• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

£94 million investment Fort William Aluminium

Status
Not open for further replies.

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
BSW who own Corpach have a major depot in the Midlands and rail ought to be viable over that volant distance.
It's worth pointing out that to get from Corpach to anywhere other than Fort William involves a runround in Ft William Yard. Adds 20-45 minutes to the schedule depending on train length & yard requirements, especially as the yard is not directly connected to the Glasgow direction so the train would need to set back onto the main line. Also adds the requirement for a 2nd member of staff. With a product like timber where the margins are likely to be very tight in the first place, the additional time and staff costs may well tip the balance from being worth trials to being a non-starter. There may be opportunities for hiring in staff involved with the Jacobite when that's running, but what do you do when it's not?
From aerial images there doesn't look to be anywhere sensible to put an avoiding line in, so regrettably for timber to move back to rail would require either a substantial improvement in the journey time south of Glasgow to compensate for the extra time at Ft William, or a substantial rise in the costs of running the trucks. Would likely require both, to be honest. On the positive note, the points and ground frame at Corpach look to be still present and the sidings are still in the Sectional Appendix, so NR seem to be keeping the link on the books. From the photos I've seen there's a rather substantial amount of greenery in the 4ft of the sidings so it'd take some money to get trains running again. If HGVs get a carbon tax and a decent path could be found south of Glasgow (a Bi-Mode may well be required) it's not impossible that a solution might be found to the operational issues at Fort William.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Wynd

Member
Joined
20 Oct 2020
Messages
741
Location
Aberdeenshire
It absolutely matters where you start in a world of limited resources. If, say, GBRF are to buy a loco and 20 wagons spare, it is far better for us as a society to have them remove 20 road wagons each doing 300 miles a day each (a typical competing flow), than 2 wagons doing 100 miles a day each (this one).

Or am I missing something?

This is just it. We know rail freight is struggling to compete on purely commercial terms, so if we want it back we have to shift the equation.

IIRC there is a Scottish Government strategic rail paper that specifies a 7.5% increase in railfreight over CP6.

How is that going to be achieved if we don't do things that aren't on purely commercial terms?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
This is just it. We know rail freight is struggling to compete on purely commercial terms, so if we want it back we have to shift the equation.

IIRC there is a Scottish Government strategic rail paper that specifies a 7.5% increase in railfreight over CP6.

How is that going to be achieved if we don't do things that aren't on purely commercial terms?

By moving the goalposts a little, so that the traffic that is marginally better off by road becomes marginally better off by rail. The low hanging fruit if you like.

Shifting Alumina / scrap / finished billets 4 miles does not fall into this category.
 
Last edited:

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
By moving the goalposts a little, so that the traffic that is marginally better off by road becomes marginally better off by rail. The low hanging fruit of you like.

Shifting Alumina / scrap / finished billets 4 miles does not fall into this category.
Complete agree, the case for rail improves as the distance goes up so best to focus there e.g. 80+mile trips first (unless large construction material flows). In the Scottish case plenty of road container traffic north of the central belt that transfers to/from rail at Coatbridge / Mossend etc that could go by rail further north (realistically this would be (diesel initially) shuttle services going north from the existing central belt terminals rather than end to end Tesco type services. Realistically it would probably need 2 Fife/Tayside terminals, an Aberdeen, a Speyside and an improved more open setup at Inverness. There wouldn't be daily services most of the year (outside the current whisky export season) unless some were combined e.g. the Fife/Tayside terminals were served by 1 service that split enroute. Probably need to much cooperation to actually work though!
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
It's worth pointing out that to get from Corpach to anywhere other than Fort William involves a runround in Ft William Yard. Adds 20-45 minutes to the schedule depending on train length & yard requirements, especially as the yard is not directly connected to the Glasgow direction so the train would need to set back onto the main line. Also adds the requirement for a 2nd member of staff. With a product like timber where the margins are likely to be very tight in the first place, the additional time and staff costs may well tip the balance from being worth trials to being a non-starter. There may be opportunities for hiring in staff involved with the Jacobite when that's running, but what do you do when it's not?
From aerial images there doesn't look to be anywhere sensible to put an avoiding line in, so regrettably for timber to move back to rail would require either a substantial improvement in the journey time south of Glasgow to compensate for the extra time at Ft William, or a substantial rise in the costs of running the trucks. Would likely require both, to be honest. On the positive note, the points and ground frame at Corpach look to be still present and the sidings are still in the Sectional Appendix, so NR seem to be keeping the link on the books. From the photos I've seen there's a rather substantial amount of greenery in the 4ft of the sidings so it'd take some money to get trains running again. If HGVs get a carbon tax and a decent path could be found south of Glasgow (a Bi-Mode may well be required) it's not impossible that a solution might be found to the operational issues at Fort William.
I believe you are putting too much emphasis on time as being the major factor in costs.

If that were the case, we would not have been discussing coastal shipping earlier in the thread as even rail can easily beat shipping in the time stakes.

Time enters the equation with high value product where a faster journey reduces the cost of stock in transit to justify the extra cost of the faster mode. This does not apply to alumina or timber and may or may not apply to finished aluminium or wood product.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I believe you are putting too much emphasis on time as being the major factor in costs.

It absolutely is a factor, when the competition is much quicker and more efficient, therefore cheaper.

Coastal shipping works for certain products in large volumes on certain flows because it is significantly cheaper than the competition (road and rail). The extra time is worth the lower price.

For Corpach to the Aluminium plant, road would be cheaper and quicker.
 

Philip Phlopp

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2015
Messages
3,004
It absolutely is a factor, when the competition is much quicker and more efficient, therefore cheaper.

Coastal shipping works for certain products in large volumes on certain flows because it is significantly cheaper than the competition (road and rail). The extra time is worth the lower price.

For Corpach to the Aluminium plant, road would be cheaper and quicker.

And given the power station attached to the smelter produces a surplus of electricity, it may even be feasible to use a fleet of electric HGVs for such a round trip.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
And given the power station attached to the smelter produces a surplus of electricity, it may even be feasible to use a fleet of electric HGVs for such a round trip.

Steady on!

The ideal flow for it though. Short range, low speed, regular recharging opportunities.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,558
It absolutely is a factor, when the competition is much quicker and more efficient, therefore cheaper.

Coastal shipping works for certain products in large volumes on certain flows because it is significantly cheaper than the competition (road and rail). The extra time is worth the lower price.

For Corpach to the Aluminium plant, road would be cheaper and quicker.
You have changed my wording "MAJOR factor" into "A factor", big difference.

I have never argued for a rail shuttle from Corpach to the smelter.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
You have changed my wording "MAJOR factor" into "A factor", big difference.

I have never argued for a rail shuttle from Corpach to the smelter.
Somebody was arguing for Wood from the midlands to Corpach.

My main point was that the additional staff costs were the major factor in making rail uncompetitive for this traffic. Time is a major factor of staff costs because you have to pay staff for the time they spend working the train.
HOWEVER, I was also arguing that the operational costs & issues at Fort William in running round and propelling are as big a factor as the pure end-to-end time. In particular, the cost of making sure you have enough qualified staff to ensure that the shunter's shift will be covered for each train will cost a lot more than just their hourly rate. This will ultimately be passed on to the origin of the cost.
And given the power station attached to the smelter produces a surplus of electricity, it may even be feasible to use a fleet of electric HGVs for such a round trip.
Sounds perfect for a trial operation! I presume that such a heretical display of common sense means it won't even be considered by the powers that be.
 

moggie

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2010
Messages
426
Location
West Midlands
Maybe someone could explain how rail was competitive enough to shift Alumina from Blyth to Lynemouth - all 4 miles!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
Maybe someone could explain how rail was competitive enough to shift Alumina from Blyth to Lynemouth - all 4 miles!
I'm not familiar with the specifics of this operation, but some factors may include
The biggest factor is probably:
- The aluminium smelter closed in 2012. In the 8 years since then, many of the wider economic factors have changed. Some by lots, many be a little, but it all affects the final balance.
Other factors include:
- Freight trains don't come into contact with passenger trains on this section so delivery times were reliable
- the train ran with 26 21 wagons, twice a day. This is a high volume and to move it by road would be intensive on trucks and drivers.
- Blyth is close to Tyne yard, & Tees yard isn't too far, meaning operations tied down rolling stock for far less time.
- the train could run direct from port to smelter.
It's also possible that it wasn't economic and one level or other of govt provided money to keep the freight off the roads to/from Newcastle.

EDIT: the trains are 21 wagons, not 26.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I'm not familiar with the specifics of this operation, but some factors may include
The biggest factor is probably:
- The aluminium smelter closed in 2012. In the 8 years since then, many of the wider economic factors have changed. Some by lots, many be a little, but it all affects the final balance.
Other factors include:
- Freight trains don't come into contact with passenger trains on this section so delivery times were reliable
- the train ran with 26 wagons, twice a day. This is a high volume and to move it by road would be intensive on trucks and drivers.
- Blyth is close to Tyne yard, & Tees yard isn't too far, meaning operations tied down rolling stock for far less time.
- the train could run direct from port to smelter.
It's also possible that it wasn't economic and one level or other of govt provided money to keep the freight off the roads to/from Newcastle.

I’m not familiar with this either, but 26 wagons twice a day would suit an efficient wagon, loco and traincrew plan. That’s a much higher volume than the Fort William proposal.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
I’m not familiar with this either, but 26 wagons twice a day would suit an efficient wagon, loco and traincrew plan. That’s a much higher volume than the Fort William proposal.
Sorry, it was 21 wagons, not 26. I don't know if this was for the entire time the service lasted or not as it's from Wikipedia.


Interestingly the Alumnia was transferred by rail, but the coke was also shipped to Blyth then transferred by road. Either way, the quantities and operational requirements at Fort William mean that rail isn't the right choice in that instance.
 

Richard P

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2018
Messages
92
Until 10 or so years ago there was a more than adequate siding off the line just beyond Corpach station which was used intermittently by the owners of the Saw Mill. Today that link is no longer in place and so virtually all movement of logs in to the saw mill is by road. The exception to this is occasional boats in to Corpach from lochs around the locality where access in to forests isn't possible by road - for example back in 2019 boats were moving logs from the forest at Dunach just off the A816 onward to Corpach. This leads to the A82 and the A85 being heavily populated with logging trucks both full and empty. This whole area constantly has clearances going on and 20-25 years ago there were as a result logging trains running from Tainuilt and from Crainlarich. I don't know why these stopped (both sidings are now in poor repair but do still exist), I can only assume it was the cost.

Anything that could take at least some of those trucks off the road would be a good thing for the environment as at times they are relentless, one after another, and a good thing for the railway too
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
Until 10 or so years ago there was a more than adequate siding off the line just beyond Corpach station which was used intermittently by the owners of the Saw Mill. Today that link is no longer in place and so virtually all movement of logs in to the saw mill is by road. The exception to this is occasional boats in to Corpach from lochs around the locality where access in to forests isn't possible by road - for example back in 2019 boats were moving logs from the forest at Dunach just off the A816 onward to Corpach. This leads to the A82 and the A85 being heavily populated with logging trucks both full and empty. This whole area constantly has clearances going on and 20-25 years ago there were as a result logging trains running from Tainuilt and from Crainlarich. I don't know why these stopped (both sidings are now in poor repair but do still exist), I can only assume it was the cost.

Anything that could take at least some of those trucks off the road would be a good thing for the environment as at times they are relentless, one after another, and a good thing for the railway too
Has that link actually been removed? Aerial photos still show it, as does the Sectional Appendix and other diagrams.

It would be fantastic to have this traffic back on the railway, but the timber company isn't going to switch without good cause (i.e. it becomes cheaper overall). There's a hundred reasons why they might be using road over rail, and without knowing which are the factors at play you don't really know where to start.
The reality of the situation is that for Fort William timber to move back to rail, it will probably need a government subsidy. I don't see Westminster or the Scottish parliament coming up with the money spare for the highlands any time soon.
 

Maxfly

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2010
Messages
269
Location
Scotland
Has that link actually been removed? Aerial photos still show it, as does the Sectional Appendix and other diagrams.

It would be fantastic to have this traffic back on the railway, but the timber company isn't going to switch without good cause (i.e. it becomes cheaper overall). There's a hundred reasons why they might be using road over rail, and without knowing which are the factors at play you don't really know where to start.
The reality of the situation is that for Fort William timber to move back to rail, it will probably need a government subsidy. I don't see Westminster or the Scottish parliament coming up with the money spare for the highlands any time soon.
All equipment is there on the ground, small vegetation removal on the sawmill side of the boundary and some other repairs required from the sidings owners but i believe there has been quite a bit of work done already inside there with track repairs and veg removal?
Spean Bridge can accommodate the bulks at full length but from what i remember but it is overlength for Crianlarich (when running full length). full length of bulks is circa 840ft and Crianlarich DN loop is around 820ft, the longest as the UP loop is 750ft odd)
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,209
I'm a little mystified as to how the UP and DN loops at Crianlarich can be significantly different lengths.
 

Maxfly

Member
Joined
9 Mar 2010
Messages
269
Location
Scotland
I'm a little mystified as to how the UP and DN loops at Crianlarich can be significantly different lengths.
They are measured from Stop Board to the fouling marker usually so likely top boards are not exactly adjacent to each other??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top