Concerns for Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange project

[muddythefish]

Andrea Leadsom MP has written an open letter to the Planning Inspectorate over a proposed change to the Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Northampton project over fears that the rail terminal part of the development will be sidelined, but the logistics part will go ahead, with road access only.

Hasn't this happened before - developers include an "environmentally friendly" rail link in these logistics projects in order to get them through the initial planning stage and then drop them the rail link at a later stage? In other words, they never had any intention to build the rail link in the first place and the planning application was a just a cynical exercise.

Apologies if this has been posted before

Concerns for Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange project

A senior politician has expressed the grave concerns of her constituents over the future of the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange project. The yet-to-be-commissioned facility…

www.railfreight.com

A senior politician has expressed the grave concerns of her constituents over the future of the Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange project. The yet-to-be-commissioned facility is planned to serve an area seventy miles northwest of London and a little over halfway to Birmingham. However, there are fears that the rail terminal part of the development will never be built, and the facility will become “another lorry park,” adding to already heavy road congestion.

 

[The Planner]

The rail part is being built now, there is a blockade planned autumn next year to put the connections in.

 

[muddythefish]

OK, thanks for that. So is Leadsom worrying unnecessarily?

 

[Dr Hoo]

But the alleged problem is that the shiny new terminal and main line connections may well be built but Network Rail had supposedly said to the MP that they wouldn't be able to plan any actual trains to use it until after HS2 has been completed.

i.e. its a train planning impossibility, not an engineering issue.

 

[The Planner]

But the alleged problem is that the shiny new terminal and main line connections may well be built but Network Rail had supposedly said to the MP that they wouldn't be able to plan any actual trains to use it until after HS2 has been completed.

i.e. its a train planning impossibility, not an engineering issue.

NR wouldnt have said yes to it even getting this far if paths werent there, why would we want the asset liability?

 

[Class 170101]

But the alleged problem is that the shiny new terminal and main line connections may well be built but Network Rail had supposedly said to the MP that they wouldn't be able to plan any actual trains to use it until after HS2 has been completed.

i.e. its a train planning impossibility, not an engineering issue.

But surely thats rubbish. Train paths (especially Freight) are not set in stone. When Felixstowe had issues with congestion this year Freightliner and GBRF diverted some of their trains to Thames Gateway. This may well happen here. Re-route to Northampton vice DIRFT for example. If Northampton is cheaper than DIRFT then you could imagine operators doing this.

Secondly are we absolutely sure that it is a train planning impossibility? We all say on this board that we ran more trains before covid than after it so are we sure of this?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Well, the local MP clearly took that message from meeting NR. That’s what is driving the story.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I'm a but late to the party, but...

I occupy rented accommodation (a big 'shed') on the opposite side of the Roade-Northampton line to the 'Gateway' scheme, but another company are trying to build a rail freight terminal on 'my' side of the line which will obliterate the shed, so I have some first hand knowledge.

If a company applies for planning permission for a road haulage depot it is dealt with locally and factors such as road access, effect of extra lorry traffic, surrounding roads infrastructure, pollution are taken in to account. If the (fairly unlikely) situation arises that permission is given then the would be road freight terminal operator has to purchase the land required by negotiation with the owners; the latter have no obligation to sell, or to sell at the market price.

If, however, it's for a rail freight terminal, it's National Infrastructure. I am fairly sure that the terminal under construction was refused planning permission locally, but over-ruled by national government on those (N.I.) grounds. Furthermore, and certainly, the proposed terminal's owners can compulsorily purchase all the land they require not necessarily (in our case) at anything like the market price for development land.

Of course, I'm not suggesting any deviousness on the part of the terminal developers. However, the ones 'our' side of the line did initially apply for planning permission for a road freight depot (on the site of a former service area) which was declined.

The 'Gateway' development has provided some planning gain. For instance, they have paid for the Roade by-pass. Interestingly, Roade is on the opposite side of the M1 to the terminal and on the Old line rather than the New line, so the negative impact would haver been small. But the residents were polled, and they all thought a new by-pass was a good deal. Junction 15, M1, has also been improved and this is said to have ben paid for by the terminal developers.Both benefitted road (particularly MK to the Northbound M1) and not rail, of course and would have cost the developers perhaps £100,000,000.

I found it difficult to understand how new paths were available when the poor Northampton rail service is blamed on 'but the West Coast is full'. The application clearly stated that paths had been obtained from Network Rail - I checked.