Recent content by furnessvale

I am probably mistaken, but I have a distant memory of a strategic freight network document, possibly by Railtrack, which envisaged reopening Matlock to Chinley for freight. Blowed if I can locate a copy.

Exactly my point. Intermodal requires a rail vehicle capable of supporting its load of containers, without any assistance from the containers. The containers themselves also need the strength to self support fully loaded when lifted. All this adds tare wieight which is unnecessary if there is...

I'll let the mods decide what is "on topic", but a 60ft intermodal flat capable of grossing 102t is emphatically not a standard piece of equipment and would be every bit as specialised as a standard 102t tank wagon, but would tare several tonnes more, reducing payload.. If intermodal can do the...

Anything CAN be moved using container equipment. That doesn't mean it is sensible to do so. The payload of a 102t tank wagon is ca. 76t. Put the product in tanktainers on standard flets and payload drops to 60t max. The market will decide what is best, but I can see no example worldwide of...

Now that wagonload is finished to the UK, I agree that unit trains will be what are seen on whatever network system is finally chosen. Having said that, there is no reason that only containers and aggregates should be considered to use the network. Provided a freight train meets agreed...

We used to use similar markers to indicate cant. When concrete sleepers came along we started to use epoxy to stick the plates on.

Yes my comment was a bit tongue in cheek and I would expect the polystyrene to be protected. However, I would expect the (unlikely) derailment of a fuel train involving split tanks to release considerable amounts of fuel. For example, Llangennech involved a spill of 446,000 litres, fortunately...

Always wondered what will happen if a trainload of petrol derails and spills on that embankment! The whole embankment could just melt away!

It also led to two years in jail, so it was treated quite seriously.

Economically I have to agree, but environmentally, even with the massive amount of empty running, the train has still not emitted as much CO2 as HGVs carrying the same load, assuming the HGVs ran one way empty to collect the load.

Already asked for and granted by government. Mustn't disadvantage HGVs against rail!

It was very common on Mk 1 DMUs. The drop down blinds in the cab separating the cab from the first row of passenger seats always had slits cut in them low down at seated knee level. I even recall a case of a driver slipping a DMU into neutral whilst on the move,opening the cab door and going...

If those are strings, most seem to have been attached by RMT rather than NR.

The difference between the UK and countries like Germany and Switzerland is stark. Rather than spending the bare minimum on rail, they have spent that little bit more on things like flyovers. Build 2 flyovers a year for 70 years and you can transform a network. We have a lot of catching up to do.

Without detail checking it is hard to form a detailed assessment, but I do know at least two of the bridges have already been rebuilt using standard concrete arch units, plus this is an ex LNWR line which tended to have a slightly more generous loading gauge.