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

I have no deep insights, but I think it's to do with the costs of
transshipping a container. If you have a single trailer, you can load it at
the origin (eg a vegetable farm in Spain), you can drive it to the port (eg
with your own driver), it goes on a ferry - accompanied or not
- and it's driven off the ferry to the destination. The truck/ferry
interface is relatively quick and somewhat parallel (N drivers can collect N
trailers at the same time).

To do that via container means having to queue up at two transshipment
points, shipping onto the train or boat and then off again. The throughput
of a container crane isn't very good (only handles one container at a time)
which limits how quickly you can transship. That involves both cost and
scheduling constraints.

Transshipment works for ocean freight or trans-Siberian railfreight, where
it enables a very long leg whose saving dwarfs the costs of transshipment,
but it's more expensive for short distances. In many cases the cost of
transshipping and trucking your container from the UK port is more than the
sea voyage from China (or was in pre-covid times).

Cargobeamer works around this by reducing the transshipment cost by doing
the whole train in parallel, hence the facility can process a lot more cargo
per hour. But it doesn't work for containers because you can't just unload
them from the train, you would need a trailer to put them on.

Apart from the UK's special problems, a road trailer is just a more flexible
kind of container - simply one with some extra wheels. If the trailer can
go everywhere a container can (and not going on a double stack train or
container vessel) why wouldn't you give it the extra flexibility?

If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers, it's hard to
see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I have no deep insights, but I think it's to do with the costs of
> transshipping a container. If you have a single trailer, you can load it at
> the origin (eg a vegetable farm in Spain), you can drive it to the port (eg
> with your own driver), it goes on a ferry - accompanied or not
> - and it's driven off the ferry to the destination. The truck/ferry
> interface is relatively quick and somewhat parallel (N drivers can collect N
> trailers at the same time).
>
> To do that via container means having to queue up at two transshipment
> points, shipping onto the train or boat and then off again. The throughput
> of a container crane isn't very good (only handles one container at a time)
> which limits how quickly you can transship. That involves both cost and
> scheduling constraints.
>
> Transshipment works for ocean freight or trans-Siberian railfreight, where
> it enables a very long leg whose saving dwarfs the costs of transshipment,
> but it's more expensive for short distances. In many cases the cost of
> transshipping and trucking your container from the UK port is more than the
> sea voyage from China (or was in pre-covid times).
>
> Cargobeamer works around this by reducing the transshipment cost by doing
> the whole train in parallel, hence the facility can process a lot more cargo
> per hour. But it doesn't work for containers because you can't just unload
> them from the train, you would need a trailer to put them on.
>
> Apart from the UK's special problems, a road trailer is just a more flexible
> kind of container - simply one with some extra wheels. If the trailer can
> go everywhere a container can (and not going on a double stack train or
> container vessel) why wouldn't you give it the extra flexibility?
>
> If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
> at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
> chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
> having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
> destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers, it's hard to
> see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>
> Theo
>

I’m not sure I follow the logic here. It’s just as easy to turn up to the
origin point with a lorry with a container on the back and load that at
your loading dock. I dare say that side loading containers exist as well.
If we are going down the route of using rail to cut part of the trip, which
seems to be CargoBeamer’s proposition, isn’t it easier to just lift the
container off the lorry and put it in a container flat than to fiddle about
with special lorry wagons? Presumably not, otherwise CargoBeamer wouldn’t
exist.

Here’s the CargoBeamer route network thus far.

https://www.cargobeamer.com/what-we-do/routes-terminals.html

Looks like Ashford is still an ambition. As far as I can tell there’s no
intention to use the Shuttle lorry stock, or special tractor units between
Folkestone and Ashford.

On 08/04/2022 08:09, Tweed wrote:
> 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.

Could the railways handle that muct traffic, going to a large number of
destinations?

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I have no deep insights, but I think it's to do with the costs of
>> transshipping a container. If you have a single trailer, you can load it at
>> the origin (eg a vegetable farm in Spain), you can drive it to the port (eg
>> with your own driver), it goes on a ferry - accompanied or not
>> - and it's driven off the ferry to the destination. The truck/ferry
>> interface is relatively quick and somewhat parallel (N drivers can collect N
>> trailers at the same time).
>>
>> To do that via container means having to queue up at two transshipment
>> points, shipping onto the train or boat and then off again. The throughput
>> of a container crane isn't very good (only handles one container at a time)
>> which limits how quickly you can transship. That involves both cost and
>> scheduling constraints.
>>
>> Transshipment works for ocean freight or trans-Siberian railfreight, where
>> it enables a very long leg whose saving dwarfs the costs of transshipment,
>> but it's more expensive for short distances. In many cases the cost of
>> transshipping and trucking your container from the UK port is more than the
>> sea voyage from China (or was in pre-covid times).
>>
>> Cargobeamer works around this by reducing the transshipment cost by doing
>> the whole train in parallel, hence the facility can process a lot more cargo
>> per hour. But it doesn't work for containers because you can't just unload
>> them from the train, you would need a trailer to put them on.
>>
>> Apart from the UK's special problems, a road trailer is just a more flexible
>> kind of container - simply one with some extra wheels. If the trailer can
>> go everywhere a container can (and not going on a double stack train or
>> container vessel) why wouldn't you give it the extra flexibility?
>>
>> If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
>> at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>> chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
>> having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
>> destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers, it's hard to
>> see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>>
>> Theo
>>
>
> I’m not sure I follow the logic here. It’s just as easy to turn up to the
> origin point with a lorry with a container on the back and load that at
> your loading dock. I dare say that side loading containers exist as well.
> If we are going down the route of using rail to cut part of the trip, which
> seems to be CargoBeamer’s proposition, isn’t it easier to just lift the
> container off the lorry and put it in a container flat than to fiddle about
> with special lorry wagons? Presumably not, otherwise CargoBeamer wouldn’t
> exist.
>
> Here’s the CargoBeamer route network thus far.
>
> https://www.cargobeamer.com/what-we-do/routes-terminals.html
>
> Looks like Ashford is still an ambition. As far as I can tell there’s no
> intention to use the Shuttle lorry stock, or special tractor units between
> Folkestone and Ashford.
>
>
Actually I’ll contradict myself. Looking here

https://www.cargobeamer.com/files/theme/content/terminals_routen/Product_Sheet_Ashford-Calais-Perpignan.pdf

it very much does look like they will use the Eurotunnel lorry shuttle.
Pick up at Ashford truck stop is the give away for no direct rail
connection there.

On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
> If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
> at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
> chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
> having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
> destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers, it's hard to
> see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.

Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
>> If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
>> at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>> chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
>> having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
>> destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers, it's hard to
>> see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>
> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.
>

There’s a regular container train that passes me at lunchtime on the MML.
I’m assuming it is possible to book a place in it, as all sorts of rag tags
of containers appear on it, and also often many unloaded slots.

In message <2q4r4hp42hatps7l0nsp9o93cqd3lhhjc9@4ax.com>, at 14:25:07 on
Wed, 6 Apr 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>>>>> You'd still need some works to the terminal areas, as they're not
>>>>>>>>>> remotely set up for that kind of operation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Looking at Folkestone on Google maps, I guess there could be
>>>>>>>>>> space found for tractor unit exchange somewhere before boarding
>>>>>>>>>> (after check-in and customs, presumably?); for arriving trailers
>>>>>>>>>> you could maybe make an exchange area somewhere near the fuel
>>>>>>>>>> station? Or perhaps the nearby truck stop around 5km away
>>>>>>>>>>would be more convenient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think it would be highly desirable for the tractor swaps to happen
>>>>>>>>> within the terminal area. That way, the small
>>>>>>>>> shunting tractors won't need to be capable of hauling trailers on the
>>>>>>>>> public highway.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been said that the temporary tractors would have to be full size
>>>>>>>> ones because there's no spare space at Folkestone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps the terminal would need to exand on to the next-door field?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's getting to be a pretty big project.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, you're quite right, building a parking area on an empty field next
>>>>> to the terminal dwarfs the complexity of building the tunnel!
>>>>
>>>> False dichotomy. Money (and planning permission) is still money. And
>>>> does this scheme of yours also involve building the cradle-sliding
>>>> loading/unloading system?
>>>
>>>No
>>
>>OK, so it's just for the startup phase
>
>Who says it's just a start-up phase? CargoBeamer's offering is
>something different. It could offer through services
>from its various Continental locations to a UK terminal anywhere along
>HS1 (perhaps somewhere like Barking or Dagenham).

It's (just) a start-up phase, because transhipping via the existing
Shuttle would soon be made redundant by a proper further-inland terminal
using their special trains.

--
Roland Perry

In message <t2on2c$elk$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:09:00 on Fri, 8 Apr 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t2n08h$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.

You could ask the same thing about domestic HGVs. Very few are carrying
containers from one domestic location to another. It's so much easier to
load/unload a curtain-sided truck.

Containers only exist because you can pile them on top of one another
for long ocean trips.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:48:25 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>You could ask the same thing about domestic HGVs. Very few are carrying
>containers from one domestic location to another. It's so much easier to
>load/unload a curtain-sided truck.
>
>Containers only exist because you can pile them on top of one another
>for long ocean trips.

Also given containers weigh 2-4 tons empty thats an awful lot of dead weight
to cart about if you don't need to.

In message <t2p2mj$jkv$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:27:31 on Fri, 8 Apr 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
>>> If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
>>> at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>>> chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
>>> having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
>>> destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers, it's hard to
>>> see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>>
>> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
>> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
>> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.
>
>There’s a regular container train that passes me at lunchtime on the MML.
>I’m assuming it is possible to book a place in it, as all sorts of rag tags
>of containers appear on it, and also often many unloaded slots.

Our domestic container trains operate on a limited number of routes,
mostly between ports and a regional railhead.

The exception might be things like the "Tesco trains", where in order to
get the long-haul done by train, they have to go thorough the extra
bother of stuffing containers at the distribution depot, and unpacking
them at their destination. Maybe with the wheeled cages that isn't too
much of an imposition for groceries.
--
Roland Perry

In message <t2ok0l$cjr$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:16:53 on Fri, 8 Apr 2022,
martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:

>>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.

Which isn't necessary for the CargoBeamer flats?
--
Roland Perry

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:48:25 +0100
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> You could ask the same thing about domestic HGVs. Very few are carrying
>> containers from one domestic location to another. It's so much easier to
>> load/unload a curtain-sided truck.
>>
>> Containers only exist because you can pile them on top of one another
>> for long ocean trips.
>
> Also given containers weigh 2-4 tons empty thats an awful lot of dead weight
> to cart about if you don't need to.
>
>

That’s a very good point.

Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
> > If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
> > at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
> > chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
> > having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
> > destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers, it's hard to
> > see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>
> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.

Can you turn up at (say) Valencia and get your container on the next train
to Barking? I thought that kind of train was a block booking by a user.
The user may be a Stobart-equivalent who offers a truck-train-truck full
logistics service, rather than a container version of Motorail (drive your
own container to the train-side, get it on the next train).

The difference is that Stobart probably has a long term contract (N
containers per week for X years), whereas a ferry takes whoever comes that
day.

The advantage of trailers and ferries is you only pay for them when you have
something you want to send. A lot of smaller businesses work on that model.

Theo

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m not sure I follow the logic here. It’s just as easy to turn up to the
> origin point with a lorry with a container on the back and load that at
> your loading dock. I dare say that side loading containers exist as well.
> If we are going down the route of using rail to cut part of the trip, which
> seems to be CargoBeamer’s proposition, isn’t it easier to just lift the
> container off the lorry and put it in a container flat than to fiddle about
> with special lorry wagons? Presumably not, otherwise CargoBeamer wouldn’t
> exist.

The point being that using containers is convenient for the *railway*.
Using trailers is convenient for the *customers*, because that's what they
already use. CargoBeamer simply offers a cheaper way to get from point A to
point B, without the customers having to rework their logistics operation.
It's like a ferry but on land.

If containers are way cheaper than trailers then some customers may be
tempted to switch if their volume is high enough, but using trailers gives
customers flexibility. Use the train when you can. When you can't, drive.
You can choose which on a day-by-day basis. Same trailer, same logistics
either way.

(Most European non-UK railways have no problems with trailers on trains,
it's only a UK problem where they won't fit. So making that decision the
focus of the operation would seem to be a UK-centric view, rather than
pragmatically using a container when it suits and a trailer when it suits,
since you can put both on trains when you need to, with just differing
efficiency tradeoffs)

Theo

In message <OJg*mGaLy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:44:48 on Fri,
8 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
>> > If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
>> > at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>> > chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
>> > having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
>> > destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers,
>> >it's hard to
>> > see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>>
>> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
>> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
>> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.
>
>Can you turn up at (say) Valencia and get your container on the next train
>to Barking? I thought that kind of train was a block booking by a user.

I expect they are booked in sections by a freight forwarder. The client
just hands the container over to them, and picks it up the other end.

>The user may be a Stobart-equivalent who offers a truck-train-truck full
>logistics service, rather than a container version of Motorail (drive your
>own container to the train-side, get it on the next train).
>
>The difference is that Stobart probably has a long term contract (N
>containers per week for X years), whereas a ferry takes whoever comes that
>day.

Most ferries take a lot more HGVs than a train could. So there's more
flexibility about load factor.

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <OJg*mGaLy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:44:48 on Fri,
> 8 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
>>>> If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
>>>> at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>>>> chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
>>>> having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
>>>> destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers,
>>>> it's hard to
>>>> see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>>>
>>> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
>>> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
>>> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.
>>
>> Can you turn up at (say) Valencia and get your container on the next train
>> to Barking? I thought that kind of train was a block booking by a user.
>
> I expect they are booked in sections by a freight forwarder. The client
> just hands the container over to them, and picks it up the other end.
>
>> The user may be a Stobart-equivalent who offers a truck-train-truck full
>> logistics service, rather than a container version of Motorail (drive your
>> own container to the train-side, get it on the next train).
>>
>> The difference is that Stobart probably has a long term contract (N
>> containers per week for X years), whereas a ferry takes whoever comes that
>> day.
>
> Most ferries take a lot more HGVs than a train could. So there's more
> flexibility about load factor.
>

Yes, you need a lot of trains to keep up. The tunnel itself takes around
4000 lorries per day. I guess the channel ferries take around 7000.
(Figures vary by source but you get the general idea). The CargoBeamer
operation isn’t going to make much of a dent in this. It’s amazing that
this many lorries (not forgetting the cars) pass through Dover when you see
how cramped the docks are, with just one little lane and a tiny roundabout
on the way in/out.

On 08/04/2022 13:48, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <OJg*mGaLy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:44:48 on Fri,
> 8 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
>>> > If container trains were organised more like land ferries -
>>> departing Spain
>>> > at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>>> > chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could
>>> save by
>>> > having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the
>>> origins and
>>> > destinations lined up.  But, given the flexibility of trailers,
>>> >it's hard to
>>> > see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>>>
>>> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
>>> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
>>> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.
>>
>> Can you turn up at (say) Valencia and get your container on the next
>> train
>> to Barking?  I thought that kind of train was a block booking by a user.
>
> I expect they are booked in sections by a freight forwarder. The client
> just hands the container over to them, and picks it up the other end.
>
>> The user may be a Stobart-equivalent who offers a truck-train-truck full
>> logistics service, rather than a container version of Motorail (drive
>> your
>> own container to the train-side, get it on the next train).
>>
>> The difference is that Stobart probably has a long term contract (N
>> containers per week for X years), whereas a ferry takes whoever comes
>> that
>> day.
>
> Most ferries take a lot more HGVs than a train could. So there's more
> flexibility about load factor.
>

One point that seems to have been missed on the container / artic
question is "why". Many of the accompanied artics coming off the morning
ferry at, say, Hull have "just in time" products on board. The artic
goes direct to the factory, unloads and returns to the ferry (possibly
collecting another JIT product, ready for the next day's collection. A
container will be taken off the ferry / train and put in a holding area
to await the arrival of the collecting vehicle, then loads the container
which goes to the destination. It would be unlikely that this could be
done and back to Hull for export the same day.

So containers for some cargoes, but unlikely for any JIT cargo (which
was pre-pandemic / Brexit the commonest cargo).

--
Colin

In message <t2pfo9$lpd$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:10:22 on Fri, 8 Apr 2022,
ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> remarked:
>On 08/04/2022 13:48, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <OJg*mGaLy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:44:48 on
>>Fri, 8 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
>>>> > If container trains were organised more like land ferries -
>>>> departing Spain
>>>> > at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>>>> > chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user
>>>> >could
>>>> save by
>>>> > having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the
>>>> origins and
>>>> > destinations lined up.  But, given the flexibility of trailers,
>>>> >it's hard to
>>>> > see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>>>>
>>>> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
>>>> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
>>>> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.
>>>
>>> Can you turn up at (say) Valencia and get your container on the next
>>>train to Barking?  I thought that kind of train was a block booking
>>>by a user.

>> I expect they are booked in sections by a freight forwarder. The
>>client just hands the container over to them, and picks it up the
>>other end.
>>
>>> The user may be a Stobart-equivalent who offers a truck-train-truck
>>>full logistics service, rather than a container version of Motorail
>>>(drive your own container to the train-side, get it on the next train).
>>>
>>> The difference is that Stobart probably has a long term contract (N
>>> containers per week for X years), whereas a ferry takes whoever
>>>comes that
>>> day.

>> Most ferries take a lot more HGVs than a train could. So there's
>>more flexibility about load factor.

And a lot more frequent a service than CargoBeamer.

>One point that seems to have been missed on the container / artic
>question is "why". Many of the accompanied artics coming off the
>morning ferry at, say, Hull have "just in time" products on board.

We (used to anyway) get quite a lot of HGVs full of flowers passing
through. On the overnight ferry from Hook of Holland.

>The artic goes direct to the factory, unloads and returns to the ferry
>(possibly collecting another JIT product, ready for the next day's
>collection. A container will be taken off the ferry / train and put in
>a holding area to await the arrival of the collecting vehicle, then
>loads the container which goes to the destination. It would be unlikely
>that this could be done and back to Hull for export the same day.
>
>So containers for some cargoes, but unlikely for any JIT cargo (which
>was pre-pandemic / Brexit the commonest cargo).
>

--
Roland Perry

On 08/04/2022 14:53, Tweed wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <OJg*mGaLy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 12:44:48 on Fri,
>> 8 Apr 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/2022 10:46, Theo wrote:
>>>>> If container trains were organised more like land ferries - departing Spain
>>>>> at time X every night, arriving Scotland at time Y - rather than being
>>>>> chartered by a particular user (eg Tesco) I could see a user could save by
>>>>> having fewer trailers and more conventional containers if the origins and
>>>>> destinations lined up. But, given the flexibility of trailers,
>>>>> it's hard to
>>>>> see what advantage there would be of containers over trailers.
>>>>
>>>> Err, container trains do work to exact schedules. May cost extra to
>>>> ensure your container gets on the train you want rather than waiting its
>>>> turn in the queue but I believe it is possible.
>>>
>>> Can you turn up at (say) Valencia and get your container on the next train
>>> to Barking? I thought that kind of train was a block booking by a user.
>>
>> I expect they are booked in sections by a freight forwarder. The client
>> just hands the container over to them, and picks it up the other end.
>>
>>> The user may be a Stobart-equivalent who offers a truck-train-truck full
>>> logistics service, rather than a container version of Motorail (drive your
>>> own container to the train-side, get it on the next train).
>>>
>>> The difference is that Stobart probably has a long term contract (N
>>> containers per week for X years), whereas a ferry takes whoever comes that
>>> day.
>>
>> Most ferries take a lot more HGVs than a train could. So there's more
>> flexibility about load factor.
>>
>
> Yes, you need a lot of trains to keep up. The tunnel itself takes around
> 4000 lorries per day. I guess the channel ferries take around 7000.
> (Figures vary by source but you get the general idea). The CargoBeamer
> operation isn’t going to make much of a dent in this. It’s amazing that
> this many lorries (not forgetting the cars) pass through Dover when you see
> how cramped the docks are, with just one little lane and a tiny roundabout
> on the way in/out.
>

Hence why even a three minute extra delay per vehicle processing
post-Brexit paperwork can produce a 7 mile tail back on the M20. 5
minutes extra per vehicle brings Kent to a standstill. <source Financial
Times>

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On 08/04/2022 11:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <t2ok0l$cjr$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:16:53 on Fri, 8 Apr 2022,
> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Which isn't necessary for the CargoBeamer flats?

Presumbly not, or they would have one!

--
Arthur Figgis

On 08/04/2022 06:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <QuSdnWNhAu310dL_nZ2dnUU7-bvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 21:41:11 on Thu, 7 Apr 2022, Arthur Figgis <afiggis@example.invalid>
> remarked:

>> Presumably not an issue if one the trailer is travelling?
>
> Can't parse that.

"one" should have been "only".

--
Arthur Figgis

Nigel Emery <nigele3@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2022 19:59:57 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> So that leaves three options:
>>
>> 1) A captive fleet of tractor units which travel with the trailers aboard
>> the train
>>
>> 2) New or rebuilt train(s) which allow the tractor unit to uncouple and
>> leave the train
>>
>> 3) New wagons which can accommodate the trailer within a loading gauge
>> suitable for travelling beyond the Eurotunnel network. These already exist
>> for other flows in Europe, but presumably won't fit UK loading gauge other
>> than HS1.
>>
>> For a 'proof of concept' trial, the first option seems most likely.
>
> Agreed, and if the 'proof of concept works then the technical solution
> for options 2/3 already exists.
>
> <https://www.railweb.ch/en/finally-a-wagon-to-carry-standard-semi-trailers-throughout-europe/>
>
>

Very interesting article, thanks!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 06:48:32 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>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)
>
At the time of introduction, they seem to have been classed as an
"Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle" :-
https://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/news/e-scooters-the-legal-road-ahead
as long as you ran them at 12v or else you exceeeded the permitted
power rating of the motor.

In message <sep85h16ekfusi9g6428bgk436sgis54qf@4ax.com>, at 18:36:11 on
Mon, 11 Apr 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 06:48:32 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>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)
>>
>At the time of introduction, they seem to have been classed as an
>"Electrically Assisted Pedal Cycle" :-
>https://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/news/e-scooters-the-legal-road-ahead
>as long as you ran them at 12v or else you exceeeded the permitted
>power rating of the motor.

The article there implies helmets are required for those participating
in the e-scooter trials. The Cambridge trial says users "should" wear a
helmet, but very few people do. And isn't a provisional licence a
requirement, not some ill-defined additional (to what?) qualification.
--
Roland Perry

On 12/04/2022 06:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> The article there implies helmets are required for those participating
> in the e-scooter trials. The Cambridge trial says users "should" wear a
> helmet, but very few people do. And isn't a provisional licence a
> requirement, not some ill-defined additional (to what?) qualification.

A part of the Edinburgh government scheme for hire bikes has just
started here. A newspaper article by one of organisers specifically
says that helmets and high visibility clothing are not required because
they are used pff road but all the ones that I have seen have been on
the road. It will be interesting to see the accident figures - one of
the came down a side road and straight into the traffic without looking
or stopping.

Also see them going around with people sitting in the basket at the front.

They have a big logo on them, I might have thought they would have a
clearly identifiable registration or number to enable easier prosecutions.