UK Freight Rail?

Mike,

       UK loading gauge is smaller than the USA. So that is why the rolling stock looks small compared with your equipment in the States.

When I was a kid there were lots of different diesel locomotive types on goods trains. Now it's normally a Class 66. 

I don't have any real interest in UK modern image. As I model US outline in the main.

However I had a misspent youth working/volunteering on a preserved railway here.

Switch Houses/tower = Signal Box

Semaphores tend to only be left on secondary lines or preserved railways. I guess if it's not broke why fix it?

Here's the figures on Level Crossings http://www.publications.parlia...cmtran/680/68005.htm

There are quiet a few freight only lines still in operation. For example the China Clay industry in Cornwall.

Nick

Sorry what exactly is meant by loading gauge?  

I still see manned switch towers in use throughout the UK.

Since the beginning of the transition from steam to electric and diesel, the British have preferred road locomotives which are double ended, eliminating the need for turning facilities. As mentioned above, the Class 20 is one design which utilized a hood type configuration. The Class 17 was another. Switchers or "shunters" were typically built in end or center cab configurations.

When the Class 59 was designed by GM in the early 80s, it took all the available space within the locomotive's car body to accommodate the necessary equipment. In its simplest terms, they had to fit the internal workings of the SD40-2 into much tighter quarters...not an easy feat by any stretch of the imagination. Having impressed the British railway industry with its virtually perfect record of reliability, the Class 59 laid the foundation for the later Class 66.

Upon privatisation of British rail freight, the first 66s were built for and delivered to the English, Welsh and Scottish Railway (EWS), a company founded and managed by a Wisconsin Central-led consortium which was already well acquainted with the reliability of EMD locomotives here in North America. As mentioned above the the Class 66 is now the dominant freight locomotive in Great Britain although, due to the introduction of more stringent emissions regulations, no additional 66s can be built as the body shell cannot presently accommodate the extra fittings required. There are still plenty of "classic" British diesels at work on the mainline including members of Class 20, 37, 47, 56, 57 (Class 47 rebuilt with GM prime mover) and 60. Class 67 locomotives, another type with GM prime movers ordered by EWS and built in Spain, are in service as well. Add electric locomotive Classes 86, 90 and 92 and there is still plenty of motive power variety to be seen.

If you're really interested in contemporary British action, go to www.railcam.org.uk and become a member. Railcam has webcams positioned at various locations around the UK network and it's a lot of fun to watch and it's all "live."

Bob 

Not a diesel fan by any stretch. However, there's just something about that class 68...

In a way the UK's railroads are out-of-date (not that ours are that up-to-date), but their loading limits and sizes, etc., are more limited, so they make things a bit smaller is all.  Good rail system there, though. 

For someone that does not understand the infrastructure and the constraints of the network over here, it really is a mis-informed statement and shows complete lack of understanding.

I have been watching some vids on UK Railroads and just wonder why their rolling stock looks so small and out of date compared to the USA?

Because they are. 

British axle load limits and clearances are stuck about where North American class 1 railroads were in 1890-1910. When King George and Queen Elizabeth toured Canada in 1939 they were pulled by a Hudson in Canada but their journey from London began behind a 4-4-0.

British railroads got stuck decades behind thanks to early development and therefore very high costs to improve track, bridges and tunnels, geographically dictated shorter hauls that limited returns on efficiency improvements, competition over short hauls of light carloads from trucks, 25 years of government enforced regionalization and half a century of government ownership.  When a rock hauler and management from a US regional applied US practices and Canadian built locomotives it was revolutionary.  But you still couldn't operate a Canadian Pacific Royal Hudson in Britain.

Ted: Is the axle load still too heavy for the CPR Hudson?  From the photos, it appears that British trains are longer and heavier then in the past. Freight cars have eight wheels, now, not four. Or does the Hudson just stand too tall and too wide?

So Ted is refering to the height and width of a CPR Hudson, not the Coopers Rating (axle load)?

       Curiously, the Erie Railroad was an old one, like English railroads, but built to six foot gauge in the 1840's. Yet, it's loading gauge was so great that eastern locomotive builders frequently sent their newly constructed steam locmotives for western railroads over the Erie. Western locomotives were often about a foot taller and a foot wider then eastern US locomotives. Those locomotives wouldn't fit through other eastern railroads rights of way, but traversed the Erie's easily.

I was fortunate to live in London for a couple of years as a teenager.  This was the late steam era of British Railways.  It was unusual to see a diesel.  

I learned that much of the infrastructure for Britain's railroads was built before 1900 when engines and cars were much smaller than they are today.  In addition, most of Britain's railroads were built to haul passengers not freight.  This is just the opposite of USA practice where most railroads were built to haul freight. 

The British decided early on to construct nearly all of their stations with high platforms.  This enabled people to quickly get on and off trains.  The platforms were built close to the tracks to accommodate the small passenger cars of the day.  Most of the railroads were doubled tracked.  There were platforms on the outside of both lines.  Many of Britain's mainlines have many closely spaced stations.   

This meant that the width of engines and cars was constrained by the width of the right of way as dictated by the passenger platforms.  Many or the early passenger cars had multiple compartments that were boarded by doors throughout the car.  The cars did not have a center aisle enabling people to walk through the car.  Tickets were taken at the gate before passengers boarded the train.  You can see these scenes in old movies.  This was the practice on many of the trains that I rode as teenager.  

In contrast, most USA passenger station platforms were low and the conductor put down a small step stool so that passengers could board at one end of the car.  Thus ever bigger equipment was not constrained by the width of a station platform in the USA.  Even today only a few USA stations have high platforms.  Most of these are on the North East corridor.

Also, the British railroads did not haul heavy freight over long distances.  I don't know of any 100 plus car coal or refrigerator trains operated in Britain.  (Please correct me if I am wrong.)  British railroads didn't need huge engines because there are no Allegheny or Rocky Mountains to cross.  This doesn't mean that they didn't have a few steep grades but for the most part a Big Boy was not needed to move huge, heavy trains over long distances.  

The last time I was in Britain was about ten years ago.  My impression of riding a few trains is that the British railroads are as modern and up to date as any railroad system in the world.  I think that their passenger service is first rate and that their freight service meets their needs.  Yes, the trains are smaller than those of the USA but they are every bit as modern.  The infrastructure looks old because it is some of the first railroad infrastructure ever built.  

Joe

Britain, and Europe in general, had their railroads developed in semi-developed cities and relatively short distances. The railroads had to be built to fit available space. In North America, the railroads did the developing, and evolved their own ways of dealing with the vast distances. In Britain the trains were smaller and freight travelled relatively short distances in smaller cars)

There was also the austerity of post-WW2 Britain, nationalisation, redundant rail lines and the loss of traffic to trucking. The railroads didn't get the maintenance and renewal. Steam didn't disappear until the 60s, the official date being 1968.

Is the axle load still too heavy for the CPR Hudson?  From the photos, it appears that British trains are longer and heavier then in the past. Freight cars have eight wheels, now, not four. Or does the Hudson just stand too tall and too wide?

Mark

The British (and much of Europe) are still stuck with axle load limitations that are a century behind North American practice.  A Canadian Pacific Royal Hudson would not only be too tall and wide but, since that extra height and width is full of steel and water, too heavy for British track and bridges.

As Joe points out, the British never spent the money to improve clearances at station platforms, bridges or tunnels.  Since they had constrained the volume of locomotives and cars their wasn't much reason to increase axle loadings to Canadian or US standards.  Since their locomotives were of limited tractive effort and horse power (no British steam locomotives ever had automatic stokers) they never saw the need for better couplers or brakes.  Some British Diesel locomotives were even built with vacuum brakes.  With weak locomotives, couplers and brakes there was no reason to invest in long sidings to handle freight trains that couldn't be operated for all of the reasons stated above.

The Class 66 diesels weigh about 100,000 to 120,000 pound less than a North American six axle diesel.  Put another way, they are a Geep wearing SD70 sneakers.  Since they weigh about the same as a Geep they pull about the same as a Geep too.

Today's British and European railroads might look modern.  But the look just is disguising the fact that for freight operations they are stuck with limitations that North American railroads built their way out of 100 years ago.  At least with the Class 66 locomotives they finally have North American reliability and the possibility for North American utilization.  Those attributes will help to earn a better return on investment in the railroads, encouraging more investment in further efficiencies and put the railroads in a better position to compete with other modes for more business.  A huge percentage of European surface cargo would move from trucks to trains if their railroads were more efficient at moving freight.

There was also the austerity of post-WW2 Britain, nationalization, redundant rail lines and the loss of traffic to trucking. The railroads didn't get the maintenance and renewal. Steam didn't disappear until the 60s, the official date being 1968.

US railroads might have ended up something like Britain's if the USRA era proceeded directly into a coast to coast Conrail.  And even in the economic disaster of the 1970s neither US Congress or the Carter administration wanted to spend federal funds propping up inefficiently operated railroads.  That is why Congress passed and President Carter signed the Staggers Act, to free up railroads so they could take advantage of advancing technology to improve efficiency and earn a return on the private investment.  After WW I British Railroads never got the chance.

So the UK has no active hump yards these days? Even with growing rail freight?  Certainly with their fuel prices there...diesel...even electric freight trains can gain some solid market share.

Just to add a note on the comparison between the UK and the rest of Europe on infrastructure. The UK rail network was left very tired after WW2. Possibly the greatest issue was that it could be patched up to make do.

On the other hand certain countries in Europe had their rail infrastructure virtually wiped out which had to be completely rebuilt.

Nick

Very interesting conversation, with thought provoking analysis by all parties!

       An additional benefit of the Staggers Act was freeing up pricing and contract negotiation for railroads, from the ICC, to direct provider/customer. This has allowed, apparently, infinitely more flexible and profitable pricing. Also it apparently freed up unproductive trackage abandonment and rationalization of the US physical railroad plant. I used to read grouchy old John Kneiling, "The Professional Iconoclast" in "Trains", in the '70's. He did two system maps, one current, and one proposed, which would be profitable. Guess what? His profitable map looks about like today's railroad map!

      Intersting analysis of the benefits of short, more frequent goods trains in the UK. They just can't digest huge quantities of merchandise!  

Mark,

To try and put this into a pictorial perspective I'll see if a map of the UK shows and how the population is structured below.

If it doesn't I'll just talk it through. The area of the UK is about 94,000 square miles with a population of 65 million. North of about Leeds the density drops away dramatically as you go into Scotland, which has a population of about 5 million and to the west, Wales with a population of about 3 million which clusters mainly in the south at Swansea and Cardiff.

This leaves the balance of the population which is England and is the size of about 45,000 square miles and 55 million people.

Trying to equate this to somewhere in the US, the nearest I can find size wise is Pennsylvania and has a population of just over 12 million people. So if we can imagine that suddenly the population of Pennsylvania multiplies by 4.5 times roughly with about 2,400 cities, towns and villages and then all the factories, places of work etc etc then you have a rough idea of what the density of the UK is, which is all clustered in the South. As hopefully you can see, the populous is even more densely populated within a 50 mile radius of London where cities, towns and villages literally blur into each other.

So perhaps now this might help people to understand why you don't need large freight consists running in such a small area.

UKa.......map didn't show, but clear description. Did Margaret thatcher cause the death/de-population of the north of England, by shutting the coal mines? Is there any appreciable rail traffic in the north of England? In Scotland, other then inter-city? 

       You Brits run a remarkably productive, prosperous economy on a very small patch of land. Not known by most "Americans" is that the UK is the 7th largest economy in the world!

The shutting of the mines didn't impact density in the North to reduce the population to any extent that we have now or 40 years ago. It is also a fallacy that Thatcher was the main culprit of mine closures, Harold Wilson, before her, actually closed more than she did, people seem to miss this point, even over here.

There is rail traffic into the North and Scotland but I don't know the volumes for it, bear in mind it will be proportional to the population, which is about 5 million or so.

To give another stat that is interesting, in the UK we have about 24,000 passenger train movements each day.

Correct. There are no active hump yards in Great Britain. There are a number of yards at which flat shunting still takes place but this is done on a limited basis as British rail freight has been geared toward trainload operations for quite a few years.

Bob 

So if the rail network is nationlized...how do private companies determine who has priority in running trains in the UK?  

Also, some of the mainline UK rail to me does not look to be of the same weight as most US mainline rail.  Is it different or just optical illusion in pics.  

The nationalisation occurred in 1947/48 and faded away in the 80s. It is actually more privatised than the USA now, as there are different companies that own the lines, operate the signalling and traffic systems, and I guess anyone with a rail company can rent the track to run on, including restored steam operators. Kind of like Amtrak running on everybody else's lines. How they work priorities I dunno. Probably a pile of rules and timetables that I guess you need a supercomputer for. 

The rail was usually bullhead type, sitting in chairs instead of tie-plates. Flat-bottom rail would be found on lighter rated branches. Over the last 50 years or so, heavier flat-bottom rail has replaced the old bullhead, because the chairs and keys needed to secure the bullhead were a high maintenance item.

Interesting.  I thought Network rail owned the physical plant and that they were nationalized?  Thanks for the track info...I have always wondered about the unique UK method of rail attachment...it does look high maintenance. 

Yeah, could be right there, Network is kind of like a Government corporation, and they manage some of the bigger passenger stations too. Railtrack was the outfit doing all the traffic control, I think. DB Schenker (as in Deutsche Bahn) now has the biggest chunk of the rail freight business in the UK i believe. Go figure.

All VERY interesting!     Would it be safe to gleen that rail freight traffic is up significantly in the UK, similar to the US?

Yes. In fact, there is a shortage of serviceable freight locomotives in Great Britain at the present time. In addition to purchasing new locomotives, GBRf just recently acquired a group of Class 66s which had been in service on the continent. Due to more stringent emissions standards which took effect January 1, no additional Class 66s can be built as a design to accommodate the extra equipment required by the new regulations within the body shell has yet been devised.

There is still yet a great number of "classic" British diesels in storage around the network but unfortunately it appears many of them are in a condition which makes the possibility of refurbishment unlikely.

Bob   

I just never understood why the whole European system stubbornly stayed with the stupid manual chain coupling; too expensive to change over I guess. Not too inefficient with unit trains I guess, but what a dangerous set-up for the crews. Wonder what would have happened if Mr Janney's knuckle had made it to Russia and Europe? 

Lack of renewal meant that you could still see loose-coupled wagons (just three chain links, no tensioner) in trains not too long ago, maybe 40 - 50 years. The brake van (caboose) had tons of ballast in the frames, (some were 6-wheeled) and would have their brakes feathered just to keep the train stretched out. Hence the "troublesome trucks" from Thomas the Tank Engine.There was no travel on the train like the North American brakeman.

There's a famous Scottish story of a train accelerating over a summit and snapping the brake van coupling. The sleeping conductor was wakened when the van rolled to a stop a couple of hours travel time in the reverse direction.

Network Rail is classified as a central government body. It owns and operates the infrastructure.  Regarding passenger stations, most are operated by the train operating companies serving them; however, Network Rail is responsible for the operations of larger stations such as the various Central London stations, Edinburgh Waverley, Glagow Central, etc.

Train operating companies (TOCs) bid on and are awarded regional franchises to provide passenger services by the Department for Transport Rail Group. TOCs operate services in accordance with timetabled paths developed by Network Rail. Paths not covered by franchised services may be awarded to other companies designated open-access operators. Certain metropolitan services are operated by local franchise holders in conjunction with what is known as the passenger transport executive (PTE) or other civic body responsible for the administration of public transport. As with passenger traffic, paths are developed for freight trains and the various freight operating companies (FOCs) plan their operations and schedules accordingly. In Great Britain, freight trains run on timetabled paths.

I hope this clarifies some questions regarding British train planning and operations. 

Bob     

Very interesting conversation, with thought provoking analysis by all parties!

Mark

I'm glad that you think so.  There actually is more agreement here than some might think.  There are also some areas that might benefit form some further consideration.

Joe went into some depth on the tight clearances at station platforms.  The failure to improve those and other clearance restrictions had hugely expensive consequences in the steam era.  As mentioned earlier, the largest British express passenger locomotives were Pacifics of weights and dimensions smaller than many in North America. Restricted in size as the boilers may have been, they still could produce more steam than two outside cylinders could use if those cylinders were small enough to clear the existing station platforms and other objects.  Rather than fix the clearance problems the British solution was to build Pacifics with three and four cylinders to get adequate cylinder volume to use the available steam and make adequate horse power.  Inside cylinders are difficult to access and locomotives with them are expensive to maintain.  While there were a few notable classes of three cylinder locomotives in North America (the SP 4-10-2s and UP 4-12-2s come to mind) the three cylinder arrangement was generally rejected as being uneconomical to maintain.  The British paid a high price for not improving clearances.

Ukaflyer wrote

You also seem to be missing the point that there is no real need to increase axle loadings for freight movement as the distances to move freight are considerably shorter than in the US. Don't forget North to South in the UK is 600 miles and the median West to East say from Liverpool to Hull is 125 miles. If we had freight trains the same length as the US by the time the last car left, the locomotive would just be arriving. Likewise London to Edinburgh is about 400 miles, again a relatively short distance.

Little and often is the name of the game here.

Short movements of light loads are not economical with railroads.  With an approach like that there is hardly any need for railroads at all.  That was nearly the case in Britain where the railroad share of the surface freight market was down to about 6% at the time of privatization.  Since then there have been improvements in rail efficiency that have resulted in reduced costs and growth in traffic.  I would think that those developments are viewed positively and that there would be hopes for more.  But any freight rail operator in Britain will have to confront challenges today because of the lack of improvements in axle loads and loading gauge over the last 100 years.

If you look back to the period in which British Railways ceased to improve size and weight restrictions and look at US conditions at the time you might be surprised by some of the similarities.  New York to Chicago is about 900 miles, Chicago to St. Paul is about 400 and New York to Washington D.C is only about 220 miles.  Between WWI and WW II the average Pennsylvania Railroad car haul was less than 250 miles.  And yet US railroads thought it worth while to invest in clearances and axle loads that were adequate for powerful two cylinder locomotives as well as 50 and 70 ton freight cars.

I believe that Britain once had a respectable amount of mineral traffic.  The US did too and many of our mineral hauling railroads had relatively short hauls to tidewater or the great lakes.  Although their hauls were shorter those mineral hauling US railroads were some of the first to invest in heavier rail, stronger bridges and larger locomotives and freight cars since little and often is a very expensive a way to operate a railroad.

What's the point of transporting huge volumes of goods to a specific area when that area can't store, distribute and sell in a short time frame.

Why couldn't one of the worlds most heavily industrialized and densely populated areas store, distribute and sell an economically sized train load of goods in a similar time frame to less densely populated areas of North America? 

With regards to mechanical stokers, you are wrong in stating that the UK didn't have them. Three 9F engines were originally fitted with them but only lasted a few years.

Ok, there were three for a few years until they were removed.  And a fourth locomotive.  Out of thousands!  Could we agree that for most of the years of the twentieth century there were no stoker fired locomotives in service in Britain?

I guess the main reasons for stokers in the US is down to poor quality of coal which necessitated larger grates and therefor needed mechanical means to transfer it.

Hardly.  Eastern US coal is very high in BTU value.  That is why so much of it has been exported to Europe and elsewhere.  We also have long been able to grade it according to size.

Restricted in dimensions and weight and overly expensive to maintain though they may have been, most those beautiful Bristish Pacific type locomotives were ultimately limited in power by the amount of coal one man could shovel.  That is only enough to sustain about 2000 horse power.  One hundred years ago North American heavy Pacifics and Mikados had grown to the point where they had the potential to make more power than that.  Some North American railroads assigned a second fireman for a time but the mechanical stoker was widely adopted here because it was the most economical way to operate trains.  Little locomotives pulling little trains often takes too many people and underutilizes rail lines.  Investments in more efficient equipment in North America freed up people and capital to do more productive things. 

That is why North American locomotives continued to grow and locomotives like Hudsons, Berkshires, Northerns and others grew to produce 3000 horsepower, 4000 horsepower and more.  They provide higher productivity and the national economy benefited.  Diesels offered lower maintenance and multiple unit operation by one crew for still more efficiency.  Until North American built locomotives arrived British Railways had yet to achieve the full potential for savings in maintenance costs from dieselization. 

With current regards to speed, our intermodal traffic is set for 90mph and our coal traffic for 75mph, does this tell you that we are stuck in a time warp 100 years ago and not progressed?

 

In the US the average speed of a freight train around WW1 was about 12mph and now it has increased to about low 20's, that sure sounds like a huge step change in improvements in 100 years.

You are comparing dissimilar measurements.  The current average US freight train speed is in the 20-30 MPH range.  That speed is measured from terminal to terminal for all types of trains.  It includes stops for crew changes, inspections, waiting in sidings for meets and time spent switching enroute or at low speed for curves, slow orders and climbing grades.  Look at terminal to terminal average freight train speeds in Britain and on the continent and I'll bet you find them to be well below the highest permitted speed.

Many secondary freight lines in the US have 40 MPH track speeds.  Typical US class 1 mainline freight track speeds are 50 to 70 MPH. US railroads have offered freight service with 90 MPH top speeds.   The railroads and their customers have fount it uneconomical and it is currently not offered since their is no demand for such a costly service. 

Moving freight at 75 to 90 MPH takes a huge amount of energy and causes inefficient fuel use.  I suspect the reason that it is done in Britain in not because there is a demand from freight customers for high speed coal service but because freight operators are forced burn the extra fuel to avoid conflicts with passenger schedules.  The freight customer gets to pay more to run those little freight trains run more often at high speed.  The passenger gets to pay more for goods due to higher transportation costs.

Ted, you have a complete lack of understanding about how the UK and Europe freight works and some of your comments are quite laughable. The size of UK and independent countries within Europe are significantly smaller than the US and you really can't make direct comparisons as they just don't align. Have you also considered the population of the UK, where demographically most people are living? If you can grasp this then you might have a better understanding as to how our network needs to operate.

Perhaps.  But it does seem that Europeans have decided that continental economic integration is desirable.  North Americans have certainly benefited from the efficient movement of people and goods over long distances.  As Europe becomes more integrated there may be more opportunities to achieve some of the efficiencies that come with practices established eslewhere.  The Class 66 locomotives have certainly been successful under British and European operating conditions. 

With so much British and European freight traveling by truck, more than in North America, there would appear to be great opportunities for growth in rail freight.  If British and European railways continue to provide more efficient service there will be fewer trucks on the roads.  That will reduce highway congestion and reduce fuel consumption.  I imagine that those developments would be viewed as similarly positive on either side of the Atlantic.

But there are limits on British and European freight rail efficiency.  They certainly do have geographical, demographic, political and other historic causes.  The questions about why and how these conditions come to be can be very interesting.  So are the questions surrounding what to do about them now to improve productivity, efficiency and economic growth.

Thanks Bob. 

That sounds much more similar to North American Practice.

I'm sure this is a gross simplification, but I think their mainline rail lines work a little like the US interstate highway system. Just as our highways are open to various private trucking companies, but built and maintained by the government (through gasoline tax etc.), so the private British railways can use the UK railway lines, which are maintained by the government through taxes and user fees.

Ted,

Again you just don't get it with respect to US and UK operations. There is considerably more to why our network is as it is and in fact why europe is in a similar situation and for whatever reason you don't want to get it.

As mentioned before, our network is geared for passenger operation first and freight secondary.

You seem to think that we MUST follow the US model and completely ignore the geography of the UK and where the population density's are situated. If you lived here then you will understand.

You say we paid a high price for not developing larger simpler two cylinder locomotives by not changing all our platforms, tunnels, bridges etc etc. Have you any idea what the cost would have been to do that in relation to the mechanical maintenance required for the locomotives. Perhaps you can supply some figures to back up your claims?

You say short  movements of light loads are not economical with railroads, but as long as it is cheaper than road then it is economical. Again, sorry to labour the point but freight has to fit in with passenger timetables and be able to move at a speed that will not disrupt passenger targets set for arrival etc. Currently I believe the ratio of passenger to freight is around 70/30 split, just FYI.

"Ok, there were three for a few years until they were removed.  And a fourth locomotive.  Out of thousands!  Could we agree that for most of the years of the twentieth century there were no stoker fired locomotives in service in Britain?"

This is again is laughable because you are in denial, your logic is that if something is done in just a small quantity then it never really happened or existed, but in reality in this case the UK did have them, they were real. So if I posted that the US never ever made a steam turbine then you would agree with that statement? I think in reality you would get several posts to correct that claim and quite rightly so.

....those beautiful Bristish Pacific type locomotives were ultimately limited in power by the amount of coal one man could shovel.  That is only enough to sustain about 2000 horse power.  One hundred years ago North American heavy Pacifics and Mikados had grown to the point where they had the potential to make more power than that.  Some North American railroads assigned a second fireman for a time but the mechanical stoker was widely adopted here because it was the most economical way to operate trains.  Little locomotives pulling little trains often takes too many people and underutilizes rail lines.  Investments in more efficient equipment in North America freed up people and capital to do more productive things. 

You make it sound that because a Pacific can be fired by one man that we stopped there and didn't make larger locomotives because of it, all I will say the majority of our Pacific's were built for passenger service, sorry to labour this point yet again, there were some were classed as mixed traffic use as well. Gresley built his Pacific's for fast express passenger traffic at 90mph + and the passenger cars came in at somewhere in the 400 ton area. So why would the UK want to build larger locomotives that would be less efficient pro rata? It was proven that a Pacific was adequate for the job. In fact I believe that some could actually produce 2,400 HP. Again, another point that needs to be raised, is that our raised platforms are of a length in the main to accommodate 12 passenger cars, so again, a Pacific is more than capable of handling somewhere around 600 tons. Still no need to build larger locomotives which may produce 3-4,000 HP where most of it would never be utilised. A bit like having a Big Boy hauling 25 freight cars for a journey. Another point regarding mechanical stokers, if a fireman was capable of keeping the fire going, why spend money on a mechanical stoker, it is just another expense not needed and increases build and maintenance costs and also time/parts at overhaul periods.

"Look at terminal to terminal average freight train speeds in Britain and on the continent and I'll bet you find them to be well below the highest permitted speed."

I never implied the total journey time reflects running speed but as I don't have the time currently to find end to end times it goes without saying that this figure will be less, but I would say it will be higher than the US figure of being in the 20's. As mentioned earlier, our freight has to fit in with passenger traffic so this will mean higher average speeds.

"The freight customer gets to pay more to run those little freight trains run more often at high speed.  The passenger gets to pay more for goods due to higher transportation costs."

Any higher costs are as you say are dumped at the consumers pocket, but if you understood how  much consumer goods cost over here by large multinational companies and what it cost outside the UK, then you will realise a few extra pennies on each item in transportation is peanuts!

Ted, you have a complete lack of understanding about how the UK and Europe freight works and some of your comments are quite laughable. The size of UK and independent countries within Europe are significantly smaller than the US and you really can't make direct comparisons as they just don't align. Have you also considered the population of the UK, where demographically most people are living? If you can grasp this then you might have a better understanding as to how our network needs to operate.

"As Europe becomes more integrated........"

I wouldn't bet on that one, let's see where Greece goes and then possibly where we go if we get the vote and pull out. Greece, the EU may not miss, but with the UK it may be different. 

"With so much British and European freight traveling by truck, more than in North America, there would appear to be great opportunities for growth in rail freight."

Freight is predicted to grow for the next 15 years at quite a rate, question is will our network support increased passenger and freight at the same time?

Knowing how the network is dimensioned in the South I don't personally see how it can be increased due to land constraints. For freight it may be a case of running more from say midnight to about 05-00, but then it will impact as a noise nuisance in built up areas and probably get squashed.

Ted also had a a bee in his bonnet about how backward the UK is regarding freight couplings and braking systems.

I went looking to see what accidents were due to our freight couplings failing and to be honest I didn't find anything classified as major that mentioned them and this was going back to reports in the 50's. Yet when you look on the net for US coupling failures I find there are quite a few stats, so if Ted is being critical about a system that does not use a knuckle coupler, then why does the US seem to have a lot of failures that Ted regards as a superior coupler?

Also, regarding brakes, I guess Ted is referring to vacuum brakes, again I searched for any incidents for vacuum brake failures in the same time frame and couldn't find anything, perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places as I would have thought there would have been some but....?

Yet if you look at stats for 2001 to 2013 in the US for brake failures the figures are a bit alarming, well from my perception they are, so again, if Ted is critical of the UK vacuum system then all I can say is that the current US system seems a lot worse.

Very interesting, including the argument.  I have ridden two passenger trains in

GB, from London to Inverness and return, and from London out to a cathedral town?

that is closest to Stonehenge.  Just saw one freight train hauling what looked like

U.S length ore hoppers across the Firth of Forth bridge in Scotland.  Spent a little

time at a village station somewhere forgotten and saw no trains not did I notice that

about the platforms. I noted that those Briitsh diesels had large glass windshields in

the front and engineers were up close and personal, in the event, as explored on

another running thread, that there were, and I assume there are not or are rare,

animal strikes on the track.  I am also guessing vehicle crossing collisions must be

better controlled or non existant in GB, which allows that design?  Given the U.S.

has plenty of both, animal and vehicle crossing collisions,  explains why that design is not common here.