Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> 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.
>

The train would be carrying the road trailers, carrying containers. So a
good bit taller than a container.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> The train would be carrying the road trailers, carrying containers. So a
> good bit taller than a container.

Yes, but a swap-body isn’t normally carried on a lorry on a train, is it?
That would make no sense of the comment about them being able to reach
London on HS1 under UIC GC; any similarly sized road vehicle could do the
trip if that was meant.

Sam

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

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:11:57 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.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.
>
>The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.
>
I would suspect not otherwise cheaper road-legal vehicles would be
used as tractors. Features left off as unnecessary (e.g. often
headlights) could prevent them complying with various requirements.
Features added (unusually positioned mirrors, lights and other
externally mounted items) might also be incompitable with general
construction and use requirements.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 17:11:57 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
> <anna@noyd-dryver.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.
>>
>> The half-cab tractor units are perfectly road-legal.
>>
> I would suspect not otherwise cheaper road-legal vehicles would be
> used as tractors. Features left off as unnecessary (e.g. often
> headlights) could prevent them complying with various requirements.
> Features added (unusually positioned mirrors, lights and other
> externally mounted items) might also be incompitable with general
> construction and use requirements.
>

Can you imagine the M20 being brought to a halt as all these underpowered
tractors struggle along with their loads?

Charles Ellson wrote:

>I would suspect not otherwise cheaper road-legal vehicles would be
>used as tractors. Features left off as unnecessary (e.g. often
>headlights) could prevent them complying with various requirements.
>Features added (unusually positioned mirrors, lights and other
>externally mounted items) might also be incompitable with general
>construction and use requirements.

I though the most significant special feature of some of these
units is a driving position that could be swiveled through 180
degrees without leaving the seat.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

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?
>
Generally in England and Wales-
(the prohibition is on "classes of traffic" not vehicles)
Pedestrians.
Pedal cycles.
Horse drawn vehicles.
Motorcycles under 50cc ("mopeds" are not a listed class)
Agricultural vehicles.
Any vehicle driven by a provisional licence holder (unless holding a
correct licence or otherwise authorised for the vehicle being driven
at the time).
Any vehicle not capable of travelling at 25mph (unless with special
authorisation).
Any vehicle drawn or propelled by a pedestrian.

Schedule 4 Highways Act 1980 has the "pick list" of 11 classes of
traffic from which each Special Road's Order etc. assembles the
permitted classes of traffic allowed on it.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:18:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
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.
>
On a Special Road in England and Wales -
Class I(v) in Schedule 4 (Classes of Traffic for Purposes of Special
Roads) Highways Act 1980.
[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/schedule/4]
"...... and in the case of which the following conditions are
satisfied:—
[..........]
in the case of a motor vehicle, that it is so constructed as to be
capable of attaining a speed of 25 miles per hour on the level under
its own power, when unladen and not drawing a trailer."

That being subject to other provisions allowing for unusual loads,
emergencies etc.

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:55:14 +0100, 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.
>
Not unless it has pneumatic tyres and can do 25mph.

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

On 7 Apr 2022 14:29:58 GMT, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk>
wrote:

>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.
>
ISTR there is in practice (using distances from the tad/handful/ "near
here" scale), based on travelling between premises on opposite sides
of the road and/or within a particular (but not rigidly defined)
distance from the premises. It is possibly in legislation dealing with
exemption from vehicle licensing and excise requirements. Local
conditions might cause varying interpretation of what is e.g. "nearby"
allowing further travel out in the countryside than in the West End.
It might even also depend on the frequency of "on road" movements
taking into account such things as the relatively fewer occurrences
(in the past anyway) of shifting big bits of ship from a building shed
to the slipway down the road.

>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

On Thu, 07 Apr 2022 19:51:01 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk>
wrote:

>Charles Ellson wrote:
>
>>I would suspect not otherwise cheaper road-legal vehicles would be
>>used as tractors. Features left off as unnecessary (e.g. often
>>headlights) could prevent them complying with various requirements.
>>Features added (unusually positioned mirrors, lights and other
>>externally mounted items) might also be incompitable with general
>>construction and use requirements.
>
>I though the most significant special feature of some of these
>units is a driving position that could be swiveled through 180
>degrees without leaving the seat.
>
Which would probably infer further unusual features such as a
secondary/duplicated steering control, reduced/no distinction between
front/back, forward/reverse etc.

On 07/04/2022 13:45, Roland Perry wrote:

>
> 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.

Isn't that to stop out of gauge aerials etc from the lorries coming near
the overhead, which is why the stuctures[1] are only over the lorry
cabs? Photo here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Channel_Tunnel_freight_shuttle#/media/File:Fresque_Eurotunnel_Navettes.jpg

Presumably not an issue if one the trailer is travelling?

1. "pagodas" seems to be the word:
https://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg=515&cle=4ee4ce5ef8c433115ceb4a6cad76159f&file=pdf%2F2018_IGC_Annual_safety_report_to_the_Agency-2.pdf

--
Arthur Figgis

--
Arthur Figgis

On 07/04/2022 20:41, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2022 19:51:01 +0100, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson wrote:
>>
>>> I would suspect not otherwise cheaper road-legal vehicles would be
>>> used as tractors. Features left off as unnecessary (e.g. often
>>> headlights) could prevent them complying with various requirements.
>>> Features added (unusually positioned mirrors, lights and other
>>> externally mounted items) might also be incompitable with general
>>> construction and use requirements.
>>
>> I though the most significant special feature of some of these
>> units is a driving position that could be swiveled through 180
>> degrees without leaving the seat.
>>
> Which would probably infer further unusual features such as a
> secondary/duplicated steering control, reduced/no distinction between
> front/back, forward/reverse etc.

Two types. More modern ones the controls and seat all swivel together.
On older units the wheel / pedals remain in place but there are two
fixed seats.

--
Colin

Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 13:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> Isn't that to stop out of gauge aerials etc from the lorries coming near
> the overhead, which is why the stuctures[1] are only over the lorry
> cabs? Photo here:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Channel_Tunnel_freight_shuttle#/media/File:Fresque_Eurotunnel_Navettes.jpg
>
> Presumably not an issue if one the trailer is travelling?
>
> 1. "pagodas" seems to be the word:
> https://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg=515&cle=4ee4ce5ef8c433115ceb4a6cad76159f&file=pdf%2F2018_IGC_Annual_safety_report_to_the_Agency-2.pdf
>

I’d forgotten about them. They’re the updated version. I was only
remembering the original skeleton wagons:

<http://www.dover.freeuk.com/imgs/jpeg/6105.jpg>

though there do seem to be intermediate ones with continuous roofs

<http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/truck-sits-inside-a-eurotunnel-shuttle-wagon-operated-by-groupe-sa-picture-id151756234>

Sam

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

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:02:01 -0000 (UTC), 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?

C5s?

In message <t2n08h$cg5$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:33:37 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>The train would be carrying the road trailers, carrying containers. So a
>good bit taller than a container.

Most of the pictures show non-containerised trailers, for example like
the one here:

http://perry.co.uk/images/QA-nearmiss-Sept-2018.jpg

That bridge is 3.5m, 11'6"; so the trailer is perhaps 12' (the signage
usually has 3" pessimism built in) = 3.7m. Apparently road vehicles need
special permission to be more than 4m tall (13')

CargoBeamer specifies a maximum height of 4m on their website.

By contrast a standard container is merely 8.5' (2.59m) and the
high-cube 9.5'; with British loading gauge of 12'10" (3.9m). Most of the
alternative UK gauges are slightly wider, not taller.

I expect the CargoBeamers run on Continental lines capable of 4.65m,
only leaving 0.65m for the flats. Channel Tunnel is 5.6m, which would
allow for a 4m trailer and 1.6m flat.

Looked at another way, a 4m trailer wouldn't fit the standard UK loading
gauge even if the top of the flats were at rail level.

HS1 is also 4.65m
--
Roland Perry

In message <tbdu4hhvnjrtnq9r72213uss8hq095st05@4ax.com>, at 20:10:39 on
Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:18:18 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>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.
>>
>On a Special Road in England and Wales -
>Class I(v) in Schedule 4 (Classes of Traffic for Purposes of Special
>Roads) Highways Act 1980.
>[https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/66/schedule/4]
>"...... and in the case of which the following conditions are
>satisfied:—
>[..........]
>in the case of a motor vehicle, that it is so constructed as to be
>capable of attaining a speed of 25 miles per hour on the level under
>its own power, when unladen and not drawing a trailer."

Thanks.

>That being subject to other provisions allowing for unusual loads,
>emergencies etc.

--
Roland Perry

In message <q2tu4hdhlgb47913ejg4v8387abnov6912@4ax.com>, at 18:31:55 on
Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> remarked:
>On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 10:02:01 -0000 (UTC), 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?
>
>C5s?

Are they classed as electric bikes? A category that rather got out of
jail free, compared to electric buggies and scooters (and Segways)
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2mrpc$g6m$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:17:16 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 13:45:54 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t2kkou$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-bedevi
>l-tunnel/
>
>If Eurotunnel’s comment in the latter article is to be believed, they think
>enclosed wagons will blow over.

I wonder if the lattice enclosure is partly to catch any trucks blown
sideways? In which case the completely open CargoBeamer flats would be a
problem.
--
Roland Perry

In message <QuSdnWNhAu310dL_nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
21:41:11 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
remarked:
>On 07/04/2022 13:45, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Isn't that to stop out of gauge aerials etc from the lorries coming
>near the overhead, which is why the stuctures[1] are only over the
>lorry cabs? Photo here:
>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Channel_Tunnel_freight_shutt
>le#/media/File:Fresque_Eurotunnel_Navettes.jpg

Is that a new design, the ones I'm familiar with are much chunkier:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/32467.stm

>Presumably not an issue if one the trailer is travelling?

Can't parse that.

>1. "pagodas" seems to be the word:
>https://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg=
>515&cle=4ee4ce5ef8c433115ceb4a6cad76159f&file=pdf%2F2018_IGC_Annual_safe
>ty_report_to_the_Agency-2.pdf

--
Roland Perry

On 07/04/2022 13:45, Roland Perry 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.

The "cage-like structure provides the structural strength of the waggon.

> 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.

<martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 07/04/2022 13:45, Roland Perry 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.
>
> The "cage-like structure provides the structural strength of the waggon.
>

It seems that the later freight wagons have more open sides and only a
partial roof, just over the cab.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t2n08h$cg5$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:33:37 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022,
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The train would be carrying the road trailers, carrying containers. So a
>> good bit taller than a container.
>
> Most of the pictures show non-containerised trailers, for example like
> the one here:
>
> http://perry.co.uk/images/QA-nearmiss-Sept-2018.jpg
>
> That bridge is 3.5m, 11'6"; so the trailer is perhaps 12' (the signage
> usually has 3" pessimism built in) = 3.7m. Apparently road vehicles need
> special permission to be more than 4m tall (13')
>
> CargoBeamer specifies a maximum height of 4m on their website.
>
> By contrast a standard container is merely 8.5' (2.59m) and the
> high-cube 9.5'; with British loading gauge of 12'10" (3.9m). Most of the
> alternative UK gauges are slightly wider, not taller.
>
> I expect the CargoBeamers run on Continental lines capable of 4.65m,
> only leaving 0.65m for the flats. Channel Tunnel is 5.6m, which would
> allow for a 4m trailer and 1.6m flat.
>
> Looked at another way, a 4m trailer wouldn't fit the standard UK loading
> gauge even if the top of the flats were at rail level.
>
> HS1 is also 4.65m

I don’t think anyone is expecting a CargoBeamer service to get beyond HS1.
However, having what would be an inland port somewhere near the M25, with
equivalent ports well inland in continental Europe would take a lot of
lorry miles off the motorway networks. Switzerland has shown how it is
possible to force truck traffic off the roads and on to transit trains.

Now, here’s a question that shows my ignorance: why aren’t the majority of
ferry routed lorry freight operations done by container? If everything was
moved by container we wouldn’t need all these fancy systems for dealing
with lorry trailers.

On 05/04/2022 08:43, Jeremy Double wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <5Lqdnfh7rpHBttb_nZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 18:31:06 on Mon, 4 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
>> remarked:
>>> On 03/04/2022 16:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> 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,
>>>
>>> There weren't any in France, Italy or Germany either...
>>
>> I expect the Continental ones have economises of scale. Whereas the UK
>> is bit out on limb.
>>
>> Would I be right in thinking for example that the Calais depot would be
>> handling ferry traffic too (and intra-EU Calais area to r27), whereas
>> one at Ashford only tunnel traffic?
>>
>>>> nor has anyone built and approved the new style of freight train for
>>>> the tunnel?
>>>
>>> Given the rail network isn't still using chaldron wagons, the
>>> introduction of new rolling stock can't be an totally insurmountable
>>> problem.
>>
>> Few things are insurmountable, if you throw enough money at them (apart
>> from Nuclear Fission and fulfilling Boris's promise of no customs checks
>> across the Irish Sea).
>
> I think you meant “nuclear fusion”, nuclear fission has been used
> successfully since Calder Hall power station opened in 1956.
>

Even earlier than that, it worked quite well at Hiroshima.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 07/04/2022 11:02, Anna Noyd-Dryver 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?
>

Any horse drawn vehicle.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 07/04/2022 14:12, Theo 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).
>

Even easier if you just stick the container on a conventional train and
forget about moving the trailer and/or tractor unit.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.