British Railway Operations

[Tulyar15]

I think also Network Rail have a gauge enhancement programme in place to allow larger containers to be carried. The Scottish Parliament is contributing to the cost of upgrading the line to Aberdeen for 9' 6" containers.

There has been a private sector proposal to re-open the old Great Central line (which was built to the larger European loading gauge) as a freight route so that piggy back type trains could. Despite the fact that this would be funded entirely by private money the government blocked it and are now proposing to spend vast quantities of money adding extra lanes to motorways.

[owlsroost]

There is some carrying of trucks on trains in other parts of Europe, mostly short distance stuff in Alpine areas to keep truck traffic off mountain roads and tunnels.

The Swiss are very keen on this (understandably since they are very protective of their environment and have a big problem with 'transit' road traffic through the country). These aren't really US style commercial operations - the truckers either pay to use the trains or pay very high road tolls (or aren't allowed through Switzerland at all) - as far as I know.

I think the Swiss would like to force transit trucks onto trains at their borders and hence across the country by train, but they don't have the capacity or clearances to do it yet.

Tony

[Murphy Siding]

It appears that Britain could use a form of the roadrailer?.

[Anonymous]

I think road railer has been tried before in this country but it did not work, but that was a long time ago, 1960's or there abouts. A problem with the British loading guage is the amount of curve at roof hight. You can go up 13 feet between the rails but by the time you get to the maximum width of the loading guage your looking at a vertical height that is more like 10.5 feet or less. This is another reason why it is difficult to fit a traditonally sized truck body into the railway loading guage. But all is not doom and gloom. Some supermarkets use rail as part of thier "supply chain" using swap bodies on well wagons.

[Murphy Siding]

Are Briti***rucks built to different clearances than North American trucks?

[Simon Reed]

Very much so. Nearly everything about Britain is smaller than the US.

The maximum weight limit for a truck in the UK is (I believe) 44 Tonsand they are the exception rather than the rule.

Regardless of that most semi-trailers are still too big to be used on any TOFC service here.

If you need a graphic comparison of the difference between US and UK guages either have a look at some of the magazines I've sent in which people are depicted alongside railway equipment, or see if you can find a photograph of the Canadian "Renaissance" passenger equipment.

Those cars were built to the very edge of the UK loading guage envelope for Channel Tunnel services but not used and sold to Via. The difference in size between that and standard North American equipment is striking.

Incidentally, Radio 4 tells me that North America will be brought to a standstill today by anti-war /anti-Bush demonstrations. Has it been?

[Murphy Siding]

Simon Reed: When I looked at the pictures, I just assumed the people were extra short.[;)] I see what you mean, though. I was just trying to visualize whether the British equipment was a whole lot different than the rest of Europe, for example. That must provide some new challenges now that the tunnel is there? Come to think of it, if a really smart guy like Brunel thought wider guage was the way to go,why didn't anyone think about things being taller?
As to your question: I try not to mix politics and railroading. It's a beautifull,sunny fall day here, and all the maple leaves are turning color!

Thanks

[Tulyar15]

The Scandinavian countries also have a large loading gauge than the rest of Europe (except Russia) but I think they're now going over to the European standard now that they've built a tunnel under the Baltic sea linking Sweden to Denmark.

I'm a volunteer worker on the preserved Avon Valley Railway near Bristol. We have a Polish 0-6-0T a group of members imported recently. We had to slew the track so that its large cylinders dont scrape the platform. Still despite this and its short wheelbase it's quite a smooth runner. Its class was developed from the US Army 0-6-0T that were used in Britain and Europe after D-Day. A number of these are preserved in Britain and , I believe, France and also a few still survive in Serbia.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15

The Scandinavian countries also have a large loading gauge than the rest of Europe (except Russia) but I think they're now going over to the European standard now that they've built a tunnel under the Baltic sea linking Sweden to Denmark.

I'm a volunteer worker on the preserved Avon Valley Railway near Bristol. We have a Polish 0-6-0T a group of members imported recently. We had to slew the track so that its large cylinders dont scrape the platform. Still despite this and its short wheelbase it's quite a smooth runner. Its class was developed from the US Army 0-6-0T that were used in Britain and Europe after D-Day. A number of these are preserved in Britain and , I believe, France and also a few still survive in Serbia.

Are you saying that continental Europe has a common loading gauge, that is bigger than Britain's? Doesn't that sort of negate the usefullness of the chunell? You'd be able to send Briti***rain cars to the continent, but continental trains would be limited by smaller British clearances?

Thanks

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: Doesn't that sort of negate the usefullness of the chunell?

A little bit, but the main traffic through the Chunnel are the road vehicle shuttle trains between Cheriton (Folkstone) and Frethun (Calais) - the other passenger and freight rail traffic is useful extra revenue but would never have justified the cost of building the tunnel on it's own.

Yes, the British loading gauge is smaller compared to continental Europe, so we have a fleet of wagons built for international traffic to British dimensions.

Tony

[TH&B]

Scandinavian railways still build newer and wider railcars for their domestic use. Just because they are now conected with the "Continent" doesn't mean they have to compromise their own trains. In Sweden they have some high wide sleeper cars with big beds in them.

There has always been some special small clearance freight cars even in Scandinavia used for shipments to England. Even from before the "Chunnel" they had feries from Holland to Harwich and even from France to Dover.

The Eurotunnel truck carier trains are very wide on standard gage. So some Eruopean trains are wider then in USA.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

QUOTE: Doesn't that sort of negate the usefullness of the chunell?

A little bit, but the main traffic through the Chunnel are the road vehicle shuttle trains between Cheriton (Folkstone) and Frethun (Calais) - the other passenger and freight rail traffic is useful extra revenue but would never have justified the cost of building the tunnel on it's own.

Yes, the British loading gauge is smaller compared to continental Europe, so we have a fleet of wagons built for international traffic to British dimensions.

Tony

Can you explain what you mean by road vehicle shuttle trains? Are we talking about trailer on flat car operations? Does this traffic justify the cost of building the tunnel?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

There are three types of Shuttle used on these trains (all use a pair of the same bo-bo-bo electric locos). First up, the double deck shuttle used for standard cars and anything else that will fit - these have solid sides and passengers remain with their cars. The same goes for the single deck shuttles that are used for busses, RVs, trailer caravans, etc - they look very similar from the outside but only have one deck. Third, the truck transports - these have lattice sides and the drivers travel in a passenger car coupled between one loco and the train. One of the latter type was involved in a nasty fire when a truck caught light - passengers and crew had to evacuate through the service tunnel. As a result of this there are two designs of HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) shuttle - the original and a later one introduced to replace the cars lost in the fire. Photos of all these can be found at http://www.railfaneurope.net/pix/fr/private/passenger/Eurotunnel/pix.html

[Simon Reed]

Continental Europe, with some exceptions ( in particular Spain ) works on the Berne Gauge, a loading envelope using 4' 8" as a track width and ratified at the Berne Conference of 1913 - for amplification see http://www.crowsnest.co.uk/gauge.htm .

You have to understand that at the beginning of the Railway Age the wherewithal to build a tunnel under the English Channel was beyond the comprehension of the Railway magnates of the day so there was never a perceived necessity to adopt a loading gauge that would be universally acceptable.

Additionally the imperialist mentality which pervaded pretty much every British development throughout the Victorian and Edwardian eras meant that anything Britain did was right and anything else was a foolish abberation on the part of Johnny Foreigner.

The one visionary was Sir Edward Watkin:-http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/irs/irshome/papers/watkin.htm
and what you will read in the above makes it obvious why.

If you think it's any better now, on Tuesday morning I fly from my local airport (Leeds-Bradford) to Brussels. I'll then get the train from Brussels to Zurich.

On this journey I'll need three different currencies (Pounds Sterling, Euros and Swiss Francs) and on the rail leg I'll have a loco change in Luxembourg and Basle, due to incompatible power supplies and signaling systems across Belgium, France and Switzerland.

The only positive side is an almost guaranteed line in the book in France, and a probable one in Switzerland...

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that the lack of sufficient clearance for either TOFC or even bi-modal trailers kind of defeats the advantage of open access as it relates to drawing freight off the motorways. Open access is tailor made for trucking companies to more effectively utilize rail in their transportation portfolio, although since bi-modal trailers are manufactured to unique specs, one would think that British rail service providers could simply order their bi-modal trailers to meet railroad clearances.

[Simon Reed]

Good thinking, Futuremodal, but once again remember the geography of the UK.

Probably 95% of the population of Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, live in the area between the South Coast and the Scottish Central Lowlands. I would imagine that the longest "as the crow flies" line you could draw within that landmass would be about 650 miles. Probably over 99% of manufacturing and production goes on within that area too.

For internal traffic, therefore, there is no time or money incentive to develop bi-modal flows. The road network in Britain is comprehensive and, for the most part, toll-free so a trailer setting off from, say, Plymouth in the South West of the country might reach Dundee in the North East within 16 hours, which means that only two drivers would be required.

Factor in the time for transhipment at a railhead closest to the shipper and customers businesses and even a direct rail service would struggle to beat that timing. That's assuming that there is sufficient demand for a direct Plymouth - Dundee service.

Factor in the cost that the TOC would have to recover from the development and construction of a fleet of suitable cars and the provision of transhipment facilities and the trucking companies are probably 10 times cheaper.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Simon Reed

Good thinking, Futuremodal, but once again remember the geography of the UK.

Probably 95% of the population of Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, live in the area between the South Coast and the Scottish Central Lowlands. I would imagine that the longest "as the crow flies" line you could draw within that landmass would be about 650 miles. Probably over 99% of manufacturing and production goes on within that area too.

For internal traffic, therefore, there is no time or money incentive to develop bi-modal flows. The road network in Britain is comprehensive and, for the most part, toll-free so a trailer setting off from, say, Plymouth in the South West of the country might reach Dundee in the North East within 16 hours, which means that only two drivers would be required.

Factor in the time for transhipment at a railhead closest to the shipper and customers businesses and even a direct rail service would struggle to beat that timing. That's assuming that there is sufficient demand for a direct Plymouth - Dundee service.

Factor in the cost that the TOC would have to recover from the development and construction of a fleet of suitable cars and the provision of transhipment facilities and the trucking companies are probably 10 times cheaper.

So it's really a question of adaquate capacity available on the road network, e.g. you're not dealing with congestion outside the industrial core?

In the U.S. it is estimated that bi-modal operations can be profitable in corridors as short as 350 miles, and modal transfer costs using bi-modal are so much lower than the modal transfer costs of containerization. With the fuel price differential between rail and road even more pronounced in the U.K., I would have thought that corridors as short as 200 miles would be viable for bi-modal operations.

[Murphy Siding]

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry? I had envisioned it as sort of an extention of the British rail system, but maybe not?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry?

Nonsense! It also acts as a convenient conduit for Islamic terrorists coming out of France![:(]

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry?

Nonsense! It also acts as a convenient conduit for Islamic terrorists coming out of France![:(]

Dave:[V]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry? I had envisioned it as sort of an extention of the British rail system, but maybe not?

Thanks

It's a bit of both - the tunnel replaced the old train ferry operations with a system that could take straight through services rather than having to split the train up and load it onto a ship. However, through rail freight has had major problems with stowaways on board, so every train has to be checked very thoroughly on arrival to ensure nobody has attempted to sneak in clinging to a brake rod. I'm not sure if the situation has improved much (in terms of time taken to transit the tunnel) though they have added a lot of extra tools to their armoury (such as heat seeking cameras, X ray machines that can take a whole truck, a lot of CCTV, etc).

As far as passenger and truck traffic is concerned, the tunnel is just another competitor for the same business as the ferries. They won't allow some vehicles onto the shuttles (I think cars fitted with an LPG conversion aren't allowed, and for a while they wouldn't let you on with bottled gas on board). so the ferries are able to take some business that way, but mainly they fight it out on price. It's popular with those who for whatever reason (seasickness, fear of water, fear of ships) won't use the ferries as well. Personally I'd rather spend an hour or two sitting in the sea air and watching the traffic than riding through a tunnel (the Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, so there's plenty to look at).

[Murphy Siding]

Imagine that: It's 2005, and the railroad police are still searching for hobos riding the trains![(-D]

[Anonymous]

It's more like the USA and Mexico I'd say - guessing trains crossing the border are closely monitored for unwanted passengers?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry?

Nonsense! It also acts as a convenient conduit for Islamic terrorists coming out of France![:(]

Dave:[V]

Right back at you, slick:[V][V]

A few years ago there was a TV news item regarding problems Chunnel authorities were having in stopping illegal immigrants of Arabic background from entering Britian via the Chunnel. Mind you, these illegals weren't hopping trains, they were video recorded running into the Chunnel on foot from the French side. The French *authorities* did nothing to stop these hundreds of illegals from running into the tunnel, rather they simply (and literally) shrugged their shoulders when questioned by the reporter. Apparently, it is unofficial French policy to allow unsecured transit over the border, letting their problem become Britian's problem. Whether it is possible that one or more of these illegals may have been involved in the subway bombings earlier this year, I do not know. What I do know is that such undocumented entry into a Western nation by illegals of Arabic descent does increase the likelyhood of terrorist cells being fostered within that nation.

You've really got to admire the rigid discipline of French law enforcement! (insert sarcastic smilie here)

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: What I do know is that such undocumented entry into a Western nation by illegals of Arabic descent does increase the likelyhood of terrorist cells being fostered within that nation.

How do you know ?

The illegal immigrant problem in the UK is mostly an economic issue - we have an extensive social security support system and traditionally we have welcomed people seeking political asylum, so the UK has long been seen as a 'soft touch' by economic migrants from countries outside the EU. The favoured route used to be hiding in trucks travelling on the ferries, but after the authorities clamped down hard on that route the freight trains were seen as an easier target to hitch a ride on.

The UK is unusual in having border controls with other EU countries - they are largely pointless between countries where you can just walk across the border anyway, so the border controls between most EU countries were scrapped (by mutual agreement) some years ago.

Tony

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

It's more like the USA and Mexico I'd say - guessing trains crossing the border are closely monitored for unwanted passengers?

I believe you are correct.

[Simon Reed]

Until recently most terrorist activities in the UK were carried out by individuals of Irish origin, with legal documentation and citizenship.

The London bombings were carried out by individuals born and raised not ten miles from where I'm sitting now.

Sorry, Futuremodal; you seem to have a mental image of a horde of arabs clutching bombs and ammo, dashing into the tunnel and shouting "death to the infidels." It was'nt quite like that.

I'm struggling to envisage a bi-modal model that could function efficiently and profitably over as short a distance as 350 miles. Granted, there are going to be a whole lot of variables informing any theoretical model but other than extremes of physical or human geography creating problematic obstacles I cannot see that any financial or time advantage could be gained over a short distance with two transhipments factored in.

I am a Service Delivery Manager with a major Home Shopping company. We despatch between 60 and 100 trailers each evening, dependant on the time of year, and we can guarantee 24 hour delivery to 98% of mainland UK.

Our warehouse is ten minutes drive from the nearest motorway (freeway/interstate to you) and about the same to the nearest railhead (Bradford Interchange).

350 miles from here would be somewhere around Plymouth, I'd guess, so let's make a comparative journey. A UK map might help.

Aside from the fact that there are no frieght handling facilities whatsoever at the railhead currently, let's assume that it will take 60 minutes from arrival at the railhead to load the trailers onto the cars, secure them and get the train away.

By this time my truck is somewhere around South Manchester - trucks in the UK have a legal speed restriction of 62mph and are governed to this.

I'm routing my train via Huddersfield, Stalybridge, Stockport and Crewe. I'd make Crewe about 2 hours after departure. My truck is now on the M5 somewhere near Birmingham.

Crewe-Birmingham-Cheltenham-Bristol is going to be another 2.5 hours. My truck is somewhere near Exeter so the train is catching up.

Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth is maybe 2 hours. My truck got to Plymouth an hour ago but here's the train, an hour later, and we've got to spend an hour again unloading it at our yet to be constructed facilities...

An interesting exercise but I'm afraid it'll never catch on!

[Murphy Siding]

My [V] aimed at Dave was my displeasure of him trying (for the second time) to turn this into some sort of political thread, instead of a railroad thread.

Now, however, I find that I have to ask: do you really believe that illegal aliens are *WALKING* through the channel tunnel? And the British authorities on the other end are just letting them? Just how big is the tunnel anyway? Wouldn't a lighted bikepath have been more convenient?[xx(]

[Anonymous]

All: The TV news report was the one that identified the crossers as being immigrants of Middle Eastern descent, which is synonymous with Arabic descent. I just brought it up as it relates to problems with the Chunnel operations on the French end.

And yes, Murphy, the TV footage showed these folks actually running into the tunnel right after a train had entered on the French end. If I could remember which network it was that showed this (I believe it was NBC, but I can't be sure), I would gladly refer you to them so you can b***h at them for being so politically incorrect.

And yes, such a subject does relate to British Railway Operations as they pertain to Chunnel operations.

I will say this: If you think that border security and terrorism are *political* subjects open for debate, then it does explain some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the left. Here all this time I thought such subjects were apolitical.

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

All: The TV news report was the one that identified the crossers as being immigrants of Middle Eastern descent, which is synonymous with Arabic descent...

...I will say this: If you think that border security and terrorism are *political* subjects open for debate, then it does explain some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the left. Here all this time I thought such subjects were apolitical.

Well, in the first place, you are factually incorrect. Being immigrants of Middle Eastern descent in NOT synonymous with Arabic descent. There are large numbers of individuals who reside in the Middle East who are not Arabic. Examples include the Turks and the Israelis.

Secondly, your statement: "...explain some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the left" is clearly a political statement. As such, it has no place here.

-Ed