What is the largest size of road vehicle that can be carried on GB rail?

[Rhydgaled]

In mainland Europe, I understand there is the concept of 'rolling motorways' where lorries are carried on trains (much like the Le Shuttle service through the Channel Tunnel). Here in Britian, we generally assume that we cannot do this due to our constrained loading guage. Obviously, large HGVs cannot be carried on trains, but British Rail (and even First Great Western) had 'Motorail' services which transported cars by rail, and even today I understand that trainloads of new cars and vans are transported from factories on rail wagons.

So, my question is, how big can you go before a road vehicle would be out of guage? Would a relatively small reduction in the maximum size of Heavy Goods Vehicle permitted on UK roads have the side effect of allowing all road vehicles to also travel by rail? Or are the biggest HGVs on our roads already massively out of guage for our rail network (not just a little bit)? I guess this is a question with several answers, since special wagons which are lower can be used to carry a larger payload and the loading guage varies across the network. So, can a large Ford Transit be carried by rail on a route which is only cleared for W6? If so, what is the largest road vehicle that will fit? How about W7? W12? Etc.

I wasn't sure if this should be asked here or in the infrustructure and stations subforum, so sorry if this is the wrong place.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The problem is that there are no ‘standard’/mass produced vehicles that ‘just fit’ W6 gauge. (I am well aware that some specific routes have more generous clearances.)

This question was brought into clear focus for me on a wintry day at Faversham. Selling Tunnel, on the Canterbury East line was very prone to icicles in winter but the regular passage of CEP EMUs maintained a suitable C1-shaped hole.

A train of ferry wagons including some double deck car carriers with a load of baby Renaults arrived with the top deck ones totally written off because they had been very slightly higher at the haunches.*

(*Any more strictly accurate term willingly accepted.)

 

[Ayrshire Roy]

Quite a few years ago spine cars were trialled with special truck trailers.
They failed because the trailers ended up so small height wise to fit in the loading guage and the length of time it took to load the train.
Containers won because they can be grabbed and loaded/un loaded in minutes.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Military tanks have been transported by rail, and they are pretty big.

 

[andyjhatton]

Military tanks have been transported by rail, and they are pretty big.

Depends what you define as "big" volume, weight etc.

Tanks are certainly heavy, and have a reasonable footprint. But they're also relatively low in order to reduce cross-section.

 

[bishdunster]

How about the "Road Railer " concept of the 1960s where artic lorry trailers were fitted with retractable rail wheels?

 

[furnessvale]

Military tanks have been transported by rail, and they are pretty big.

Modern main battle tanks are way out of gauge for UK rail.

There is absolutely no need to carry a full road vehicle about on rail, when its body can be lifted off and transferred to rail in the same length of time it takes to transfer the artic trailer.

I have always said, " show me a loading gauge in the UK large enough to carry any given road vehicle complete with its wheels, and I will leave the wheels behind, carrying an even larger swap body on the train."

 

[Gloster]

How about the "Road Railer " concept of the 1960s where artic lorry trailers were fitted with retractable rail wheels?

The trailers were specially built and shaped to fit the loading-gauge. Not that there were many: seven adaptor wagons and fifty-two trailers according to Don Rowland’s list.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't know about the UK, but even the standard French loading gauge was not enough to accommodate many lorry trailers. Early rolling motorways were limited to tankers, until they raised some bridges. Tankers are generally smaller than the 4,00m maximum legal height of trucks on the continent.

There are no restrictions on vehicle height in the UK, so they can be noticeably taller - up to 5m I understand. Given the GB W6 and W12 guage is so much smaller than the continent, then only small road vehicles could fit.

 

[andyjhatton]

The trailers were specially built and shaped to fit the loading-gauge. Not that there were many: seven adaptor wagons and fifty-two trailers according to Don Rowland’s list.

They were also incredibly heavy as they had to be built to withstand sitting at the front of a long consist, transmitting significant forces.
Certainly in the UK (and Europe?) with stricter limits on the size and weight of HGV tractor-trailer combinations, this would make them impractical.

 

[swt_passenger]

Modern main battle tanks are way out of gauge for UK rail.

I suspect some (or many?) reports of “tanks” on rail in this country have been erroneously describing other types of relatively small armoured vehicle. Any proper tank will be far too wide for a start.

 

[stuu]

In mainland Europe, I understand there is the concept of 'rolling motorways' where lorries are carried on trains (much like the Le Shuttle service through the Channel Tunnel). Here in Britian, we generally assume that we cannot do this due to our constrained loading guage. Obviously, large HGVs cannot be carried on trains, but British Rail (and even First Great Western) had 'Motorail' services which transported cars by rail, and even today I understand that trainloads of new cars and vans are transported from factories on rail wagons.

So, my question is, how big can you go before a road vehicle would be out of guage? Would a relatively small reduction in the maximum size of Heavy Goods Vehicle permitted on UK roads have the side effect of allowing all road vehicles to also travel by rail? Or are the biggest HGVs on our roads already massively out of guage for our rail network (not just a little bit)? I guess this is a question with several answers, since special wagons which are lower can be used to carry a larger payload and the loading guage varies across the network. So, can a large Ford Transit be carried by rail on a route which is only cleared for W6? If so, what is the largest road vehicle that will fit? How about W7? W12? Etc.

I wasn't sure if this should be asked here or in the infrustructure and stations subforum, so sorry if this is the wrong place.

In a reverse of the railway situation, road vehicles can be taller here than in a lot of Europe - standard height for HGVs in the EU is 4m, compared with 5m here (16'6" strictly). So to carry a standard EU HGV a train needs a much smaller loading gauge. There is an ongoing project to expand various routes across the Alps to be able to fit 4m trucks on.

Container flats have ~1m high floors, so you could easily carry a high-roofed Transit anywhere, but there's nothing like the space for even a 9ft container to be carried whilst still on a trailer, let alone anything bigger

 

[furnessvale]

The trailers were specially built and shaped to fit the loading-gauge. Not that there were many: seven adaptor wagons and fifty-two trailers according to Don Rowland’s list.

Just to add to that, the last roadrailer trains have just run in the USA where the concept started.

I believe the traffic is to continue in conventional containers.

 

[DelW]

Just to add to that, the last roadrailer trains have just run in the USA where the concept started.

I believe the traffic is to continue in conventional containers.

Roadrailers used specialised equipment which was probably becoming life expired.

The US loading gauge allows TOFC (trailer on flat car) which uses standard HGV trailers carried on conventional flat wagons. I think that will continue either in dedicated trains or mixed in with double-stack containers. A quick trawl around YouTube found a mixed TOFC and double-stack intermodal train passing the Rochelle IL webcam a couple of hours ago (around 09:59 camera time).

 

[Sunil_P]

RO-RO truck transporter in India (Konkan Railway along the west coast, to be precise):

Konkan Railway Corporation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ac6000cw]

Roadrailers used specialised equipment which was probably becoming life expired.

The US loading gauge allows TOFC (trailer on flat car) which uses standard HGV trailers carried on conventional flat wagons. I think that will continue either in dedicated trains or mixed in with double-stack containers. A quick trawl around YouTube found a mixed TOFC and double-stack intermodal train passing the Rochelle IL webcam a couple of hours ago (around 09:59 camera time).

Almost exactly 10 years ago I was west of Harrisburg PA on the Norfolk Southern (ex-PRR) mainline when the only RoadRailer I've ever seen 'in the metal' rolled past heading east, followed a few minutes later by a westbound mixed trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC) and single-stacked container train. As a bonus, that was headed by bright green 'Illinois Terminal' NS heritage loco #1072:

(Updated to longer version of YT video, showing the whole of the RoadRailer train - which takes 3 minutes to pass)

 

[DelW]

Almost exactly 10 years ago I was west of Harrisburg PA on the Norfolk Southern (ex-PRR) mainline when the only RoadRailer I've ever seen 'in the metal' rolled past heading east, followed a few minutes later by a westbound mixed trailer-on-flatcar (TOFC) and single-stacked container train. As a bonus, that was headed by bright green 'Illinois Terminal' NS heritage loco #1072:

Nice, especially the HU . I wasn't sure whether single-stack-only routes would have adequate clearance for TOFC, but evidently at least some do.

 

[ac6000cw]

Nice, especially the HU . I wasn't sure whether single-stack-only routes would have adequate clearance for TOFC, but evidently at least some do.

The route in the video is double-stack cleared (it's the Harrisburg/Enola Yard - Altoona - Pittsburgh - Chicago mainline).

As far as I can work out, a standard (non-intermodal) flatcar is about 3' 7" deck height, and US max truck height is mostly between 13' 6" and 14" (it's a per-state thing, not federal), so a 13' 6" 'go anywhere' trailer on a slightly lower flatcar designed for TOFC would be within the 'Plate F' 17' height limit (as used for e.g. high-cube boxcars). So well below the 20' 2" double-stack height limit.

In the US, TOFC seems to be mostly used these days by premium service customers like UPS, FedEx and DHL and carried on 'hotshot' high-priority trains. For example, the NS train in the video has three locos (over 13000hp) on a pretty light train by US standards. I have read somewhere that if time is of the essence, the terminal handling can be faster for trailers versus containers.

 

[mpthomson]

I suspect some (or many?) reports of “tanks” on rail in this country have been erroneously describing other types of relatively small armoured vehicle. Any proper tank will be far too wide for a start.

A Challenger 3 is 3.5m wide, the new Ajax IFVs are 3.35m. The Warriors they replace are 3.03m. The CVRT family were all around 2.4m.

 

[Meerkat]

With modern technology can you do a container transfer quicker than getting a trailer off a train? Or can all the trailers be offloaded simultaneously?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

With modern technology can you do a container transfer quicker than getting a trailer off a train? Or can all the trailers be offloaded simultaneously?

The time taken to lift a container is about a minute or so - those front loaders or gantry cranes come rather expensive though , hence the need for significant volumes. TOFC comes rather more affordable.

In all terminal operations , safety is obviously important - particularly when you have ground staff and terminal "shunters" around.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The time taken to lift a container is about a minute or so - those front loaders or gantry cranes come rather expensive though , hence the need for significant volumes. TOFC comes rather more affordable.

In all terminal operations , safety is obviously important - particularly when you have ground staff and terminal "shunters" around.

How do classic North American Trailer On Flat Car operations actually work?
I had always (perhaps wrongly) assumed that the unaccompanied trailers had to be lifted off just like a container.
How is that any cheaper, or avoid ground staff any more than containers?

 

[Nottingham59]

How do classic North American Trailer On Flat Car operations actually work?
I had always (perhaps wrongly) assumed that the unaccompanied trailers had to be lifted off just like a container.
How is that any cheaper, or avoid ground staff any more than containers?

That's how Wal-Mart do it in Florida

 

[DelW]

How do classic North American Trailer On Flat Car operations actually work?
I had always (perhaps wrongly) assumed that the unaccompanied trailers had to be lifted off just like a container.
How is that any cheaper, or avoid ground staff any more than containers?

I've heard US intermodal terminals referred to as "ramps", so I'd always assumed that the flat cars had bridging flaps between them and that trailers were driven on or off similarly to Eurotunnel shuttles, but via an end ramp.

But evidently not, or at least not always:

That's how Wal-Mart do it in Florida

Which explains how they can unload TOFC cars marshalled between container wagons, which was something that I was puzzled by. I thought that possibly they had to switch out those wagons at their destination, which would have been rather inefficient.

 

[ac6000cw]

How do classic North American Trailer On Flat Car operations actually work?
I had always (perhaps wrongly) assumed that the unaccompanied trailers had to be lifted off just like a container.
How is that any cheaper, or avoid ground staff any more than containers?

I doubt it's significantly cheaper, and AFAIK lifting the trailers is the normal method (and TOFC-compatible trailers are strengthened to allow that, which means their tare weight can be a bit higher than a highway-only trailer).

In the US, double-stack is the lowest cost for the rail haulage element (as you would expect), and most domestic intermodal moves that way in 'domestic' containers which are longer (usually 48' or 53', with 40'-compatible lift/lock points) than maritime containers and of lighter construction as they don't need to be stacked as high. Effectively they the equivalent of our 'swapbodies'. It's common to see double-stack trains entirely or mostly loaded with domestic containers on the major routes, and (in my 'linesiding' experience) TOFC is a much lower volume of traffic. If containers have to go to a terminal on a non-double-stack-cleared route, they sometimes put containers for that on the bottom layer of a double-stack and 'fillet' the train down at a terminal along the way.

Pretty much the same major players that use domestic double-stack services extensively also use some TOFC, so it obviously suits some traffics better despite higher costs for the rail element.

I've heard US intermodal terminals referred to as "ramps", so I'd always assumed that the flat cars had bridging flaps between them and that trailers were driven on or off similarly to Eurotunnel shuttles, but via an end ramp.

AFAIK, the 'ramp' term is a hangover from the early days of TOFC (it started back in the late 1940s IIRC) when many loading & unloading methods were tried out including various designs of ramps. So 'ramp' became synonymous with 'intermodal terminal' in railroad jargon (and it's much quicker to say!).

Which explains how they can unload TOFC cars marshalled between container wagons, which was something that I was puzzled by. I thought that possibly they had to switch out those wagons at their destination, which would have been rather inefficient.

Yes - doubtless that issue is one reason lift on/off is now the normal method.

(I would hope most train crew would be familiar with switching cars in and out of trains efficiently, but stopping a TOFC train for a short time alongside a loading pad and having a specialised crane lift on and off a few trailers is likely to be faster overall).

 

[AHBD]

If, in the Uk, rigid lorrys had their max length increased from 39ft 12 in to (40 foot + allowance for cab) would that allow a combination of train and rigid lorry that avoided artic hgvs... What effect on road safety would that have I wonder.

 

[Ayrshire Roy]

If, in the Uk, rigid lorrys had their max length increased from 39ft 12 in to (40 foot + allowance for cab) would that allow a combination of train and rigid lorry that avoided artic hgvs... What effect on road safety would that have I wonder.

A long rigid lorry would need a lot more room to manoeuvre than an artic so road safety could be worse.
The longest rigid I drive is about 35ft and you have to really swing out at junctions to avoid the kerb and also watch for the large overhang at the back.

 

[DarloRich]

I have seen land rover, "protected patrol vehicles" (?) and infantry fighting vehicles ( Warrior?) moved by rail in this country and I have seen pictures of challenger tanks on trains in Germany.

I am also sure i read a report a few years ago about the army moving tanks through the channel tunnel by train as part of an exercise.

 

[Irascible]

Military tanks have been transported by rail, and they are pretty big.

Up until the end of ww2, the size of British tanks was defined by the loading gauge, it was one of the reason so many of our tanks were so awful. The almost-made-it-into-ww2 Centurion ( which is widely regarded as excellent & still being used here & there ) was a result of abandoning that idea & just transporting them by road. We have light tanks & troop transports ( APC/IFV ) that'll fit on rail flats, but compared to a HGV, they aren't very big. The UK's current main tank is 4.2m wide, or 3.5m if you pull some of the applique armour off ( which is probably ok for logistics movements ).

Is there really any advantage in roadrailer vs just transshipping a container, if it's not a tunnel-shuttle sort of operation?

 

[Ediswan]

The UK's current main tank is 4.2m wide, or 3.5m if you pull some of the applique armour off

That explains why tanks spotted being transported on the A303 seemed wider than the often quoted 3.5m