A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
removed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw

On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
wrote:

>A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>removed.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw

Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?

On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>wrote:
>
>>A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>removed.
>>
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>
>Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?

If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
off-trend.

In message <0a0aqi9fnjg7c208akrb1pgb1nfo5svd7k@4ax.com>, at 09:56:48 on
Mon, 15 Jan 2024, Ken <ken@birchanger.com> remarked:
>On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>>removed.
>>>
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>>
>>Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>
>If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
>off-trend.

Network Rail is sitting on the fence:

<https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-and-commercial/rail-
freight/move-my-freight-by-rail/>

"A guide to moving your goods by rail freight" etc.
--
Roland Perry

Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>> removed.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>>
>> Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>
> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
> off-trend.
>

Almost every non-passenger loop is still called a goods loop, though!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
> >>removed.
> >>
> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
> >
> >Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>
> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
> off-trend.

In my head a train consisting of a collection of box vans carrying random
stuff would be a goods train, but a block train of stone hoppers or oil
tanks would be a freight train. I wouldn't call stone or oil 'goods'.

The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its replacement of a
block train of containers would likely get lumped together with the others
as 'freight'.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>>> removed.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>>>
>>> Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>>
>> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
>> off-trend.
>
> In my head a train consisting of a collection of box vans carrying random
> stuff would be a goods train, but a block train of stone hoppers or oil
> tanks would be a freight train. I wouldn't call stone or oil 'goods'.
>
> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its replacement of a
> block train of containers would likely get lumped together with the others
> as 'freight'.
>
> Theo
Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?

A term that in the UK hasn’t really spread away from the operators to
amateur observers whereas in North America Railroad/way followers
frequently use it.

GH

Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>>>> removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>>>>
>>>> Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>>>
>>> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
>>> off-trend.
>>
>> In my head a train consisting of a collection of box vans carrying random
>> stuff would be a goods train, but a block train of stone hoppers or oil
>> tanks would be a freight train. I wouldn't call stone or oil 'goods'.
>>
>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its replacement of a
>> block train of containers would likely get lumped together with the others
>> as 'freight'.
>>
> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?

I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.

Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
train happens to be one of those.

Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"

On 15 Jan 2024 11:08:43 +0000 (GMT), Theo
<theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>> >>removed.
>> >>
>> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>> >
>> >Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>>
>> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
>> off-trend.
>
>In my head a train consisting of a collection of box vans carrying random
>stuff would be a goods train, but a block train of stone hoppers or oil
>tanks would be a freight train. I wouldn't call stone or oil 'goods'.

If we're going to be pedantic (and nobody does pedantry better than
trainspotters!), then "goods" are the things being transported and "freight"
is the act of transporting them. So "goods train" and "freight train" are
effectively functional synonyms but from different sources, one relates to
the contents of the train and the other relates to the purpose of the train.

If we look at relative frequencies of the terms in British English using
Google's ngram viewer, then "goods train" predominated until 1948 but after
that "freight train" became more popular. But the big rise in "freight
train" started in 1939, which suggests wartime influence on terminology.

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=goods+train%2Cfreight+train&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3

Mark

Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15 Jan 2024 11:08:43 +0000 (GMT), Theo
> <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>>>> removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>>>>
>>>> Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>>>
>>> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
>>> off-trend.
>>
>> In my head a train consisting of a collection of box vans carrying random
>> stuff would be a goods train, but a block train of stone hoppers or oil
>> tanks would be a freight train. I wouldn't call stone or oil 'goods'.
>
> If we're going to be pedantic (and nobody does pedantry better than
> trainspotters!), then "goods" are the things being transported and "freight"
> is the act of transporting them. So "goods train" and "freight train" are
> effectively functional synonyms but from different sources, one relates to
> the contents of the train and the other relates to the purpose of the train.

“We took control of Goods & Freight
And claimed Left Luggage too.”

“The Battle of Waterloo” by Nick Worman

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:

>>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its replacement of a
>>> block train of containers would likely get lumped together with the others
>>> as 'freight'.
>>>
>> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?
>
> I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
> containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
> containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.
>
> Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
> terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
> intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
> factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
> only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
> and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
> train happens to be one of those.
>
> Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"

As I interpret it is the movement of a container using different types of
transport on its route,
so as you say Ship,-Train- lorry or the reverse. Inland waterway barge
could also be part of a journey.
The containers moving between two freight yards must have a means to and
from them which certainly in the UK will be a Lorry so are still
intermodal. Your container to BASF could only not be an intermodel if the
origin was also a factory siding where it had been loaded direct onto a
train.
I expect there are examples somewhere of such traffic, possibly the Ford
parts train from Spain to the UK was one but here they are rare.

DB seem to use the term
<https://www.dbcargo.com/rail-de-en/services/intermodal/db-intermodal-services>.

for their operations . Similar sites for North American operators also
show many trains loaded with containers , I think the ones that carry truck
trailers are known as RO RO even though sometimes the trailers are craned
onto the rail vehicles.

GH

In message <l0llceFrc16U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:11:42 on Mon, 15
Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>> Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:
>
>>>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its replacement of a
>>>> block train of containers would likely get lumped together with the others
>>>> as 'freight'.
>>>>
>>> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?
>>
>> I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
>> containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
>> containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.
>>
>> Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
>> terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
>> intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
>> factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
>> only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
>> and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
>> train happens to be one of those.

I would use a resource like Realtimetrains to look at the train's
routing, and make a wild guess that had it originated from Felixtowe
docks, the containers will have arrived there on a ship. And at the
other end, as there are virtually no customers (not even big ones like
Amazon) who have a facility to crane a container off the train into
their warehouse, it's very likely to be put onto an HGV for the next
leg.

>> Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"
>
>As I interpret it is the movement of a container using different types
>of transport on its route, so as you say Ship,-Train- lorry or the
>reverse. Inland waterway barge could also be part of a journey.

There are virtually no barges left on the Inland Waterways, although I
do remember one I saw 40yrs ago on the Leeds and Liverpool canal which
was designed to carry a road-going caravan as holiday accommodation. So
coincidentally intermodal, but the scheme didn't catch on. I've also got
some photos of coal barges on probably the Aire and Calder, but they
carried it loose and weren't intermodal because they plied door to door
between the colliery and the power station.

I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland waterway,
but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).

Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On much
of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as well.

>The containers moving between two freight yards must have a means to and
>from them which certainly in the UK will be a Lorry so are still
>intermodal. Your container to BASF could only not be an intermodel if the
>origin was also a factory siding where it had been loaded direct onto a
>train.

>I expect there are examples somewhere of such traffic, possibly the Ford
>parts train from Spain to the UK was one but here they are rare.
>
>DB seem to use the term
><https://www.dbcargo.com/rail-de-en/services/intermodal/db-intermodal-se
>rvices>.
>
>for their operations . Similar sites for North American operators also
>show many trains loaded with containers , I think the ones that carry truck
>trailers are known as RO RO even though sometimes the trailers are craned
>onto the rail vehicles.
>
>GH

--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <l0llceFrc16U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:11:42 on Mon, 15
> Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:
>>
>>>>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its replacement of a
>>>>> block train of containers would likely get lumped together with the others
>>>>> as 'freight'.
>>>>>
>>>> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?
>>>
>>> I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
>>> containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
>>> containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.
>>>
>>> Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
>>> terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
>>> intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
>>> factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
>>> only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
>>> and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
>>> train happens to be one of those.
>
> I would use a resource like Realtimetrains to look at the train's
> routing, and make a wild guess that had it originated from Felixtowe
> docks, the containers will have arrived there on a ship. And at the
> other end, as there are virtually no customers (not even big ones like
> Amazon) who have a facility to crane a container off the train into
> their warehouse, it's very likely to be put onto an HGV for the next
> leg.
>
>>> Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"
>>
>> As I interpret it is the movement of a container using different types
>> of transport on its route, so as you say Ship,-Train- lorry or the
>> reverse. Inland waterway barge could also be part of a journey.
>
> There are virtually no barges left on the Inland Waterways, although I
> do remember one I saw 40yrs ago on the Leeds and Liverpool canal which
> was designed to carry a road-going caravan as holiday accommodation. So
> coincidentally intermodal, but the scheme didn't catch on. I've also got
> some photos of coal barges on probably the Aire and Calder, but they
> carried it loose and weren't intermodal because they plied door to door
> between the colliery and the power station.
>
> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland waterway,
> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>
> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On much
> of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as well.

All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to had
already widened the scope
to further afield by mentioning Hamburg and Mannheim I was following suit.
While there are concerns about the reliability of water borne traffic
within Europe due to low water levels on rivers containers on barges and
small ships that can navigate the Rhine still carry some container traffic,
a quick visit to the WWW indicates it is around 9% of Container traffic
within the EU but dropping.
The Manchester Canal which is an inland waterway carries some
containerised traffic, the operators obtained two suitable container
carrying barges around 2011 and actively started to encourage traffic
from around the 10,000 per year then with the aim of 100,000 by 2030.
Whether that is achievable
now various factors have changed the economy is to be seen.One of the users
was Tesco, I have a feeling a splash was made at the time when they started
to import wine via the Canal.

GH

In message <$Kw$61sOniplFAQ+@perry.uk>, at 07:01:34 on Tue, 16 Jan 2024,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> remarked:
>In message <l0llceFrc16U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:11:42 on Mon, 15
>Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:
>>
>>>>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its
>>>>>replacement of a
>>>>> block train of containers would likely get lumped together with the others
>>>>> as 'freight'.
>>>>>
>>>> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?
>>>
>>> I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
>>> containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
>>> containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.
>>>
>>> Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
>>> terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
>>> intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
>>> factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
>>> only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
>>> and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
>>> train happens to be one of those.
>
>I would use a resource like Realtimetrains to look at the train's
>routing, and make a wild guess that had it originated from Felixtowe
>docks, the containers will have arrived there on a ship. And at the
>other end, as there are virtually no customers (not even big ones like
>Amazon) who have a facility to crane a container off the train into
>their warehouse, it's very likely to be put onto an HGV for the next leg.
>
>>> Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"
>>
>>As I interpret it is the movement of a container using different types
>>of transport on its route, so as you say Ship,-Train- lorry or the
>>reverse. Inland waterway barge could also be part of a journey.
>
>There are virtually no barges left on the Inland Waterways, although I
>do remember one I saw 40yrs ago

Sorry, 50yrs ago.

>on the Leeds and Liverpool canal which was designed to carry a
>road-going caravan as holiday accommodation. So coincidentally
>intermodal,

Although the cargo was arguably holidaymakers, not goods (or even the
caravan itself).

>but the scheme didn't catch on. I've also got some photos of coal
>barges on probably the Aire and Calder, but they carried it loose and
>weren't intermodal because they plied door to door between the colliery
>and the power station.
>
>I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland
>waterway, but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the
>Manchester Ship Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>
>Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On
>much of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as
>well.
>
>>The containers moving between two freight yards must have a means to and
>>from them which certainly in the UK will be a Lorry so are still
>>intermodal. Your container to BASF could only not be an intermodel if the
>>origin was also a factory siding where it had been loaded direct onto a
>>train.
>
>>I expect there are examples somewhere of such traffic, possibly the Ford
>>parts train from Spain to the UK was one but here they are rare.
>>
>>DB seem to use the term
>><https://www.dbcargo.com/rail-de-en/services/intermodal/db-intermodal-se
>>rvices>.
>>
>>for their operations . Similar sites for North American operators also
>>show many trains loaded with containers , I think the ones that carry truck
>>trailers are known as RO RO even though sometimes the trailers are craned
>>onto the rail vehicles.
>>
>>GH
>

--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 10:36:43 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
<anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:

>Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>>> removed.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>>>
>>> Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>>
>> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
>> off-trend.
>>
>
>Almost every non-passenger loop is still called a goods loop, though!
>
>
Yes. No point changing the names of signalling/timing locations just
for the sake of it (see cripple siding). The word goods doesn't get
used much apart from that, it seems.

>Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <l0muikF449bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:54:44 on Tue, 16
Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <l0llceFrc16U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:11:42 on Mon, 15
>> Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:
>>>
>>>>>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its
>>>>>>replacement of a block train of containers would likely get
>>>>>>lumped together with the others as 'freight'.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?
>>>>
>>>> I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
>>>> containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
>>>> containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
>>>> terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
>>>> intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
>>>> factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
>>>> only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
>>>> and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
>>>> train happens to be one of those.
>>
>> I would use a resource like Realtimetrains to look at the train's
>> routing, and make a wild guess that had it originated from Felixtowe
>> docks, the containers will have arrived there on a ship. And at the
>> other end, as there are virtually no customers (not even big ones like
>> Amazon) who have a facility to crane a container off the train into
>> their warehouse, it's very likely to be put onto an HGV for the next
>> leg.
>>
>>>> Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"
>>>
>>> As I interpret it is the movement of a container using different types
>>> of transport on its route, so as you say Ship,-Train- lorry or the
>>> reverse. Inland waterway barge could also be part of a journey.
>>
>> There are virtually no barges left on the Inland Waterways, although I
>> do remember one I saw 40yrs ago on the Leeds and Liverpool canal which
>> was designed to carry a road-going caravan as holiday accommodation. So
>> coincidentally intermodal, but the scheme didn't catch on. I've also got
>> some photos of coal barges on probably the Aire and Calder, but they
>> carried it loose and weren't intermodal because they plied door to door
>> between the colliery and the power station.
>>
>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland waterway,
>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>
>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On much
>> of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as well.
>
>All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to
>had already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg
>and Mannheim I was following suit.

>While there are concerns about the reliability of water borne traffic
>within Europe due to low water levels on rivers containers on barges and
>small ships that can navigate the Rhine still carry some container traffic,
>a quick visit to the WWW indicates it is around 9% of Container traffic
>within the EU but dropping.

I wonder how many of them are door-to-door on the water?

>The Manchester Canal which is an inland waterway carries some
>containerised traffic, the operators obtained two suitable container
>carrying barges around 2011 and actively started to encourage traffic
>from around the 10,000 per year then with the aim of 100,000 by 2030.

>Whether that is achievable now various factors have changed the economy
>is to be seen.One of the users was Tesco, I have a feeling a splash was
>made at the time when they started to import wine via the Canal.

It probably gets from the barge to their bottling plant by road.
Similarly, unless it started its journey on a different vessel moored
alongside a vineyard, road transport would be used there too.

There's a Dutch Barge, moored on the river in Ely (almost underneath one
of the railway bridges, which also marks the furthest point upstream
where vessels of that type can navigate) which I think used to have a
bar on it - the primary use was as a B&B. I always wondered if that had
special rules about licencing; but aiui the business never recovered
from the pandemic and it's now purely residential.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <l0muikF449bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:54:44 on Tue, 16
> Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <l0llceFrc16U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:11:42 on Mon, 15
>>> Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:
>>>>
>>>>>>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its
>>>>>>> replacement of a block train of containers would likely get
>>>>>>> lumped together with the others as 'freight'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?
>>>>>
>>>>> I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
>>>>> containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
>>>>> containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
>>>>> terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
>>>>> intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
>>>>> factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
>>>>> only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
>>>>> and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
>>>>> train happens to be one of those.
>>>
>>> I would use a resource like Realtimetrains to look at the train's
>>> routing, and make a wild guess that had it originated from Felixtowe
>>> docks, the containers will have arrived there on a ship. And at the
>>> other end, as there are virtually no customers (not even big ones like
>>> Amazon) who have a facility to crane a container off the train into
>>> their warehouse, it's very likely to be put onto an HGV for the next
>>> leg.
>>>
>>>>> Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"
>>>>
>>>> As I interpret it is the movement of a container using different types
>>>> of transport on its route, so as you say Ship,-Train- lorry or the
>>>> reverse. Inland waterway barge could also be part of a journey.
>>>
>>> There are virtually no barges left on the Inland Waterways, although I
>>> do remember one I saw 40yrs ago on the Leeds and Liverpool canal which
>>> was designed to carry a road-going caravan as holiday accommodation. So
>>> coincidentally intermodal, but the scheme didn't catch on. I've also got
>>> some photos of coal barges on probably the Aire and Calder, but they
>>> carried it loose and weren't intermodal because they plied door to door
>>> between the colliery and the power station.
>>>
>>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland waterway,
>>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>>
>>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On much
>>> of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as well.
>>
>> All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to
>> had already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg
>> and Mannheim I was following suit.
>
>> While there are concerns about the reliability of water borne traffic
>> within Europe due to low water levels on rivers containers on barges and
>> small ships that can navigate the Rhine still carry some container traffic,
>> a quick visit to the WWW indicates it is around 9% of Container traffic
>> within the EU but dropping.
>
> I wonder how many of them are door-to-door on the water?

If they are door to door (Wharf to Wharf) using the same craft then it
would not be intermodal.
Possibly there is such a flow somewhere but it sort of wastes the concept
of containerisation,
most such flows would use a transport unit more suitable for the materials
being transported.
That could also be type of container but not and ISO one.
>
>> The Manchester Canal which is an inland waterway carries some
>> containerised traffic, the operators obtained two suitable container
>> carrying barges around 2011 and actively started to encourage traffic
>> from around the 10,000 per year then with the aim of 100,000 by 2030.
>
>> Whether that is achievable now various factors have changed the economy
>> is to be seen.One of the users was Tesco, I have a feeling a splash was
>> made at the time when they started to import wine via the Canal.
>
> It probably gets from the barge to their bottling plant by road.
> Similarly, unless it started its journey on a different vessel moored
> alongside a vineyard, road transport would be used there too.
>
So would fit the criteria for being called intermodal then.

GH

In message <l0n44qF56puU1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:29:46 on Tue, 16
Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <l0muikF449bU1@mid.individual.net>, at 08:54:44 on Tue, 16
>> Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <l0llceFrc16U1@mid.individual.net>, at 21:11:42 on Mon, 15
>>>> Jan 2024, Marland <gemehabal@btinternet.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>>>>> Am 15.01.2024 um 15:11 schrieb Marland:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The former type of train tend not to run any more, and its
>>>>>>>> replacement of a block train of containers would likely get
>>>>>>>> lumped together with the others as 'freight'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don’t the Professionals refer to such trains as Intermodal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would expect 'intermodals' to transport lorry trailers rather than
>>>>>> containers. Other than that, I would understand 'intermodal hubs' where
>>>>>> containers are moved between ship/train/lorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, a container train moving between two major freight
>>>>>> terminals (like Hamburg Maschen to Mannheim) would *not* be an
>>>>>> intermodal train, a container train from a goods shuffle yard to a
>>>>>> factory (e.g. BASF) would also not be an intermodal train;
>>>>>> only a train going to an intermodal end point might justify that name,
>>>>>> and as a trainspotter I would normally not know whether a container
>>>>>> train happens to be one of those.
>>>>
>>>> I would use a resource like Realtimetrains to look at the train's
>>>> routing, and make a wild guess that had it originated from Felixtowe
>>>> docks, the containers will have arrived there on a ship. And at the
>>>> other end, as there are virtually no customers (not even big ones like
>>>> Amazon) who have a facility to crane a container off the train into
>>>> their warehouse, it's very likely to be put onto an HGV for the next
>>>> leg.
>>>>
>>>>>> Rolf "always interested in correct logistics terminology"
>>>>>
>>>>> As I interpret it is the movement of a container using different types
>>>>> of transport on its route, so as you say Ship,-Train- lorry or the
>>>>> reverse. Inland waterway barge could also be part of a journey.
>>>>
>>>> There are virtually no barges left on the Inland Waterways, although I
>>>> do remember one I saw 40yrs ago on the Leeds and Liverpool canal which
>>>> was designed to carry a road-going caravan as holiday accommodation. So
>>>> coincidentally intermodal, but the scheme didn't catch on. I've also got
>>>> some photos of coal barges on probably the Aire and Calder, but they
>>>> carried it loose and weren't intermodal because they plied door to door
>>>> between the colliery and the power station.
>>>>
>>>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland waterway,
>>>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>>>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>>>
>>>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>>>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On much
>>>> of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as well.
>>>
>>> All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to
>>> had already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg
>>> and Mannheim I was following suit.
>>
>>> While there are concerns about the reliability of water borne traffic
>>> within Europe due to low water levels on rivers containers on barges and
>>> small ships that can navigate the Rhine still carry some container traffic,
>>> a quick visit to the WWW indicates it is around 9% of Container traffic
>>> within the EU but dropping.
>>
>> I wonder how many of them are door-to-door on the water?
>
>If they are door to door (Wharf to Wharf) using the same craft then it
>would not be intermodal.

>Possibly there is such a flow somewhere but it sort of wastes the
>concept of containerisation, most such flows would use a transport unit
>more suitable for the materials being transported. That could also be
>type of container but not and ISO one.

Yes, yes, I "get" all that. but what's the percentage?

>>> The Manchester Canal which is an inland waterway carries some
>>> containerised traffic, the operators obtained two suitable container
>>> carrying barges around 2011 and actively started to encourage traffic
>>> from around the 10,000 per year then with the aim of 100,000 by 2030.
>>
>>> Whether that is achievable now various factors have changed the economy
>>> is to be seen.One of the users was Tesco, I have a feeling a splash was
>>> made at the time when they started to import wine via the Canal.
>>
>> It probably gets from the barge to their bottling plant by road.
>> Similarly, unless it started its journey on a different vessel moored
>> alongside a vineyard, road transport would be used there too.
>>
>So would fit the criteria for being called intermodal then.

Jolly good. I also claim some sort of place in history by having been
present when one of the few narrowboats ever went aground in the Ship
Canal.
--
Roland Perry

Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jan 2024 10:36:43 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
> <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>
>> Ken <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:41:55 -0800, Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 14 Jan 2024 00:22:16 +0000, Yenc-PP-A&A <Yenc@power-post.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A freight train in Bristol is lifted up with a crane and the wheels
>>>>> removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNwGF2whaOw
>>>>
>>>> Goods grief... a *freight* train in the Ewe Kay?
>>>
>>> If you're expecting it to be called a goods train you're somewhat
>>> off-trend.
>>>
>>
>> Almost every non-passenger loop is still called a goods loop, though!
>>
>>
> Yes. No point changing the names of signalling/timing locations just
> for the sake of it (see cripple siding). The word goods doesn't get
> used much apart from that, it seems.
>

During some recent resignallings, particularly into a large signalling
centre (eg the seven signalboxes between Paddington and Cardiff being
transferred to just two), many loops (not just goods ones) and goods lines
have been renamed to include a geographical location, eg Up Tunnel Loop,
Down Pilning Loop, Up Hullavington Goods Loop, Down Swindon Relief, Up Iver
Loop etc. Yet the 'Goods' naming persists!

Anna Noyd-Dryver

On 16 Jan 2024 08:54:44 GMT, Marland wrote:
>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland
>> waterway,
>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>
>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On
>> much of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as
>> well.
>
> All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to had
> already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg and
> Mannheim I was following suit.

This prompted me to wonder about the Danube - I've certainly seen plenty
of containers on vessels on that particular inland waterway, but I managed
to dig up some numbers. Rather out of date numbers, but numbers
nevertheless.

The most high-traffic section of the Danube is the stretch in Romania,
with around 20 million tonnes p/a transported. Of that, around 40% is
domestic traffic, 30% imports, 20% exports, and 10% transit.

These numbers are not just old (2014), they are pre-Ukraine war. I'd
expect the percentage of transit has gone up since the war, since one of
the routes for Ukrainian grain that avoids the Black Sea is by rail to
Galati from where it can be loaded on for transit on the Danube (either
all the way into Europe, or down to the Black Sea Canal at Cernavoda to
make its way to the port of Constanta for onward shipping.)

Transit/Import/Export on the Romanian Danube (aka Dunarea) can of course
be in both directions - east to the aforementioned Black Sea Canal and
Constanta, or west to Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany.

Apparently the typical craft for container shipping on the Danube is a
"pushed lighter" (an unpowered barge with a firm coupling to a pushing
vessel) - each such barge has a typical capacity of 144 TEU (3 layers of
48 TEU), and a pusher can drive up the three of them coupled together
(either three-abreast or in a 1+2 formation), for a per-vessel capacity of
around 576 TEU.

Apparently the world average for a freight train is 64 TEU, for
comparison. No doubt you'll find significantly longer in the US, of
course.

If you like birdwatching, may I recommend the Danube Delta, by the way?
Absolutely beautiful part of the world, and protected as a nature reserve
for a long time it's the largest and best-reserved delta in Europe.
Really worth a visit (although pack plenty of DEET...)

Am 08.02.2024 um 13:44 schrieb Clank:
> On 16 Jan 2024 08:54:44 GMT, Marland wrote:
>>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland
>>> waterway,
>>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>>
>>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On
>>> much of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as
>>> well.
>>
>> All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to had
>> already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg and
>> Mannheim I was following suit.
>
> This prompted me to wonder about the Danube - I've certainly seen plenty
> of containers on vessels on that particular inland waterway, but I managed
> to dig up some numbers. Rather out of date numbers, but numbers
> nevertheless.
>
> The most high-traffic section of the Danube is the stretch in Romania,
> with around 20 million tonnes p/a transported. Of that, around 40% is
> domestic traffic, 30% imports, 20% exports, and 10% transit.
>
> These numbers are not just old (2014), they are pre-Ukraine war. I'd
> expect the percentage of transit has gone up since the war, since one of
> the routes for Ukrainian grain that avoids the Black Sea is by rail to
> Galati from where it can be loaded on for transit on the Danube (either
> all the way into Europe, or down to the Black Sea Canal at Cernavoda to
> make its way to the port of Constanta for onward shipping.)
>
> Transit/Import/Export on the Romanian Danube (aka Dunarea) can of course
> be in both directions - east to the aforementioned Black Sea Canal and
> Constanta, or west to Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany.
>
> Apparently the typical craft for container shipping on the Danube is a
> "pushed lighter" (an unpowered barge with a firm coupling to a pushing
> vessel) - each such barge has a typical capacity of 144 TEU (3 layers of
> 48 TEU), and a pusher can drive up the three of them coupled together
> (either three-abreast or in a 1+2 formation), for a per-vessel capacity of
> around 576 TEU.

On the Danube, there is a significant difference between "below the iron
gate (Rumania)" and "above the iron gate (Belgrade to Austria)".
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donauschifffahrt>

On the Rhine, coastal ships can go to Mannheim, and from Mannheim to
Basel, the maximum is 500 TEU on a single ship
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fes_Containerschiff>

The connection (German Danube and Rhine-Danube-Canal) requires
significanlty smaller ships with two-stacking,
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fmotorg%C3%BCterschiff>
loads went down from just under 10,000TEU in 2000 to 1,400 TEU in 2007.
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-Donau-Kanal#Regelschiff_auf_dem_Kanal>

Rolf

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 08.02.2024 um 13:44 schrieb Clank:
>> On 16 Jan 2024 08:54:44 GMT, Marland wrote:
>>>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland
>>>> waterway,
>>>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>>>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>>>
>>>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>>>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On
>>>> much of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to had
>>> already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg and
>>> Mannheim I was following suit.
>>
>> This prompted me to wonder about the Danube - I've certainly seen plenty
>> of containers on vessels on that particular inland waterway, but I managed
>> to dig up some numbers. Rather out of date numbers, but numbers
>> nevertheless.
>>
>> The most high-traffic section of the Danube is the stretch in Romania,
>> with around 20 million tonnes p/a transported. Of that, around 40% is
>> domestic traffic, 30% imports, 20% exports, and 10% transit.
>>
>> These numbers are not just old (2014), they are pre-Ukraine war. I'd
>> expect the percentage of transit has gone up since the war, since one of
>> the routes for Ukrainian grain that avoids the Black Sea is by rail to
>> Galati from where it can be loaded on for transit on the Danube (either
>> all the way into Europe, or down to the Black Sea Canal at Cernavoda to
>> make its way to the port of Constanta for onward shipping.)
>>
>> Transit/Import/Export on the Romanian Danube (aka Dunarea) can of course
>> be in both directions - east to the aforementioned Black Sea Canal and
>> Constanta, or west to Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany.
>>
>> Apparently the typical craft for container shipping on the Danube is a
>> "pushed lighter" (an unpowered barge with a firm coupling to a pushing
>> vessel) - each such barge has a typical capacity of 144 TEU (3 layers of
>> 48 TEU), and a pusher can drive up the three of them coupled together
>> (either three-abreast or in a 1+2 formation), for a per-vessel capacity of
>> around 576 TEU.
>
> On the Danube, there is a significant difference between "below the iron
> gate (Rumania)" and "above the iron gate (Belgrade to Austria)".
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donauschifffahrt>
>
> On the Rhine, coastal ships can go to Mannheim, and from Mannheim to
> Basel, the maximum is 500 TEU on a single ship
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fes_Containerschiff>
>
> The connection (German Danube and Rhine-Danube-Canal) requires
> significanlty smaller ships with two-stacking,
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fmotorg%C3%BCterschiff>
> loads went down from just under 10,000TEU in 2000 to 1,400 TEU in 2007.
> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-Donau-Kanal#Regelschiff_auf_dem_Kanal>

We were in Germany last year, staying some of the time in the Rhine gorge.
The largest lash-up I saw was a triple, a powered ship pushing an unpowered
barge with another barge lashed alongside. Two of these were carrying
4x6x3 loads and one 4x5x3 but I think all those were 40’ containers so
4x6x3 would be 144 TEU. I’m not sure how they navigate at night - this one
was heading upstream just below the Lorelei after 10pm and well after
sunset.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>> Am 08.02.2024 um 13:44 schrieb Clank:
>>> On 16 Jan 2024 08:54:44 GMT, Marland wrote:
>>>>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland
>>>>> waterway,
>>>>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>>>>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>>>>
>>>>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>>>>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On
>>>>> much of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as
>>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to had
>>>> already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg and
>>>> Mannheim I was following suit.
>>>
>>> This prompted me to wonder about the Danube - I've certainly seen plenty
>>> of containers on vessels on that particular inland waterway, but I managed
>>> to dig up some numbers. Rather out of date numbers, but numbers
>>> nevertheless.
>>>
>>> The most high-traffic section of the Danube is the stretch in Romania,
>>> with around 20 million tonnes p/a transported. Of that, around 40% is
>>> domestic traffic, 30% imports, 20% exports, and 10% transit.
>>>
>>> These numbers are not just old (2014), they are pre-Ukraine war. I'd
>>> expect the percentage of transit has gone up since the war, since one of
>>> the routes for Ukrainian grain that avoids the Black Sea is by rail to
>>> Galati from where it can be loaded on for transit on the Danube (either
>>> all the way into Europe, or down to the Black Sea Canal at Cernavoda to
>>> make its way to the port of Constanta for onward shipping.)
>>>
>>> Transit/Import/Export on the Romanian Danube (aka Dunarea) can of course
>>> be in both directions - east to the aforementioned Black Sea Canal and
>>> Constanta, or west to Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany.
>>>
>>> Apparently the typical craft for container shipping on the Danube is a
>>> "pushed lighter" (an unpowered barge with a firm coupling to a pushing
>>> vessel) - each such barge has a typical capacity of 144 TEU (3 layers of
>>> 48 TEU), and a pusher can drive up the three of them coupled together
>>> (either three-abreast or in a 1+2 formation), for a per-vessel capacity of
>>> around 576 TEU.
>>
>> On the Danube, there is a significant difference between "below the iron
>> gate (Rumania)" and "above the iron gate (Belgrade to Austria)".
>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donauschifffahrt>
>>
>> On the Rhine, coastal ships can go to Mannheim, and from Mannheim to
>> Basel, the maximum is 500 TEU on a single ship
>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fes_Containerschiff>
>>
>> The connection (German Danube and Rhine-Danube-Canal) requires
>> significanlty smaller ships with two-stacking,
>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fmotorg%C3%BCterschiff>
>> loads went down from just under 10,000TEU in 2000 to 1,400 TEU in 2007.
>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-Donau-Kanal#Regelschiff_auf_dem_Kanal>
>
> We were in Germany last year, staying some of the time in the Rhine gorge.
> The largest lash-up I saw was a triple, a powered ship pushing an unpowered
> barge with another barge lashed alongside. Two of these were carrying
> 4x6x3 loads and one 4x5x3 but I think all those were 40’ containers so
> 4x6x3 would be 144 TEU. I’m not sure how they navigate at night - this one
> was heading upstream just below the Lorelei after 10pm and well after
> sunset.
>

An example of what I saw in the Mississippi:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/52834739140/in/album-72177720307681289/

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>>> Am 08.02.2024 um 13:44 schrieb Clank:
>>>> On 16 Jan 2024 08:54:44 GMT, Marland wrote:
>>>>>> I've never seen a container on any sort of vessel on an inland
>>>>>> waterway,
>>>>>> but perhaps the first place I'd enquire about was the Manchester Ship
>>>>>> Canal (assuming that qualifies as inland).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Putting a container on a narrowboat would have loading-gauge issues,
>>>>>> because the container is 8ft wide and a narrowboat only 6ft 10". On
>>>>>> much of the netwark the container's 8ft 6" height would be an issue as
>>>>>> well.
>>>>>
>>>>> All true for the UK scene but as the correspondent I was replying to had
>>>>> already widened the scope to further afield by mentioning Hamburg and
>>>>> Mannheim I was following suit.
>>>>
>>>> This prompted me to wonder about the Danube - I've certainly seen plenty
>>>> of containers on vessels on that particular inland waterway, but I managed
>>>> to dig up some numbers. Rather out of date numbers, but numbers
>>>> nevertheless.
>>>>
>>>> The most high-traffic section of the Danube is the stretch in Romania,
>>>> with around 20 million tonnes p/a transported. Of that, around 40% is
>>>> domestic traffic, 30% imports, 20% exports, and 10% transit.
>>>>
>>>> These numbers are not just old (2014), they are pre-Ukraine war. I'd
>>>> expect the percentage of transit has gone up since the war, since one of
>>>> the routes for Ukrainian grain that avoids the Black Sea is by rail to
>>>> Galati from where it can be loaded on for transit on the Danube (either
>>>> all the way into Europe, or down to the Black Sea Canal at Cernavoda to
>>>> make its way to the port of Constanta for onward shipping.)
>>>>
>>>> Transit/Import/Export on the Romanian Danube (aka Dunarea) can of course
>>>> be in both directions - east to the aforementioned Black Sea Canal and
>>>> Constanta, or west to Serbia, Hungary, Austria, Germany.
>>>>
>>>> Apparently the typical craft for container shipping on the Danube is a
>>>> "pushed lighter" (an unpowered barge with a firm coupling to a pushing
>>>> vessel) - each such barge has a typical capacity of 144 TEU (3 layers of
>>>> 48 TEU), and a pusher can drive up the three of them coupled together
>>>> (either three-abreast or in a 1+2 formation), for a per-vessel capacity of
>>>> around 576 TEU.
>>>
>>> On the Danube, there is a significant difference between "below the iron
>>> gate (Rumania)" and "above the iron gate (Belgrade to Austria)".
>>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donauschifffahrt>
>>>
>>> On the Rhine, coastal ships can go to Mannheim, and from Mannheim to
>>> Basel, the maximum is 500 TEU on a single ship
>>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fes_Containerschiff>
>>>
>>> The connection (German Danube and Rhine-Danube-Canal) requires
>>> significanlty smaller ships with two-stacking,
>>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fmotorg%C3%BCterschiff>
>>> loads went down from just under 10,000TEU in 2000 to 1,400 TEU in 2007.
>>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main-Donau-Kanal#Regelschiff_auf_dem_Kanal>
>>
>> We were in Germany last year, staying some of the time in the Rhine gorge.
>> The largest lash-up I saw was a triple, a powered ship pushing an unpowered
>> barge with another barge lashed alongside. Two of these were carrying
>> 4x6x3 loads and one 4x5x3 but I think all those were 40’ containers so
>> 4x6x3 would be 144 TEU. I’m not sure how they navigate at night - this one
>> was heading upstream just below the Lorelei after 10pm and well after
>> sunset.
>>
>
> An example of what I saw in the Mississippi:
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/52834739140/in/album-72177720307681289/

One the one hand wowsers! But everything is bigger in America, and they
certainly aren’t going to try to navigate the Lorelei with that lot.

Here’s the lash-up at Koblenz at around 6pm:

<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10231208386023067&set=a.10206231106886699&type=3>

And here is the same thing about 4 hours later a couple of km below the
Lorelei (and pushing the exposure somewhat - it was a lot less visible to
the naked eye):

<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10231208386103069&set=a.10206231106886699&type=3>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 14:23:32 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> An example of what I saw in the Mississippi:
>>
>>
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/52834739140/in/album-72177720307681289/
>
>One the one hand wowsers! But everything is bigger in America, and they
>certainly aren’t going to try to navigate the Lorelei with that lot.
>
>Here’s the lash-up at Koblenz at around 6pm:
>
><https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10231208386023067&set=a.10206231106886
>699&type=3>
>
>And here is the same thing about 4 hours later a couple of km below the
>Lorelei (and pushing the exposure somewhat - it was a lot less visible to
>the naked eye):
>
><https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10231208386103069&set=a.10206231106886
>699&type=3>

If you wait long enough on a bridge in central london you'll see one of the
multiple daily rubbish barges heading up or downstream. Not nearly as
impressive as above but for a relatively narrow river it must be squeaky
bum time occasionally for the tug captain because if one of the barges broke
away it could block the entire river at low tide.