Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541

On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541

Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
without totally competent crews?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:

>On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>
>Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>without totally competent crews?

No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.

On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>
>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>> without totally competent crews?
>
> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.

I don't think so.

The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.

You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
Channel shipping channels.

P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
thought.

I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?

On 05/04/2022 13:30, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>> without totally competent crews?
>>
>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to
>> its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems.  It takes
> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
> drills necessary.  Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
> equipment they are responsible for?  A complete novice crew is unlikely
> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>
> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
> day.  The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
> Channel shipping channels.
>
> P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
> thought.
>
> I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?

The MCA do issue press releases detailing vessels detained. I cannot
find one for March 2022 but here's the February 2022 one.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-flagged-ships-detained-in-the-uk-during-february-2022-under-paris-mou

The March one will be very interesting and will show the P&O detentions.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:

>On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>> without totally competent crews?
>>
>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>
>I don't think so.
>
>The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.

What makes you think the crews are complete novices?

>
>You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>Channel shipping channels.

These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.

>
>P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
>thought.

We don't know what they thought, other than the status quo was not acceptable.

>
>I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?

I'm pretty sure that DP World owns the P&O brand! Who did you think owned it?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:44:15 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:

>On 05/04/2022 13:30, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>
>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to
>>> its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems.  It takes
>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>> drills necessary.  Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>> equipment they are responsible for?  A complete novice crew is unlikely
>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>>
>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>> day.  The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>> Channel shipping channels.
>>
>> P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
>> thought.
>>
>> I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?
>
>The MCA do issue press releases detailing vessels detained. I cannot
>find one for March 2022 but here's the February 2022 one.
>
>https://www.gov.uk/government/news/foreign-flagged-ships-detained-in-the-uk-during-february-2022-under-paris-mou

All but one of those seem to be hardware issues.

>
>The March one will be very interesting and will show the P&O detentions.

Yes

On 05/04/2022 14:03, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>
>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>> drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>> equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>
> What makes you think the crews are complete novices?
>
>>
>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>> day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>> Channel shipping channels.
>
> These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
> That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.
>
>>
>> P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
>> thought.
>
> We don't know what they thought, other than the status quo was not acceptable.
>
>>
>> I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?
>
> I'm pretty sure that DP World owns the P&O brand! Who did you think owned it?

No, DP World own the "P&O Ferries" brand. Carnival Corporation own the
"P&O Cruises" brand so there is no "owner of the P&O brand".

--
Colin

On 05/04/2022 14:03, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>
>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>> drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>> equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>
> What makes you think the crews are complete novices?
>
>>
>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>> day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>> Channel shipping channels.
>
> These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
> That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.
>

Yes and no. It is rare that new crew join a ship with no handover from
the previous crew. Normally there is rarely a "full crew at the same
time" changeover.

The concept of crew knowing the ship is very important, especially a
complex beast like a passenger ship. When a brand new ferry comes into
service (especially the first if there are sister ships) there will be a
couple of weeks of familiarisation before asking the MCA to attend to
undertake drills. I recall this when I was involved in familiarisation
of P&O's then new European Seaway class vessels - spent all day for two
full days doing nothing but lowering lifeboats, going round Dover
harbour and familiarising the crew on all aspects of the boat,
retrieval, repeat, lunch, repeat etc!!

--
Colin

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:26:33 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 05/04/2022 14:03, Recliner wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>>
>>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>>> drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>>> equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>>
>> What makes you think the crews are complete novices?
>>
>>>
>>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>>> day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>>> Channel shipping channels.
>>
>> These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
>> That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.
>>
>>>
>>> P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
>>> thought.
>>
>> We don't know what they thought, other than the status quo was not acceptable.
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that DP World owns the P&O brand! Who did you think owned it?
>
>No, DP World own the "P&O Ferries" brand. Carnival Corporation own the
>"P&O Cruises" brand so there is no "owner of the P&O brand".

Surely someone must own the P&O logo and brand?

And, it seems that the P&O house flag and word mark 'P&O' are Trade Marks of the DP World Company. So, only the P&O
Cruises brand is owned by Carnival, but the P&O brand, flag and logo are owned by DP World.

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:32:51 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 05/04/2022 14:03, Recliner wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>>
>>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>>
>>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>>> drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>>> equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>>
>> What makes you think the crews are complete novices?
>>
>>>
>>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>>> day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>>> Channel shipping channels.
>>
>> These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
>> That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.
>>
>
>Yes and no. It is rare that new crew join a ship with no handover from
>the previous crew. Normally there is rarely a "full crew at the same
>time" changeover.
>
>The concept of crew knowing the ship is very important, especially a
>complex beast like a passenger ship. When a brand new ferry comes into
>service (especially the first if there are sister ships) there will be a
>couple of weeks of familiarisation before asking the MCA to attend to
>undertake drills. I recall this when I was involved in familiarisation
>of P&O's then new European Seaway class vessels - spent all day for two
>full days doing nothing but lowering lifeboats, going round Dover
>harbour and familiarising the crew on all aspects of the boat,
>retrieval, repeat, lunch, repeat etc!!

And, presumably that's what the new agency crews have been doing since arriving? I think a few key officers have
remained with the ships, and perhaps some of the experienced crew members were kept on.

On 05/04/2022 14:03, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>
>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>>
>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>> drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>> equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>
> What makes you think the crews are complete novices?
They are for the vessels they've joined.
>
>>
>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>> day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>> Channel shipping channels.
>
> These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
> That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.
But re-crewing the complete ship is not normal. If fact it's very
abnormal on a passenger ferry.

>
>>
>> P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
>> thought.
>
> We don't know what they thought, other than the status quo was not acceptable.
>
>>
>> I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?
>
> I'm pretty sure that DP World owns the P&O brand! Who did you think owned it?

On 05/04/2022 14:43, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:26:33 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2022 14:03, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>>>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>>>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>>>> drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>>>> equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>>>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>>>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>>>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>>>
>>> What makes you think the crews are complete novices?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>>>> day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>>>> Channel shipping channels.
>>>
>>> These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
>>> That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> P&O Ferries seem to have got themselves in an even bigger mess than they
>>>> thought.
>>>
>>> We don't know what they thought, other than the status quo was not acceptable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if the owners of the P&O brand will renew their use of it?
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that DP World owns the P&O brand! Who did you think owned it?
>>
>> No, DP World own the "P&O Ferries" brand. Carnival Corporation own the
>> "P&O Cruises" brand so there is no "owner of the P&O brand".
>
> Surely someone must own the P&O logo and brand?
>
> And, it seems that the P&O house flag and word mark 'P&O' are Trade Marks of the DP World Company. So, only the P&O
> Cruises brand is owned by Carnival, but the P&O brand, flag and logo are owned by DP World.

No clear answer as Carnival have the rights to use "P&O" but the
original company was bought by DP World.
https://www.poheritage.com/our-history/company-guides/peninsular-and-oriental-steam-navigation-company/NextPage?pageIndex=0

--
Colin

On 05/04/2022 14:45, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 14:32:51 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 05/04/2022 14:03, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 13:30:41 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/04/2022 13:06, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 12:59:38 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/04/2022 12:50, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Side-effects from keeping P&O Ferries out of action:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60979541
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you suggesting that HMG should allow P&O Ferries to operative
>>>>>> without totally competent crews?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but it does appear that much stricter tests are being applied to its ships than to others. That level of scrutiny
>>>>> would probably remove all the ferries from the sea.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> The tests require the crew to be familiar with and competent and
>>>> qualified to operate the vessel and familiar with its systems. It takes
>>>> a long while to complete the documentation and undertake the various
>>>> drills necessary. Were the replacement engineers qualified for the
>>>> equipment they are responsible for? A complete novice crew is unlikely
>>>> to satisfy an inspection quickly as there are so many showstoppers.
>>>> Other ferries will already be up to speed and any inspection problems
>>>> will normally be minor and resolved very quickly.
>>>
>>> What makes you think the crews are complete novices?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You cannot put a novice crew on a ship and expect to leave port the next
>>>> day. The result could be a disabled ferry out of control in the English
>>>> Channel shipping channels.
>>>
>>> These won't be novice crew. They're quite used to joining a ship on a new contract and immediately getting stuck in.
>>> That's how merchant ships are normally crewed.
>>>
>>
>> Yes and no. It is rare that new crew join a ship with no handover from
>> the previous crew. Normally there is rarely a "full crew at the same
>> time" changeover.
>>
>> The concept of crew knowing the ship is very important, especially a
>> complex beast like a passenger ship. When a brand new ferry comes into
>> service (especially the first if there are sister ships) there will be a
>> couple of weeks of familiarisation before asking the MCA to attend to
>> undertake drills. I recall this when I was involved in familiarisation
>> of P&O's then new European Seaway class vessels - spent all day for two
>> full days doing nothing but lowering lifeboats, going round Dover
>> harbour and familiarising the crew on all aspects of the boat,
>> retrieval, repeat, lunch, repeat etc!!
>
> And, presumably that's what the new agency crews have been doing since arriving? I think a few key officers have
> remained with the ships, and perhaps some of the experienced crew members were kept on.

There has been some talk in the press that a limited number of the 800
have been taken on again having accepted the redundancy package. This
will help, but familiarisation will still take time.

--
Colin

On 05/04/2022 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t2gs6i$p21$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:47:29 on Tue, 5 Apr 2022,
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>> Am 05.04.2022 um 07:59 schrieb Roland Perry:
>>> In message <5Lqdnfh7rpHBttb_nZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>> 18:31:06 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>> remarked:
>>>> On 03/04/2022 16:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>>>>  Would I be correct in thinking there aren't matching facilities in
>>>>> the  UK,
>>>>
>>>> There weren't any in France, Italy or Germany either...
>
>>>  I expect the Continental ones have economises of scale. Whereas the
>>> UK  is bit out on limb.

How much of the trafic to Calais is actually to/from the UK, I wonder.

>>>  Would I be right in thinking for example that the Calais depot would
>>> be  handling ferry traffic too (and intra-EU Calais area to r27),
>>> whereas  one at Ashford only tunnel traffic?

Presumably Cyprus, Malta and Ireland would be tricky.

>> I linked a CargoBeamer PDF a few days ago offering transfer from
>> Calais to UK via Chunnel
>
>    Shunting to Ashford via Eurotunnel.
>    Trailers available in Ashford; pick-up by end customer within 24hrs
>
> Not clear if that means "you must pick it up within 24hrs", or "the most
> you'll have to wait before it's ready for pickup is 24hrs".
>
> What we do know is their drop-off/pick-up point is in central Ashford,
> not at the Chunnel terminal.
>
>> or three different ferries.
>
> Transit time 3-9hrs, and obviously they won't be putting them on any
> kind of rail carriage for that leg.
>
>> The basic network is Germany, France (Calais, Perpignan), Italy.
>
> The html says:
>
> Ashford/Calais - Perpignan
> Ashford/Calais - Domodossola
>
> And not Ashford-Calais, and since then we've got no closer to
> understanding exactly how they get the trailers through the tunnel.
>
> Although their timetable above appears to allow 4hrs for the journey.
>
> I think the only thing all perhaps agree on is that they don't have one
> of their cute cradle-loaders at Ashford. (And hence probably aren't
> running their special flat-bed trains through the tunnel).

But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
mean it can never be done.

"Eurunnnel [sic] told Railway Gazette International the aim was to build
up to operating whole trains through the tunnel as the market develops,
and ultimately to run trains to destinations further inland."
https://www.railwaygazette.com/freight/cargobeamer-network-extended-to-the-uk/59932.article

--
Arthur Figgis

On 05/04/2022 18:08, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t2gs6i$p21$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:47:29 on Tue, 5 Apr
>> 2022, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 07:59 schrieb Roland Perry:
>>>> In message <5Lqdnfh7rpHBttb_nZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>> 18:31:06 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>> remarked:
>>>>> On 03/04/2022 16:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>  Would I be correct in thinking there aren't matching facilities
>>>>>> in the  UK,
>>>>>
>>>>> There weren't any in France, Italy or Germany either...
>>
>>>>  I expect the Continental ones have economises of scale. Whereas the
>>>> UK  is bit out on limb.
>
> How much of the trafic to Calais is actually to/from the UK, I wonder.
>
>>>>  Would I be right in thinking for example that the Calais depot
>>>> would be  handling ferry traffic too (and intra-EU Calais area to
>>>> r27), whereas  one at Ashford only tunnel traffic?
>
> Presumably Cyprus, Malta and Ireland would be tricky.
Ireland has more direct ferries to France these days, Cherbourg and
Roscoff. If fact by surface I can easily go to France avoiding England
as a foot passenger.
>
>>> I linked a CargoBeamer PDF a few days ago offering transfer from
>>> Calais to UK via Chunnel
>>
>>     Shunting to Ashford via Eurotunnel.
>>     Trailers available in Ashford; pick-up by end customer within 24hrs
>>
>> Not clear if that means "you must pick it up within 24hrs", or "the
>> most you'll have to wait before it's ready for pickup is 24hrs".
>>
>> What we do know is their drop-off/pick-up point is in central Ashford,
>> not at the Chunnel terminal.
>>
>>> or three different ferries.
>>
>> Transit time 3-9hrs, and obviously they won't be putting them on any
>> kind of rail carriage for that leg.
>>
>>> The basic network is Germany, France (Calais, Perpignan), Italy.
>>
>> The html says:
>>
>> Ashford/Calais - Perpignan
>> Ashford/Calais - Domodossola
>>
>> And not Ashford-Calais, and since then we've got no closer to
>> understanding exactly how they get the trailers through the tunnel.
>>
>> Although their timetable above appears to allow 4hrs for the journey.
>>
>> I think the only thing all perhaps agree on is that they don't have
>> one of their cute cradle-loaders at Ashford. (And hence probably
>> aren't running their special flat-bed trains through the tunnel).
>
> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
> mean it can never be done.
>
> "Eurunnnel [sic] told Railway Gazette International the aim was to build
> up to operating whole trains through the tunnel as the market develops,
> and ultimately to run trains to destinations further inland."
> https://www.railwaygazette.com/freight/cargobeamer-network-extended-to-the-uk/59932.article
>
>
>

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
> mean it can never be done.

Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the trailers are
allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).

If successful, I assume Cargobeamer will want to build a terminal in the UK.
If the trailers are in gauge on HS1, I suspect Barking might be a contender
as well as Ashford, assuming suitable paths and land are available.

(wildcard suggestion: Southfleet Junction has a nice disused link to HS1 and
is handy for the M25...)

Theo

In message <f7ao4h54p752gncrrtkt258rcah03skpn0@4ax.com>, at 12:34:24 on
Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 16:57:12 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t2f1mv$5p9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:09:19 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022,
>>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <kskl4h9fhad2nn3brdhvka2sd7m8t0cnsg@4ax.com>, at 12:18:03 on
>>>> Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:59:57 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 03/04/2022 16:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <w8idnbb-Nv0IAdT_nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>>>>>>>> 14:09:42 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any such trains would have to be dedicated to unaccompanied
>>>>>>>>>>>>trailers
>>>>>>>>>>>> and new methods of loading / unloading would need to be invented
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They would just use the methods which are quite happily
>>>>>>>>>>>being used on
>>>>>>>>>>> the Continent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Would I be correct in thinking there aren't matching
>>>>>>>>>>facilities in the
>>>>>>>>>> UK, nor has anyone built and approved the new style of freight
>>>>>>>>>>train for
>>>>>>>>>> the tunnel?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why different freight shuttle wagons would be needed?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Normal freight shuttle, drive in, park, next artic follows, parks, next
>>>>>>>> artic follows, park etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With unaccompanied trailers they need to be backed on (full
>>>>>>>>length of train to start, reducing as the train fills),
>>>>>>>>dropped, tractor unit then needs to drive back up the full
>>>>>>>>length of train before next trailer can be backed down etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Very different process so current shuttle trains not practicable as the
>>>>>>>> dropping process is very time consuming. Better to be done elsewhere
>>>>>>>> where more space is available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why such unnecessary complexity? Just use temporary, small
>>>>>>>shunting tractor units to haul the trailers on to standard
>>>>>>>freight shuttles and off at the other side. Ideally, these would be electric.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, articulated truck pulls in, the road tractor unit
>>>>>>>disconnects and drives away to a holding/service area, while the
>>>>>>>waiting local shunting tractor couples up and takes the trailer
>>>>>>>on to the train. These would be driven by local shunting drivers
>>>>>>>(but ideally be self-driven) who would not go through the
>>>>>>>Tunnel. The process is reversed at the other side. The shunting drivers just work in one terminal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, no drivers waste time going through the Tunnel, and the road
>>>>>>>tractors are released as soon as they drop off their trailers.
>>>>>>>They may then wait for then next for their next load in a
>>>>>>>holding/service area, or go straight across to the pick-up area
>>>>>>>if the next load is already waiting for them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd still need some works to the terminal areas, as they're not
>>>>>>remotely set up for that kind of operation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at Folkestone on Google maps, I guess there could be
>>>>>>space found for tractor unit exchange somewhere before boarding
>>>>>>(after check-in and customs, presumably?); for arriving trailers
>>>>>>you could maybe make an exchange area somewhere near the fuel
>>>>>>station? Or perhaps the nearby truck stop around 5km away would be more convenient.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it would be highly desirable for the tractor swaps to happen
>>>>> within the terminal area. That way, the small
>>>>> shunting tractors won't need to be capable of hauling trailers on the
>>>>> public highway.
>>>>
>>>> It's been said that the temporary tractors would have to be full size
>>>> ones because there's no spare space at Folkestone.
>>>
>>>Perhaps the terminal would need to exand on to the next-door field?
>>
>>That's getting to be a pretty big project.
>
>Yes, you're quite right, building a parking area on an empty field next
>to the terminal dwarfs the complexity of building the tunnel!

False dichotomy. Money (and planning permission) is still money. And
does this scheme of yours also involve building the cradle-sliding
loading/unloading system?
--
Roland Perry

In message <ysudnZ5WpfM16tH_nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:08:56 on Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 05/04/2022 09:55, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t2gs6i$p21$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:47:29 on Tue, 5 Apr
>>2022, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>>> Am 05.04.2022 um 07:59 schrieb Roland Perry:
>>>> In message <5Lqdnfh7rpHBttb_nZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>>18:31:06 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>> On 03/04/2022 16:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>  Would I be correct in thinking there aren't matching facilities
>>>>>>in the  UK,
>>>>>
>>>>> There weren't any in France, Italy or Germany either...
>>
>>>>  I expect the Continental ones have economises of scale. Whereas
>>>>the UK  is bit out on limb.
>
>How much of the trafic to Calais is actually to/from the UK, I wonder.

Some of it at least might to to/from domestic destinations in north
France, and while not showing on their "unaccompanied" timetable,
perhaps some trailers are collected by the clients, and then put on
ferries to other countries, or even driven over land to perhaps
Netherlands.

>>>>  Would I be right in thinking for example that the Calais depot
>>>>would be  handling ferry traffic too (and intra-EU Calais area to
>>>>r27), whereas  one at Ashford only tunnel traffic?
>
>Presumably Cyprus, Malta and Ireland would be tricky.

In the absence of a Calais-Ireland ferry, do doubt. But the client could
always use UK as a land bridge for an accompanied drive to Ireland, if
all this modal changing makes any sense at all.

>>> I linked a CargoBeamer PDF a few days ago offering transfer from
>>>Calais to UK via Chunnel

>>    Shunting to Ashford via Eurotunnel.

>>    Trailers available in Ashford; pick-up by end customer within 24hrs
>> Not clear if that means "you must pick it up within 24hrs", or "the
>>most you'll have to wait before it's ready for pickup is 24hrs".
>> What we do know is their drop-off/pick-up point is in central
>>Ashford, not at the Chunnel terminal.
>>
>>> or three different ferries.

>> Transit time 3-9hrs, and obviously they won't be putting them on any
>>kind of rail carriage for that leg.
>>
>>> The basic network is Germany, France (Calais, Perpignan), Italy.

>> The html says:
>> Ashford/Calais - Perpignan
>> Ashford/Calais - Domodossola

>> And not Ashford-Calais, and since then we've got no closer to
>>understanding exactly how they get the trailers through the tunnel.

>> Although their timetable above appears to allow 4hrs for the
>>journey.

>> I think the only thing all perhaps agree on is that they don't have
>>one of their cute cradle-loaders at Ashford. (And hence probably
>>aren't running their special flat-bed trains through the tunnel).
>
>But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>mean it can never be done.

But would it ever see a return on investment?

>"Eurunnnel [sic] told Railway Gazette International the aim was to
>build up to operating whole trains through the tunnel as the market
>develops, and ultimately to run trains to destinations further inland."

If that's their own trains, before they can "build up" they need to
start operating any at all (rather than using the existing shuttle).

Are they proposing building their custom-unloading facility somewhere
else, in addition to Ashford? Does UK loading gauge cope with
semi-trailers on wagons, rather than just naked containers on wagons?

>https://www.railwaygazette.com/freight/cargobeamer-network-extended-to-t
>he-uk/59932.article

Paywall.
--
Roland Perry

In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>> mean it can never be done.
>
>Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
>The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
>presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the trailers are
>allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).

Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.

>If successful, I assume Cargobeamer will want to build a terminal in the UK.
>If the trailers are in gauge on HS1, I suspect Barking might be a contender
>as well as Ashford, assuming suitable paths and land are available.
>
>(wildcard suggestion: Southfleet Junction has a nice disused link to HS1 and
>is handy for the M25...)

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:48:58 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In the absence of a Calais-Ireland ferry, do doubt. But the client could
>always use UK as a land bridge for an accompanied drive to Ireland, if
>all this modal changing makes any sense at all.

Cherbourg to ireland is a popular route.

In message <t2jh72$1uif$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 07:58:26 on Wed, 6 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 08:48:58 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>>In the absence of a Calais-Ireland ferry, do doubt. But the client could
>>always use UK as a land bridge for an accompanied drive to Ireland, if
>>all this modal changing makes any sense at all.
>
>Cherbourg to ireland is a popular route.

So Italy/Perpignan to Calais unaccompanied on the train, then the client
drives to Cherbourg.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
> 5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> >> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
> >> mean it can never be done.
> >
> >Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
> >The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
> >presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the trailers are
> >allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).
>
> Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
> the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.

Why? On conventional Shuttle trains the trailers are 'unaccompanied' - the
drivers are in the coach at the end of the train, not in their cab. In an
emergency they are not going back to their vehicle to drive it anywhere.

In terms of safety case, what makes this train of flat wagons different from
a train of container flats? The main difference seems to be transporting some
extra road axles.

Theo

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <f7ao4h54p752gncrrtkt258rcah03skpn0@4ax.com>, at 12:34:24 on
> Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 16:57:12 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t2f1mv$5p9$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:09:19 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022,
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <kskl4h9fhad2nn3brdhvka2sd7m8t0cnsg@4ax.com>, at 12:18:03 on
>>>>> Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:59:57 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
>>>>>> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 03/04/2022 16:20, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <w8idnbb-Nv0IAdT_nZ2dnUU7-d-dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>>>>>>>>>>> 14:09:42 on Sun, 3 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any such trains would have to be dedicated to unaccompanied
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trailers
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and new methods of loading / unloading would need to be invented
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> They would just use the methods which are quite happily
>>>>>>>>>>>> being used on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the Continent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Would I be correct in thinking there aren't matching
>>>>>>>>>>> facilities in the
>>>>>>>>>>> UK, nor has anyone built and approved the new style of freight
>>>>>>>>>>> train for
>>>>>>>>>>> the tunnel?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not clear why different freight shuttle wagons would be needed?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Normal freight shuttle, drive in, park, next artic follows, parks, next
>>>>>>>>> artic follows, park etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With unaccompanied trailers they need to be backed on (full
>>>>>>>>> length of train to start, reducing as the train fills),
>>>>>>>>> dropped, tractor unit then needs to drive back up the full
>>>>>>>>> length of train before next trailer can be backed down etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Very different process so current shuttle trains not practicable as the
>>>>>>>>> dropping process is very time consuming. Better to be done elsewhere
>>>>>>>>> where more space is available.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why such unnecessary complexity? Just use temporary, small
>>>>>>>> shunting tractor units to haul the trailers on to standard
>>>>>>>> freight shuttles and off at the other side. Ideally, these would be electric.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, articulated truck pulls in, the road tractor unit
>>>>>>>> disconnects and drives away to a holding/service area, while the
>>>>>>>> waiting local shunting tractor couples up and takes the trailer
>>>>>>>> on to the train. These would be driven by local shunting drivers
>>>>>>>> (but ideally be self-driven) who would not go through the
>>>>>>>> Tunnel. The process is reversed at the other side. The shunting
>>>>>>>> drivers just work in one terminal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, no drivers waste time going through the Tunnel, and the road
>>>>>>>> tractors are released as soon as they drop off their trailers.
>>>>>>>> They may then wait for then next for their next load in a
>>>>>>>> holding/service area, or go straight across to the pick-up area
>>>>>>>> if the next load is already waiting for them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'd still need some works to the terminal areas, as they're not
>>>>>>> remotely set up for that kind of operation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at Folkestone on Google maps, I guess there could be
>>>>>>> space found for tractor unit exchange somewhere before boarding
>>>>>>> (after check-in and customs, presumably?); for arriving trailers
>>>>>>> you could maybe make an exchange area somewhere near the fuel
>>>>>>> station? Or perhaps the nearby truck stop around 5km away would be more convenient.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it would be highly desirable for the tractor swaps to happen
>>>>>> within the terminal area. That way, the small
>>>>>> shunting tractors won't need to be capable of hauling trailers on the
>>>>>> public highway.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been said that the temporary tractors would have to be full size
>>>>> ones because there's no spare space at Folkestone.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the terminal would need to exand on to the next-door field?
>>>
>>> That's getting to be a pretty big project.
>>
>> Yes, you're quite right, building a parking area on an empty field next
>> to the terminal dwarfs the complexity of building the tunnel!
>
> False dichotomy. Money (and planning permission) is still money. And
> does this scheme of yours also involve building the cradle-sliding
> loading/unloading system?

No

In message <RJg*Zv1Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 09:56:47 on Wed,
6 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <PJg*kLYKy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:23:05 on Tue,
>> 5 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
>> >> But outside uk.railway, the fact that it has't been done yet doesn't
>> >> mean it can never be done.
>> >
>> >Indeed, there's a lot of uk.r's traditional overthinking going on here.
>> >The Cargobeamer special trains are just trains of flat wagons, which
>> >presumably could gain tunnel approval relatively easily (if the trailers are
>> >allowed on Shuttles, there are presumably fine on flat wagons too).
>>
>> Perhaps the safety case is more complicated than you think. I wonder if
>> the unaccompanied vs accompanied is an issue too.
>
>Why? On conventional Shuttle trains the trailers are 'unaccompanied' - the
>drivers are in the coach at the end of the train, not in their cab. In an
>emergency they are not going back to their vehicle to drive it anywhere.

Can you quote the bits of the safety case for the existing shuttles,
which is pertinent to that? Otherwise we just guessing.

>In terms of safety case, what makes this train of flat wagons different from
>a train of container flats? The main difference seems to be transporting some
>extra road axles.

You need to ask the people who specify the parameters for a safety case.
We know from experience, it's not easy.
--
Roland Perry