New Railfreight Terminal proposed near Hinckley, Leicestershire.

[james60059]

Not seen it mentioned elsewhere on the Forums, so please delete if I've missed it

More information from the Leicester Mercury.
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/huge-development-could-see-employment-952913

A huge 780 acre development could be built between a beauty spot and a Leicestershire village.

If approved an employment park and rail freight terminal, dubbed Hinckley East and Hinckley West, could be built between Burbage Common and Stoney Stanton.

The development would effectively create an urban corridor linking Hinckley to nearby villages, The Hinckley Times reports.

The scale of the project means the proposal will go straight for government approval with local councils merely being consulted.

When details first became public the plans consisted of housing and industrial land allocation on two 390 acre sites on each side of the M69.

And a somewhat similar article from The Hinckley Times.
https://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/...1.1417330249.1517780691-1896687747.1517780689

Plans for a huge employment park and rail freight terminal near Burbage could be lodged as soon as next year.

Council officials have confirmed an application for the 780 acre scheme on countryside between Burbage Common and Stoney Stanton is in the pipeline.

If approved it would effectively fill in swathes of green fields, creating an urban corridor linking Hinckley with outlying villages.

The scale of the project is such that the proposal will go straight for government approval with local councils merely being consulted.

Due to location it is Blaby District Council which is the lead borough in the emerging development, headlined by logistics specialists DB Symmetry and first revealed by The Hinckley Times last March.

As a local, I think it might be interesting to see how it might actually pan out, for instance, the railfreight terminal - unless I've read it wrong will be more or less bordered by Burbage Common Lane, which is only a single track road anyway, so some real major works would be required, not to mention the fact that the residents of Elmesthorpe might have one or 2 things to say.

It also begs the question, would Hinckley East (as it's been dubbed) actually be used too?, using the example of Castle Donington which I believe has not seen a single train, I stand to be corrected of course

Cheers

James

 

[furnessvale]

It also begs the question, would Hinckley East (as it's been dubbed) actually be used too?, using the example of Castle Donington which I believe has not seen a single train, I stand to be corrected of course

Whether a developer is using the rail link as a Trojan Horse get obtain planning permission for a road based depot is always problematical. I think local authorities are a bit more cautious these days after things like Telford and Castle Donnington.

Someone will quote Telford and I will respond with DIRFT. Mind you objectors to the proposed terminal south of Northampton are attempting to claim that DIRFT is not well used by rail. Apparently they believe that if a freight doesn't run every day in every path the depot is underused.

 

[Mugby]

Havn't they said it could create 7000 new jobs?

 

[edwin_m]

At least it creates the potential for rail use in the future. Unless you are in a command economy it's impossible to force a development of this type to make use of rail, the best that can be done is to force the developer to make provision for rail so any tenant that wants to use it is able to. When evaluating traffic impacts, the planners should work on the assumption that all the goods into and out of the site goes by road.

 

[whhistle]

I'm surprised it's not a little closer to Magna Park.
But then after the defeat of expansion then perhaps it's better this way.

 

[jimm]

Whether a developer is using the rail link as a Trojan Horse get obtain planning permission for a road based depot is always problematical. I think local authorities are a bit more cautious these days after things like Telford and Castle Donnington.

I don't know why you think a local authority would be cautious as a result of Telford - securing a rail freight terminal was a longstanding policy of Telford & Wrekin Council, it was one of the key partners in the project and owns the site. No Trojan horse there.

Before the site opened there was a deal of scepticism about whether there would be interest from businesses locally or elsewhere in Shropshire in putting enough freight on rail to generate much traffic on top of the MoD services and that seems to have been the case.

 

[furnessvale]

I don't know why you think a local authority would be cautious as a result of Telford - securing a rail freight terminal was a longstanding policy of Telford & Wrekin Council, it was one of the key partners in the project and owns the site. No Trojan horse there.

Before the site opened there was a deal of scepticism about whether there would be interest from businesses locally or elsewhere in Shropshire in putting enough freight on rail to generate much traffic on top of the MoD services and that seems to have been the case.

If a LA cannot attract railfreight to a terminal which it owns, that must surely alert other LAs when presented with telephone number figures of railfreight traffic by developers of mixed use sites, or at least it should do!

 

[The Planner]

Donnington is hamstrung by the fact it faces the wrong way, the only train it has is a Q path, runs as required.

 

[XDM]

Donnington is hamstrung by the fact it faces the wrong way, the only train it has is a Q path, runs as required.

James60059, who started this thread, asked if Castle Donington had seen any trains at all. Does anyone know the answer?
If no, it confirms that these rural land grabs use rail as a Trojan horse.
The most depressing is Fratton freight terminal, a mile from Portsmouth & Southsea station. It has seen zilch apparently. Examples like this deter Network Rail, who are hard enough to get off their posteriors, from doing any more freight improvements. The fairly new & bold Nuneaton chord to the down slow WCML carries barely any traffic when I last asked a freight colleague.

 

[edwin_m]

If no, it confirms that these rural land grabs use rail as a Trojan horse.

All it confirms is that no rail freight has used Castle Donington (which was a power station site and therefore brownfield, so not exactly a rural land grab).

I repeat again, securing a rail connection doesn't mean it will be used immediately, but it creates a future opportunity which wouldn't exist if the terminal had been built away from a railway or in such a way that adding a rail connection later was prohibitively costly. To start a freight flow you need a terminal each end, so it's far easier do if one or both ends already has a rail connection rather than having to develop two totally new ones.

 

[furnessvale]

All it confirms is that no rail freight has used Castle Donington (which was a power station site and therefore brownfield, so not exactly a rural land grab).

I repeat again, securing a rail connection doesn't mean it will be used immediately, but it creates a future opportunity which wouldn't exist if the terminal had been built away from a railway or in such a way that adding a rail connection later was prohibitively costly. To start a freight flow you need a terminal each end, so it's far easier do if one or both ends already has a rail connection rather than having to develop two totally new ones.

Fully agree with you there. A terminal built next to the railway, complete with a connection, has a lot more potential than a distribution depot built 5 miles from the nearest railway, even if the bone fides of the developer are initially suspect.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Realistically, can the local rail network around Leicester/Nuneaton accomodate significant numbers of trains starting or terminating at this site?
Presumably they'd be coming from Felixstowe, Southampton etc.

If not, can a developer contribution be sought for rail network upgrades?
Or do NR have to speculatively invest in capacity, with no firm commitment from tenants at the site?

 

[furnessvale]

Realistically, can the local rail network around Leicester/Nuneaton accomodate significant numbers of trains starting or terminating at this site?
Presumably they'd be coming from Felixstowe, Southampton etc.

If not, can a developer contribution be sought for rail network upgrades?
Or do NR have to speculatively invest in capacity, with no firm commitment from tenants at the site?

Network Rail are involved at an early stage. These documents from a similar proposal at Four Ashes near Penkridge show the level of detail. Document 7.3 in stage 2 Technical Documents refers.

http://www.westmidlandsinterchange.co.uk/document-library/

 

[The Planner]

Four Ashes has been in development for years though, this Hinckley one seems a bit more embryonic. Leicester would be the problem for freight to/from this one I suspect.

 

[59CosG95]

Four Ashes has been in development for years though, this Hinckley one seems a bit more embryonic. Leicester would be the problem for freight to/from this one I suspect.

In what sense? The conflicts in and around the station?
The CP6 plan for the MML includes remodelling the Wigston area, and it'd be fairly mad not to include restoring track through the disused tunnels to the outh of Leicester to increase capacity there.
To the west of Hinckley, northbound freight onto the WCML is already taken care of with the Nuneaton North Chord, and southbound freight from the WCML has no problem accessing the line to Hinckley.

I suppose, if the developers want electrically-hauled freight, they'd have to win Leicestershire CC over, because I honestly can't see a short stub of the line being electrified from Nuneaton to the terminal without Leicester demanding electric trains. So at the moment, 88s using their donkey engines between there and Nuneaton seems to be the only viable option at present; the North Chord could probably be connected to the rest of the electrified network with comparatively minimal work however.

 

[edwin_m]

With the current turmoil at Network Rail the Leicester capacity enhancements must surely be in some doubt.

 

[Chris125]

The most depressing is Fratton freight terminal, a mile from Portsmouth & Southsea station. It has seen zilch apparently.

IIRC it did see some traffic, mainly bananas, but the volumes were low and soon petered out probably not helped by the recession.

 

[furnessvale]

IIRC it did see some traffic, mainly bananas, but the volumes were low and soon petered out probably not helped by the recession.

Fratton was built specifically for the banana traffic but it never really took off.

All pretty academic now the bananas are moving to Dover.

 

[james60059]

Realistically, can the local rail network around Leicester/Nuneaton accomodate significant numbers of trains starting or terminating at this site?
Presumably they'd be coming from Felixstowe, Southampton etc.

Water Orton I expect would be an issue with any possible freight flows coming from Southampton with the current track layout (I'm assuming that's the way they would come anyway)

Four Ashes has been in development for years though, this Hinckley one seems a bit more embryonic. Leicester would be the problem for freight to/from this one I suspect.

I understand that when there's diverted freight services especially on a weekend via Leicester, it can be an operational headache at times with trying to slot them in between the existing XC and EMT services.

The fairly new & bold Nuneaton chord to the down slow WCML carries barely any traffic when I last asked a freight colleague.

I think just 4M81 Felixstowe - Crewe liner and the sand train that runs from Middleton Towers uses it, even then sometimes the sand train has been known to go through Platform 5 at Nuneaton and cross to the Down Slow on the level. One occasion last year, it actually travelled North on the Up Fast as far as Amington Junction, near Tamworth before switching over. I've attached a photo of said working

 

[GB]

Pretty sure all GBRF Felixstowe Intermodal services use it except the Trafford Park or when they are diverted via London.

 

[Chris125]

I repeat again, securing a rail connection doesn't mean it will be used immediately, but it creates a future opportunity which wouldn't exist if the terminal had been built away from a railway or in such a way that adding a rail connection later was prohibitively costly. To start a freight flow you need a terminal each end, so it's far easier do if one or both ends already has a rail connection rather than having to develop two totally new ones.

Hopefully that 'future opportunity' for Castle Donington isn't far away : https://twitter.com/IntermodalityUK/status/961294235612909568

"Glorious site visit to Castle Donington this morning with #NetworkRail team, helping gear up for the start of rail operations. Thanks guys for all your help today!"
​