• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Drax and Peel Ports criticise rail infrastructure in North

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,052
Location
Herts
Nope. Hutchinson has a Section 106 Agreement concerning dualling parts of the Felixstowe branch but hasn't exactly been forthcoming in spending the money, instead calling, along with GBRF, for the passenger trains to be withdrawn so their paths can be used by freight trains.

This is a very long standing issue - why should the private companies spend money when you can either get the Government to do it for you (or not) , or argue the case for a withdrawal of passenger services on a quite well used branch line.

Appreciate that W12 clearance on routes like Ipswich Tunnel and Southampton was neccessary for the retention and development of port traffics (and done well frankly by NR) , but not stepping up to the plate on the Felixstowe Branch is not playing the game really. (IMHO - for what it is worth)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
This is a very long standing issue - why should the private companies spend money when you can either get the Government to do it for you (or not) , or argue the case for a withdrawal of passenger services on a quite well used branch line.

Appreciate that W12 clearance on routes like Ipswich Tunnel and Southampton was neccessary for the retention and development of port traffics (and done well frankly by NR) , but not stepping up to the plate on the Felixstowe Branch is not playing the game really. (IMHO - for what it is worth)

EU legislation requires all ports to fund infrastructure improvements beyond their perimeters. In the UK a charge is levied on every laden import container, Felixstowe charge GBP5.50 per container, Southampton is GBP3.50 per container, London Gateway is GBP5.30 per container whilst Liverpool presently does not charge. The Infrastructure Charges have been collected by all the above ports for the last five to ten years.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Nope. Hutchinson has a Section 106 Agreement concerning dualling parts of the Felixstowe branch but hasn't exactly been forthcoming in spending the money, instead calling, along with GBRF, for the passenger trains to be withdrawn so their paths can be used by freight trains.

S106 funding should have gone to the relevant local authority but local authorities are known to sit on S106 funding for years.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
EU legislation requires all ports to fund infrastructure improvements beyond their perimeters. In the UK a charge is levied on every laden import container, Felixstowe charge GBP5.50 per container, Southampton is GBP3.50 per container, London Gateway is GBP5.30 per container whilst Liverpool presently does not charge. The Infrastructure Charges have been collected by all the above ports for the last five to ten years.

I seem to recall Liverpool has some sort of exemption because government funding for the cruise port improvements in Southampton had a negative effect on Liverpool.
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,979
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
Just as a slight aside to this.

From the BBC N Yorks website is the news that the landslip affected A59 through Kex Gill could be moved.

Realigning the road at Kex Gill to the other side of the valley is part of a plan to improve connections between the east coast, Humber estuary ports and Lancashire.
Four possible new routes have been identified with costs estimated between £33m and £40m, said the council.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-41073262

The stretch of the A59 in question is approx 1 1/2 - 2 miles in length.
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
I seem to recall Liverpool has some sort of exemption because government funding for the cruise port improvements in Southampton had a negative effect on Liverpool.

I'm not sure about that, but Liverpool Cruise Terminal is actually not considered to be in the working part of the Port of Liverpool. When the cruise ships were first reintroduced and operated out of Brocklebank Dock the question of funding probably was an issue. However, MDHC/Peel were never too keen on developing a terminal within the dock estate in part because of the additional pressures it would have brought on the locks, which would have restricted the size of the ship in any event. There would have also been complications of making the terminal accessible in the strictly controlled security environment of the working port. Then there was the passenger perception of the terminal being sited next to scrap metal berths and the lack of direct and easy access to Liverpool city centre. Liverpool City Council who were keen to press ahead with the project but could not be involved, because the only available site was in Sefton so attention turned to the Pier Head site.

For MDHC/Peel any development costs would have to be funded themselves and the returns would not be huge in return for the overheads involved as well the construction costs. It then emerged that EU funding would be available if Liverpool City Council were to develop the project provided the facility was only constructed as a stop over facility. It was on this basis that the original facility was constructed with Peel only providing technical assistance as The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company Limited is the
Statutory Harbour Authority for the Port of Liverpool and Birkenhead Docks. When Liverpool City Council decided it wanted to turn the stop over facility into a proper cruise terminal, Southampton objected and hence the dispute.

As Peel has not so far not developed any extension to the existing port outside it's existing land boundaries it probably remains exempt from having to fund new external infrastructure. However, with a decision due shortly on improving road links to the Seaforth Entrance from the M57/M58 and the need to increase rail access it seems likely that an infrastructure charge will eventually be levied in the coming years.
 

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,052
Location
Herts
It would appear from various recent (face to face) conversations , there will be precious little enhancement money for freight schemes in the next Control Period.

Shame really that money wasted on such non operator supported schemes such as the Sundon loop on MML went ahead , and even more so that such / any unspent monies could not be rolled forward. Lean times ahead.
 

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,577

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,577
It would appear from various recent (face to face) conversations , there will be precious little enhancement money for freight schemes in the next Control Period.

Shame really that money wasted on such non operator supported schemes such as the Sundon loop on MML went ahead , and even more so that such / any unspent monies could not be rolled forward. Lean times ahead.

Went past Sundon today - it was rusty. In fact I cannot recall seeing a train use it
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
8,111
Location
Leeds

ChiefPlanner

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
8,052
Location
Herts
Went past Sundon today - it was rusty. In fact I cannot recall seeing a train use it

Exactly - my spies tell me much the same - must be the odd tamper or something put that way now and then ...classic case of institutional non inertia where the process takes over reality.

Then if neither DfT or operators fight the case , what do you expect. Only the industries and (taxpayers) money.

On the same route we have the loop at West Hampstead ...between the slow lines .....north end.

St Albans reversing siding - has no track circuiting - only 4 an hour booked through there shortly, - I gave up on that in the end.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,386
https://www.ciltuk.org.uk/News/Late...-launch-Liverpool-rail-container-service.aspx
Peel Ports is set to launch a new rail container service for its customers using the Port of Liverpool. The company is in advanced contract discussions with both a rail provider and shippers, with the aim of running the first services before the end of 2017.


Peel Ports is also backing calls from Liverpool Metro Mayor Steve Rotheram for significant investment in the Victorian-era rail infrastructure serving the east-west corridor.



He added: “There are generally good connections on routes heading north and south, but cross-country is a real problem. It’s long overdue that the east-west infrastructure was brought into the 21st century so we can expand rail freight usage and reduce the impact of longer-distance road haulage.”
I came across this link and thought it would be of interest to the regular posters on this thread. Obviously it's not local to me....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,559

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,559
S & C ? possibly

Could do I suppose but would it mean messing about with locomotives to get back on the WCML north of Carlisle? Certainly space for them though, the line is almost completely devoid of freight now with the almost complete demise of coal.

There are already several (unused) paths from Seaforth to the Midlands, and one to Mossend, which runs along the WCML with many stops, taking 9 hours.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,335
Location
Greater Manchester
Would they need any East-West links for container trains? They certainly won't be running any to Manchester, Leeds/Wakefield I'd imagine are too close as well, and the North East I don't think currently has an active facility for receiving them. The main markets I would expect to be Scotland and the Midlands, assuming they can find paths on the WCML.

What about Doncaster?
 

Francis

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2011
Messages
178
Location
Chorley, Lancs
If the WCML north of Wigan can provide the extra capacity that would be an option. The question then arises as to whether the Tuebrook Huyton section can handle extra traffic once the biomass traffic starts to ramp up as other power frames at Drax come on line? - assuming they are converted from coal? Three frame conversions are completed or underway but there has been little said about the remaining three. When the initial study was done the southern route via the CLC was seen to be the only feasible option albeit with its orbital crossing radial routes baggage. I am unaware as to whether the WCML north of Wigan was considered - but if it was it must have rejected at some point and if so I can only think that WCML capacity on the approach to Preston at Euxton was a constraint.

Not only was I suggesting reinstating the northern chord - I was also suggesting redoubling Ormskirk to Farrington - to prevent delays on the extant single track section bleeding over into the northern end of the Merseytravel.The alignment at Farrington Junction between the West Lancs and the Blackburn line so far remains unencumbered. Relaying the missing chord would need to undertaken as part of the overall rebuild of the line.

This is yet another variant of the "pig in the python" problem that arises when over rationalised systems are expected to ramp up capacity.

Knowing how long it takes in England to get DfT approval for even the simplest and most economical rail improvements, it looks as if we are stuck with the network as it stands for the next decade, and big engineering solutions for the Drax flow are unlikely.
The Huyton - St Helens - Wigan NW - Euxton jc - Farington Jc - Blackburn- Rose Grove - Copy Pit (Cliviger Gorge) - Hebden Bridge - Healey Mills - Wakefield Kirkgate - Knottingley route looks reasonable. The gradient up to Copy Pit is 1 in 65, compared with 1 in 59 and 1 in 47 up from Man Victoria to Miles Platting. From Edge hill to Huyton is pretty gentle, and I doubt if there are any steep sections via Prescot to St Helens.

The WCML north of Wigan has two Virgin expresses per hour, each way, a Manchester Airport to Scotland service each way, and the Liverpool - St Helens - Preston hourly stopper. North of Euxton Jc where the Bolton and Chorley line comes in, you already have four tracks. The Whelley loop used to act as the freight lines avoiding Wigan North Western, but it is long gone.

Just looking at RTT for Euxton Balshaw Lane, some hours there are two freights, others five or six. Would seem to suggest that a lot more freight workings could be fitted in. Between Todmorden and Milner Royd Jc you'd have to thread between the Calder Valley passenger traffic, and Transpennine services between Heaton Lodge Jc and Ravensthorpe, but nothing like the problems around Stockport or Manchester centre.

One just wonders if the tunnels and curves around Cornholme and Mytholmroyd are able to take the big Drax biomass containers?
 

darloscott

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
816
Location
Stockton
Would they need any East-West links for container trains? They certainly won't be running any to Manchester, Leeds/Wakefield I'd imagine are too close as well, and the North East I don't think currently has an active facility for receiving them. The main markets I would expect to be Scotland and the Midlands, assuming they can find paths on the WCML.

Wonder if there may be a demand for a Liverpool-Teesport service? Feeder containers from Scandinavia to Tees then hauled across country to meet another ship? Or would it be far more cost effective for them to just go straight to Rotterdam to start with?
There are rumours of new services from Teesport to both Trafford Park and Daventry shortly, on the back of last years new train to Mossend.
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
Wonder if there may be a demand for a Liverpool-Teesport service? Feeder containers from Scandinavia to Tees then hauled across country to meet another ship? Or would it be far more cost effective for them to just go straight to Rotterdam to start with?
There are rumours of new services from Teesport to both Trafford Park and Daventry shortly, on the back of last years new train to Mossend.

I doubt it, the container services from Scandinavia and Baltic tend to connect with the Carriers mainline calls at Bremerhaven, Hamburg, Rotterdam and Antwerp. Containerships PLC, the Finish based container operator who serves Teesport are really the main operator in this market and the volumes are relatively small. More likely traffic would be containerised chemicals and steel products that still originate in the area and that tend to move in regular volumes moving to Liverpool and manufactured goods moving in the opposite direction.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,730
One just wonders if the tunnels and curves around Cornholme and Mytholmroyd are able to take the big Drax biomass containers?

The big Drax biomass "containers", are in fact wagons built to W6a loading gauge, so yes, they will go almost anywhere.
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
Further information is emerging on Peels plans for the introduction of intermodal trains from the Seaforth railhead.*

"Peel Ports Group Strategic Projects Director Gary Hodgson told Railway Gazette on September 12 that the company was close to finalising a contract with the future operator of rail services from the Port of Liverpool to Daventry and Scotland. The aim is to commence movements of containers in the next three to four months. Terminal facilities and final road delivery would be provided by WH Malcolm at the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal and Grangemouth, but it would be 'a Peel service', he stressed, with the port operator responsible for consolidating consignments. "

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/freight/single-view/view/world-rail-freight-news-round-up-51.html


A very interesting development, I wonder if this is the first stage in Peel launching Peel Rail?
*
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,528
One interesting change is that an increasing amounto f bulk material (grain and such primarily but also cement and coal) is being moved in containers.
Farmers or companies can now literally sell twenty tonnes of grain on ebay to someone across the world.
The low cost of container loading and economies of scale from all freight being interchangeable is now apparently overwhelming the lower costs from not having huge numbers of steel boxes to maintain.
Will be interesting to see if this has any impact on the freight market.
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,054
Location
UK
Further information is emerging on Peels plans for the introduction of intermodal trains from the Seaforth railhead.*

"Peel Ports Group Strategic Projects Director Gary Hodgson told Railway Gazette on September 12 that the company was close to finalising a contract with the future operator of rail services from the Port of Liverpool to Daventry and Scotland. The aim is to commence movements of containers in the next three to four months. Terminal facilities and final road delivery would be provided by WH Malcolm at the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal and Grangemouth, but it would be 'a Peel service', he stressed, with the port operator responsible for consolidating consignments. "

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/freight/single-view/view/world-rail-freight-news-round-up-51.html

A very interesting development, I wonder if this is the first stage in Peel launching Peel Rail?
*


Would you know if this is speculative, or if they have existing clients for these routes?

I think you have mentioned in previous that much of the container traffic via Liverpool is regional; this suggests that Peel may either have, or anticipates, growing demand for destinations further afield.
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
One interesting change is that an increasing amounto f bulk material (grain and such primarily but also cement and coal) is being moved in containers.
Farmers or companies can now literally sell twenty tonnes of grain on ebay to someone across the world.
The low cost of container loading and economies of scale from all freight being interchangeable is now apparently overwhelming the lower costs from not having huge numbers of steel boxes to maintain.
Will be interesting to see if this has any impact on the freight market.

Indeed the increasing movement of bulk products is one of the reasons for growth in the container industry. In the US in particular import containers are moved huge distances inland to the cities but then the shipping lines have to find return export cargo. Like in UK and Europe the decline in manufacturing means they have had to find other cargoes to load in these containers. In the last twenty years or so recycling products such as paper, plastic and metal started to fill the void, and still form the largest volumes of cargo from Europe to the Far East. The same happened in the US, were the farmers have taken advantage of the empties as it often cheaper to ship the container loaded with grain etc to the Far East than return the container to the port. Sounds bizarre, but basically the shipping lines subsidises the export move to get the container back to China so it can be loaded with higher paying freight.

Would you know if this is speculative, or if they have existing clients for these routes?

I think you have mentioned in previous that much of the container traffic via Liverpool is regional; this suggests that Peel may either have, or anticipates, growing demand for destinations further afield.

Almost certainly they have clients to support this. On the same day as the rail announcement Peel also issued these two press releases which confirm their ambitions.

https://www.peelports.com/blogs/2017/warren-marshall-lism-17

https://www.peelports.com/blogs/gh-lisw-17-blog
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,730
Almost certainly they have clients to support this. On the same day as the rail announcement Peel also issued these two press releases which confirm their ambitions.

https://www.peelports.com/blogs/2017/warren-marshall-lism-17

https://www.peelports.com/blogs/gh-lisw-17-blog

I'm sure their short sea ambitions are well founded.

Where I have difficulty is their ambition to win deep sea calls from the big southern ports. The idea that a modern 20,000teu container vessel would call at Liverpool instead of (say) Felistowe, before sailing to Rotterdam is pie in the sky.

It is one thing getting northern based companies to agree that IF services called at Liverpool they would use them. It is quite another to get shipping lines to commit to 500+ extra miles, and another 1+ day to serve an existing market that is already well served by southern ports and rail north.
 

8A Rail

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2012
Messages
1,348
Location
Mars
I'm sure their short sea ambitions are well founded.

Where I have difficulty is their ambition to win deep sea calls from the big southern ports. The idea that a modern 20,000teu container vessel would call at Liverpool instead of (say) Felistowe, before sailing to Rotterdam is pie in the sky.

It is one thing getting northern based companies to agree that IF services called at Liverpool they would use them. It is quite another to get shipping lines to commit to 500+ extra miles, and another 1+ day to serve an existing market that is already well served by southern ports and rail north.

I think you may find that the best hope of the BIG ships are those that are applying the Transatlantic trade rather those coming from the East as their services are almost set in stone serving Rotherdam and Antwerp with Hamburg, Felixstowe and Southampton in the frame too. Peel Holdings are aware of that but if they can get some additional "feeder" services (from Rotherdam as an example) to serve Liverpool instead of the southern ports especially if the containers / goods are meant for the north of England / UK then it could make more economical sense. We will wait and see.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top