Royston Vasey
Established Member
He likes to take his photos end-on rather than classic 3/4 view that photter. Found it quite frustrating to browse!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
West Coast Railways Timber Trains.
- Thread starter 66C
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
stantheman
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2017
- Messages
- 338
I think his pictures are wonderful . If you want serious atmosphere come here . Forget the S/C or West Highland this is the real thing . Think of the walking the photographer has had to do in horrible terrain . Well done , I am a hill walker myself .
LNW-GW Joint
Veteran Member
Some stunning pictures there, railway and otherwise.
Talk about being dwarfed by the landscape.
tiptoptaff
Established Member
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 3,026
Those photos are fantastic.
Safeway container - that ages me!
Safeway container - that ages me!
harveyd
New Member
The remarkably 'light' load only makes sense when you understand that the Scottish government are paying a subsidy of nearly £11,000 per round trip for 18 round trips - 3 per week for 6 weeks - total £195,000. What may be described as a ' nice little earner '. The reason Scottish wood doesn't travel by rail is that it's much cheaper by sea - and there's wood loading facilities at the port of Scrabster just up the road from Georgmas junction. Note the weekly log ship from Scrabster to Workington ( 1500 tons ) - a load that could come by rail but never will. The chances of this wood reaching Inverness by rail post subsidy would seem to be fairly remote - sorry.
Last edited:
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,576
Presumably, for whatever reason, the logs normally move by road. If they went by sea, there would not be grants coming to rail to transfer them. Incidentally, at least some of the logs by sea options also receive a grant.
Totally agree with the sense check above. I do not even understand what is being "trialled" by this "trial". What does it show that isn't already known? If this operation was ever going to pay it would firstly need a wagon type that could be fully loaded, and possibly with more wagons per train, also top and tailed perhaps with a pair of 66s to simplify shunting at Georgemas and reduce the turnaround time which might also reduce the crane hire time. As the timber is already loaded onto artics to bring it to Georgemas it needs a very strong business case to stop those lorries simply turning south and carrying it all the way to Inverness themselves. Four grab-equipped trucks with four drivers could provide a continuous shuttle from the Forest to the mill. In the video there are too many people milling around in high viz jackets all presumably on the payroll of this trial - you can see one person operating points with at least two others stood watching and chatting. What a trial needs to do is identify hardstanding points adjacent to the line between Inverness and Goergemas where timber could be accumulated then loaded onto a train on the running line overnight using a mobile crane. This would offer something that road and sea could not do as effectively and thus give rail a competitive edge. Once you've loaded timber onto a road truck you've lost the battle.
There have been several proposals for lineside loading, both on the FNL and the WHL. I don't think any actually materialised. I suspect that the proposers were faced with so many hoops to jump through that they gave up.
However I believe that the attitude within Transport Scotland and NR has changed and they may be assisting such proposals.
It remains the situation that felled timber is quite a low value product and margins are tight.
However I believe that the attitude within Transport Scotland and NR has changed and they may be assisting such proposals.
It remains the situation that felled timber is quite a low value product and margins are tight.
Must be a fair amount of nervousness about having machinery, lorries and wood operating next to the main line, and how you confirm a line clear hand back?
Maybe he took offence to this comment - both the Flickr account is gone and YouTube videos deleted
I noticed that - some chap was expressing the same opinions we've aired in the last few posts and he just threw his toys out of the pram and went off in a huff! I do believe we all want to see timber traffic return to rail - we're just pointing out some of the cruel realities.Maybe he took offence to this comment - both the Flickr account is gone and YouTube videos deleted
mailbyrail
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 356
Don't know if this was the same flikr set of photos, but this guy has four shots at Georgemas of timber trains in August plus a number of other views
Don't know if this was the same flikr set of photos, but this guy has four shots at Georgemas of timber trains in August plus a number of other views
Wow!!! Cool pictures and clearly he knows how to use a drone to it's full advantage.
I thought I remembered back in the 1980s or early 1990s a) reading that it had happened, and b) passing somewhere on the West Highland where it looked as if it had been happening. (I could be mis-remembering, though).
mailbyrail
Member
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 356
Back in 2002 timber was loaded at Kinbrace direct onto wagons on the mainline towards Georgemas
Railscot reported that one train each month in Autumn 2002 for a total of five trains would load timber to Inverness for Nexfor at Dalcross
There are photos on line showing timber stacked at Kinbrace for loading.
The project was re-examined in 2016 by Hightrans which stated that the 2002 trial could not compete with road in terms of costs.
Railscot reported that one train each month in Autumn 2002 for a total of five trains would load timber to Inverness for Nexfor at Dalcross
There are photos on line showing timber stacked at Kinbrace for loading.
Kinbrace - RAILSCOT
This is a single platform station, formerly with two platforms and a loop. The cottage style station building still stands, in use as a house. To the north is a level crossing. There is no car park.
railscot.co.uk
The project was re-examined in 2016 by Hightrans which stated that the 2002 trial could not compete with road in terms of costs.
It's always interesting to see real costings - and thinking - many thanks for this. The report shows that the cost of laying sidings and connecting them to the main line is prohibitive unless a high density service is planned, and a grant is available to cover the capital cost. This is why it feels that the only way timber can come out of the Highlands by rail is if hard standings are created lineside and timber trains top and tailed with two locos can be loaded direct and clear the line before the daily service resumes. In many cases this only allows an 8 hour window overnight, and may require the train to head away from its intended route to the nearest passing point to let daily trains pass. The most interesting stat that I saw was that the timber train lays over in Georgemas siding for 12 hours before returning south. If this is because it takes 12 hours to fully load the rake of wagons it kind of suggests that the available window for loading direct onto the main line is simply not long enough and therefore a siding is necessary. If that 12 hour layover can be reduced to 6 hours then the whole option becomes viable. Does anyone have a view on how long it takes to load a rake of (say) 20 wagons?
theironroad
Established Member
Agree, some great pics there.
Further to my reply above the other "ingredient" is that hardstanding areas need to be convenient and accessible from the Forest's own network of internal roads and tracks rather than convenient to the railway, so sawlogs can be hauled and stacked by off road tractors rather than retrieved by lorry, roaded to somewhere then offloaded again, since once timber is loaded onto a road vehicle it is almost impossible for rail to compete because of transmodal costs. This suggests that it would be beneficial to identify several hardstanding points along the routes of the Far North and West Highland lines which could be used intermittently according to felling rotas, but with the same basic modus operandi in all cases. This has long been one of the justifications for the southern section of the Waverley line where it runs close to Kielder/Kershope/Newcastleton and indeed Forestry tracks do run right up to the former lineside in one place, but sadly there is no possibility of that level of subsidy.
Pinus contorta
Member
1 timber wagon & drag loading up from roadside can take 20 minutes to half an hour from my experience watching in the forest. It depends on the product. And also If the product is stacked in such a way that the driver needs to draw up. HGV + drag I think are 18m long (including the cab). Is that longer or shorter or the same length as a rail wagon?
Part of the time taken for loading in the forest is for the HGV driver walking round to secure the load down with straps in between the bolsters. I have no idea how that works with rail wagons.
NorthernNiall
New Member
- Joined
- 1 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3
For clarification:
- There were more men on the ground on that one occasion because it was the first working of the trial and 'top brass' were there to follow proceedings. All other workings in the 6 weeks since (as was seen in other videos), have involved 4 people, including the driver of the locos, and the driver of the loading lorry/'crane'.
- TnT would make a minimal difference to shortening the process (20mins maybe), as the workings mostly involve an evening arrival, followed by departure the next day. The trial is using existing paths as used by Pipe and Nuclear traffic. This is cheaper and easier, hence 12-20hrs between arrival and departure, depending on which path is used. An actual contract you would think would use different paths, which they'd have to create with NR and pay for. The current paths are not related to loading times, simply the paths available just now.
- The train needs to be split between the two sidings for ease of loading, which again means TnT wouldn't be suitable. The BTAs on that first working had around 35t of timber each. This is 5-10t short of the KSA/KFA timber wagons (which are 5m+ longer and 4-6t heavier), but a lot less than the IWAs, used by Colas too.
- TnT would also not be possible with these particular locos without manning both.
- '66s would involve a different company. As an aside, DRS wanted to provide resources for this trial but in September, not August. This, I assume, would've used a single '66. Victa sourced the wagons.
- Ideally of course, the trial would've used 'proper' timber wagons, but the BTAs were the best that was available it seems. Perhaps the IWAs of Colas were too costly, or unavailable, or Colas didn't want to be involved at all. I'm also not sure what the RA of fully loaded IWAs happens to be, nor their length. I assume the restricted length of a train on the FNL would be reached before max. tonnage for two '37s or one '66, but it could be the other way 'round. Incidentally, '66s have more speed restrictions on this line than '37s, but it doesn't make a huge difference with paths on different days. '37s are the only loco allowed to be double-headed up here.
- The 'crane' is a lorry which arrives to load the train, then leaves immediately after, doing work elsewhere. It does not 'wait' for the train but, as stated before, the train is there for a while, as per the paths.
- Kinbrace and Altnabreac were being looked at for lineside loading (Kinbrace being used before, as referenced in this thread), however it seems Rannoch on the WHL is the next suitable candidate to happen first (next year?)
- From what I saw, 10 of the 14 BTAs were loaded by 1100, but I don't know when that day the lorry 'crane' arrived (possibly 0700).
- The time between arrivals and departures could certainly be reduced, close to the time it takes for loading, but, again, this would require new paths. If overnight, terminal lighting would be important.
- For a trial, I believe the best resources available were used. If an actual contracted 'flow' was to be started, you would think resources and timings would be different, but that's a different question.
Would be interesting to see how other countries approach timber transport. Norway and Finland for example, do they have lorries taking logs to rail-loading sites, then taking them off at the other end too, or are they directly into plant with lorry transport only at one end. I do know they're transporting thousands of tonnes at a time on some trains, of course.
The sidings being built by Norbord will make a huge difference to the viability of timber by rail also.
Hope this helps.
Niall
- There were more men on the ground on that one occasion because it was the first working of the trial and 'top brass' were there to follow proceedings. All other workings in the 6 weeks since (as was seen in other videos), have involved 4 people, including the driver of the locos, and the driver of the loading lorry/'crane'.
- TnT would make a minimal difference to shortening the process (20mins maybe), as the workings mostly involve an evening arrival, followed by departure the next day. The trial is using existing paths as used by Pipe and Nuclear traffic. This is cheaper and easier, hence 12-20hrs between arrival and departure, depending on which path is used. An actual contract you would think would use different paths, which they'd have to create with NR and pay for. The current paths are not related to loading times, simply the paths available just now.
- The train needs to be split between the two sidings for ease of loading, which again means TnT wouldn't be suitable. The BTAs on that first working had around 35t of timber each. This is 5-10t short of the KSA/KFA timber wagons (which are 5m+ longer and 4-6t heavier), but a lot less than the IWAs, used by Colas too.
- TnT would also not be possible with these particular locos without manning both.
- '66s would involve a different company. As an aside, DRS wanted to provide resources for this trial but in September, not August. This, I assume, would've used a single '66. Victa sourced the wagons.
- Ideally of course, the trial would've used 'proper' timber wagons, but the BTAs were the best that was available it seems. Perhaps the IWAs of Colas were too costly, or unavailable, or Colas didn't want to be involved at all. I'm also not sure what the RA of fully loaded IWAs happens to be, nor their length. I assume the restricted length of a train on the FNL would be reached before max. tonnage for two '37s or one '66, but it could be the other way 'round. Incidentally, '66s have more speed restrictions on this line than '37s, but it doesn't make a huge difference with paths on different days. '37s are the only loco allowed to be double-headed up here.
- The 'crane' is a lorry which arrives to load the train, then leaves immediately after, doing work elsewhere. It does not 'wait' for the train but, as stated before, the train is there for a while, as per the paths.
- Kinbrace and Altnabreac were being looked at for lineside loading (Kinbrace being used before, as referenced in this thread), however it seems Rannoch on the WHL is the next suitable candidate to happen first (next year?)
- From what I saw, 10 of the 14 BTAs were loaded by 1100, but I don't know when that day the lorry 'crane' arrived (possibly 0700).
- The time between arrivals and departures could certainly be reduced, close to the time it takes for loading, but, again, this would require new paths. If overnight, terminal lighting would be important.
- For a trial, I believe the best resources available were used. If an actual contracted 'flow' was to be started, you would think resources and timings would be different, but that's a different question.
Would be interesting to see how other countries approach timber transport. Norway and Finland for example, do they have lorries taking logs to rail-loading sites, then taking them off at the other end too, or are they directly into plant with lorry transport only at one end. I do know they're transporting thousands of tonnes at a time on some trains, of course.
The sidings being built by Norbord will make a huge difference to the viability of timber by rail also.
Hope this helps.
Niall
Some BTA,s converted for "Pipes " seem to be in the Scrap Line at Tees Yard
NorthernNiall
New Member
- Joined
- 1 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3
I do agree that sometimes simply starting a 'service' is better than a trial. For example, I have been trying to get DRS to use the Georgemas nuclear terminal for general freight (as they promised when they built it back in 2012), but they keep wanting to demonstrate the terminal as a 'trial' - literally lifting one container off a Megafret in front of 'distinguished guests', and putting it back down again (after having to create a bespoke attachment for their crane, which "didn't need modification" apparently).
I'm pretty sure the business leaders know how a crane works, and indeed a train, so I'm not sure why DRS can't just approach customers directly; work out how many containers would make a viable intermodal; and try to fill a train each day...if an intermodal is even viable of course!
This of course doesn't obscure the fact that the terminal is totally unsuitable for general freight: it has the worst road access of the three 'corners' at Georgemas; plus a driver and shunter would have to stay with the train to move it for each container loaded/unloaded, as it's a fixed crane (increasing fuel and crew costs before we even start!). I fear the existence of that terminal will preclude a general freight service being started...
Terminal creation costs, I assume, are a big part of starting a service, so this is why it's great to see the hard-standing on the other side of the A9 at G'mas being used for timber. It might mean other flows can go from there in the future, simply using a reach-stacker for intermodals (like the old Safeway train)! But I digress...
I genuinely am not sure re. the timber trial. I do think that no matter how successful a service, it will need subsidised. It's the price we pay for taking freight off roads for longer distances, in my opinion (although this is not a long-haul sadly). Far more lucrative flows completely unrelated to timber, get grants every year just to run (as do flows via sea), because road is simply easier and cheaper. The UK has chosen to make road easier and cheaper, in my view.
Having been organised by HITRANS initially (over many years), I wonder if this trial simply to convince the Scottish Gvt. that timber can go by rail? I was under the impression that the raw product being moved was wind-blown and fallen timber, which would've been left to rot anyway. I heard rumors during the Kinbrace trial lineside-loading of the early 2000s, that the HGVs would empty the logs on the stockpile for the train; return to the forest; and take another load down to Inverness by road anyway(!) So, more timber was moved with fewer lorries, but it was hardly in the spirit of moving product by rail instead of road
It shouldn't be a battle between road and rail. It should be a complete logistics solution of which rail is part, in my opinion, not 'them' and 'us'.
As has been said, I would like to see proper timber wagons involved, with tonnages well in excess of 700 per train if possible (there are rumours of an actual contract/flow in 2021, but using which company/wagons, I don't know).
Ideally, I'd like to see timber loaded at Georgemas from Caithness forests, then more logs loaded overnight from Sutherland forests as it heads South (at Altnabreac, Kinbrace and Lairg for instance). I agree that the more switches between modes, the less viable, but personally I don't see lorries being removed from the equation, getting the timber to the train. Judging by how much timber was stockpiled, I would actually assume that each of those sites could produce a train of 700 tonnes per run. I also am doubting my previous calculation of 35t per BTA (based on the TOPS manifest, it was probably less than 30t in reality). I wouldn't even consider putting extra stanchions on the BTAs to haul more. Timber wagons need 'ends', in my opinion!
With sidings being built at Norbord, I would like to see timber travel by rail for longer distances (although, they're primarily creating sidings to get finished product out, planned as twice-daily 28-container trains...TnT as well, simply because there's no room to run 'round that length of train!)
I do think lorries have to have a role getting timber to rail, but that these trains need to haul far more per trip. If each of these 3 trains/week was hauling 15 IWAs for example (just fitting into the max. length of FNL trains I think), they'd be moving around 950 tonnes of timber each time, if they could be loaded to their full 90t GLW without going above RA5 (which is perhaps not possible!) With trains being under 1400t in total, it would be within the capabilities of two '37s, but better still, a single '66. One driver, 2 shunters for loading/strapping, and a guy operating the lorry/crane. I think this would make a huge difference, despite lorries having to get to Georgemas.
But, investment would have to be made at sites like Altnabreac and Kinbrace, in terms of suitable hard-standing and lighting for overnight loading.
As an aside, the Branchliner idea was often mentioned operating in a 'Merry-Go-Round' style, where a single asset (ie. a trainload), moved around sites taking product to Norbord or farther South, on a rotating basis, depending on the felling times etc.
I hope this helps, and sorry for the long ramble.
Niall
I'm pretty sure the business leaders know how a crane works, and indeed a train, so I'm not sure why DRS can't just approach customers directly; work out how many containers would make a viable intermodal; and try to fill a train each day...if an intermodal is even viable of course!
This of course doesn't obscure the fact that the terminal is totally unsuitable for general freight: it has the worst road access of the three 'corners' at Georgemas; plus a driver and shunter would have to stay with the train to move it for each container loaded/unloaded, as it's a fixed crane (increasing fuel and crew costs before we even start!). I fear the existence of that terminal will preclude a general freight service being started...
Terminal creation costs, I assume, are a big part of starting a service, so this is why it's great to see the hard-standing on the other side of the A9 at G'mas being used for timber. It might mean other flows can go from there in the future, simply using a reach-stacker for intermodals (like the old Safeway train)! But I digress...
I genuinely am not sure re. the timber trial. I do think that no matter how successful a service, it will need subsidised. It's the price we pay for taking freight off roads for longer distances, in my opinion (although this is not a long-haul sadly). Far more lucrative flows completely unrelated to timber, get grants every year just to run (as do flows via sea), because road is simply easier and cheaper. The UK has chosen to make road easier and cheaper, in my view.
Having been organised by HITRANS initially (over many years), I wonder if this trial simply to convince the Scottish Gvt. that timber can go by rail? I was under the impression that the raw product being moved was wind-blown and fallen timber, which would've been left to rot anyway. I heard rumors during the Kinbrace trial lineside-loading of the early 2000s, that the HGVs would empty the logs on the stockpile for the train; return to the forest; and take another load down to Inverness by road anyway(!) So, more timber was moved with fewer lorries, but it was hardly in the spirit of moving product by rail instead of road
It shouldn't be a battle between road and rail. It should be a complete logistics solution of which rail is part, in my opinion, not 'them' and 'us'.As has been said, I would like to see proper timber wagons involved, with tonnages well in excess of 700 per train if possible (there are rumours of an actual contract/flow in 2021, but using which company/wagons, I don't know).
Ideally, I'd like to see timber loaded at Georgemas from Caithness forests, then more logs loaded overnight from Sutherland forests as it heads South (at Altnabreac, Kinbrace and Lairg for instance). I agree that the more switches between modes, the less viable, but personally I don't see lorries being removed from the equation, getting the timber to the train. Judging by how much timber was stockpiled, I would actually assume that each of those sites could produce a train of 700 tonnes per run. I also am doubting my previous calculation of 35t per BTA (based on the TOPS manifest, it was probably less than 30t in reality). I wouldn't even consider putting extra stanchions on the BTAs to haul more. Timber wagons need 'ends', in my opinion!
With sidings being built at Norbord, I would like to see timber travel by rail for longer distances (although, they're primarily creating sidings to get finished product out, planned as twice-daily 28-container trains...TnT as well, simply because there's no room to run 'round that length of train!)
I do think lorries have to have a role getting timber to rail, but that these trains need to haul far more per trip. If each of these 3 trains/week was hauling 15 IWAs for example (just fitting into the max. length of FNL trains I think), they'd be moving around 950 tonnes of timber each time, if they could be loaded to their full 90t GLW without going above RA5 (which is perhaps not possible!) With trains being under 1400t in total, it would be within the capabilities of two '37s, but better still, a single '66. One driver, 2 shunters for loading/strapping, and a guy operating the lorry/crane. I think this would make a huge difference, despite lorries having to get to Georgemas.
But, investment would have to be made at sites like Altnabreac and Kinbrace, in terms of suitable hard-standing and lighting for overnight loading.
As an aside, the Branchliner idea was often mentioned operating in a 'Merry-Go-Round' style, where a single asset (ie. a trainload), moved around sites taking product to Norbord or farther South, on a rotating basis, depending on the felling times etc.
I hope this helps, and sorry for the long ramble.
Niall
How much capital would be involved in making timber intermodal, are the logs standard length?
I’m thinking a unit that could go on the trailers the hard core tractors tow into the forest, but I don’t know how far those tractors can go on the road in terms of eliminating the lorry bit to make it straight from forest to train.
it just seems to me that if the end users having sidings into their plants gives the opportunity to make intermodal work. Having preloaded units would reduce the loading time and thereby the train usage time.
I’m thinking a unit that could go on the trailers the hard core tractors tow into the forest, but I don’t know how far those tractors can go on the road in terms of eliminating the lorry bit to make it straight from forest to train.
it just seems to me that if the end users having sidings into their plants gives the opportunity to make intermodal work. Having preloaded units would reduce the loading time and thereby the train usage time.
NorthernNiall
New Member
- Joined
- 1 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3
These logs appear to have been cut to fit between the stanchions, I would imagine.
A few years ago, Russells looked at creating timber 'crates' (even created some I think?), loaded onto Megafrets.
If you look at the table on Page 20 of this report, you'll see the payload per metre is considerably less than the 'proper' timber wagons (mainly 'cos the Megas are so long!)
First PDF in list:
HITRANS - Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership
HITRANS - Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership
hitrans.org.uk
However, it would be interesting to see the payload/metre of the BTAs, I'm sure
(I need to read this report in full sometime...it's even longer than my posts!)
I'm not an expert (as is obvious), but the lorries do seem to go pretty 'deep' into the forest tracks up here. Even with lineside loading at Altnabreac (and especially Kinbrace), a road vehicle would be needed? I agree, a 'crate unit' would eliminate double-handling, but perhaps loading far more timber kind of balances that out?
In Scandinavia, I'm sure a lot of woodchip is containerised, but logs are still in large, stanchioned wagons aren't they? Indeed, with freight-only timber lines often being un-electrified, it's 'worth their while' changing locos between the electrified mainlines and un-electrified branches...sometimes even with a diesel dragging the electric DIT to the timber loading site! I think some are c.3000t trains though (in only around 600m!), over far longer haulage distances.
Also of note, when regarding lineside loading, the traincrew have to stay with the train during the duration of loading ('cos it's sitting on the mainline), which increases costs...and that's where reducing train usage time comes in, as you say.
Train usage time is perhaps more determined by available paths up here than by actual loading times (see the DB Subsea 7 Pipes for example, which don't even use sidings to unload). This trial used existing Nuclear and Pipe paths. If loading the same day, 6Z88 would arrive around 0500, and leave (as 6Z69) before 1800. Whether more suitable paths could be made available (and at what cost), I don't know.
For G'mas, technically timber trains could arrive in the 6X88/6S88 Pipe path (c.0500 arr.), and leave in the 6M98/6M97 Nuke path (c.1420 dep.), which would shorten train time in G'mas to around 9.5hrs...but I feel a non-trial flow should really have its own paths, otherwise there would be a bit of conflict with the Nuclear traffic (and Pipes, if they start again!)
My personal opinion is the train should transport as much as possible on each trip, maybe to compete with sea transport.
Niall
Last edited:
These logs appear to have been cut to fit between the stanchions, I would imagine.
A few years ago, Russells looked at creating timber 'crates' (even created some I think?), loaded onto Megafrets.
If you look at the table on Page 20 of this report, you'll see the payload per metre is considerably less than the 'proper' timber wagons (mainly 'cos the Megas are so long!)
First PDF in list:
HITRANS - Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership
HITRANS - Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership
However, it would be interesting to see the payload/metre of the BTAs, I'm sure
(I need to read this report in full sometime...it's even longer than my posts!)
I'm not an expert (as is obvious), but the lorries do seem to go pretty 'deep' into the forest tracks up here. Even with lineside loading at Altnabreac (and especially Kinbrace), a road vehicle would be needed? I agree, a 'crate unit' would eliminate double-handling, but perhaps loading far more timber kind of balances that out?
In Scandinavia, I'm sure a lot of woodchip is containerised, but logs are still in large, stanchioned wagons aren't they? Indeed, with freight-only timber lines often being un-electrified, it's 'worth their while' changing locos between the electrified mainlines and un-electrified branches...sometimes even with a diesel dragging the electric DIT to the timber loading site! I think some are c.3000t trains though (in only around 600m!), over far longer haulage distances.
Also of note, when regarding lineside loading, the traincrew have to stay with the train during the duration of loading ('cos it's sitting on the mainline), which increases costs...and that's where reducing train usage time comes in, as you say.
Train usage time is perhaps more determined by available paths up here than by actual loading times (see the DB Subsea 7 Pipes for example, which don't even use sidings to unload). This trial used existing Nuclear and Pipe paths. If loading the same day, 6Z88 would arrive around 0500, and leave (as 6Z69) before 1800. Whether more suitable paths could be made available (and at what cost), I don't know.
For G'mas, technically timber trains could arrive in the 6X88/6S88 Pipe path (c.0500 arr.), and leave in the 6M98/6M97 Nuke path (c.1420 dep.), which would shorten train time in G'mas to around 9.5hrs...but I feel a non-trial flow should really have its own paths, otherwise there would be a bit of conflict with the Nuclear traffic (and Pipes, if they start again!)
My personal opinion is the train should transport as much as possible on each trip, maybe to compete with sea transport.
Niall
If i remember correctly a number of years ago British Rail Demonstrated a system of Transfering Containers from Rail to Road to Ground Level ( For Loading / Unloading ) using a vehicle fitted with A Hook Loading System
furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,576
Several companies manufacture such equipment. The link below is one such example.
Ceptorn Cranes ApS | Sideloader and sidelifters » Contact us now!
Ceptorn Cranes ApS specialize in quality sideloaders and truckmounted container sidelifters. Get the flexibility you need. Contact us today
www.ceptorn.com
Several companies manufacture such equipment. The link below is one such example.
Ceptorn Cranes ApS | Sideloader and sidelifters » Contact us now!
Ceptorn Cranes ApS specialize in quality sideloaders and truckmounted container sidelifters. Get the flexibility you need. Contact us today
The " Hook " system would be a simpler solution, some modification to the Rail Vehicle would no doubt be req to assist transfer between the two modes of transport
- Status