This is all true, although it's unfair to say FOCs aren't spending a single penny. The reality is it's incredibly disruptive and expensive to electrify and gauge clear, and difficult to identify projects that would give a quick enough return for investment to be viable for a private company. Spending money smartly is the key for FOCs. What they should be focusing on at the moment is some form of solution for overhead electrification at top-loading terminals. That would make the case for electric freight much clearer. This is happening with things like the 88, battery shunter and 93.
Well no, they are spending a small bit but rarely on the big infrastructure projects which they are all campaigning for. Minimal investment it seems into terminals as well I would say and things that would save them a lot of money, they won't invest in. Just as an example. Kronospan Chirk should have points to let the train cross over which would save over an hour each trip because the train won't be circling around Shrewsbury and the West Midlands to get back to Carlisle. Penyfordd is another one. No points to get south to Wrexham nor points from Wrexham into the sidings so instead, the train blocks the main line to shunt into the sidings and then spends over an hour hour going up to Dee Marsh to turn around to head back south. An hour saved on a journey is a lot of money saved plus makes customer happier so there is more potential to generate more usage because the customer is happier and you are delivering products quicker. Investment in some areas bring benefits which save money and maybe make more money. Even if FOCs don't put the full money in and just contribute somewhat towards it, projects would get done a damn site quicker than leaving it up to politicians not just because less money is needed but also because it proves a business case and it makes the investment safer for the government because a private company is putting in money who will want to make use and get their money back.
I digress, the point being, investing can get a decent return. Not always quick but a decent return.
As you suggest things like battery shunters, 93s and 88 are good investments and can save time but the 88s haven't had anything past the 10 which DRS have. 93s are going to Rail Ops Group who don't operate freight trains. Battery shunters I am unsure of. The main FOCs are not investing in electric really at all. Easier to stick to the 66s and winge at everyone else for not subsidising their ventures than it is to invest.
The issue with this is the railway has a history of running a trial service and then it gets delayed for 2 weeks out of the 6 so the customer isn't particularly impressed. Or it's only financially viable with a whacking great grant.
Grants are available though, not sure if they are for trials or regular flows but there are grants out there. It would help if the FOCs had more waggons which could carry multiple products and intermodal swapbody curtainsider container things as then it's cheaper to do trials for more variety of products. Delays, obviously can't always be helped but maybe more pressure needs to be put onto making these trials work. I guess it's a difficult one as you can't prioritise trial trains but at the same time, impress a company, they will come back to you.
The fundamental issue with this is that terminals aren't very close to each other to facilitate this kind of traffic. Running an out-and back operation may well be more efficient for the operator than running 2 separate flows on a combined diagram cycle. Also 75mph container wagons may not be fit for conversion to load timber on a regular basis and you've got to carry a rather large amount of steel around with you for more than half the cycle.
I appreciate that and it was just a single example but there will be many more examples where a type of waggon could maybe hold different products. I do believe that things are possible to do sometimes but they are just reluctant to do it. If the more flat van transporters which Ford use could also hold a 20ft container on them for example, the train could send cars north to Mossend and 20ft containers back. No, not a lot being carried but it created revenue on a back flow and means more space for containers on trains without using additional waggons, trains or resources.
It's very easy to tell other companies to take financial risks, have you tried suggesting that to a shareholder of GBRf or Freightliner? They're private companies, every decision is a risk, but a calculated one.
Oh, I know that but if no one takes a risk, no one makes any money. GBRF are taking financial risks on some of their new trains to be fair and so that is good but why no financial risks on a potential flow. Short term loss, long term gain. I wonder if the shareholders of the FOCs are old school, keep earning at 100% levels rather than dropping to 95% for a few weeks with the chance of going up to 105%. Risking money for longer term gain is exactly how the most popular companies currently operate. No one ever succeeds by sitting back, not investing and not trying to encourage new customers. It's being seen in all sectors currently.
Why would any company look to adapt their supply chain around rail when rail freight is seemingly stuck in the 1990s plodding around diesel trains all day and they want full loads most days. Unless you have a full train to give a FOC, they couldn't care less and why would any company risk a full supply chain collapse moving to rail. Until rail starts taking more risks and starts trying to take on smaller loads (with the view of expanding that in time), the percentage of rail vs road will remain dismally low.
