Castle Donington Freight Depot.

[L.E.Rover]

I work next to the freight line that runs through Castle Donington and several years ago a spur line was built off the main line into a siding,the fact that it basically replicated the old power station line that had been ripped up a few years before is neither here or there I suppose but it's obviously cost a lot to build consisting of two tracks which merge after a while and a signal onto the main line which displays red 24/7.
Yet it's never seen a train since it was built,why build it if there was no buisness case or demand?,who built it and what were they hoping to load/offload.
I originally thought it was connected to the neighbouring marks and spencer depot but apparently not,anybody have answers please?.

 

[Tomnick]

There's a path for a train to serve it, but either no traffic or some other reason for it not to run. If I was feeling cynical, I might suggest that the rail terminal was provided to satisfy a planning condition, with no intention of it ever being used...

 

[Bald Rick]

There's a path for a train to serve it, but either no traffic or some other reason for it not to run. If I was feeling cynical, I might suggest that the rail terminal was provided to satisfy a planning condition, with no intention of it ever being used...

What! That can never happen *cough* *Radlett* *cough*

 

[The Planner]

*more coughs* probably Port Salford as well *more coughs*

 

[Mugby]

Was this another of those 'developments' which promised 7,000 new jobs?

 

[edwin_m]

Almost certainly a planning condition - but at least it means that if a need for rail freight arises in the next few years it will be relatively easy to build the siding and other facilities, with the difficult bit in the NR connection already done.

 

[Wyvern]

Marks and Spencer set it all up around 2010 with all sorts of big ideas, including a rail connection to their other site at London Gateway.

However in 2013 they sold it to a firm called Tritax Big Box REIT who presumably are not so interested in rail transport.

 

[tadhatter]

Marks and Spencer set it all up around 2010 with all sorts of big ideas, including a rail connection to their other site at London Gateway.

However in 2013 they sold it to a firm called Tritax Big Box REIT who presumably are not so interested in rail transport.

which begs the question why on earth did they buy it?

 

[RichmondCommu]

which begs the question why on earth did they buy it?

Probably because there was never an intention to use rail freight in the first place! And at a guess the value of the land.

 

[Wyvern]

Wot he said

 

[L.E.Rover]

Thanks for the answers guys,basically your saying that all the money,man hours and equipment that went into building the line were wasted as there was never any real intention to use the siding anyway!!! I've said it before and I'll say it again,is it me?

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks for the answers guys,basically your saying that all the money,man hours and equipment that went into building the line were wasted as there was never any real intention to use the siding anyway!!! I've said it before and I'll say it again,is it me?

Not necessarily. Developers can be forced to provide a connection, which they can obviously afford, but nobody can be forced to use it. It means the connection is there to be used in the future if a suitable user comes along.

 

[83G/84D]

Isn't there a similar terminal not being used a few miles east of Swindon? Or are the circumstances different in this case?

 

[fgwrich]

Marks and Spencer set it all up around 2010 with all sorts of big ideas, including a rail connection to their other site at London Gateway.

However in 2013 they sold it to a firm called Tritax Big Box REIT who presumably are not so interested in rail transport.

Cough Cough there goes the so called Plan A b*ll*x as well cough cough.

 

[Wyvern]

There are plans in the air for another similar venture a few miles west at Etwall, presumably on the Crewe line near its former junction with the GNR.

 

[muddythefish]

There's a path for a train to serve it, but either no traffic or some other reason for it not to run. If I was feeling cynical, I might suggest that the rail terminal was provided to satisfy a planning condition, with no intention of it ever being used...

Many years ago, a developer was given permission to build a rail connected depot on the old goods yard at Welwyn Garden City. Except of course the rail connection was never used and eventually disconnected.

There's a similar thread here. Sound like a good story for a rail investigative journalist.

 

[The Planner]

Unless the planning permission specifically says that trains must run then Im not sure what the point would be. Planning permission was based on a rail connection, not actually running trains.

 

[muddythefish]

Unless the planning permission specifically says that trains must run then Im not sure what the point would be. Planning permission was based on a rail connection, not actually running trains.

The point is, developers are gaining planning permission under false pretences. They are refused permission for a site unless they enhance its "green" credentials by providing a rail connection.

Except of course there is never intention to use the rail connection.

 

[edwin_m]

The point is, developers are gaining planning permission under false pretences. They are refused permission for a site unless they enhance its "green" credentials by providing a rail connection.

Except of course there is never intention to use the rail connection.

What's the alternative - continuing to build with no rail connections and making it absolutely certain that freight can't transfer to rail? The intention to use the rail connection is down to the current and future tenants not the developer. For most tenants rail doesn't make sense, and if they were forced to use it they would immediately move out to another site with no rail connection. However for a few it would be a logical choice, and this proportion ought to increase gradually over time as rail freight becomes more of an alternative to road for some flows.

 

[muddythefish]

You're missing the point, which is developers appear to be getting around planning rules designed to prevent lorries choking local roads by building in rail connections none of which will ever be used. It looks like a scam to me.

 

[edwin_m]

You're missing the point, which is developers appear to be getting around planning rules designed to prevent lorries choking local roads by building in rail connections none of which will ever be used. It looks like a scam to me.

I repeat. What else can planning authorities do?

Not require a connection - the site is probably inaccessible by rail for the indefinite future, and the developer is laughing all the way to the bank because they haven't had to spend a couple of million on a rail connection.

Allow building on sites away from railways - the site is certainly inaccessible by rail for the indefinite future, and the developer is laughing etc etc.

Find some way of forcing the rail connection to be used - the development will never take place unless a tenant is already interested who wants to use rail. Doesn't work like that - people won't want to be tied down.

 

[muddythefish]

I repeat. What else can planning authorities do?

.

Turn it down on environmental grounds - as in the longrunning Radlett saga.

I'll have a bet with you now on that one too - not one container will leave that site by rail.

 

[edwin_m]

Turn it down on environmental grounds - as in the longrunning Radlett saga.

I'll have a bet with you now on that one too - not one container will leave that site by rail.

That is quite possible. But if all terminals are turned down on environmental grounds, how is the freight to be moved?

Castle Donington was a former power station site, with good road links and the potential for rail traffic. As long as they did something about the flood risk, the site was probably better on environmental grounds than most of the alternatives.