In message <t2khta$squ$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:16:26 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>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.

Planes (like cars) were all much simpler then.

But I wonder how many had experiences en-route that we wouldn't regard
as acceptable today (or outside wartime). Would you have been happy for
them to be ferrying civilian passengers, in such circumstances, too?
--
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?

I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <HOKdna2xR4lYTdD_nZ2dnUU7-fvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:41:22 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>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.

Very possibly. I think the map we were shown earlier only had the Calais
terminal.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:02:01 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.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?
>
>I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
>are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?

If their top speed is, say, 20mph, would it make sense or be legal to take them on a motorway?

On 2022-04-07 10:02:01 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:

> 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?
>
> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?

I had a vague recollection that vehciles must be capable of a certain
top speed as a minimum to be permitted on motorways.

Robin

Am 07.04.2022 um 12:37 schrieb Bob:
> On 2022-04-07 10:02:01 +0000, Anna Noyd-Dryver said:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages
>> which
>> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>
> I had a vague recollection that vehciles must be capable of a certain
> top speed as a minimum to be permitted on motorways.

In Germany, that's 60 km/h or 38 mph.

On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?

Not seen many traction engines on motorways.

Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)

In message <t2mfqo$ec9$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:53:12 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:

>>>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid
>>>carriages which are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?

>> I had a vague recollection that vehciles must be capable of a
>>certain top speed as a minimum to be permitted on motorways.
>
>In Germany, that's 60 km/h or 38 mph.

While there's no blanket minimum speed restriction [but see below
for capability] on motorways (some roads, especially with tunnels)
have local minimums, there's a general rule about not driving
"inconsiderately", and unless you've broken down and are limping
to the next exit, that could well be something like 40mph.

I have seen some sources assert there's a statutory 25mph limit, in the
sense that your vehicle must be *capable* of more then 25mph, but can't
pin down a citation.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2m13i$ato$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:41:54 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t2khkt$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
>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> 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?

Avoiding a driver from the UK having to go through the tunnel to pick up
a trailer that's just been offloaded from a train. And preferably not
the driver who will be taking it to r-UK.

>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.

They'll need to have access to some form of tractor.

>Trucks on the lorry shuttle already come with their own tractor unit.

Yes, but maybe they don't want to have to match up tractors and drivers
from one firm with that firm's trailers, let alone the driver being off
the road for many hours. Unless the firms have numerous balancing flows,
it's going to be nightmare anyway.

>The bigger win is to load tucks well inland of the tunnel,

Onto a train presumably??

>ie nearer their origin point and to unload them nearer their
>destination.

Off train at the UK end, presumably.

Well, yes, but requires taking a punt on the investment in the inland
terminal with the sliding cradles, always assuming there's somewhere
useful the trains will be in-gauge.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>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?

No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
factor in the safety case.

Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
rather have it contained very locally.
--
Roland Perry

On 07/04/2022 13:18, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t2mfqo$ec9$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:53:12 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid
>>>> carriages  which  are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>
>>>  I had a vague recollection that vehciles must be capable of a
>>> certain  top speed as a minimum to be permitted on motorways.
>>
>> In Germany, that's 60 km/h or 38 mph.
>
> While there's no blanket minimum speed restriction [but see below
> for capability] on motorways (some roads, especially with tunnels)
> have local minimums, there's a general rule about not driving
> "inconsiderately", and unless you've broken down and are limping
> to the next exit, that could well be something like 40mph.
>
> I have seen some sources assert there's a statutory 25mph limit, in the
> sense that your vehicle must be *capable* of more then 25mph, but can't
> pin down a citation.

Minimum speeds in tunnels are low, usually 10 or 15 mph. The Clyde
Tunnel (not a motorway) had an 8 mph minimum, now removed.

On 07/04/2022 10:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> 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.
>

Bay of Biscay = seasick!!
Cherbourg - Rosslare = slightly less seasickness ....

--
Colin

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

All this stuff about marshalling trailers onto Shuttles would seem to be a
red herring. For a short term trial, sure do whatever you have to do as a
proof of concept. But longer term the economics make most sense to keep the
trailers on the train for the longest distance, and minimise the number of
switching operations (which is what made wagonload freight uneconomic).

So through trains Perpignan to east London are cheaper than a complicated
switching operation with umpteen drivers (even robotic ones) at Calais and
Folkestone. If you didn't want to build a fancy robotic terminal in the UK,
a siding with forklifts might suffice (more slowly and inefficiently)

If not all the trailers are bound for the UK, load the first half of the
train with UK trailers at Perpignan and unhitch the second half at Calais -
a simple railway shunting manoeurve. One of the nice things about road
trailers is you can choose the order they're loaded onto rail wagons -
unlike railway shunting where you need lots of shuffling movements - so it's
easy to load the wagons in the right order.

Obviously there are some paperwork issues before this can be done (safety
cases, paths, gauge clearance) but paperwork is much cheaper than hardware.

If the trailers aren't in gauge on HS1 then that's a harder problem - do
we have any evidence either way for that?

Theo

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>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?
>
>No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>factor in the safety case.
>
>Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>rather have it contained very locally.

Yes, but I think that would make the freight wagons+cargo too heavy.

In message <OJg*jJ7Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:12:04 on Thu,
7 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>All this stuff about marshalling trailers onto Shuttles would seem to be a
>red herring. For a short term trial, sure do whatever you have to do as a
>proof of concept. But longer term the economics make most sense to keep the
>trailers on the train for the longest distance, and minimise the number of
>switching operations (which is what made wagonload freight uneconomic).
>
>So through trains Perpignan to east London are cheaper than a complicated
>switching operation with umpteen drivers (even robotic ones) at Calais and
>Folkestone. If you didn't want to build a fancy robotic terminal in the UK,
>a siding with forklifts might suffice (more slowly and inefficiently)
>
>If not all the trailers are bound for the UK, load the first half of the
>train with UK trailers at Perpignan and unhitch the second half at Calais -
>a simple railway shunting manoeurve. One of the nice things about road
>trailers is you can choose the order they're loaded onto rail wagons -
>unlike railway shunting where you need lots of shuffling movements - so it's
>easy to load the wagons in the right order.
>
>Obviously there are some paperwork issues before this can be done (safety
>cases, paths, gauge clearance) but paperwork is much cheaper than hardware.

And sometimes paperwork can be a bigger obstacle than throwing money at
hardware.

>If the trailers aren't in gauge on HS1 then that's a harder problem - do
>we have any evidence either way for that?
>
>Theo

--
Roland Perry

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?

Bicycles
Horse-drawn vehicles
Some agricultural vehicles
Light quadricycles

(generally for speed related reasons, although I imagine a racehorse on a motorway
might have certain safety implications...)

Theo

In message <t2mn2m$eif$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:56:53 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 07/04/2022 13:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <t2mfqo$ec9$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:53:12 on Thu, 7 Apr
>>2022, Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid
>>>>>carriages  which  are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>>
>>>>  I had a vague recollection that vehciles must be capable of a
>>>>certain  top speed as a minimum to be permitted on motorways.
>>>
>>> In Germany, that's 60 km/h or 38 mph.

>> While there's no blanket minimum speed restriction [but see below
>> for capability] on motorways (some roads, especially with tunnels)
>> have local minimums, there's a general rule about not driving
>>"inconsiderately", and unless you've broken down and are limping
>> to the next exit, that could well be something like 40mph.

>> I have seen some sources assert there's a statutory 25mph limit, in
>>the sense that your vehicle must be *capable* of more then 25mph, but
>>can't pin down a citation.
>
>Minimum speeds in tunnels are low, usually 10 or 15 mph. The Clyde
>Tunnel (not a motorway) had an 8 mph minimum, now removed.

But you agree that some tunnels *do* have a minimum speed limit, that
was the only point I was making.
--
Roland Perry

In message <PJg*8M7Ky@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:28:17 on Thu,
7 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
>> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>
>Bicycles
>Horse-drawn vehicles
>Some agricultural vehicles
>Light quadricycles

And invalid carriages, which includes the mobility-scooter-shaped
examples.

>(generally for speed related reasons, although I imagine a racehorse on
>a motorway
>might have certain safety implications...)
>
>Theo

--
Roland Perry

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> 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?
>>
>> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>> factor in the safety case.
>>
>> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>> rather have it contained very locally.
>
> Yes, but I think that would make the freight wagons+cargo too heavy.

That’s certainly an explanation I’ve seen before. There’s also the issue
of whether being enclosed might make the fire more dangerous and more
difficult to control than on the semi-open wagons. For me that’s an
imponderable, and probably down to probabilities rather than strict
analysis.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> 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?
>>
>> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>> factor in the safety case.
>>
>> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>> rather have it contained very locally.
>
> Yes, but I think that would make the freight wagons+cargo too heavy.
>

The open lorry wagons have been controversial for a while now

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/channel-tunnel-fire-made-worse-by-open-wagons-18-09-2008/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420820-800-wind-and-fire-bedevil-tunnel/

If Eurotunnel’s comment in the latter article is to be believed, they think
enclosed wagons will blow over.

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>>> The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.
>>
>> On the motorway?
>
> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>

Agricultural vehicles, I doubt you have ever seen a farm tractor or Combine
Harvester using one.

Some slow moving vehicle vehicles as well though a list is difficult to pin
down,
those half cab tugs may be road legal but if registered they are usually
classed as a works truck,
as are forklifts that are road legal to enable them to venture onto the
public highway to load and unload a lorry parked outside a premises. Even
those that lorries carry on the back have their own reg.
Works trucks are limited in operation to fairly short distances though as
often in UK law there is no exact definition.
Even the this document cannot tell us
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/works-trucks/work-trucks>
But elsewhere there are hints that 1km between sites is tolerated which is
considerably less than Dollands Moor -Ashford.

There is one other snag to using the common dock terminal type half cab
units on the public highway , by their nature to be manoeuvrable they only
have two axles but are. frequently used to move fully laden trailers whose
normal tractor units will have 3 . Doesn’t matter if a company wants to
wear out its own yard but take the half cab and laden trailer out onto the
public highway then the rear axle load will exceed permissible limits.

GH

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
>> I can't think of any vehicles other than mopeds and invalid carriages which
>> are legal on roads but illegal on motorways?
>
> Not seen many traction engines on motorways.
>
> Then there is the complication of "Special Roads" :=)
>
>

I suppose that may depend if it is a traction engine being used as an
agricultural tractor or in the role
that many were in being the prime mover of heavy loads on the highway , the
bigger ones being called road locomotives. The latter when operated by
showmen were embellished with lots decoration and other features and it
is those that often represent that type today as they survived long enough
to be preserved, but there were many plain examples that got scrapped in
the 1930’s
onwards as ICE units got powerful enough to do the work.

Still leaves the difficult to pin down minimum speed which a vehicle must
attain to be permitted to use a motorway though even though there is no
minimum speed limit on our motorways as such.
I did see a Sentinel steam lorry making good progress on a Motorway once,
bowling along at around 50mph.

GH

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> All this stuff about marshalling trailers onto Shuttles would seem to be a
> red herring. For a short term trial, sure do whatever you have to do as a
> proof of concept. But longer term the economics make most sense to keep the
> trailers on the train for the longest distance, and minimise the number of
> switching operations (which is what made wagonload freight uneconomic).
>
> So through trains Perpignan to east London are cheaper than a complicated
> switching operation with umpteen drivers (even robotic ones) at Calais and
> Folkestone. If you didn't want to build a fancy robotic terminal in the UK,
> a siding with forklifts might suffice (more slowly and inefficiently)
>
> If not all the trailers are bound for the UK, load the first half of the
> train with UK trailers at Perpignan and unhitch the second half at Calais -
> a simple railway shunting manoeurve. One of the nice things about road
> trailers is you can choose the order they're loaded onto rail wagons -
> unlike railway shunting where you need lots of shuffling movements - so it's
> easy to load the wagons in the right order.
>
> Obviously there are some paperwork issues before this can be done (safety
> cases, paths, gauge clearance) but paperwork is much cheaper than hardware.
>
> If the trailers aren't in gauge on HS1 then that's a harder problem - do
> we have any evidence either way for that?

HS1 is built to UIC GC, which seems to be pretty common across the
Continent. There’s a comment on Wikipedia about that allowing DB swap-body
container trains to reach London for the first time, but I don’t really
understand how those are significantly different from standard shipping
containers.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t2kkou$tjd$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:05:18 on Wed, 6 Apr 2022,
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> No, I'm interested in why the freight shuttles have the cage-like
>>> structure (which the CargoBeamer trains don't) and whether that's a
>>> factor in the safety case.
>>>
>>> Some people have suggested that being open-sided *at all* is a risk,
>>> especially from fire/smoke spreading from an HGV on fire, and would
>>> rather have it contained very locally.
>>
>> Yes, but I think that would make the freight wagons+cargo too heavy.
>>
>
> The open lorry wagons have been controversial for a while now
>
> https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/channel-tunnel-fire-made-worse-by-open-wagons-18-09-2008/
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15420820-800-wind-and-fire-bedevil-tunnel/
>
> If Eurotunnel’s comment in the latter article is to be believed, they think
> enclosed wagons will blow over.
>

I hadn't thought of that objection!

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:57:42 +0100
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
>On 07/04/2022 10:07, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>Bay of Biscay = seasick!!
>Cherbourg - Rosslare = slightly less seasickness ....

If you're prone to seasickness then taking any significant ferry journey is
probably a bad idea :) We've done the Santander route 3 times (sadly not for
years now due to the cabins not being suitable for young kids) and didn't
have any problems probably because each time we travelled on the Pont Aven,
which at 40K tons is considerably larger than your average cross channel rust
bucket and doesn't move about much.