British Railway 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 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.

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

With the low clearances on the British side, is there then no TOFC at all in Britian? Someone had mentioned that there was also no bi-modal trailers running on British rails, so does that mean that all truckload stuff goes by container?

I suppose you could run TOFC using well cars, but you guys don't have those either!

There have been some attempts at TOFC.

Here is a site about one Piggyback service running in the UK
http://www.piggybacktrial.com/

[Anonymous]

The typical maximum vertical clearance in the U.K. is only about 12 to 13 feet. This makes TOFC impractical. There is COFC however. Furthermore since the UK has many electrified sections and hilly areas, any clearance project would be prohibitively expensive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

The British Railways have indeed smaller clearances than Continental Europe. For example, it is not possible to run bilevels in suburban trains, which is a large problem in a town like London.

The rolling stock runnig through the Chunnel from France to the UK has to be built to the British clearances or is limited to the Chunnel and a few miles beyond like the truck-hauling freight cars. There are some freight cars designed for trains to the UK, for example low-slung two-axle container-cars. A sleeper trains used to connect London to Paris via ferry. It used cars built to the British clearances. The engines did not cross the Channel.

The Eurostar high-speed-trains are visibly smaller than the French TGV's (and equipped with electric shoes for the Southern Regions third rail). The high-speed-track from the British side of the Chunnel to London is not yet completed (2007?)

With the low clearances on the British side, is there then no TOFC at all in Britian? Someone had mentioned that there was also no bi-modal trailers running on British rails, so does that mean that all truckload stuff goes by container?

I suppose you could run TOFC using well cars, but you guys don't have those either!

[Anonymous]

The ex-GWR broad gauge lines (which were all reguaged back in GWR days) do indeed have a wider clearance - the GWR took full advantage of this and built some stock that was wider than standard (the "Centenary" coaches as modelled by Hornby were one type). A series of "Excursion" coaches were built that were noticably narrower than standard (intended as the name suggests for interchange with other lines). The practice has continued - the class 165 DMU is built to a slightly wider clearance than its near-twin the class 166 and therefore cannot run on some lines. I think the most recent problem was with the filming for the Harry Potter films - apparently "Hogwarts Castle" (actually "Oulton Hall") had problems with cylinders hitting the platform edges in Scotland.

Double-deck stock was briefly tried over here by Bulleid with his "4DD" 4-car electric units - two were built though they were not popular due to the cramped interiors (they were not true double deckers - the compartments were staggered high and low in an effort to get more seats into a given length). More info here: http://www.semg.org.uk/gallery/4dd.html I think two driving cars survive though neither is in very good condition - they are both the subject of long-term restorations.

[martin.knoepfel]

The British Railways have indeed smaller clearances than Continental Europe. For example, it is not possible to run bilevels in suburban trains, which is a large problem in a town like London.

The rolling stock runnig through the Chunnel from France to the UK has to be built to the British clearances or is limited to the Chunnel and a few miles beyond like the truck-hauling freight cars. There are some freight cars designed for trains to the UK, for example low-slung two-axle container-cars. A sleeper trains used to connect London to Paris via ferry. It used cars built to the British clearances. The engines did not cross the Channel.

The Eurostar high-speed-trains are visibly smaller than the French TGV's (and equipped with electric shoes for the Southern Regions third rail). The high-speed-track from the British side of the Chunnel to London is not yet completed (2007?)

[Murphy Siding]

Cogload Junction....Murphy Siding...I like that. Both have a nice railroad ring to them.[:)]. I would presume that rail lines built to the Brunel 7 foot broad gauge would have built-in,wider clearances than those built to standard guage? Judging from all the pictures I've viewed on these links, it appears that all of British rail stock is built to a shorter height clearance than North American stock. With the channel tunnel, how do the clearance dimensions compare to other European stock that may show up in Britain.

As always, thanks to all for the info..

[owlsroost]

Cogload Junction - http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=51.0381&lon=-2.9998&scale=25000&icon=x (the rail lines are black, from London on the right, Bristol at the top, to Devon and Cornwall at the bottom).

It's a very well known, high speed fly-over (grade separated) junction.

In this photo - http://tauntontrains.fotopic.net/p12455035.html - the train is on the 'Berks & Hants' line from London. The line on the fly-over is the 'Bristol & Exeter' railway, originally built by Brunel as a broad (7 foot) gauge route. This route to Exeter via Bristol earned the GWR the nickname "Great Way Round", hence the shorter 'Berks & Hants' route to London via Newbury was opened eventually, creating Cogload Junction.

Tony

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by mhurley87f
[
Also, the Tyneside Metro system burrows underneath Newcastle and Gateshead in NE England, so I suppose that should qualify that as an "underground system", too.

The Tyne and Wear Metro in Newcastle-upon-Tyne mostly uses lines that used to belong to British Rail up to the 1970's. It built new tunnels in the city centre. Since it opened in 1980, it has been extended to the city's airport using an abandoned track bed, and to the neighbouring city of Sunderland, reached by sharing the main line track. Many of the lines it acquired from BR were electrified on 3rd rail in the 1900's only to be de-electrified in the 1960's (the argument being the infrastructure was worn out and they had lots of spare DMU's as a result of branch line closures). Nowadays it is electrified on 1,500 V dc overhead.

[Anonymous]

Cogload is the name of the junction where the line from Bristol and the line from Paddington join on the way down to cornwall - guess there must be some connection

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cogload

That site is quite entertaining - follow those links as well and you may find where I pick my handle from (hint - look in the location specific pages)

Ok - back to the off topic subject for a minute. Many of our overseas friends seem to think that I am English. This is because I have an English accent. Yeah. They also seem to think that London=England and that England=United Kingdom. My nationality is British reflecting the fact that though I was born in England, I have Scots Ancestry and one set of parents live in Wales. And if you want to take it to extremes I live in Cornwall. The Cornish (native ones) dont regard themselves as "English" for a variety of reasons which stretch back to Gildas and his ranting and the invasion of the English/Jutes/various others from about the year 400AD on onwards..

Recommended reading for this subject = Anglo Saxon England (Oxford History of England series) by Sir Frank Stenton. Where incidentally you can find out about King Arthur as well (mentioned in one epic Welsh poem - the Goddin)

cogload: I've been over that site a lot, and learned a lot.[:)] But, I can't find the reference to the cogload handle. Care to explain?

Thanks

[Anonymous]

I think platform tickets may still exist in some places, though I'm not sure. At smaller stations there's nothing to stop you wandering onto the platform (no ticket needed and often nobody about) though larger ones now have gates in an effort to stop fare dodgers. Bristol Temple Meads used to be quite a good station to railfan on though I'm not sure that you'd be able to get trackside now without a ticket due to the new gates.

[morseman]

about ten years or so ago, I was in the Manchester station
There was a charge of, I believe, one pound for persons
to go onto the platforms without a train ticket. This I believe
was to assist paying passengers with their luggage, greeting
incoming friends or relatives, or seeing them off.

Great for railfans. Did many other stations have this
charge , Is it still in effect, or has it been discontinued
due to these uncertain times???