On 06/04/2022 09:15, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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.

There are now several direct Ireland - rEU routes, including the long
established Cherbourg route. DFDS operate Dunkerque - Rosslaire, started
up last year. There are also links from Rosslaire to Roscoff, Le Havre,
Zeebrugge and Bilbao.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/30/goods-shipped-directly-from-ireland-to-eu-up-by-50-in-six-months

--
Colin

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:06:53 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.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?
>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.

It's quite common for ships that are used seasonally.

In message <t2jsoi$kd1$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:15:33 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 06/04/2022 09:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>> 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.
>
>There are now several direct Ireland - rEU routes, including the long
>established Cherbourg route. DFDS operate Dunkerque - Rosslaire,
>started up last year. There are also links from Rosslaire to Roscoff,
>Le Havre, Zeebrugge and Bilbao.

>https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/30/goods-shipped-directly-fro
>m-ireland-to-eu-up-by-50-in-six-months

Dunkerque would be less of a drive from Calais.

Perpignon-Bilbao-Rosslaire would be simpler than
Perpignon-Calais-Dunkerque-Rosslaire though.
--
Roland Perry

On 06/04/2022 12:44, Recliner wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:06:53 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.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?
>> 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.
>
> It's quite common for ships that are used seasonally.

Yes, but they always have a period of familiarisation before going into
service, just as the P&O ships are currently doing.

--
Colin

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:02:01 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 06/04/2022 12:44, Recliner wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:06:53 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.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?
>>> 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.
>>
>> It's quite common for ships that are used seasonally.
>
>Yes, but they always have a period of familiarisation before going into
>service, just as the P&O ships are currently doing.

Yes, and it's probably what was planned and expected by the company. They probably did hope to back on line before
Easter, let's see if they manage that.

In message <t2jvfm$8no$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:02:01 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 06/04/2022 12:44, Recliner wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:06:53 +0100, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.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?
>>> 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.

>> It's quite common for ships that are used seasonally.
>
>Yes, but they always have a period of familiarisation before going into
>service, just as the P&O ships are currently doing.

I'm not sure why this familiarisation is such a hard concept for people
to grasp. After all, we are used to train drivers needing to spend time
doing route and traction learning.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2jktf$pie$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:35 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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

OK, so it's just for the startup phase when they are tractoring the
trailers through on the shuttle.
--
Roland Perry

In message <po1r4hd3cmtki8f2uk6gv1jjjr9de8bm6a@4ax.com>, at 13:28:07 on
Wed, 6 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:02:01 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.u
>k> wrote:
>
>>On 06/04/2022 12:44, Recliner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:06:53 +0100, martin.coffee@round-
>>>midnight.org.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?
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It's quite common for ships that are used seasonally.
>>
>>Yes, but they always have a period of familiarisation before going into
>>service, just as the P&O ships are currently doing.
>
>Yes, and it's probably what was planned and expected by the company.

<https://www.export.org.uk/news/599784/PO-Ferries-crisis-Stena-Line-
adds-sailings-as-Dover-authorities-prepare-for-port-delays-.htm>

22nd March: "P&O hopes to resume sailings this week"

....and if some Irish-route ferries were inspected and failed, surely
they would not have put them out for inspection if they weren't
expecting to resume sailings?

--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 14:07:13 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <t2jktf$pie$3@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:35 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>
>OK, so it's just for the startup phase

Who says it's just a start-up phase? CargoBeamer's offering is something different. It could offer through services
from its various Continental locations to a UK terminal anywhere along HS1 (perhaps somewhere like Barking or Dagenham).
> when they are tractoring the trailers through on the shuttle.

Yes, using small (preferably electric) local tractors that don't leave the Channel Tunnel and the two terminals.
Conceivably, the local tractors could be self-driving. No special freight wagons or dedicated trains would be needed.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:15:21 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>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.

Or maybe go direct to Cherbourg. Just a thought.

On 06/04/2022 14:11, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <po1r4hd3cmtki8f2uk6gv1jjjr9de8bm6a@4ax.com>, at 13:28:07 on
> Wed, 6 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 13:02:01 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.u
>> k> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/04/2022 12:44, Recliner wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 15:06:53 +0100, martin.coffee@round-
>>>> midnight.org.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?
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> It's quite common for ships that are used seasonally.
>>>
>>> Yes, but they always have a period of familiarisation before going into
>>> service, just as the P&O ships are currently doing.
>>
>> Yes, and it's probably what was planned and expected by the company.
>
> <https://www.export.org.uk/news/599784/PO-Ferries-crisis-Stena-Line-
> adds-sailings-as-Dover-authorities-prepare-for-port-delays-.htm>
>
> 22nd March: "P&O hopes to resume sailings this week"
>
> ...and if some Irish-route ferries were inspected and failed, surely
> they would not have put them out for inspection if they weren't
> expecting to resume sailings?
>

With a very cynical, political hat on, I wonder if the MCA were
pressurised into inspecting before P&O asked them / were ready for
inspection?

--
Colin

In message <t2k7af$11cs$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:15:43 on Wed, 6 Apr
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:15:21 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Or maybe go direct to Cherbourg. Just a thought.

I looked at the map, and even Perpignon is a day and a half's drive. On
the other hand, Bilbao is only six hours, and many of the trucks at
Perpignan have probably come from Spain, anyway.
--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

You'll need a lot of building work, then. On Google maps I can't see
anywhere obvious to put a space to exchange more than 3-4 trailers at any
one time, unless you build a new bridge over the A20 and M20, perhaps.

> That way, the small
> shunting tractors won't need to be capable of hauling trailers on the public highway.
>

They're pretty trivial to make road-legal. Here's one I see from the
railway occasionally <https://goo.gl/maps/eAxyryUM58EC5f9x8>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

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.

The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
>

Now I find the photo I took from above the tunnel mouth, yes there does
appear to be some land on the north side they could perhaps use, though
it's really not in a convenient place for arriving traffic rather than
departing. I'd recalled the hill on that side to be steeper, closer to the
terminal infrastructure.

My suggestion would be to bridge the A20 and M20 and use the site with the
red pin in this Google maps screenshot:

<https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1511752521567592456?s=21>

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 06/04/2022 14:08, Roland Perry wrote:
> I'm not sure why this familiarisation is such a hard concept for people
> to grasp. After all, we are used to train drivers needing to spend time
> doing route and traction learning.

Don't forget that young women often had to get in a wide range of
unfamiliar aircraft in WWII and fly alone across the country just using
a few notes in a book.

On 06/04/2022 08:48, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <ysudnZ5WpfM16tH_nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 18:08:56 on Tue, 5 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:

>> 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.

The German terminal looks to be better placed for the Netherlands.

--
Arthur Figgis

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>
Are you denying that the drivers are in a separate coach?

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 06/04/2022 14:08, Roland Perry wrote:
>> I'm not sure why this familiarisation is such a hard concept for people
>> to grasp. After all, we are used to train drivers needing to spend time
>> doing route and traction learning.
>
> Don't forget that young women often had to get in a wide range of
> unfamiliar aircraft in WWII and fly alone across the country just using
> a few notes in a book.
>
>

But they didn’t kill very many people if they got it wrong.

In message <t2khku$ts9$6@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:58 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Now I find the photo I took from above the tunnel mouth, yes there does
>appear to be some land on the north side they could perhaps use, though
>it's really not in a convenient place for arriving traffic rather than
>departing. I'd recalled the hill on that side to be steeper, closer to the
>terminal infrastructure.
>
>My suggestion would be to bridge the A20 and M20 and use the site with the
>red pin in this Google maps screenshot:
>
><https://twitter.com/annanoyddryver/status/1511752521567592456?s=21>

The red and dark red pin, or the red and white pin?

Anyway, here's a general view from the hill to the north: <https://goo.g
l/maps/83y3YD7XSe4U9Wz17>
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2khkt$ts9$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:57 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.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.
>
>The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.

On the motorway?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2khkt$ts9$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:57 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.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.
>>
>> The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.
>
> On the motorway?

What problem is trying to be solved here? Is it that of not sending a
driver across the channel or cutting down on truck road miles? If the
former all that needs to be done is to ensure that a driver is waiting at
the other end of the tunnel shuttle. Trucks on the lorry shuttle already
come with their own tractor unit. The bigger win is to load tucks well
inland of the tunnel, ie nearer their origin point and to unload them
nearer their destination.

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:15:43 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <t2k7af$11cs$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 14:15:43 on Wed, 6 Apr
>2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 09:15:21 +0100
>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>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.
>>
>>Or maybe go direct to Cherbourg. Just a thought.
>
>I looked at the map, and even Perpignon is a day and a half's drive. On
>the other hand, Bilbao is only six hours, and many of the trucks at
>Perpignan have probably come from Spain, anyway.

If you're in that part of the world then Bilbao (or Santander) to Ireland makes
a lot more sense that driving to Cherbourg whether you're in a car or lorry.

On 07/04/2022 07:41, Tweed wrote:
> Trucks on the lorry shuttle already
> come with their own tractor unit.

I presume he is referring to the smaller, more manoeuverable tractor
units used on some ferries for taking trailers onboard?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 06:41:54 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t2khkt$ts9$5@dont-email.me>, at 17:11:57 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.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.
>>>
>>> The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.
>>
>> On the motorway?
>
>What problem is trying to be solved here? Is it that of not sending a
>driver across the channel or cutting down on truck road miles? If the
>former all that needs to be done is to ensure that a driver is waiting at
>the other end of the tunnel shuttle. Trucks on the lorry shuttle already
>come with their own tractor unit. The bigger win is to load tucks well
>inland of the tunnel, ie nearer their origin point and to unload them
>nearer their destination.

I don't think drivers are their personal tractor units are separable. They may be owned by the driver, or at least
assigned to the driver long-term. They're almost mobile homes. So, if the drivers don't cross the Channel, neither would
their tractors, so there would need to be EuroTunnel shunting tractors provided as part of this scheme.

Agreed about the bigger win, and that's the CargoBeamer approach.