New freight flows from Liverpool docks investment

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[Wavertreelad]

As far as I can see, all the loaded biomass trains run into Tuebrook sidings and reverse there to access the L&M.
Eastbound empty trains do use the Olive Mount Chord.
So the Chord gets less use than you might think.

Earlestown West Jn was recently upgraded, and I can't see the potential for any further major improvements.
The Huyton 4th track will certainly help.

As it currently stands there are no intermodal trains serving the Port of Liverpool, but when the Liverpool2 terminal opens it will open up a completely new market for the port.

Traditionally Liverpool has been largely able to cope using road transport for the distribution as much of the catchment area falls within areas which is not suited for rail distribution due to their relative proximity to the port. The existing and new feeder services introduced by the various shipping lines over recent years have all been introduced to cater mainly for traffic destined or originating in the North West of England and North Wales as is most cases the mother ship will also likely make a direct call at Felixstowe, London Gateway or Southampton.

I estimate MSC and CMA-CGM between them have potential throughputs of between 2000 and 3000 teu each per week alone on the vessels they are now operating without taking into consideration the capacity they also take on the BG Freight Line services. These sort of numbers could easily double if either line decided to put a 14000 teu plus vessel into the new terminal, but that would put a huge strain on the local transport infrastructure as whereas now a truck might be able to complete two or even three jobs per day, assuming a 24 hr operation, it would not be possible if trucks have travel further distances around the UK. Running intermodal trains from Seaforth to the same railheads around the country as used by services from Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton would reduce the problem and allow the shipping lines and hauliers to maximise on their existing road transport infrastructure.

 

[Greybeard33]

Running intermodal trains from Seaforth to the same railheads around the country as used by services from Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton would reduce the problem and allow the shipping lines and hauliers to maximise on their existing road transport infrastructure.

Which begs the questions, how many intermodal trains a day might realistically be required, assuming the rail infrastructure could accomodate them? And which terminals around the country might they serve?

Intermodal rail freight has, I understand, only been successful over distances of hundreds of miles or more. So, to take one example, intermodal trains currently carry containers from Southampton, Felixstowe and London Gateway to Trafford Park near Manchester for distribution by road around North West England. However, trains from Liverpool to Trafford Park are unlikely to be viable - it will be quicker and cheaper to use road transport direct from Liverpool.

In the other direction, do you envisage trains from Liverpool to the South East and South, competing with the southern ports in their "home market"? That might be a bit ambitious. North East England and Scotland might be more realistic. But how would volumes compare with the local market in the North West?

Can the Ship Canal play a significant role in relieving Liverpool's road network, via feeder services between Peel's Liverpool 2 and Port Salford facilities?

 

[notlob.divad]

Intermodal rail freight has, I understand, only been successful over distances of hundreds of miles or more. So, to take one example, intermodal trains currently carry containers from Southampton, Felixstowe and London Gateway to Trafford Park near Manchester for distribution by road around North West England. However, trains from Liverpool to Trafford Park are unlikely to be viable - it will be quicker and cheaper to use road transport direct from Liverpool.

Agreed, I don't think we will see rail traffic to Trafford Park, but then I don't see many containers going from Liverpool to Trafford Park. Why would you do that when you can distribute it straight to its final destination? The only reason Trafford park exists is as a distribution point for containers dragged up the rails from the South. The usage of Trafford Park could indeed fall with the other developments and the potential to distribute the containers it currently handles directly from the port.

In the other direction, do you envisage trains from Liverpool to the South East and South, competing with the southern ports in their "home market"? That might be a bit ambitious. North East England and Scotland might be more realistic. But how would volumes compare with the local market in the North West?

Can the Ship Canal play a significant role in relieving Liverpool's road network, via feeder services between Peel's Liverpool 2 and Port Salford facilities?

That is already included in the plans. Peel are developing the Port Salford facilities with the intention of running feeder services up the ship canal. They are also looking at feeder services up to Glasgow and across the Irish Sea to Dublin and Belfast. You are right to identify the North East and Yorkshire, I would also say the East and West Midlands. However pushing futher South and East into Felixstowe and Southampton and London Gateway's market is certainly a possibility in the longer term.

Liverpool's hey day as a port was when trade was with the Americas, Africa and the Far East. Arguably the increased trade with Europe after joining the EU combined with other factors had a negative impact on the prospects of the port. The continued development of S Eastern ports where Container ships made calls in Europe and the UK locked Liverpool out of this market. However with trade now shifting (shifted) back to the Far East and the Americas and ships getting bigger and bigger if those massive intercontinental ships make one or two European Calls with feeder services serving other local ports then the Geographical location of Liverpool's port could well play to its advantage as it did historically. So yes, quite possibly, Liverpool2's hinterland could given time to develop push down into the South and South Eastern Markets, however this can only be successful if the rail infrastructure allows it.

 

[8A Rail]

Does the biomass have banker from the docks?
if so, the use of Tuebrook makes sense to release the train engine and continue with the banker leading.

Yes they do on the 2400 tonnes trains (which most are anyway) and the banker becomes the leading loco out of Tuebrook Sidings to Drax AES. It is an easier and more practicable option than double heading. Likewise, going via Northwich etc avoids double heading too and not using the OLive Mount Chord in consequence.

Yes, I believe they make use of a banker which is released at Tuebrook.

See above - banker becomes lead loco from Tuebrook Sdgs.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Liverpool's hey day as a port was when trade was with the Americas, Africa and the Far East. Arguably the increased trade with Europe after joining the EU combined with other factors had a negative impact on the prospects of the port. The continued development of S Eastern ports where Container ships made calls in Europe and the UK locked Liverpool out of this market. However with trade now shifting (shifted) back to the Far East and the Americas and ships getting bigger and bigger if those massive intercontinental ships make one or two European Calls with feeder services serving other local ports then the Geographical location of Liverpool's port could well play to its advantage as it did historically. So yes, quite possibly, Liverpool2's hinterland could given time to develop push down into the South and South Eastern Markets, however this can only be successful if the rail infrastructure allows it.

Although a new member here I have been lurking for a long time and have followed the various discussions about the Port of Liverpool with some interest. This paragraph certainly sums up my own view of Liverpool's history very well.

Looking ahead the question is partly about the comparative rail capacity available out of different ports. Work has already been done to improve capacity out of Felixstowe with more to follow, though at some point the Felixstowe branch itself will surely be full. Likewise the Electric Spine (if it gets going) should allow more trains in/out of Southampton. With relatively few trains running out of Liverpool do we really know what the capacity constraints are? And there may also be the danger that Liverpool becomes the west coast's mirror image to the east coast's Immingham, ie rail can win the specialist bulk hauls but the boxes all go by road.

 

[furnessvale]

Although a new member here I have been lurking for a long time and have followed the various discussions about the Port of Liverpool with some interest. This paragraph certainly sums up my own view of Liverpool's history very well.

Looking ahead the question is partly about the comparative rail capacity available out of different ports. Work has already been done to improve capacity out of Felixstowe with more to follow, though at some point the Felixstowe branch itself will surely be full. Likewise the Electric Spine (if it gets going) should allow more trains in/out of Southampton. With relatively few trains running out of Liverpool do we really know what the capacity constraints are? And there may also be the danger that Liverpool becomes the west coast's mirror image to the east coast's Immingham, ie rail can win the specialist bulk hauls but the boxes all go by road.

Sadly, I believe there is more than a MAY about this.

Rail succeeds out of the current big four because they are at one end of the country giving longer rail hauls.

Immingham and Liverpool are in the centre putting many more trips within the radius of road haulage and making the critical mass required for rail harder to achieve.

Instead of reducing road miles, I fear that feeder ships to Liverpool will increase them as traffic is abstracted from rail.

 

[8A Rail]

................... With relatively few trains running out of Liverpool do we really know what the capacity constraints are? And there may also be the danger that Liverpool becomes the west coast's mirror image to the east coast's Immingham, ie rail can win the specialist bulk hauls but the boxes all go by road.

There is no current capacity rail restraints in and out of Liverpool Docks as the paths are there but with the exception of the "Biomass" traffic, the odd scrap train, there is no traffic. For "liner" trains to operate in and out of the docks, the infrastruture needs updating and extending to facilitate much longer trains (then they become economically viable) but sadly there is no current indication by Peel Ports to do that! Likewise, with Stobarts Widnes Terminal down the road so to speak, then containers can continue to go there and back by road - quicker and cheaper than rail. Peel Ports emphasis is move "containers" by water were possible, therefore various points down the Manchester Ship Canal is part of that plan. Also money has been allocated by DoT to improve the main thoroughfare between Seaforth and the M57/M58 at Switch Island for road traffic.

Yes I agree about Liverpool Docks becoming (to a lesser extent) a mirror image of Immingham as I am not that optimistic with current speak from Peel Ports about rail container operations. If it happens, it will be a slow process and that will depend on a lot of "non" rail related factors changing or happening first.

 

[Greybeard33]

Agreed, I don't think we will see rail traffic to Trafford Park, but then I don't see many containers going from Liverpool to Trafford Park. Why would you do that when you can distribute it straight to its final destination? The only reason Trafford park exists is as a distribution point for containers dragged up the rails from the South. The usage of Trafford Park could indeed fall with the other developments and the potential to distribute the containers it currently handles directly from the port.

I did not intend to imply that containers would be trucked from Liverpool to Trafford Park. They would, as you say, go direct by road to the final destination.

That is already included in the plans. Peel are developing the Port Salford facilities with the intention of running feeder services up the ship canal. They are also looking at feeder services up to Glasgow and across the Irish Sea to Dublin and Belfast. You are right to identify the North East and Yorkshire, I would also say the East and West Midlands. However pushing futher South and East into Felixstowe and Southampton and London Gateway's market is certainly a possibility in the longer term.

I suspect that the Midlands and North Wales are also too close to Liverpool for rail transshipment to be competitive with direct road distribution. And these regions, together with North West England, are where the southern ports are most vulnerable to competition from Liverpool, due to geography. So if Liverpool succeeds in capturing these flows, it will mean more lorries on Liverpool's roads, not more trains from the Port.

Intermodal trains from Liverpool to Doncaster, Wakefield and Leeds, which currently have flows from the southern ports, would compete for paths on the congested transpennine lines, while trains to London would need paths on the WCML. So if the Liverpool local infrastructure were to be further upgraded to allow more than the planned 48 daily paths from the Port, would it really be possible to make use of them? Or are the pinch-points elsewhere on the network a higher priority?

Sadly, I believe there is more than a MAY about this.

Rail succeeds out of the current big four because they are at one end of the country giving longer rail hauls.

Immingham and Liverpool are in the centre putting many more trips within the radius of road haulage and making the critical mass required for rail harder to achieve.

Instead of reducing road miles, I fear that feeder ships to Liverpool will increase them as traffic is abstracted from rail.

Agreed. Although a silver lining would be that a decline in intermodal rail freight, particularly to Trafford Park via Manchester Oxford Road, would free up capacity for additional passenger services.

 

[notlob.divad]

I suspect that the Midlands and North Wales are also too close to Liverpool for rail transshipment to be competitive with direct road distribution. And these regions, together with North West England, are where the southern ports are most vulnerable to competition from Liverpool, due to geography. So if Liverpool succeeds in capturing these flows, it will mean more lorries on Liverpool's roads, not more trains from the Port.

Intermodal trains from Liverpool to Doncaster, Wakefield and Leeds, which currently have flows from the southern ports, would compete for paths on the congested transpennine lines, while trains to London would need paths on the WCML. So if the Liverpool local infrastructure were to be further upgraded to allow more than the planned 48 daily paths from the Port, would it really be possible to make use of them? Or are the pinch-points elsewhere on the network a higher priority?

Sorry I don't understand why the Midlands (Birmingham at ~100 miles by road) (Nottingham ~120 miles by Road) are not suitable for rail whilst Leeds (80 miles by road) would be.

There are undoubtedly other pinch points, I have pointed out in another place that given the proportion of Liverpool freight that loops all the way around the South of Manchester to cross the Pennines via Todmordon, it would make a lot more sense if the infrastructure was adapted to allow cross Pennine freight to avoid the Manchester area all together and go via Ormskirk, Blackburn and Burnley.

As to whether the Port could make use of 48+ paths, that is obviously linked to the number and size of ships that the port can attract, which in turn is linked to the speed and size of the Ports Hinterland. It doesn't necessarily need to have quicker/easier access to specific markets that the southern ports currently serve, it just that is needs to have quick enough access on average to a large enough market that it makes sense for Liverpool to be the deep water port of choice for UK wide distribution. Given it will clearly be in a good position to capture the North West (by road), Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Scottish Central Belt (by water) and a have a good chance of competing with Felixstowe, Southampton etc. for South Wales, Yorkshire, The North East and West Midlands by Rail, eventually a tipping point will be reached where it may be more economical for a shipping company to land all of their intercontinental Inter-modal Freight for the UK and Ireland at Liverpool. Given at the same time there is an increase in the number of passenger services looking at using the via Huyton route out of Lime Street, by the time it gets to the point where the port is competitive in this market, it will find it increasingly difficult. 48 paths may be OK initially but many many more could be opened up with a couple of relatively straight forward and simple local projects. At which point the port has a good chance of competing rather than having its obvious potential curtailed.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Rail succeeds out of the current big four because they are at one end of the country giving longer rail hauls.

Immingham and Liverpool are in the centre putting many more trips within the radius of road haulage and making the critical mass required for rail harder to achieve.

Instead of reducing road miles, I fear that feeder ships to Liverpool will increase them as traffic is abstracted from rail.

Indeed this the existing model which of course stems from the decision by the shipping lines converting to container operations in the late 1960's using Felixstowe, Southampton and Tilbury decided it was more cost advantageous to them. It was claimed at the time that the deviation to Liverpool would be too costly amongst compared to the cost of moving containers north /south especially as the shipping lines subsidised part of the cost of the movement in most cases. Forty years later the extra cost of the deviation to Liverpool is by comparison considerably less due to the use of more efficient diesel engines, relatively cheap fuel and of course the greater number of containers carried by each vessel. Let us not forget that the first ships sailing to Australia in 1969 were just 1000 teu and by 1972 they were 2500 teu, which is the size of the feeder vessels now being used by the carriers serving Liverpool today. Today the freight revenue is often less than the cost of moving a laden container by rail from Felixstowe to Manchester, so the carriers no longer have the option to subsidise the cost and thus it becomes more advantageous to take the ship to the cargo instead of the reverse.

There is no current capacity rail restraints in and out of Liverpool Docks as the paths are there but with the exception of the "Biomass" traffic, the odd scrap train, there is no traffic. For "liner" trains to operate in and out of the docks, the infrastruture needs updating and extending to facilitate much longer trains (then they become economically viable) but sadly there is no current indication by Peel Ports to do that! Likewise, with Stobarts Widnes Terminal down the road so to speak, then containers can continue to go there and back by road - quicker and cheaper than rail. Peel Ports emphasis is move "containers" by water were possible, therefore various points down the Manchester Ship Canal is part of that plan. Also money has been allocated by DoT to improve the main thoroughfare between Seaforth and the M57/M58 at Switch Island for road traffic.

Yes I agree about Liverpool Docks becoming (to a lesser extent) a mirror image of Immingham as I am not that optimistic with current speak from Peel Ports about rail container operations. If it happens, it will be a slow process and that will depend on a lot of "non" rail related factors changing or happening first.

The transition to major rail distribution to and from Seaforth is unlikely to happen overnight as without significant investment at the railhead it would be impossible to turn around large number of trains and in any event it would require the support of the mayor rail operators. Having said that, what I cannot see happening is either the shipping lines or their hauliers shunting large numbers of containers from the north side of Liverpool to Garston or Ditton as the additional cost and drain on resource would be difficult to justify. This is why I have always believed much will depend on the carrier and the services they bring to the new terminal. I doubt none of the global carriers will completely drop all their services into Felixstowe or Southampton in favour of Liverpool2 the same way they already operate separate services giving direct calls to Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton specific in some cases to individual trades. For this reason, I suspect there will still be traffic moving north/south from Garston and Ditton to the southern ports as Liverpool2 may not capture for one reason or another a service to every part of the world.

What I suspect we may see it in the short term is a small number of trains being operated by the smaller operators for individual road hauliers such as the test train operated just before Christmas, beyond this it is anyone's guess.

Sorry I don't understand why the Midlands (Birmingham at ~100 miles by road) (Nottingham ~120 miles by Road) are not suitable for rail whilst Leeds (80 miles by road) would be.

There are undoubtedly other pinch points, I have pointed out in another place that given the proportion of Liverpool freight that loops all the way around the South of Manchester to cross the Pennines via Todmordon, it would make a lot more sense if the infrastructure was adapted to allow cross Pennine freight to avoid the Manchester area all together and go via Ormskirk, Blackburn and Burnley.

As to whether the Port could make use of 48+ paths, that is obviously linked to the number and size of ships that the port can attract, which in turn is linked to the speed and size of the Ports Hinterland. It doesn't necessarily need to have quicker/easier access to specific markets that the southern ports currently serve, it just that is needs to have quick enough access on average to a large enough market that it makes sense for Liverpool to be the deep water port of choice for UK wide distribution. Given it will clearly be in a good position to capture the North West (by road), Ireland/Northern Ireland and the Scottish Central Belt (by water) and a have a good chance of competing with Felixstowe, Southampton etc. for South Wales, Yorkshire, The North East and West Midlands by Rail, eventually a tipping point will be reached where it may be more economical for a shipping company to land all of their intercontinental Inter-modal Freight for the UK and Ireland at Liverpool. Given at the same time there is an increase in the number of passenger services looking at using the via Huyton route out of Lime Street, by the time it gets to the point where the port is competitive in this market, it will find it increasingly difficult. 48 paths may be OK initially but many many more could be opened up with a couple of relatively straight forward and simple local projects. At which point the port has a good chance of competing rather than having its obvious potential curtailed.

It is generally regarded that the Port of Liverpool's road catchment area is about 150 miles in any direction which in a southerly direction is more of less the junction of the M1, M6 and A14 putting most of the Midlands well within the area. This same point is also roughly the same distance from Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton which all serve the area by rail as well as road, so logically it could work for Liverpool.

One of the problems for the road haulage industry is the turn around time at the port which as volumes increase can be so variable. Whilst all the ports have booking systems to limit the queues it can take anything from 30 minutes to several hours to exchange containers. Coupled to a dire shortage of drivers the industry often struggles to meet collection and delivery times, especially if the truck also has to negotiate our increasingly congested road network. Using rail to move containers to and from the port to inland railheads which can then be used as distribution points avoids some of these pitfalls and hence my view that initially we will see companies like Martime Transport and perhaps other independent hauliers operating initially short formation trains to shift containers to key sites around the country.

 

[8A Rail]

.................What I suspect we may see it in the short term is a small number of trains being operated by the smaller operators for individual road hauliers such as the test train operated just before Christmas, beyond this it is anyone's guess. ............

Who are the smaller operators you refer too? DBC, Freightliner, GBRf, DRS are not exactly small although the order I've put them in, is probably about right who is the largest from the first name DBS down to DRS. The only other player is Colas who may be termed as a smaller operator in the UK, may be DCR (I think) who are based in the south but that is about it.

GBRf operated the "test" train in December from the docks are not exactly small to be honest but along with them, I reckon only "Freightliner" would do business with Liverpool for any "liner / intermodal" traffic.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Who are the smaller operators you refer too? DBC, Freightliner, GBRf, DRS are not exactly small although the order I've put them in, is probably about right who is the largest from the first name DBS down to DRS. The only other player is Colas who may be termed as a smaller operator in the UK, may be DCR (I think) who are based in the south but that is about it.

GBRf operated the "test" train in December from the docks are not exactly small to be honest but along with them, I reckon only "Freightliner" would do business with Liverpool for any "liner / intermodal" traffic.

Perhaps "small" was not the best term to use in retrospect. So yes I reckon GBRf could start the ball rolling for the likes of Maritime Transport who could possible generate sufficient volume to make the service viable.

http://www.maritimetransport.com/services/railport-services

As for the other operators, I agree Freightliner would have to be a prospect in the longer should volumes increase simply because so many shipping lines use them from the southern ports, but again this will depend on services are attracted to Liverpool2. The problem at the moment is the container industry is going through a period of further consolidation so it's probably going to be a further six to nine months before effects are fully known and twelve months before the services commence operation. It's therefore almost impossible to say for sure what may happen come the 2Q2017. To understand this here is a quick breakdown of the various alliances which the top 20 global carriers operate under, their scope and their main UK port operation.

2M - Global. Maersk & MSC - Mainly Felixstowe and one service to Southampton.

G6 - East West Trades - Hapag Lloyd, NYK, OOCL, APL, Mitsui (MOL) Hyundai (HMM) Mainly Southampton, one service to London Gateway.

Ocean Three - East West Trades - CMA-CGM, UASC & China Shipping. Hamburg Sud share space but do not provide vessels. Southampton and Felixstowe.

CHYKE - East West Trades - Hanjin, Cosco, Yang Ming (YML), K Line, Evergreen & China Shipping - Felixstowe only.

Currently this all equates to about twenty sailing a week to and from the Far East and Asia and about a dozen across the Atlantic in addition to services to Africa, Latin America and Canada which apart from 2M are not covered by alliance agreements.

The changes post 2016

2M - No change in membership because it would increase market share above levels allowed under UK competition law.

Ocean Alliance - Global - CMA-CGM, OOCL, Evergreen and Cosco China Shipping (Cosco & China Shipping merging operations from 1Q2016)

This leaves the remaining members of both G6 and CHYKE to form probably a third alliance. However, APL is about to be purchased by CMA-CGM so will likely transfer to Ocean Alliance whilst HMM and to a lesser extent Hanjin are both under substantial financial pressure and it is doubtful whether both will survive in the longer term as separate entities. It's also emerged this week that Hapag Lloyd is in discussion with UASC for some sort of cooperation which could see UASC take a 28% share in the German carrier.Thus any third alliance would likely comprise Hapag Lloyd, NYK, MOL, HMM/Hanjin, UASC, Kline, Yang Ming and possibly Hamburg Sud although the dominant position of the German lines in the Latin American trades might cause some regulatory issues if they were to combine services.

At the moment all the services operated by any of the top 20 carriers into Liverpool are operated independently of their alliance partners so hence the individual approach taken with the feeder operations. However, once the new terminal opens it's likely those carriers with sufficient critical mass could look to serve the terminal directly with mainline vessels which would mean the calls would be part of alliance structure. With 2M already represented and CMA-CGM, OOCL, Evergreen and China Shipping already using the port it would reasonable to assume that at least two of the alliances could commence operations once the new alliances commence operation early next year. The real difficulty however remains predicting which services these alliances could bring to the port and it could be another six months before this announced by Ocean Alliance and the third alliance. 2M could of course commence operations immediately the new terminal opens which might be sufficient to tempt some rail operators to start limited intermodal services.

 

[furnessvale]

Indeed this the existing model which of course stems from the decision by the shipping lines converting to container operations in the late 1960's using Felixstowe, Southampton and Tilbury decided it was more cost advantageous to them. It was claimed at the time that the deviation to Liverpool would be too costly amongst compared to the cost of moving containers north /south especially as the shipping lines subsidised part of the cost of the movement in most cases. Forty years later the extra cost of the deviation to Liverpool is by comparison considerably less due to the use of more efficient diesel engines, relatively cheap fuel and of course the greater number of containers carried by each vessel. Let us not forget that the first ships sailing to Australia in 1969 were just 1000 teu and by 1972 they were 2500 teu, which is the size of the feeder vessels now being used by the carriers serving Liverpool today. Today the freight revenue is often less than the cost of moving a laden container by rail from Felixstowe to Manchester, so the carriers no longer have the option to subsidise the cost and thus it becomes more advantageous to take the ship to the cargo instead of the reverse.

I understand your thoughts on this but I have a problem.

The very large container carriers deployed on round the world services do not simply make a single call in the UK and then return to the Far East or wherever. They make one call in the UK and one or two more in continental Europe.

They will not make a second call in the UK so Liverpool would have to be instead of one of the southern ports not as well as. Additionally, most of the containers on the ship are not for the UK but elsewhere. Therefore, the majority of the containers will be taken on a two day jaunt up the Irish sea before going to Rotterdam or wherever.

I can see Liverpool winning additional feeder services, possible direct from the likes of Rotterdam at the expense of Felixstowe etc, but I just cannot see Liverpool replacing any of the big four as the only UK call.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I understand your thoughts on this but I have a problem.

The very large container carriers deployed on round the world services do not simply make a single call in the UK and then return to the Far East or wherever. They make one call in the UK and one or two more in continental Europe.

They will not make a second call in the UK so Liverpool would have to be instead of one of the southern ports not as well as. Additionally, most of the containers on the ship are not for the UK but elsewhere. Therefore, the majority of the containers will be taken on a two day jaunt up the Irish sea before going to Rotterdam or wherever.

I can see Liverpool winning additional feeder services, possible direct from the likes of Rotterdam at the expense of Felixstowe etc, but I just cannot see Liverpool replacing any of the big four as the only UK call.

The usual European rotation on the main deep sea trade usually involves four or five European ports, but what you have to remember is that each alliance offers four or five sailings a week to different to and from different port combinations. I therefore totally agree your thinking that it is very unlikely that two UK ports would feature on a single service so any Liverpool call would be at the expense of Felixstowe, London Gateway or Southampton.

The other factor to take into consideration is the ability to offer an improved and more cost effective product to the Irish and Scottish markets which all adds volume to the Liverpool call. As it stands both Ireland and North Ireland do not have direct services to from any port outside the EU, except for one import call by Maersk at Cork from the Caribbean with bananas. Scotland is in a similar position with no direct none EU calls and traffic moving either via Grangemouth and Greenock to Continent or road/rail to English ports which can be relatively expensive.

The additional steaming time to Liverpool is no longer the major issue was 40 years ago as with relatively low fuel prices, very efficient engines, huge vessels and slow steaming coupled to a huge surplus of vessels the carriers are able to tweak schedules so that individual port combination within multiple weekly services remain competitive.

We should not also estimate the influence of the Panama Canal which from July 2016 will be able to cater for vessels of up to 14000 teu instead of the present limit of about 4500 teu, ie the same size as Liverpool currently. Whilst US East Coast ports are unable to handle 18000 teu vessel they can handle 10000 teu vessels so it's no surprise that G6 announced this week it will route some of it's Asian to East Coast services via the Panama Canal using 10000 teu vessels. Whilst G6 may have a limited life it's likely it's successor would continue to use this size of vessel post 2Q2017 and what's more it would natural to extend the service to North Europe by adding just three or four additional vessels. With Liverpool now on the right side of the country it's the sort of service that Liverpool2 could be ideal for given it's traditional strength in the North and South American markets.

Feeder ships will remain important to Liverpool to serve Dublin, Belfast and Greenock as well as the Iberian Peninsula, but I suspect the feeders to and from Antwerp and Rotterdam will decrease over time as they are replaced by mainline vessel calls.

 

[Greybeard33]

The biomass trains from Liverpool conform to the "go anywhere" W6A loading gauge. However, intermodal trains need gauge clearance to W10/W12, in order that standard High Cube containers can be carried on standard flat wagons. The current W10/W12 cleared network mainly radiates from the southern ports, for obvious reasons. None of the transpennine lines are currently W10/W12 cleared, so a container train from Liverpool to the E Midlands or North East would have to be routed south on the WCML to Lichfield Trent Valley, then back north via Burton-on-Trent!

The Diggle line will no doubt be cleared to W10/W12 as part of the electrification upgrade, when that eventually happens. However, intermodal trains from Liverpool would have to be routed either through central Manchester or via Crewe and Wimslow, and there are likely to be few paths available, except at night.

What is really needed is W10/W12 clearance of both the Calder Valley and Hope Valley lines, together with the Mid-Cheshire line from Hartford to Guide Bridge via Stockport and to Chinley via Hazel Grove (to bypass Manchester and Crewe). But gauge clearance work is not quick or cheap. For example, the Mid-Cheshire line has many brick arch overbridges, which would all have to be raised or replaced.

Improvements to the Bootle branch will bring little benefit unless the rest of the rail network can provide the capacity for the extra trains to get to their final destinations. But I guess it would be less palatable to the Merseyside electorate if local politicians were to demand investment in the rail lines of Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and Derbyshire!

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[8A Rail]

I wouldn't bet on that one. With the loss of coal traffic and recent changes in contracts on other flows, some FOCS are actively chasing other market opportunities.

And why don't you quote the whole sentence rather than just a select part as your reply has taken it out of context!

The actual quote for reference is as follows:-

"GBRf operated the "test" train in December from the docks are not exactly small to be honest but along with them, I reckon only "Freightliner" would do business with Liverpool for any "liner / intermodal" traffic".

Never suggested "Freightliner" would be the only FOC!

 

[Jamesb1974]

Deleted

 

[Wavertreelad]

The biomass trains from Liverpool conform to the "go anywhere" W6A loading gauge. However, intermodal trains need gauge clearance to W10/W12, in order that standard High Cube containers can be carried on standard flat wagons. The current W10/W12 cleared network mainly radiates from the southern ports, for obvious reasons. None of the transpennine lines are currently W10/W12 cleared, so a container train from Liverpool to the E Midlands or North East would have to be routed south on the WCML to Lichfield Trent Valley, then back north via Burton-on-Trent!

The Diggle line will no doubt be cleared to W10/W12 as part of the electrification upgrade, when that eventually happens. However, intermodal trains from Liverpool would have to be routed either through central Manchester or via Crewe and Wimslow, and there are likely to be few paths available, except at night.

What is really needed is W10/W12 clearance of both the Calder Valley and Hope Valley lines, together with the Mid-Cheshire line from Hartford to Guide Bridge via Stockport and to Chinley via Hazel Grove (to bypass Manchester and Crewe). But gauge clearance work is not quick or cheap. For example, the Mid-Cheshire line has many brick arch overbridges, which would all have to be raised or replaced.

Improvements to the Bootle branch will bring little benefit unless the rest of the rail network can provide the capacity for the extra trains to get to their final destinations. But I guess it would be less palatable to the Merseyside electorate if local politicians were to demand investment in the rail lines of Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and Derbyshire!

If it has to be overnight trains through Manchester etc., then initially I suspect that might be acceptable for the volumes which the Seaforth railhead could handle anyway. What may be a problem is the ability to turn trains around quickly enough at Seaforth in the time available to service all the possible destinations required. Additional roads would be required to store trains as well as lifting and storage capacity.

I wouldn't bet on that one. With the loss of coal traffic and recent changes in contracts on other flows, some FOCS are actively chasing other market opportunities.

I believe was talking to all rail operators, although this may not necessarily be about intermodal traffic.

 

[Wandering pete]

RTT shows 18.24 departure from LBT across Chat Moss then via Piccadilly to Guide Bridge(reverse),Brewery Jn up to Castleton Goods loop where a loco looks to be detached and returned to LBT at 23.01,6e27 headed east at 22.45.
Wonder why this didn't run via Victoria...seems to be double headed from LBT..??...or from Guide Bridge..??

 

[8A Rail]

RTT shows 18.24 departure from LBT across Chat Moss then via Piccadilly to Guide Bridge(reverse),Brewery Jn up to Castleton Goods loop where a loco looks to be detached and returned to LBT at 23.01,6e27 headed east at 22.45.
Wonder why this didn't run via Victoria...seems to be double headed from LBT..??...or from Guide Bridge..??

Clearly the train was probably double headed from the docks as far as Guide Bridge as it used the Olive Mount Curve to access the L&M line and not via Tuebrook Sdgs. Loco's involved were 66703 and 66710. Cannot establish which loco came back l/e though. Sorry.

 

[Wandering pete]

Thanks for the info ,Doug....RTT shows a stop at Tuebrook(19.01-19.06) then a further reversal at Guide Bridge..probably double headed through to Castleton goods loop where a loco was detached..seems an unusual procedure

 

[8A Rail]

Thanks for the info ,Doug....RTT shows a stop at Tuebrook(19.01-19.06) then a further reversal at Guide Bridge..probably double headed through to Castleton goods loop where a loco was detached..seems an unusual procedure

If you are interested 6E27 operated tonight via Tuebrook Sdgs headed by 66745 with 66701 (I think) on the tail crossing Sankey Viaduct heading to Manchester Piccadilly and Guide Bridge.

 

[Wandering pete]

Interesting...same procedure as last sunday(7/8/16)...top'n'tail to allow easier reversals.Presumably there is a climb up from Guide Bridge to Castleton which needs both the locos ...years ago seem to remember a double headed 47 working on Sunday nights heading from Stanlow over the Pennines....plus ca change /deja vu ...all over again????????????

 

[childwallblues]

How does it get from Guide Bridge to Castleton?

 

[mwmbwls]

How does it get from Guide Bridge to Castleton?

Possibly.
Piccadilly to Guide Bridge Engineering Sidings
Reverse from Guide Bridge Engineering Sidings to Denton Junction to regain original route from Heaton Norris Junction
Reverse (although I am not sure how) and follow original route from Denton Junction to Ashton Moss North Junction and thence to Castleton.

Were there engineering works on the WCML,CLC or at Edgeley?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Possibly.
Piccadilly to Guide Bridge Engineering Sidings
Reverse from Guide Bridge Engineering Sidings to Denton Junction to regain original route from Heaton Norris Junction
Reverse (although I am not sure how) and follow original route from Denton Junction to Ashton Moss North Junction and thence to Castleton.
Were there engineering works on the WCML,CLC or at Edgeley?

I think it's more likely to run from Guide Bridge via the Philips Park branch to Brewery Jn.
The route from Ashton Moss/Stalybridge to Brewery Jn is closed on Sundays for upgrade work.
Not sure why they are not routed via Manchester Victoria though - much simpler!
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H38738/2016/08/14/advanced

 

[notlob.divad]

Not sure why they are not routed via Manchester Victoria though - much simpler!

Sunday? Ordsall Chord works? I don't think anything was going over the Trinity Way Viaduct on Sunday. Plus TPE trains from the airport were doing the Salford Crescent reverse, so it was all a bit of a mess.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Sunday? Ordsall Chord works? I don't think anything was going over the Trinity Way Viaduct on Sunday. Plus TPE trains from the airport were doing the Salford Crescent reverse, so it was all a bit of a mess.

Newcastle-Liverpool TPE were running on the direct route west from Miles Platting (running via Calder Valley).
Airport services have to go via Salford Cres to reverse.
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y81743/2016/08/14/advanced