The future of Cross Channel Freight?

[amogles]

I've been wondering why SNCF didn't do this long long ago.

The postal TGVs entered service not long after the first TGV line
opened in the 1980s. I always wondered why similar services were not
introduced on the other lines when these opened.

[Peter Masson]

"Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.*************> wrote
>
> Could St Pancras handle a freight operation? I know something could be
done
> at Stratford but logically the ideal would be to get the goods as close to
> central London[1] as possible.
>
The Willesden Postal depot is modern, underused, and well sited. Those spurs
in the St Pancras throat might well prove useful. Alternatively give over a
platform at Liverpool Street, and reopen the Post Office railway for Central
London distribution.

Peter

[furnessvale]

On 5 Feb, 14:38, "L�ko Willms" <l.wil...@domain.invalid> wrote:

> � Just recalling that only relatively light and not too bulky goods
> can be transported, among others because of the maximal axle load of
> 17 tons on the French high-speed lines. So, Fret GV will not be "the
> future of Cross Channel freight", but an interesting addition.

IIRC the axle load for a standard Freightliner flat is only 17.5 tons
at 75mph so 17 tonnes is not a million miles away.

George

[Bevan Price]

>
> "Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.*************> wrote
>>
>> Could St Pancras handle a freight operation? I know something could be
> done
>> at Stratford but logically the ideal would be to get the goods as close
>> to
>> central London[1] as possible.
>>
> The Willesden Postal depot is modern, underused, and well sited. Those
> spurs
> in the St Pancras throat might well prove useful. Alternatively give over
> a
> platform at Liverpool Street, and reopen the Post Office railway for
> Central
> London distribution.
>
> Peter
>
Or use Waterloo ?

Bevan

[Paul Scott]

>
> "Peter Masson" <peter.masson1@************> wrote in message
> news:VuKdnSimpo6I6TXanZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.*************> wrote
>>>
>>> Could St Pancras handle a freight operation? I know something could be
>> done
>>> at Stratford but logically the ideal would be to get the goods as close
>>> to
>>> central London[1] as possible.
>>>
>> The Willesden Postal depot is modern, underused, and well sited. Those
>> spurs
>> in the St Pancras throat might well prove useful. Alternatively give over
>> a
>> platform at Liverpool Street, and reopen the Post Office railway for
>> Central
>> London distribution.
>>
>> Peter
>>
> Or use Waterloo ?
>

TGV postal stock (which they're suggesting IIRC) would be out of gauge
surely - just like everywhere else other than St Pancras or Ebbsfleet...

I reckon Ebbsfleet could be used overnight as a post or parcels depot
though - good connections with the motorways for onward distribution the way
the parcel/courier firms usually operate...

Paul

[BH Williams]

>
> "Bevan Price" <meVIAfreeukFULLSTOPcom> wrote in message
> news:1202236467.8240.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>>
>> "Peter Masson" <peter.masson1@************> wrote in message
>> news:VuKdnSimpo6I6TXanZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Graeme Wall" <Rail@greywall.*************> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Could St Pancras handle a freight operation? I know something could be
>>> done
>>>> at Stratford but logically the ideal would be to get the goods as close
>>>> to
>>>> central London[1] as possible.
>>>>
>>> The Willesden Postal depot is modern, underused, and well sited. Those
>>> spurs
>>> in the St Pancras throat might well prove useful. Alternatively give
>>> over a
>>> platform at Liverpool Street, and reopen the Post Office railway for
>>> Central
>>> London distribution.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>> Or use Waterloo ?
>>
>
> TGV postal stock (which they're suggesting IIRC) would be out of gauge
> surely - just like everywhere else other than St Pancras or Ebbsfleet...
>
> I reckon Ebbsfleet could be used overnight as a post or parcels depot
> though - good connections with the motorways for onward distribution the
> way the parcel/courier firms usually operate...
>
> Paul
>
The trains would either be purpose-built, or conversions of the 1st
generation TGV-SE displaced by the introduction of Duplex and AGV sets. As
you say, out-of-gauge for anywhere but Ebbsfleet, St Pancras and Ripple
Lane, where a connection was built in anticipation...I am aware that
developments arising from this connection were being evaluated by
third-parties before CTRL-2 was even completed.
Brian

[amogles]

On 5 Feb., 15:38, Tony Polson <docnews2...@***************> wrote:
> amog...**********m wrote:
> >I've been wondering why SNCF didn't do this long long ago.
>
> >The postal TGVs entered service not long after the first TGV line
> >opened in the 1980s. I always wondered why similar services were not
> >introduced on the other lines when these opened.
>
> Because they don't pay? *
>
>

If they didn't pay, SNCF would have closed them all down years ago. If
they did pay, they would have introduced them on other routes as well.
I'm more inclined to think they've been asleep on that particular
issue.

I remember reading that at some point they increased the number of
sets from two to three by rebuilding a passenger set.

[furnessvale]

On 5 Feb, 14:38, Tony Polson <docnews2...@***************> wrote:

> The article makes it clear that prices would be higher than road, so
> the service would only compete effectively with air. �That would limit
> its market penetration in France, and probably also to Belgium, the
> Netherlands, Switzerland and southern Germany.

Much alleged "air" freight within europe actually moves by road but
the mugs, sorry customers, happily pay airfreight prices.

The new Fret GV services would be faster than road but cheaper than
air PRICES. Perhaps the airlines will be good Fret GV customers
rather than using road?

George

[Paul Scott]

"John F Kappler" <john@pceffect.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i15kq39dpav26jl35c7mjlonkb87r1g4eb@********...
> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:26:03 +0000, Graeme Wall
> <Rail@greywall.*************> wrote:

>>> I think that a Fret GV train would leave HS1 at the Ripple Lane exit
>>> in the east of London, at the eastern end of the East London tunnel.
>>>
>>
>>That is the most likely solution, it does waste the advantage of a central
>>London terminal. But that isn't going to be quite so bad for night time
>>operations.
>
> Why couldn't it run right through from HS1 to the Royal Mail depot at
> Wembley?

Out of gauge (as mentioned elsewhere in this thread!)...

Paul