Freight
plus for domestic traffic and open the gates for European traffic originating and terminating in Britain. It might also usefully capture a proportion of Irish traffic that moves across the country but adds nothing other than a contribution to congestion and emissions.
as possible to allow the full-sized tri- axle semi-trailers to be moved rapidly between these key centres with a minimum of wholly new infrastructure. This could be a revenue generator and not a subsidy sink for UK government, taxpayers and the infrastructure owner and manager. Compared to the rapidly escalating costs of HS2 such a concept may have significant attractions. The EC wants to see much more freight traffic moving from road to rail and waterborne methods. If this is to be achieved then some serious consideration of freight dedicated lines able to accommodate full-sized tri-axle trailers is needed.
technical compromise compared to the standard widely used and widely available tri-axle semi-trailer, particularly the large dry van and refrigerated designs. Rail needs to be able to accommodate these within a much larger loading gauge/kinematic envelope and not try to dragoon the road hauliers to comply with the limitations of the rail system.
The Central Railways scheme that was torpedoed in 2006 might form a start point for this concept with some significant modifications blended in. Services with pre-blocked/pre-booked wagon sets routinely departing and arriving with high frequency, reliability and precision could be operated between major commercial and industrial sectors using existing terminals where feasible, or wholly new facilities where trains could be rapidly serviced and dispatched. This would need to be a very slick operation at the terminals and between them if rail is to compete and secure more than just a token presence in this demanding generic market sector. Tri-axle semi-trailers are the current workhorse of the UK transport industry. There is no capability for the movement of these on the UK domestic rail network at all. Using specialist trailers on rail has been tried and failed in the recent past and is unlikely to secure the support or interest of the wider haulier and forwarding sector. Specialist equipment by definition implies a commercial and
Appeal for the investing community For the hauliers the ability to load unaccompanied trailers for domestic movements should be an exciting prospect. The option would push back concerns over rising fuel costs, driver availability, congestion and consequent lowering levels of reliability. The prospect for Europe should be even more encouraging as traffic could flow between the UK and mainland Europe using the cargo module of choice. Rail could participate in a growing share of this traffic and not be limping along behind the tsunami of road freight that moves between Europe and the UK (including Irish transit traffic and burgeoning traffic to and from South Eastern Europe). At present through rail freight has a fraction of the total traffic moving by the Channel Tunnel and the ferry services. There is little benefit of the rail sector adopting a Canute type stance in the face of the overwhelming demand for the use of trailers by shippers and forwarders as the preferred cargo module. Purists will argue that containers give a better loading performance but fail to recognise that containers in domestic UK and European services have not cut the mustard and are not widely used in these general freight applications. Being able to lift trailers quickly on/off rail wagons is key and this may favour the use of the transfer technology used widely for containers but to date not deployed extensively for trailers.
The notion of a specialist fast freight railway purpose built to compete with road freight on an open access basis could appeal to the investing community. It should allow trailers to be delivered/ collected close to existing concentrations of industry and to tap into the main system for transits between the key conurbations. It should also allow rail to compete fully on sectors of 300km
A realistic and practical option The trailer-on-train notion might be overtaken by a move to follow the North American model and to go for a route or routes that could accommodate twin stacked international and European dimensioned containers. This would add versatility, capacity and capability but pushes the requirement for a very high infrastructure limit with the consequent increase in capital costs. A bridge too far quite literally. Either way, the case for a freight only line linking the major conurbations appears to have some merit and to be a commercially attractive option if it could be developed linking existing infrastructure or infrastructure no longer in routine use. Compared to HS2, the case for a cost-effective and speedily delivered development of this type could be compelling and not be a bottomless financial pit.
There is little benefit of the rail sector adopting a Canute type stance in the face of the overwhelming demand for the use of trailers by shippers and forwarders as the preferred cargo module
This concept might not have the glamour and glitz that seems to have supported HS2 but it may be a more realistic and practical option to secure genuine capacity enhancements and real modal shift for domestic and international container traffic. HS2 is taking a lot of flak (rightly so) and the position on freight which its supporters advocate is opaque at best. The alternative for a major freight-only route designed to secure a major movement of domestic and international traffic from road to rail on a wholly competitive basis has a more robust basis as a development option.
•
Phil Mortimer is a research associate, New Rail, University of Newcastle upon Tyne. He has worked within the rail, inter-modal and aviation sectors in Europe, the Far East and North America. He is currently involved in rail and logistics projects for the European Commission looking into future rail freight technologies and systems requirements.
December 2013 Page 81
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