit for rail, if it increases the size of the market for OLE and makes it cheaper and less risky to install.
I can't see those economies of scale being much of an improvement to rail's electrification costs. A major driver of rail electrification costs is the need to rebuild bridges and tunnels for increased clearances.

Of course, this raises an interesting question with regard to ROAD electrification. The lack of a height limit on UK roads means that many HGVs run as close as 6" to the underside of motorway bridges. Either bridges will have to be raised, or a height limit imposed and many tall HGVs scrapped.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
14,666
Location
Bristol
I can't see those economies of scale being much of an improvement to rail's electrification costs. A major driver of rail electrification costs is the need to rebuild bridges and tunnels for increased clearances.

Of course, this raises an interesting question with regard to ROAD electrification. The lack of a height limit on UK roads means that many HGVs run as close as 6" to the underside of motorway bridges. Either bridges will have to be raised, or a height limit imposed and many tall HGVs scrapped.
Or stretches of motorway to be equipped with wires to be carefully chosen. Inductive charging may also be an option soon.

Although how they managed the pan going up will be interesting. Not looking forward to the M25 being thrown into chaos by a truck driver trying to merge onto the wired lane with the pan still up and dropping a live cable across 2 or 3 lanes...
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,687
Or stretches of motorway to be equipped with wires to be carefully chosen. Inductive charging may also be an option soon.
Yes, inductive charging may be the way forward, but selective motorways would also need a selective imposition of a height limit. Any such imposition would be fiercely resisted by the road haulage insustry.
 

MarkWi72

Member
Joined
13 Nov 2017
Messages
300
I've argued for further electrification of freight routes or at least those routes with extensive freight operations. This has to be the way forward as the railway has to gain credibility for being a 'greener' way to travel. of course, not all and deisel or hybrid engines will still be needed.

Not sure I have heard that much on road electrification. But didn't trolleybuses get caught out as they needed to use the same roads as other vehicles unlike trams.

I have watched behind the sofa as the 86s, 90s and even 88s are withdrawn from certain freight runs. How can 66s be better?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
17,264
I have watched behind the sofa as the 86s, 90s and even 88s are withdrawn from certain freight runs. How can 66s be better?
They aren't necessarily, but its cheaper to run diesel than electric at the current point in time.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,336
I can't see those economies of scale being much of an improvement to rail's electrification costs. A major driver of rail electrification costs is the need to rebuild bridges and tunnels for increased clearances.

Of course, this raises an interesting question with regard to ROAD electrification. The lack of a height limit on UK roads means that many HGVs run as close as 6" to the underside of motorway bridges. Either bridges will have to be raised, or a height limit imposed and many tall HGVs scrapped.
Given that the voltages chosen by Siemens et al for their road electrification trial are very low (comparable to trams), the clearances involved are essentially entirely mechanical.

6" is likely sufficient given the low speeds involved given that anything short of outright contact is unlikely to cause a flashover.
750Vdc is very different to the high voltage AC systems seen in rail.

I wouldn't consider this a major threat to be honest.
While there's definitely some people who think like this, almost all environmentally minded people can quickly be convinced that diesel rail freight is a lot better than the same goods going by road.
Well some might be, but others will grow increasingly concerned as the railway continues to cling to two-stroke diesel engines designed in the 1980s (EMD 710 series in the Class 66).
Precious few HGVs have engines that old and the number is shrinking rapidly.

Let alone diesel engines from the 1960s that somehow remain in service.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,687
Given that the voltages chosen by Siemens et al for their road electrification trial are very low (comparable to trams), the clearances involved are essentially entirely mechanical.

6" is likely sufficient given the low speeds involved given that anything short of outright contact is unlikely to cause a flashover.
750Vdc is very different to the high voltage AC systems seen in rail.
6" clearance from motorway bridges is all that the tallest HGVs have now. A wire down the centre of that 6" will have 3" clearance above and below. A flapping tarpaulin on a wet day spells disaster. To have any chance of working it will require a mandatory height limit for the first time* in the UK, at least 12" lower than the current maximum height of HGVs.

* The was a height limit of 4.2m for a short while in the UK when 44t HGVs were first introduced. It was quickly scrapped when it was pointed out that 9' 6" containers would be overheight.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
14,666
Location
Bristol
6" clearance from motorway bridges is all that the tallest HGVs have now. A wire down the centre of that 6" will have 3" clearance above and below. A flapping tarpaulin on a wet day spells disaster. To have any chance of working it will require a mandatory height limit for the first time* in the UK, at least 12" lower than the current maximum height of HGVs.

* The was a height limit of 4.2m for a short while in the UK when 44t HGVs were first introduced. It was quickly scrapped when it was pointed out that 9' 6" containers would be overheight.
A permanently earthed section would deal with any of those problems. What happened in Germany where they have actually trialled such a system?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,336
6" clearance from motorway bridges is all that the tallest HGVs have now. A wire down the centre of that 6" will have 3" clearance above and below. A flapping tarpaulin on a wet day spells disaster. To have any chance of working it will require a mandatory height limit for the first time* in the UK, at least 12" lower than the current maximum height of HGVs.

* The was a height limit of 4.2m for a short while in the UK when 44t HGVs were first introduced. It was quickly scrapped when it was pointed out that 9' 6" containers would be overheight.
Looking to tramway and railway practice 3" clearance above is probably more than is required.
The cables can go under bridges with little clearance, indeed even at 25kV. See the Cardiff bridge with the insulating paint, and even without that the achievable clearance is about 20mm.

Clearance for ~660Vdc will be more or less zero.

Six inches of clearance will mean something like five inches of clearance below.
If for whatever reason that is insufficient we can just have a dead section under the bridge.

I'd think a flapping tarp is unlikely to lead to a catastrophic flashover given the comparatively low voltage and lack of a low resistance return path through the body of the lorry.


A permanently earthed section would deal with any of those problems. What happened in Germany where they have actually trialled such a system?
Hard to get information on it, apparently their contact wire height was 4.6-5.1m, but it doesn't give much information what the limits actually are. Indeed it then shows a bridge with a rigid conductor solution that appears to be lower than 4.6m to my eye

I guess the real question is how tall most motorway bridges are? I know nothing above 16'6" needs a height warning, but that isn't the same as saying that the bridges are that tall.
 
Last edited:

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
14,666
Location
Bristol
I guess the real question is how tall most motorway bridges are? I know nothing above 16'6" needs a height warning, but that isn't the same as saying that the bridges are that tall.
It seems to depend on the age of the motorway. A quick GSV survey of the eastern end of the M6 Toll suggests the structures were built to a higher minimum clearance than is apparent on the M6 at Spaghetti Jn/Gravelly Hill Interchange.
Again, the strategy for this system will be as important as the technical specifics. All the lorries will have independent engines anyway, so the OLE doesn't need to be continuous in the way that it does for Trains. Charging sections would be spaced sensibly apart and chosen for their ease of overhead structures as well as the amount of lorries that could benefit and the local area's emissions.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,687
Looking to tramway and railway practice 3" clearance above is probably more than is required.
The cables can go under bridges with little clearance, indeed even at 25kV. See the Cardiff bridge with the insulating paint, and even without that the achievable clearance is about 20mm.

Clearance for ~660Vdc will be more or less zero.

Six inches of clearance will mean something like five inches of clearance below.
If for whatever reason that is insufficient we can just have a dead section under the bridge.

I'd think a flapping tarp is unlikely to lead to a catastrophic flashover given the comparatively low voltage and lack of a low resistance return path through the body of the lorry.



Hard to get information on it, apparently their contact wire height was 4.6-5.1m, but it doesn't give much information what the limits actually are. Indeed it then shows a bridge with a rigid conductor solution that appears to be lower than 4.6m to my eye

I guess the real question is how tall most motorway bridges are? I know nothing above 16'6" needs a height warning, but that isn't the same as saying that the bridges are that tall.
All the above depends on the road haulage industry maintaining some sort of dicipline with regard to heights.

Given the industry's track record with regard to striking railway bridges, FIVE per day, I do not hold out much hope in that direction. At least OHL strikes on the roads will only shut the roads rather than taking out the railway as well.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
4,641
Location
Hope Valley
Moving back to a more traffic-centred perspective, I thought that an item on Radio 4 this morning was interesting. There is an increasing unease about incineration of waste as opposed to recycling (where possible), biodigestion and landfill for the rest.
There are several long-term waste flows by rail from London, Manchester and Liverpool for incineration.
 

Tetragon213

Member
Joined
14 Oct 2024
Messages
133
Location
West Midlands
We saw in 2020 with Carmont and 2022 with Nuneham Viaduct how infrastructure can fail due to a combination of delayed maintenance, insufficient monitoring and extreme weather.

This is a threat to all rail traffic, but I think especially freight. Passengers are relatively easy to get back onto the railway, whereas once you've done all the work shifting a freight operation to road haulage, you would need quite a strong incentive to shift it back to rail. Especially given the tight margins that @zwk500 mentioned.
AIUI, there was also an error in construction. What the builder actually built was different from what the designer had actually drawn. The report quite literally states, and I quote, "...the 2011/12 drain was significantly different from that intended by the designer..." 5 times.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
14,666
Location
Bristol
Moving back to a more traffic-centred perspective, I thought that an item on Radio 4 this morning was interesting. There is an increasing unease about incineration of waste as opposed to recycling (where possible), biodigestion and landfill for the rest.
There are several long-term waste flows by rail from London, Manchester and Liverpool for incineration.
Landfill has it's own problems and probably is as bad as waste-to-energy just in different ways. I think the waste flows are reasonably secure because one way or another it's going to need to be dealt with - the cultural shift required to stop producing so much waste is generational.
 

Top