If they did, they would be out of business in pretty short time. Freight co's (and charter companies) have their liability for delay capped accordingly.
-
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!
Why Is Railfreight So Expensive?
- Thread starter RichmondCommu
- Start date
- Status
If they did, they would be out of business in pretty short time. Freight co's (and charter companies) have their liability for delay capped accordingly.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,610
When was the last time a passenger train trashed a huge length of track (as a freight did in Gloucester) or wrecked a bridge and closed the NLL for days?
Capping FOC liabilities is absurd, if they want to run on a 'commercial' basis, then they can run on a commercial basis even when it doesn't suit them.
I am sure that wonderful free market will provide them with suitable insurance.
So what happens when the infrastructure fails and causes freight train to derail....??.
Also who pays for the delay minutes caused to road traffic users when a lorry overturns or breaks down on a motorway?
tbtc
Veteran Member
Presumably NR pay for delays, where NR infrastructure has caused the delays.
Nobody compensates car drivers on motorways, obviously, but then again car drivers don't have to compensate other when their cars break down either.
At the moment we have a strange compromise, where a delay caused by passenger trains could cause unlimited compensation to other companies (inc to FOCs), but a delay caused by a freight train (or charter) doesn't because compensation is capped
It all works through something called the 'star model' with NR sitting in the middle. This was set up in 1994. The track access contract each TOC and FOC has contains the rates per minute of delay that NR pays the operator for NR caused delays and the rate the TOC pays for TOC caused delays. The rates vary by TOC / FOC (considerably) and the rate NR pays is usually higher, often much higher, than vice versa.
In simple terms, if a train operated by TOC A fails, causing x mins delay, then it pays NR the rate in the contract multiplied by x. Some of these delays would be to TOC A's own services, some delays may be to, let's say TOC B, but the rate is the same. NR then pays TOC B for the delay minutes caused to their services by that incident at the NR>TOC B rate, which of course is different, potentially very very different, to the TOC A > NR rate. (It is all a lot more complicated in contractual terms, but this is the basic premise)
So there are daily examples of train breakdowns (and other TOC responsible incidents) in multi TOC areas that cost NR tons of cash. But this is all predicted and accounted for in the regulatory settlement.
Last edited:
306024
Established Member
Simples 
Hence the game of trying to pass delay minutes around hoping they don't end up with you.
Hence the game of trying to pass delay minutes around hoping they don't end up with you.
Beveridges
Established Member
Nowhere near as often as freight trains.
Multiple Units are far, far less likely to fail and block the main than a train with a single locomotive on the front. On the very rare occasions that they do, then they are much easier to rescue. But generally, Units (at least 14X or 15X's, can't speak for the others) are designed so that if something fails there's very nearly always a way out of it and get it moving.
Last edited:
Well that depends on the definition of failure. The stats used in the industry 'golden spanners' is not failures, but a technical incident causing a 3 minute delay or more. This could be as simple as a sticky set of doors. Even major failures are relatively straightforward, as more often than not there is another compatible passenger train nearby to push/ pull it out of the way.
Freight by its nature, when they fail they fail bad. Usually requiring a rescue loco to be found, got to site, then assisting the train.
So even if the rate of complete failures per 1000 services or 1,000,000 train miles was the same, freight failures are more disruptive on average.
Now I don't have the stats. But in my 20 odd years of experience on the railway I would say that freight services are more likely to suffer a complete line blocking failure than passenger services.
Freight by its nature, when they fail they fail bad. Usually requiring a rescue loco to be found, got to site, then assisting the train.
So even if the rate of complete failures per 1000 services or 1,000,000 train miles was the same, freight failures are more disruptive on average.
Now I don't have the stats. But in my 20 odd years of experience on the railway I would say that freight services are more likely to suffer a complete line blocking failure than passenger services.
GearJammer
Member
Nobody because generally the delays caused by accidents and breakdowns are caused by the other road users slowing down and rubber necking, are you sugesting road users should be compensated for being nosey b4rsta4ds?
Which is irrelevant because delays are caused in the first place......and what i was actaully thinking of was those actually stuck behind the vehicle in the first place
moggie
Member
Yes, very good, but this looks at the narrow economics of rail network costs imposed by Government legislation, enforced rail safety systems and day to day wear and tear which the rail freight operators are required to finance while competing with road haulage (on certain flows and commodities) that is not required to operate in such a controlled environment despite the risk to human life and the environment - i.e. it's not a level playing field is it? If it were HGV's would be paying a darn sight more to operate on the roads instead of being subsidised by car drivers, taxpayers and local tax payers.
You make my point very nicely. It's because Road Hauliers enjoy an indirect subsidy of a free to use at the point of access road network and do not pay the full costs of the damage and congestion caused by their operation that they are able to undercut rail hauliers who only enjoy a regulated access regime and have to operate on a constrained network access basis. The continental road hauliers over here pay virtually nothing towards those costs if they fill up before coming over according the RHA. What do you think the impact on roads would be if freight on rail went over to road haulage completely?
You'll no doubt be able to substantiate that with another link. Don't forget the contribution to local roads by the Council tax payer, most of which drive cars only.
The only uncomfortable truth is the one which Road Hauliers would prefer not to talk about. It's time they did, although I fully accept that if they were made to pay for their full impact on the roads, we the customer of all manner of traders who use road haulage would end up paying the bill. But one outcome would be more trunk haulage by rail and less congestion on roads which as any road user will know is caused by the mobile road block that are HGV's crawling past one another.
I'd quite like to see those who use HGV's (not just those who operate them) pay for that pleasure, and for those that don't use them to get a rebate on the tax used to pay for their impact on the road network.
Simples
Hence the game of trying to pass delay minutes around hoping they don't end up with you.
I agree it's a totally crazy system .another example I heard recently was that Network Rail pay the TOCs substantial compensation when something tragic like a suicide occurs ,I'm not aware NR have the technology yet to control of people's minds so I fail to see how they owe the TOCs anything in situations like this
Last edited:
GearJammer
Member
HGVs don't cause congestion, cars do.
You really are living on another planet. It does make comical reading...... carry on!
Its not as crazy as it sounds.....service level agreements underpin substantial amounts of contracts in the commercial world. What they are designed to do is act as an incentive to maintain the highest possible levels of service.
Whilst suicides are invariably very disruptive to the rail network, they only account for around 5% of the UK suicide rate. Network Rail spend significant sums on what might be classed as suicide prevention measures, but I dont have stats to highlight just how many those measures have actually prevented.
Hang on - you are making the mistake of assuming freight either travels by rail or not at all. I live in the south where currently around 20-25 freight trains head north each day from around Southampton (and an equal amount return). ABout 20 of them carry containers - an average of around 35-40 virtual articulated trucks per train. I also travel north on the A34 and M40 towards the M6 and I can tell you it is not pleasant. So if all that freight was on the road then every road user - car as well as truck - would be subject to more delay, more misery and more consequent harm to the nation's economy. THe roads would wear out quicker so there would be more roadworks and an accelerating picture of decay. To flip to the corrolary of that scenario myself and all the other road users derive economic benefit from NOT having that freight on the roads with us, yet you are saying that none of that economic benefit should transfer as an incentive, even when it benefits the country as a whole? Sorry but I think you are wrong. The "Social Railway" concept applies to freight as well as passengers.
Last edited:
Cheers for explaining things ,it always seemed crazy that Network Rail should make payment for that sort of incident unless they enclose all railways in a large tube like some futuristic Maglev proposals suggest
Last edited:
GearJammer
Member
Er excuse me, but how do YOU benefit from trucks NOT being on the road?
a) Cleaner air.
b) Damage to roads is the axle weight to the fourth power. So a lorry does thousands of times more damage to the road than a car.
GearJammer
Member
Cleaner air? Your joking right, what exactly do you know about modern truck diesel engines? Do you know what Euro 5 and Euro 6 engines polute? Answer: not much. You would benefit more by removing all the cars from the road.
As for damage to the roads, its not the road haulage industries fault if they are not built up to standard in the first place!
Sorry, you failed with that responce.
Donny Dave
Established Member
Also, how does everything get to the shops? What happens to all the HGV drivers at a stroke you've just made unemployed because you've had all lorries banned from the roads?
moggie
Member
Yes of course!
1. So you'll easily have an explanation why the fresh air is in front of the HGV while the cars and other HGV's are BEHIND won't you? I think it's you with your head in the clouds. I, like many just exist in the clag and spray behind you.
2. So why do HGV's need to be in the off side lane? Can't they happily jog along following the leader?
PS cars towing a caravans don't count I'd ban them entirely.
Oxfordblues
Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2013
- Messages
- 855
My first post here, so please bear with me!
In my view hauliers pay nowhere near the real costs they impose by using trunk roads and motorways. The daytime toll for trucks using the M6 Toll Road is £11 for 27 miles; that's about 38p per mile. If similar tolls were introduced on the A34, M40, M42 and M6 the fee for the 225 miles from Southampton to Manchester would be about £85 per truck.
By not properly charging hauliers for the construction, maintenance and policing of trunk roads and motorways the Department for Transport is effectively subsidising every lorry-borne container trip. If this "secret subsidy" were withdrawn rail would become the pre-eminent mode of choice for moving deep-sea containers and much else.
In my view hauliers pay nowhere near the real costs they impose by using trunk roads and motorways. The daytime toll for trucks using the M6 Toll Road is £11 for 27 miles; that's about 38p per mile. If similar tolls were introduced on the A34, M40, M42 and M6 the fee for the 225 miles from Southampton to Manchester would be about £85 per truck.
By not properly charging hauliers for the construction, maintenance and policing of trunk roads and motorways the Department for Transport is effectively subsidising every lorry-borne container trip. If this "secret subsidy" were withdrawn rail would become the pre-eminent mode of choice for moving deep-sea containers and much else.
GearJammer
Member
Well if you don't like it you know what to do don't you...... CATCH THE BLOODY TRAIN*
Oh no won't do that will you, coz you expect everybody else to change their ways so you don't have to which in my mind makes you and everyone else that goes on about wanting freight off the road and on rail a hypercrit!
(Its a shame i can't post pictures on here coz i could i would post one that would shoot your statement down in a ball of flames).
A lot of posters on here seem to be missing a major issue.........the cost of road congestion to the economy. This was estimated to be around £20 billion in a report for the DFT produced by Rod Eddington ( ex CEO of British Airways ).
In general Motorways are highly efficient at getting people and goods from A to B...but in common with rail, growth in GDP has not been mirrored in investment.
In general Motorways are highly efficient at getting people and goods from A to B...but in common with rail, growth in GDP has not been mirrored in investment.
GearJammer
Member
Depends how you look at it really does'nt it, you've done it to put things in your favour now let me turn it around and put it in road haulages favour....... lets get rid of a freight train and put the 35-40 trucks on the road, we'll replace the freight train with a passenger train that carries what? 400-500 passengers, so that removes lets be generous and say 300 cars from the road, so we lost 300 cars from the road and gained 35-40 trucks, lets remove another freight train and replace that with another passenger train, were now in the situation where we have gained 70-80 trucks on the road and lost around 600 cars........ shall i carry on?
Like i said, cars are the problem, not trucks!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Because its better for the environment.
It causes less congestion.
Hes not damaging the road.
You know, all the reasons you goive for freight moving onto the railway... it works both ways you know!
And please do feel free to explain what you mean by inconsiderate HGV drivers?
Um, you know the ones that take 2 or miles to overtake on a dual carriage way, the ones that don't indicate or bother to look at round-abouts? The last two are more aimed at foreign drivers.
Last edited:
- Status