Freight on the canals

[debbifiggy]

Any one else seen this? Looks interesting. As far as I am aware there is still freight in Yorkshire and in the East Midlands and a little bit on the Gloucester and Sharpness and also the aggregates trade from Denham in Middx down through Uxbridge but this appears to be plans for expansion.

 

Here's the link, be interested to hear what people think.

D

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/waterfre...nlandwaterways/

 

Please note this survey is slightly tongue in cheek and isn't meant to be taken too seriously.

Edited July 4, 2008 by debbifiggy

[stort_mark]

With both major political parties having demonstrated that they are unable and unwilling to commit to paying for significant transport infrastructure at any point in history, the chances for any investment in the future are slim. I am using the term 'slim' here in the little-used sense of 'nil'.

 

The use of current canals and (most) British waterways for commerciaql traffic is unrealistic. if yo believe otherwise, spend a few days on your 57' little boat in amongst the working boats of Yorkshire. Proper commercial waterways requires investment in big canals, big locks, big boats and this is not the same thing as our heritage canals.

[Dominic M]

With both major political parties having demonstrated that they are unable and unwilling to commit to paying for significant transport infrastructure at any point in history, the chances for any investment in the future are slim. I am using the term 'slim' here in the little-used sense of 'nil'.

 

The use of current canals and (most) British waterways for commerciaql traffic is unrealistic. if yo believe otherwise, spend a few days on your 57' little boat in amongst the working boats of Yorkshire. Proper commercial waterways requires investment in big canals, big locks, big boats and this is not the same thing as our heritage canals.

Build new canals able to take 1000 tonne barges, then yes. And why not? They have done so in Europe. High speed freight railways would be welcome too.

[stort_mark]

Build new canals able to take 1000 tonne barges, then yes. And why not? They have done so in Europe. High speed freight railways would be welcome too.

 

Yes, it is obvious. To all but a British politician.

[Dominic M]

Yes, it is obvious. To all but a British politician.

The road lobby is a powerful one.

[Pete of Ebor]

The road lobby is a powerful one.

 

I can just see the outcry if they had to close a motorway, even partially with a contraflow, just to dig a new "freight-size" canal [whatever size that may have to be.. like the MSC?..] under it. It simply wouldn't be allowed to happen in this day and age..

 

As for the narrow canals, I beleive they are simply not viable as a distance freight option when a single road vehicle can carry more tonnage more quickly than a 'standard' 70' x 7' narrowboat. Once the oil really starts to run out though, I imagine it will take many more horses to tow such a lorry...

[BEngo]

Road lobby or no, this is all about cost. The majority of the cost today lies in wages. One man with a 38/44 tonne truck can achieve more ton-miles in a day than two men with even a big inland boat. If double handling for water is required more men are needed and the costs get worse. Until that equation changes water transport will be in niche markets such as the Denham gravel, waste around London and waterborne aggregates and coal in the NE. Even in Europe the 1350 tonne standard is becoming marginal on costs and water freight is declining. At sea the equation is changed by big ships with small, often cheap Fillipino or similar, crews (and the lack of roads from China to Europe or America). Low cost registration regimes enable the crews to be smaller and cheaper than the DfT/NUS would weaar in a British registered ship.

 

Real freight competition to the roads should come from the railways but the conurbations commuter traffic has political priority ( freight doesn't vote!) and this hampers the running of efficient freight. It is growing by rail though. I don't expect it to grow by water until the cost of fuel outweighs the cost of labour.

 

N

[alan_fincher]

Excellent post BEngo.

 

I think you have hit several nails right on the head.

 

More imaginitive use of rail has to be the starting point.

 

Unlike water, rail can move huge tonnages vast distances, very quickly.

 

There is no rational reason for the loss of so much long haul, high volume rail traffic to road, that has occurred over the years.

 

I can't help feeling the reasons are more political than economic. (Thatcher for example had such a pathological hatred of rail, because of the power wielded by rail unions).

 

Whenever I see (literally) fleets of Royal Mail lorries, in convoy, on major motorways, each with it's own driver, I do feel the world has gone more than slightly mad.

 

What is particularly irksome is that standard size containers sit equally well on lorries, as on rail wagons, and it is remarkably quick to transfer them from one to the other. So where loads need to be sent long distance, it is very easy to get them to a rail freight terminal by road, send them the majority of their journey by rail, and then make the final delivery by lorry.

 

This has to be more sensible, and far more fuel efficient, than having our motorways clogged by miles of lorries, doesn't it ?

 

Major new, wide waterways would be a huge investment, not achievable without a lot of impact on areas they went through. Railways still exist in many places, (despite Beeching), and although there are conflicts with passenger use, often do have spare capacity, at non peak times.

[Dominic M]

Road lobby or no, this is all about cost. The majority of the cost today lies in wages. One man with a 38/44 tonne truck can achieve more ton-miles in a day than two men with even a big inland boat. If double handling for water is required more men are needed and the costs get worse. Until that equation changes water transport will be in niche markets such as the Denham gravel, waste around London and waterborne aggregates and coal in the NE. Even in Europe the 1350 tonne standard is becoming marginal on costs and water freight is declining. At sea the equation is changed by big ships with small, often cheap Fillipino or similar, crews (and the lack of roads from China to Europe or America). Low cost registration regimes enable the crews to be smaller and cheaper than the DfT/NUS would weaar in a British registered ship.

 

Real freight competition to the roads should come from the railways but the conurbations commuter traffic has political priority ( freight doesn't vote!) and this hampers the running of efficient freight. It is growing by rail though. I don't expect it to grow by water until the cost of fuel outweighs the cost of labour.

 

N

The average payload on lorries in Britain is 18 tonnes. Even if all were the full 44 tonne units, the payload would be 29 tonnes. Therefore a 1000 tonne barge would be the equivalent of 35 lorry loads, or at the current average load, 56 lorries - ish. I find it hard to believe that the wage cost alone would not make the barge more economical. Then the fuel use would probably be around one quarter of that required to shift the same amount by road. And all of that before you count the environmental benefit.

 

Edited to add: However, I agree wholeheartedly with your view about railways, and Alan Fincher's.

Edited July 6, 2008 by Dominic M

[stort_mark]

Road lobby or no, this is all about cost. The majority of the cost today lies in wages. One man with a 38/44 tonne truck can achieve more ton-miles in a day than two men with even a big inland boat. If double handling for water is required more men are needed and the costs get worse. Until that equation changes water transport will be in niche markets such as the Denham gravel, waste around London and waterborne aggregates and coal in the NE. Even in Europe the 1350 tonne standard is becoming marginal on costs and water freight is declining. At sea the equation is changed by big ships with small, often cheap Fillipino or similar, crews (and the lack of roads from China to Europe or America). Low cost registration regimes enable the crews to be smaller and cheaper than the DfT/NUS would weaar in a British registered ship.

 

Real freight competition to the roads should come from the railways but the conurbations commuter traffic has political priority ( freight doesn't vote!) and this hampers the running of efficient freight. It is growing by rail though. I don't expect it to grow by water until the cost of fuel outweighs the cost of labour.

 

N

 

Actually this is not correct. Road transport looks like it costs less because external costs are not (and never have been included).

 

The issue about one man-one truck versus two men-one boat is also utterly irrelevant. If speed was the only issue (which you imply by talking about what can be done in a day) then all the world's goods would move about by air. They don't. They move about mainly by ship. The point about double-handling is largely irrelevant because most of what we use in Britain is imported anyway and has to be handled multiple times.

 

Water transport is used for significant commodity transport elsewhere in the world (coal, aggregates, minerals, grain, etc) and there is no reason why it couldn't be done in the UK. Your bland statements about costs ignore the constant ongoing subsidy of road transport and our ability to ignore the external costs for road.

 

Your assertion about the lack of roads between China and Europe is wrong (there are plenty of roads) it is simply that for larger and or constant flows, it makes no sense to use the roads.

 

It is all a series of very complex equations, but it is clear that both water and rail freight transport have a much more significant role to play if there is a level playing field.

[howardang]

Low cost registration regimes enable the crews to be smaller and cheaper than the DfT/NUS would weaar in a British registered ship.

.........I don't think the NUS would care less - however the RMT might!

 

 

Howard

[magnetman]

maybe it'd be a good idea to try to get leisure users off the canals and have a wholesale rebuilding of the main arterial routes to accomodate large automated barges. why does a barge on a modern canal need someone to drive it or two people as suggested? a two way system of limited width channels with sensors around the vessel to reduce collision risk surely a computer could easily get from London to Birmingham and the locks could be automated too. in fact the barges could be 'continuously cruising' operating 24 hours a day with electric recharging points at strategic locations, run partly off wind and water turbines.

[Ex- Member]

I think the canal network is now a leisure pursuite and will never become viable for transporting goods again, mostly for the reasons already stated. But mainly because thousands of pleasure boaters aren,t going to move aside for such a proposal. Some goods possibly but in a small way. I've heard there are some working boats out there transporting some goods, but in reality you would have to clear the network of pleasure boats for any system to work.

[WJM]

A hugely important factor is time. If you send goods by lorry they arrive in hours and you get paid same day. By water you wait days for the goods to be delivered. That ties up cash, which is the life blood of a business.

 

I have a friend who operates a fleet of B747 freighters between Heathrow and Japan. I once presumed that he shipped perishables that could not survive a sea journey. Wrong; it is high value non-perishables. His customers cant afford to have their goods at sea for weeks.

 

Canal transport will always struggle against this same principal.

[fender]

A hugely important factor is time. If you send goods by lorry they arrive in hours and you get paid same day. By water you wait days for the goods to be delivered. That ties up cash, which is the life blood of a business.

 

I have a friend who operates a fleet of B747 freighters between Heathrow and Japan. I once presumed that he shipped perishables that could not survive a sea journey. Wrong; it is high value non-perishables. His customers cant afford to have their goods at sea for weeks.

 

Canal transport will always struggle against this same principal.

 

 

So there is a preference for raping the planet and murdering its inhabitants?

 

As long as people have this stupid paradigm of 'cost effectiveness' then there is no hope.

 

Surely canals have a major role in local economies?? The Denham - West Drayton run is such an example. Its no good thinking in terms of runs, for example, between London and Milton keynes or Brum when the odds are currently stacked against that possibility. The possibilites of operating commercial schemes within those places are greater however, what's wrong with a refuse collection service using the canal in MK? Or a food distribution service using the canal especially now that we have a lot of superstores whose properties are right on the canal itself?

[Strads]

Several very good comments in reply highlighting the key issues and commercial drivers. would add mine as:

 

The labour cost - time taken are major considerations.. as mentioned.. and for every major train barge movement there has to be a truck movement at one end at least, and probably two unless we can also build new ports that load a container onto barge etc.. so that requires crossdocking facilities equipment etc

there are similar issues re trains many lines are close to the maximum movements they can run on their trunking lines with block conationer moves... and some rail routes are still being updated to cope(southampton to the midland is getting a rebuild to allow higher standard containers ( these are the internaional norm).

 

The sheer volume of goods built abroad (mainly china and the east ) is immense. there is a major trade imbalance -

 

time lines - a container from manufactuer to store (china to UK is @35 days assuming they dont warehouse for long (as that adds to costs) whilst airfreight is @5 days, In inventory carry costs and turnover rates where some IT products can almost be discounted in tranit due to change !

 

the automotive business is similar - Engines actually bult in this country are often 100% just assembled from compenets sourced from many countrys, often most flown in to meet tight deadlines, due to changing order flows, and ocean freight isnt that flexible - (as in no one stock parts for probable orders in two months time..)

 

A 40 ft container from China currently costs @5,500 USD to the UK sending one the other way @ 250.00 on some routes ther freight rate is down to 50..00 as they need to get the conatiners back out there and they would go empty otherwise anyway!.

 

As for those unhappy with international transport using fuel - yes it does, but "we" are all to blame - we all buy consumer goods, clothes and often food that comes from abroad.. many of us like foreign travel etc and that - If we ALL as apopulation didnt buy anything from abroad for say two years that might make the politicians make up when the commercial companies come screaming, but they are not that conecrened with policies that encourage us as a country to be self sufficient plus in agriculture - slightly odd when we have a fertile country with good rain fall that could easily support and and offer 10% more to countrys that struggle.

 

They could inisit on electrifying all the rail ways PDQ, and agree to build some new lines to assist capacity... but they dither..

 

Would personally welcome more working boats that would contribute to an enhancement to the maitenance of the system, allowing less closures, re-instement of some disused canals to service key towns etc

 

 

Thats my Monday morning soap box...

[saltysplash]

Freight by water is more than viable as shown on the continent, They however had the foresight to keep updating their systems as time went on. Mind you, the low countries didnt have the same geographical features to contend with that the UK offers. As for the pleasure users putting up a fight against the freight users, well, both work very well togther in Holland Belgium and France so why not over here.

 

To be competative though our old decrepit system would need a complete overhaul and rebuild of biblical propotions and even then, our love of road transport in this country would probably still be favourite for door to door simplicity....after all, it wasnt the Railways that killed the canals, It was the roads that killed the canals and the railways.

[stort_mark]

A hugely important factor is time. If you send goods by lorry they arrive in hours and you get paid same day. By water you wait days for the goods to be delivered. That ties up cash, which is the life blood of a business.

 

Wrong. The cost of capital is far outweighed by the cost of transport and this becomes more exagerated with distance (there's no single answer to the distance or weight).

 

I have a friend who operates a fleet of B747 freighters between Heathrow and Japan. I once presumed that he shipped perishables that could not survive a sea journey. Wrong; it is high value non-perishables. His customers cant afford to have their goods at sea for weeks.

High-value perishables are a tiny percentage of the overall global freight flow.

 

Canal transport will always struggle against this same principal.

 

No they will not. (Leaving aside the fact that you haven't even mentioned any "principle")

Canals are suitabe and economically viable for medium distance travel for a variety of commodities and even for containerised goods as well, IF IF IF the externalities for canals are not charged to canal users (as they are not charged for road users).

 

 

 

 

I think the canal network is now a leisure pursuite and will never become viable for transporting goods again, mostly for the reasons already stated. But mainly because thousands of pleasure boaters aren,t going to move aside for such a proposal. Some goods possibly but in a small way. I've heard there are some working boats out there transporting some goods, but in reality you would have to clear the network of pleasure boats for any system to work.

 

Agreed. 90% of the current network is totally unsuitable and converting it doesn't make sense (you would rapidly lose a huge lesire market worth billions of pounds a year).

 

However, a network of supercanals (locks of say 300' x 50') linking key places such as Felixstowe, London, Bristol, Humber, Birmingham, Holmfirth, Manchester, Liverpool, Yorkshire, Northeast would make it possible to run a lot of cargo direct around Europe using the Rhine/Maas.

.

[WJM]

Stort Mark - if I was actually able to understand your response I might be able to offer comment. As it is, you totally lost me! :-)

[larkshall]

I work for an outfit that used to bring the rolls of newsprint up the river Ouse to Walmgate Bar in York. Now they bring in 5 large artics a week...Dumb huh?, considering roads in York.

 

Also these and other barges used to keep the river relatively silt free, its not now !!!!

[Smelly]

I'd love to see more freight on the canals, it'd probably mean all us liveaboards would have to move into expensive new marinas to stay out of the 'orses way though.

[Grace and Favour]

It would probably introduce more private enterprise monies (PPI) into the waterways, and substantially increase the cost of using them,

licence fees (and taxes in whatever form) will increase,

the liveaboards and leisure industry would end up subsidising the industrial users (just as cars subsidise the roads)

 

There will be less room and greater pollution . . and it's not a case on me being a 'Nimby' - - we haven't got a boat yet . . but it's likely that the organisations that currently support Rail / Road transport will diversify should Waterways be flagged up as a viable (political) option

 

And heaven help us all if Jarvis / Network Rail et al get their greedy mitts on us . . . .

 

we'll be owned by by the oligarchs in no time at all . . . .

[Ex- Member]

So there is a preference for raping the planet and murdering its inhabitants?

 

As long as people have this stupid paradigm of 'cost effectiveness' then there is no hope.

 

Surely canals have a major role in local economies?? The Denham - West Drayton run is such an example. Its no good thinking in terms of runs, for example, between London and Milton keynes or Brum when the odds are currently stacked against that possibility. The possibilites of operating commercial schemes within those places are greater however, what's wrong with a refuse collection service using the canal in MK? Or a food distribution service using the canal especially now that we have a lot of superstores whose properties are right on the canal itself?

 

Rubbish collection is a good idea, Butty type skips could be left moored on the canals just as wheely bins are left. The BW key could be used to access them so they're not abused. Lorries collecting all these wheely bins which don't hold much rubbish anyway is a costly way of removing it.

 

Perishables on the canal is not an option, people expect frsh veg, and the veg in supermarkets isn't that fresh now being delivered by road.

 

It is possible to transport goods quickly on the canals by using loads of boats. This worked with coal back in the old days, loads of boats delivering what was in reality a large conveyor belt of boats carrying coal. But as said lots of boats needed to keep supply regular. It simply couldn't work today with the network full of pleasurecraft.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Julynian

[stort_mark]

It simply couldn't work today with the network full of pleasurecraft.

 

A new network would be needed, certainly.

[Greybeard]

There are still some working boats on the waterways.

 

Have you seen the size of Rix Owl launched in 2003ish?

 

It can carry aout 600tonnes or about 20 large lorry loads - 60.80metres long with a 6.00metre beam.

 

There's also Rix Eagle,Harrier,Hawk, Osprey & Falcon.

 

Not exactly designed for the narrow canals but they are kept busy virtually every day up and down the Aire and Calder carrying fuel.

 

We were altering the canal walls at Great Heck last year and had to carry out the work at night to leave room for these monsters to go through.