New Rail Freight Depot At Littlehampton!

[SussexSpotter]

Will there be a new rail freight depot?

 

[73110]

Any chance of a link to this please?

 

[SussexSpotter]

Any chance of a link to this please?

Link just been added!

 

[Matt Taylor]

This was tried at Fratton,15 years in the planning and it was used for about 3 months.

http://matthew-taylor.fotopic.net/p55863136.html


It opened on Jan 14th this year and traffic had disappeared by early summer, the equipment is currently being dismantled.

 

[SussexSpotter]

This was tried at Fratton,15 years in the planning and it was used for about 3 months.

http://matthew-taylor.fotopic.net/p55863136.html


It opened on Jan 14th this year and traffic had disappeared by early summer, the equipment is currently being dismantled.

Problem was the costs were too high for the Fratton Intermodel terminal and besides it's a different kettle of fish with the Littlehampton depot. Hanson is a multi-billion pound aggregates company opperating worldwide, there is a huge demand for aggregates material within Sussex, whereas the Fratton terminal was simply a trial run which failed.

Bannana trains are not cost effective and the opperational costs by rail are simply too high in the long run. Thats why the Fratton intermodel stopped.

 

[Domeyhead]

The business case for Fratton was based on winning some of the chemical traffic between Northern France and the north of England. The intention was to run regularly to Widnes which is something of a hub for inermodal chemicals. Very sad to see it did not kickstart. The photo you linked to shows the same problem we always see with rail - one person doing some work (the container lift driver) and a dozen more people in hi-viz coats stood around watching. Perhaps the day we see 6 people in the cab of an Eddie Stobart truck (one to watch the back, one to watch the front, one to give hand signals to the driver, one to secure the load, one to watch all the others.....) will be the day that railfreight becomes more competitive with road.
The Sussex white paper makes interesting but depressing reading. Firstly the hinterland for marine aggregate from Littlehampton will tend to be within 50 miles - a distance far less than railfreight needs to be competitive. There are marine aggregate terminals all around southern Britain including some already rail connected (in Hampshire Southampton Western Docks could be one if the economics stack which they don't) so if there was an economic case it would already have been made there.
New railfreight business has to provide a) trainload quantities and b) distances of over 150 miles. I can see cases where maybe bulk commodities such as cement could switch back to rail (if there is still an offload facility adjacent to rail, and perhaps timber might be another, scrap metal another, but even these require capital investment at a time when capital is hard to get.
I've seen the equivalent white paper for Hampshire and the similarity is remarkable. At the end though I wonder why my taxes are paying for all these stategy documents to be written and updated year after year when there is absolutely no leverage whatsoever within local authorities to make any of it actually happen unless the enterprise concerned could secure a 100% section 8 grant for infrastructure - and that is not going to happen either!

 

[paul1609]

Hate to disappoint you but this report is some years old and lots of the plans have been already cancelled:
Arundel Chord was cancelled about 7 years ago when the original Southern franchise was cut from 20 to 7 years.
Littlehampton and the Westcoastway were dropped from the Thameslink programme 2 to 3 years ago.
Littlehampton harbour is severly constrained to ships of 72m length overall. Commercial shipping is all but dead the port has decided to concentrate on leisure ammenities: http://www.arun.gov.uk/assets/Busin...onRegen/LittlehamptonregenpanelswithLogos.pdf

 

[Matt Taylor]

I agree that the Fratton model was never a liekly to be a long term success but the city council has ambitious plans for the commercial port and a increasing freight forwarding options was always a priority, the difficulty is that the Fratton Freight Terminal is in the wrong place and requires some awkward driving through city centre streets if accessing it from the port. Ideally a new spur would be built from the Portchester-Cosham line which would directly access the port and would have the added benefit of solving the issue of rail access to the proposed new stadium for Portsmouth FC near Cosham.

None of it will happen though.

 

[keith jackson]

The business case for Fratton was based on winning some of the chemical traffic between Northern France and the north of England. The intention was to run regularly to Widnes which is something of a hub for inermodal chemicals. Very sad to see it did not kickstart. The photo you linked to shows the same problem we always see with rail - one person doing some work (the container lift driver) and a dozen more people in hi-viz coats stood around watching. Perhaps the day we see 6 people in the cab of an Eddie Stobart truck (one to watch the back, one to watch the front, one to give hand signals to the driver, one to secure the load, one to watch all the others.....) will be the day that railfreight becomes more competitive with road.
The Sussex white paper makes interesting but depressing reading. Firstly the hinterland for marine aggregate from Littlehampton will tend to be within 50 miles - a distance far less than railfreight needs to be competitive. There are marine aggregate terminals all around southern Britain including some already rail connected (in Hampshire Southampton Western Docks could be one if the economics stack which they don't) so if there was an economic case it would already have been made there.
New railfreight business has to provide a) trainload quantities and b) distances of over 150 miles. I can see cases where maybe bulk commodities such as cement could switch back to rail (if there is still an offload facility adjacent to rail, and perhaps timber might be another, scrap metal another, but even these require capital investment at a time when capital is hard to get.
I've seen the equivalent white paper for Hampshire and the similarity is remarkable. At the end though I wonder why my taxes are paying for all these stategy documents to be written and updated year after year when there is absolutely no leverage whatsoever within local authorities to make any of it actually happen unless the enterprise concerned could secure a 100% section 8 grant for infrastructure - and that is not going to happen either!

it is a fact of life that,as the caption states,it was the first train from fratton.the people on the ground,apart from the shunter,would be a loads inspector,the firms reps and ground staff inspectors.this would be only for the first train as they are there to iron out any probs with loading and make up of train.better to sort out problems on the first trip rather than delay a train at a later date.pity a few more lorry firms were not a bit more safety first,with the amount of trucks stopped for poor loading

 

[dk1]

Great Yarmouth's dis-used old carriage sidings that are in situ had a fully tarmac hard stand layed in 1999. Regular fertilizer traffic from local firm Bunns was planned & several trial trips ran to Andover. A disagreement with EWS with this company over their constant last minute change of plans saw EWS to refuse to continue until they sorted themselves out. Unfortunatley no further traffic has originated here but some hope may come with the opening of the new Outer harbour next year.

 

[PhilipW]

The new freight proposal(s) is most likely to go ahead once the new Arundel Cord, Barnham Cord and Worthing passing loop lines are built as part of the Thameslink program due to be complete by 2015.

What are the 'Arundel Chord' and 'Barnhan Chord'. I have not heard of them before.

I know that a north-to-east chord has often been talked about joining the Arundel line to the Brighton line (if that indeed is what the 'Arundel Chord' is) but it is just talk.

 

[SWT Driver]

That's exactly what it is the link between the Arun Valley line to the Coastway West line towards Angmering.

If you come down the Arun Valley & want to go towards Angmering you have to go all the way into Barnham or Littlehampton and reverse, the chord would eliminate that reversal and open up a whole load more new journey opportunities.

Not cheap, but very useful & cost effective.

 

[PhilipW]

The new freight proposal(s) is most likely to go ahead once the new Arundel Cord, Barnham Cord and Worthing passing loop lines are built as part of the Thameslink program due to be complete by 2015.

Thanks for the explanation for the Arundel Chord ...... but what is all this about it being part of the Thameslink project ? I think not.

Excellent and desirable as the chord may be, I am not aware that anyone (Network Rail or DfT) have committed to doing it at all, yet alone in any specific timeframe.

 

[Domeyhead]

I can't see any business case for either a south-to-east chord off the Arun valley line or an east-to-south chord at Barnham. Bear in mind that to use either of these chords a new service would be required complete with rolling stock, staff and pathing. Any potential user of the proposed Barnham chord merely has to change and cross the subway today to wait for a Bognor train from the east. It's not too arduous.
The Arun chord is a bit more interesting but equally a passenger at a station between Angmering and Hove wanting to make a journey to /from (say) Horsham can either travel west to Barnham and cross as before or travel east then north to Three Bridges and change. It's not ideal but it can be done, and the new-to-rail potential of the chord would never repay the enormous cost of introducing a brand new service (say) from Three Bridges to Brighton via Horsham which duplicated a lot of existing train mileage.

 

[SWT Driver]

Utter Tosh.

The chord could be used by all manner of services from diversions from the Brighton mainline when closed by engineering work, fatalities, signalling failures and so on, it could be used by charters to Brighton avoiding the busy mainline & other operators could use it too.

 

[paul1609]

I can't see any business case for either a south-to-east chord off the Arun valley line or an east-to-south chord at Barnham. Bear in mind that to use either of these chords a new service would be required complete with rolling stock, staff and pathing. Any potential user of the proposed Barnham chord merely has to change and cross the subway today to wait for a Bognor train from the east. It's not too arduous.
The Arun chord is a bit more interesting but equally a passenger at a station between Angmering and Hove wanting to make a journey to /from (say) Horsham can either travel west to Barnham and cross as before or travel east then north to Three Bridges and change. It's not ideal but it can be done, and the new-to-rail potential of the chord would never repay the enormous cost of introducing a brand new service (say) from Three Bridges to Brighton via Horsham which duplicated a lot of existing train mileage.

The original proposal was that the Brighton main line would be relieved by diverting west coastway to Victoria services via the Arundel Chord, Horsham, Dorking , Epsom, and Sutton. Existing journey times would have been maintained by increasing the Arun Valley line speed to 100 and replacing through roads through Ewell East.

I believe that increased frequencies in the suburbs mean this is no longer possible. As any diverted services would now have to rejoin the main line at Three Bridges the Arundel chord is no longer viable.

It could still be used for diverted brighton services but would only save the 10 mins required to reverse at Littlehampton. As the Portsmouth services normally join with the Brighton services at Littlehampton during diversions anyway. it is impossible to make a business case

 

[Domeyhead]

Utter Tosh.

The chord could be used by all manner of services from diversions from the Brighton mainline when closed by engineering work, fatalities, signalling failures and so on, it could be used by charters to Brighton avoiding the busy mainline & other operators could use it too.

Yes, thank you. Now if you can show me the maths that show the return on investment of a new chord starting with the cost of construction and signalling and - if you intend to run a service on it - the lease of new rolling stock from the ROSCO and the service origins and destinations you intend to run via the chord(s) you can call it utter tosh. Otherwise be prepared to make a business case.
You are a driver - so you of all people should know that railway infrastructure investment can never justify its existence purely as a planned diversionary or heritage charter route - think how many hundreds of chords would still exist otherwise!

 

[SWT Driver]

Oh good grief, WHY OH BLOODY WHY has this (what was a rather nice country!) bloody pathetic country got this absolute obsession with damned money & making a profit?

NOT EVERYTHING IS FOR PROFIT! JUST IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T REALISED THE RAILWAY IS A SERVICE, NOT A CASH COW.

It seems you have all of the morals of the merchant bankers that nearly sunk the country & the way you're carrying on you'd sell bloody parents.

 

[87015]

NOT EVERYTHING IS FOR PROFIT! JUST IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T REALISED THE RAILWAY IS A SERVICE, NOT A CASH COW.

Used to be.

 

[Oliver]

Oh good grief, WHY OH BLOODY WHY has this (what was a rather nice country!) bloody pathetic country got this absolute obsession with damned money & making a profit?

NOT EVERYTHING IS FOR PROFIT! JUST IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T REALISED THE RAILWAY IS A SERVICE, NOT A CASH COW.

It seems you have all of the morals of the merchant bankers that nearly sunk the country & the way you're carrying on you'd sell bloody parents.

Where to start? A new bit of track is going to cost some money, in whatever part of this planet you build it. The trains on it will cost money to buy and operate, and the drivers (etc) will wish to be paid. Hopefully it will generate some income and if that exceeds the costs, great. If not someone will have to pay for it indefinitely; it could be the investors, but people don't invest to make an ongoing loss, anymore than you would put money in the building society if the interest was negative. That leaves the government, who have no money of their own; they either borrow it (and pay interest), print it (and dilute everyone else's) or tax people who get out of bed every day and go to work. Right now, Mr Brown & co are up Faeces Creek without means of aquatic propulsion because they are already spending far more than they can rake in.

It's not an obsession, it's a realisation that nothing is for free, and unless you spend money wisely you'll soon run out of it. (e.g. Brown & Co.)

 

[Domeyhead]

Oh good grief, WHY OH BLOODY WHY has this (what was a rather nice country!) bloody pathetic country got this absolute obsession with damned money & making a profit?

NOT EVERYTHING IS FOR PROFIT! JUST IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T REALISED THE RAILWAY IS A SERVICE, NOT A CASH COW.

It seems you have all of the morals of the merchant bankers that nearly sunk the country & the way you're carrying on you'd sell bloody parents.

Well now you're just being stupid. It is a business, not a toy layout, and in case you think finance doesn't matter it was lack of probity that sowed the fate of the original railway companies and lack of capital to invest that prevented BR from ever consolidating its original network. If you want to have an adult discussion about this let's walk through it together using an example.
Network Rail have recently reinstated the Olive Mount chord in Liverpool. Total cost? £9.7 million. A new Arun chord would be shorter at around 150-200 metres but would involve new earthworks and land purchase, so let's be generous and say £4 million. As you will know Network Rail have to plan their expenditure in a series of Control Periods, and funding is agreed by the Treasury in a series of Statements of Funds Available (SOFAs). Network Rail can then borrow against the Treasury's guarantees which themselves are underwritten by Governments gilts sold on the market. Money does not just sit around in banks, it never has and never will. So NR decide to borrow £4 million at (say) 4%pa - and what do they get in return for their investment? One weekend a year when some trains MAY be diverted off the Crawley line during engineering work even though bustitution would be required anyway? You can discount heritage trains and engineering trains because they don't represent new income to NR, just diversions of existing traffic. Total track access in a good year may be 100 trains, over 200 metres. Income will be negligible, but every year you've got to repay £160k just in interest alone on the construction costs. This is not about profit - this idea doesn't make any profit - it doesn't even pay the interest on the cost of construction!
To be rational about it again a new chord can only be justified as part of a whole new service from coastway east up the Arun valley. Is there a market? Yes, but I doubt if it's enough to warrant a whole new service. So that's that.
What is pathetic about not wasting taxpayer's money? When did you ever think there was a time when it was not important to think rationally about the value of investment?

 

[keith jackson]

Well now you're just being stupid. It is a business, not a toy layout, and in case you think finance doesn't matter it was lack of probity that sowed the fate of the original railway companies and lack of capital to invest that prevented BR from ever consolidating its original network. If you want to have an adult discussion about this let's walk through it together using an example.
Network Rail have recently reinstated the Olive Mount chord in Liverpool. Total cost? £9.7 million. A new Arun chord would be shorter at around 150-200 metres but would involve new earthworks and land purchase, so let's be generous and say £4 million. As you will know Network Rail have to plan their expenditure in a series of Control Periods, and funding is agreed by the Treasury in a series of Statements of Funds Available (SOFAs). Network Rail can then borrow against the Treasury's guarantees which themselves are underwritten by Governments gilts sold on the market. Money does not just sit around in banks, it never has and never will. So NR decide to borrow £4 million at (say) 4%pa - and what do they get in return for their investment? One weekend a year when some trains MAY be diverted off the Crawley line during engineering work even though bustitution would be required anyway? You can discount heritage trains and engineering trains because they don't represent new income to NR, just diversions of existing traffic. Total track access in a good year may be 100 trains, over 200 metres. Income will be negligible, but every year you've got to repay £160k just in interest alone on the construction costs. This is not about profit - this idea doesn't make any profit - it doesn't even pay the interest on the cost of construction!
To be rational about it again a new chord can only be justified as part of a whole new service from coastway east up the Arun valley. Is there a market? Yes, but I doubt if it's enough to warrant a whole new service. So that's that.
What is pathetic about not wasting taxpayer's money? When did you ever think there was a time when it was not important to think rationally about the value of investment?

the govermet can always find the publics money though to keep funding a no hope,no win wars in afghanistan and iraq,and brown up the front of the e.u pack to gve the most out of all the nations in the climate change conference to aid third world countries on climate change(ibet most of the moey will line the pockets of some african desspot as normal)