It's notable that during the covid pandemic, when the few planes flying were mostly carrying cargo even if they were passenger planes, forecasts were that mass flying would first come back domestically, then internationally, led by business travel with leisure flying lagging a year or two behind. This was based on experience of seemingly comparable previous events such as 9/11. As it's turned out, mass holiday flying is well and truly back but business travel is still significantly down and will probably never fully recover, as so much 'meeting' is now done on Zoom, Teams etc. The near-term future isn't quite how we thought it would be.Stevek76 wrote: ↑20 Mar 2023, 8:36pmLiterally nobody (ok well there's probably a few out there) does daily long distance commutes. That market didn't exist in the way you seemed to think it did even before COVID, what there was has been thoroughly killed off by that event. The bulk of intercity demand is leisure, people wanting to see friends, family, go on holiday, go to university or go on day trips.Carlton green wrote: ↑20 Mar 2023, 8:04pm Prioritising the likes of HS2 and not discouraging long distance high speed daily commuting isn’t wise. We do need quick and efficient rail services, but note those two particular adjectives. For long distance travel, when it’s truly needed by passengers, the electric equal of the 125’s should be fine and further electrification of the rail network should be a priority.
National Transport Strategy
Re: National Transport Strategy
Re: National Transport Strategy
It's interesting to hear the opinion of an insider, I agree you do not simply build more railways willy-nilly but was suggesting a once in two hundred years rebuild using both existing and new infrastructure in a way which would use each to its best. All networks have their limit, placing patch over patch surely only prolongs the inevitable, AI or not.Where things start getting really bad is local distribution, smaller trucks, and vans, running on less-than-motorway roads, which are pretty poor on an emissions per tonne.km basis.
as a life long railwayac, and a 40+ year railway engineer/manager, I’m not actually convinced that simply “more railways” would be the best strategy, for passenger or for freight. For some applications, road has more potential, if exploited wisely, not stupidly as it is now.
Connecting several trucks into 'road trains' improves efficiency, but that as well as significantly more priority and use of Mways for freight traffic which you mention (presumably filling two out of three lanes?) could cause problems for our ambulances and other emergency traffic.
Much/most of our non-food goods come from the far East, increasingly by rail then transferred to HGVs in Eastern Europe, so unless we continue to drive HGVs the final few miles, we introduce an extra sorting yard event if we load onto optimally-sized local deliver vehicles – whereas if freight from the Far East came by rail directly into Britain, there would be no extra break in travel – which I presume is where inefficiencies exist? I see the Germans appear to be already onto this.
The entrenchment of the road distribution industry is no doubt deep, created in an age where the downsides of limitless FF consumption weren't considered, however times change – householders are being expected to replace their cars and gas boilers with much more expensive options because their carbon footprint is lower. Hauling millions of tonnes of freight up and over motorways seems peculiar when there are railway alternatives with lower carbon, lower altitude and more level alternatives.
Where journeys cross undulating and hilly land, a railway will typically ascend around a third or less than that of the motorway. It's not just the lack of rolling resistance, the length of a train or the lack of roundabout after roundabout, it's almost every aspect which is more efficient. We've grown used to an excess of dense, cheap energy, which is going to be very hard to shake off.
https://dhl-freight-connections.com/en/ ... in-europe/
https://www.railway-technology.com/feat ... to-europe/
Re: National Transport Strategy
Some freight does come by rail all the way into UK. There's even a Wikipedia page about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiwu–London_railway_line
And here you can book a "direct dedicated weekly rail service for groupage and full load shipments from China to the UK."
https://www.daviesturner.com/rail/expre ... ail-import
Successful enough that a second line has opened up, from Xian to Hull:
https://www.railfreight.com/beltandroad ... a-uk-link/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yiwu–London_railway_line
And here you can book a "direct dedicated weekly rail service for groupage and full load shipments from China to the UK."
https://www.daviesturner.com/rail/expre ... ail-import
Successful enough that a second line has opened up, from Xian to Hull:
https://www.railfreight.com/beltandroad ... a-uk-link/
-
- Posts: 3993
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: National Transport Strategy
I suppose the point I was, not very clearly, trying to get across is that freight isn’t all about trunk haul, it’s about a complete logistics chain.Hauling millions of tonnes of freight up and over motorways seems peculiar when there are railway alternatives with lower carbon, lower altitude and more level alternatives.
We’re on what might be called th third iteration of freight logistics: water and horse; rail and horse; and now, motorised road (very largely).
To reshape everything each time involved not just the trunk haul mode (water>rail>road), but all the local distribution and all the depots. So, we currently don’t have the connectivity or the depots to support rail, that all got swept away surprisingly fast between about 1955 and 1975, and we now have not only different physical provision, but a different ethos (just in time, with break-bulk depots often operated by the end retailer, and we ship
a massive amount of low-volume, high-value goods under false time-criticality, which alters the shape of logistics).
Even f it were the best thing to do, and I’ve never seen a study that shows one way or the other, going back to rail in a big way would be one heck of a project in time, money, and carbon footprint terms.
Very definitely increase rail for trunk haul, and electrify the freight routes (a very large number of freight trains are currently diesel-hauled due to long gaps in the wiring), but don’t overlook what might be done to decarbonise trunk road, make more efficient use of motorways, and really, really crucially, start doing something about decarbonising distribution downstream of main logistics nodes.
Re: National Transport Strategy
Yes, I completely understand this. As I see it, your suggestion to move more freight on to the roads/motorways, electrify them and build goods yards alongside them for local distribution by locally-optimised transport (this could be drones, self-guiding pods or large vans, all battery electric) would involve similar amounts of construction as for if freight were primarily taken by rail and new goods yards were built for the railways.I suppose the point I was, not very clearly, trying to get across is that freight isn’t all about trunk haul, it’s about a complete logistics chain.
Yes - and given the low carbon revolution we're starting out on we should be considering all options in an open-minded fashion for the fourth! You mention how important it is to de-carbon the final leg of distribution networks, absolutely so, but if we used our motorways and dual carriageways mostly for freight carriage, have you considered the significant extra distribution miles once on the final leg?We’re on what might be called th third iteration of freight logistics: water and horse; rail and horse; and now, motorised road (very largely).
-
- Posts: 3993
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: National Transport Strategy
.
Last edited by Nearholmer on 24 Mar 2023, 6:08pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3993
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: National Transport Strategy
To a significant extent they already exist, that’s what all those huge grey warehouses alongside key motorway nodes are: break-bulk depots.and build goods yards alongside them for local distribution
The logistics flow in many cases is: import point, field, or factory by trunk road haul to break-bulk depot; and, distribution downstream to retail or final customer.
And, I honestly don’t think it would need anything like as much construction to decarbonise distribution downstream of break-bulk as it would to recreate a fully rail-based logistics system. The big challenge in that arena is the HGVs that take sorted loads to retail, supermarket lorries etc., battery vans up to “big Ford transit” size with range up to c200 miles (Mercedes claim nearly 250) are already available, but bigger vehicles remain a challenge.
As ever, the real answer will probably be a blend of things, including more “inland freight terminals” served by rail, and things like rail containerisation of sorted loads for ‘long legs’, rather than secondary road trunking as happens in places with low population densities now (much of Wales, much of Scotland, much of East Anglia etc).
Re: National Transport Strategy
Many Welsh might struggle with that analysis. It's the same for plenty of Scots, also.
This is a back-to-front argument. Areas of highest population density are those which require the least energy per delivery.
Not in anything like the number for the purpose we've been discussing.Nearholmer wrote: ↑24 Mar 2023, 5:41pmTo a significant extent they already exist, that’s what all those huge grey warehouses alongside key motorway nodes are: break-bulk depots.and build goods yards alongside them for local distribution
Yes, this is most likely. But with the 'blend' shifting somewhat from the 95:5 or 90:10 ratio we see at the moment?As ever, the real answer will probably be a blend of things, including more “inland freight terminals” served by rail, and things like rail containerisation of sorted loads for ‘long legs’, rather than secondary road trunking as happens in places with low population densities now (much of Wales, much of Scotland, much of East Anglia etc).
-
- Posts: 3993
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: National Transport Strategy
I wasn’t making an argument for or against anything, merely trying to point out that both Road and rail networks are densest where the population density is greatest (mostly).This is a back-to-front argument. Areas of highest population density are those which require the least energy per delivery.
And, yes, of course, until crowding and congestion kick in and mess things up in multiple ways, higher population densities are most efficient n transport terms.
SFAIU, we agree on a lot:
- that decarbonising freight transport and reducing the other forms of pollution it causes has to be a key strategic objective of out mythical NTS;
- to do that, we need to adopt transport systems that are energy efficient and which draw upon electrical energy generated from a multiplicity of ideally fully renewable sources;
- rail, especially electrified rail, has the natural advantage of achieving the above.
That then leaves a choice: we can either shift virtually all freight onto rail, by creating a duplicate rail network to relieve the congestion that would otherwise cause, or we can change the motive power in road freight, and take actions to allow road freight to flow without the perturbations that waste so much energy.
The reason I keep advocating the second option is that as well as having a great advantage, rail has a great disadvantage: lack of penetration to very many points of origin and points of destination. It always had that limitation, even at its peak c1910 when every significant factory had a rail connection and 90% of the population lived within a couple of miles of a railway goods depot, but it now has very poor penetration indeed, whereas road transport has 100% penetration. For that reason, I think that the second option is “lower hanging fruit” in many respects.
In the real world of s blend of the two, and all/any change taking longer than we’d like, best start on both fronts now.
Re: National Transport Strategy
Yes, definitely so.
The point you make about roads having 100% penetration/rail not is immaterial unless the goods are home market, if local yards are to distribute freight on to electric vans for local delivery as you suggest?The reason I keep advocating the second option is that as well as having a great advantage, rail has a great disadvantage: lack of penetration to very many points of origin and points of destination. It always had that limitation, even at its peak c1910 when every significant factory had a rail connection and 90% of the population lived within a couple of miles of a railway goods depot, but it now has very poor penetration indeed, whereas road transport has 100% penetration. For that reason, I think that the second option is “lower hanging fruit” in many respects.
In the real world of s blend of the two, and all/any change taking longer than we’d like, best start on both fronts now.
The convenience of the HGV is high for agricultural products with many farms so well off the beaten track, no matter how much chaos and danger they at times bring to small roads. Which prompts the question of how many transport miles could be saved were transport not so monetarily cheap - I know of plenty of food goods which travel half (and more) the length of the country and back, to and from packaging or certification plants.
If the object is carbon emission reduction, I would find it difficult to see a convincing argument for moving not less than half of our freight by rail, but of course there are many considerations beyond the environmental. Is the ability of a rail union to throttle a nation's goods supply still an issue?
-
- Posts: 3993
- Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Re: National Transport Strategy
That last point is very germane to all this, because the 1955 railway strikes are often cited as the event that catalysed the shift of goods from rail to road.
Why those strikes took place is also interesting, tangled up with lack of investment and a low-wage strategy on the railways, both because of the shortage of cash and competing priorities at national level following the war.
All a bit of a mess really.
Why those strikes took place is also interesting, tangled up with lack of investment and a low-wage strategy on the railways, both because of the shortage of cash and competing priorities at national level following the war.
All a bit of a mess really.
-
- Posts: 3562
- Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm
Re: National Transport Strategy
I'm going for;
Efficiency (both in terms of land use, energy, and mixed purpose (i.e. walking/cycle paths become wildlife corridors, new construction of canals allow for improved flooding defence/ begins of a national water grid, green wedges to serve as wildlife reserves, allotments and cycle/walkway/scooter paths)
Equal rights for access
My primary focus would be on mixed mode use - buses, trams will gave to take folding bicycles and scooters, trains to take full size bikes - fire safety equipment to deal with electrical fires.
Those who need to use public road transport and have a disability will be able to book a door stop pick up. Similar to many wiggle bus services.
Park and ride to be operated from all motorway interchanges, and motorway buses to link along each interchange - using the motorway. Where possible, the motorway bus will be replaced by a high speed electric over head tram.
Ideally the national goal would be to reduce the need to travel - stronger development laws preventing any further development of non 15 minute towns. Easier licensing for mirco shops and businesses to open in residential areas (day light opening/working times only) BUT with strong penalties for those mirco businesses who flout their rights and cause issues to residents.
Re: National Transport Strategy
It's more of an observation than an analysis, and Scotland isn't even on those maps. So why might many Welsh struggle with it?