Freight
Piggyback rail line T
he proponents of HS2 have intimated that the transfer of passenger traffic to the new line would release capacity for more freight to use the UK rail network, although the details on exactly what this cargo would be and why it should suddenly switch to rail is unclear. Capacity enhancement of itself will not induce traffic onto rail unless some more serious product quality and service dimensions are addressed, particularly in relation to reliability, consistency, responsiveness, accessibility and operation on a 24/7 basis, competence and flexibility, in addition to being cost- effective and competitive.
Rail in the UK has locked itself into a model of operation based around increasingly long and heavy trains (
coal...for now, aggregates, ores and also containers which operate on a conveyor belt between ports and large inland terminals). For virtually all the train operators this model is common and fulfils a typical rail supply side positioning. For cargo that does not align with this (most inter-urban high value time-sensitive freight) then the train operators are largely indifferent to this and effectively surrender the market (volume and revenue) to the road based competition.
Rail’s share of the domestic market is now effectively dominated by the more
adventurous consolidators (truckers and forwarders) prepared to effectively purchase entire trains or train space and retail this to the market at their risk. As a proportion of total traffic it remains small and largely built around key supermarket business. It is virtually all moved in containers of varying sizes largely in response to the physical limitations of the UK rail system and the inability to transport full-sized road trailers on trains other than on HS1 between the Channel Tunnel and Barking.
The limits on loading gauge (tunnels, bridges, signal and power supply gantries) largely reflect the parsimonious position of the Victorian rail builders and this has constrained the size of rail vehicles (passenger and freight) that have been able to operate within Britain. Europe and North America have more generous loading gauge limits which have been exploited with some significant success. The use of double stacked containers in the US and Canada has transformed the commercial competitiveness of the railroads by effectively doubling train payloads without recourse to longer formations. A neat trick!
Most inter-urban high value and time- sensitive freight in Britain moves by road because of rail’s inability to provide the products and services shippers routinely demand.
If rail is to come back into markets from which it surrendered or was beaten from by more nimble modal competition then some radical re-thinking needs to be undertaken. To accommodate full sized tri-axle road trailers implies some major changes to the rail infrastructure. To punch beyond the current limit (Barking) and to allow orthodox non- specialised trailers to be moved by rail in Britain starts to make the case for an alternative to HS2 and for a high capacity freight route linking the Channel Tunnel, London (Barking), the West and East Midlands, Yorkshire, Manchester/ Liverpool (for Irish traffic), the North East and the Central Belt of Scotland.
Key is existing infrastructure The key is the use, with minimum adaptation, of as much existing operational or residual infrastructure
Phil Mortimer makes a compelling case for a freight-only line linking major conurbations that could be developed by linking existing and residual infrastructure
December 2013 Page 79
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140