New proposed freight hub - Leicestershire

[londonmidland]

A new rail connected intermodel based rail hub is planned to be built in Hinckley, Leicestershire, with the decision to be made in September, by local government.

The rail hub will be located on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail corridor, connecting it to various ports and existing rail terminals.

Read the full article here

The £750million rail hub planned for land near Hinckley will be run by a major UK logistics company should the scheme get the go ahead from the secretary of state for transport, it’s been announced. Should planning approval be awarded, the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange (HNRFI), proposed by developer Tritax Symmetry, would be a major rail hub with nine warehouses and a rail terminal that could handle up to 16 trains each day.

Tritax has this week revealed that Maritime Transport Ltd will both build and operate the rail terminal at the 40-acre site, if the green light is given. The plan will be decided by the government, rather than by local councils, as it is deemed to be of national importance. The secretary of state for transport is due to announce the decision in September.

A new access and a lorry park would be created off the M69 at junction 2. Tritax says if the scheme is approved, it will open up links between Leicesterhsire and the Midlands with ports such as Felixstowe, Liverpool, London Gateway, Southampton, Teesport and Mossend, serving Scotland. Maritime Transport is based in Felixstowe, which is the UK’s largest container terminal.

 

[Donny Dave]

Seems a rather odd place to have a new terminal. Hams Hall and Daventry. The added complication is that junction 2 and the surrounding roads are going to need a big upgrade. Unless the idea of the new terminal and warehouses is to take work from other nearby terminals, I don't see much point to this proposal.

 

[sharpley]

The rail terminal at East Midlands Gateway is being expanded currently as well. I know a lot of locals around Hinckley and Burbage are against this development too.

 

[swt_passenger]

This has been in the wind for ages, I found a closed 2018 thread about it:

New Railfreight Terminal proposed near Hinckley, Leicestershire.

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...

www.railforums.co.uk

But there have also been mentions of a proposed Hinckley terminal in a number of more general threads about the East Midlands, and also suggestions about routeing via EWR…

 

[ac6000cw]

Seems a rather odd place to have a new terminal. Hams Hall and Daventry.

...and Hams Hall isn't exactly far away (about 15 miles). Maritime Transport - the proposed operator - already has an intermodal terminal at East Midlands Gateway, probably less than 25 miles away.

Assuming I've got the right place, the land (to the east of Hinckley) appears to be farmland at the moment, so it's also not a 'brownfield' re-development like Hams Hall (an ex-power station site).

It doesn't exactly feel like something that should be 'deemed to be of national importance' as the newspaper article says.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Wow the area is already known as The Golden Triangle of Logistics- didn’t realize yet another hub was planned.

 

[zwk500]

Presumably this will not replace but be in addition to the existing warehousing/logistics space mostly on the west side of Hinkley? Google Maps shows at least 2 DPD sites and a Tesco centre clustered around the A5.

Will be interesting to see how this site competes given the relative connectivity (direct access to WCML North, MML, Felixstowe and indirect access to Southampton/South West via Birmingham) above other nearby west midlands sites.

 

[sh24]

As I understand it, it's about building in further capacity rather than stealing business. Rail is normally the cheapest option from port but capacity constraints means it often is the slowest. Inland terminals are the bottleneck.

 

[Donny Dave]

As I understand it, it's about building in further capacity rather than stealing business. Rail is normally the cheapest option from port but capacity constraints means it often is the slowest. Inland terminals are the bottleneck.

I haven't got the relevant copy of Investors Chronicle to hand, but they had an article recently about the various REITs listed on the stock exchange. The ones focused on warehouses, in particular, large warehouses (such as Tritax Bigbox and Tritax Eurobox) have a over-supply of capacity, as retailers don't need as much space for several reasons. Increased footfall and purchases in store means fewer Internet orders, and the recent inflationary and interest rate increases have cut down demand as well.

Other REITs on the stock exchange which focus more on retail and office space, have proved to be more resilient in the last 12-18 months, but even these are facing the prospect of asset values dropping or remaining flat for a while.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Might be a good idea in theory, but isn't Ely North Jcn already the limiting factor re increasing traffic on the Birmingham - Leicester - Ipswich - Felixstowe route (among others)?

And Wigston - Syston Jcn another likely restriction without building flying junctions, at least at Wigston?

 

[The Planner]

Might be a good idea in theory, but isn't Ely North Jcn already the limiting factor re increasing traffic on the Birmingham - Leicester - Ipswich - Felixstowe route (among others)?

And Wigston - Syston Jcn another likely restriction without building flying junctions, at least at Wigston?

Depends where the traffic is expected from, if its from the east then the paths probably won't be there as paths from Felixstowe tend to be Y paths via Peterborough or the WCML. So you can't suddenly run two trains from Felixstowe in them. If its to/from the North its straightforward, as is from Southampton.

 

[Class 170101]

The other issue is the single line from Soham to Ely Dock Junction. Ely North Jn is a parallel Junction for the most common direction for the freight between Ely and Peterborough.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Plus Midlands Connect have aspirations to run a lot more trains between Leicester and the West Midlands. I may be misremembering but the idea might be 4 tph Leicester to Birmingham plus 2 tph Leicester to Coventry

 

[edwin_m]

The other issue is the single line from Soham to Ely Dock Junction. Ely North Jn is a parallel Junction for the most common direction for the freight between Ely and Peterborough.

Doubling the other routes would still increase Ely-Peterborugh capacity though, as trains on those routes could be timetabled to pass on the junction so each pair would only block one Peterborough path in each direction.

 

[The Planner]

Plus Midlands Connect have aspirations to run a lot more trains between Leicester and the West Midlands. I may be misremembering but the idea might be 4 tph Leicester to Birmingham plus 2 tph Leicester to Coventry

That relies on other infrastructure being put in by that project, namely resignalling Wigston Nuneaton and also putting some loops in.

 

[ac6000cw]

Doubling the other routes would still increase Ely-Peterborugh capacity though, as trains on those routes could be timetabled to pass on the junction so each pair would only block one Peterborough path in each direction.

The Ely North Junction capacity problem is as much about solving the level crossing problems as re-working the junction layout itself. Every train through it except a few using the West Curve pass through two automatic level crossings in the area (one if using the West Curve), which are at their acceptable safety limit in terms of train movements. Converting them to full-barrier crossings would give unacceptably long closure times as three out of the four are in series along the same short stretch of road. If I remember correctly, more trains could run through it now if the level crossings weren't there.

 

[sh24]

I haven't got the relevant copy of Investors Chronicle to hand, but they had an article recently about the various REITs listed on the stock exchange. The ones focused on warehouses, in particular, large warehouses (such as Tritax Bigbox and Tritax Eurobox) have a over-supply of capacity, as retailers don't need as much space for several reasons. Increased footfall and purchases in store means fewer Internet orders, and the recent inflationary and interest rate increases have cut down demand as well.

Other REITs on the stock exchange which focus more on retail and office space, have proved to be more resilient in the last 12-18 months, but even these are facing the prospect of asset values dropping or remaining flat for a while.

That's about storage - companies are running their stock levels down as the cost of capital has increased (for many) a lot. The terminals are more about throughput which is still running pretty well.

 

[edwin_m]

The Ely North Junction capacity problem is as much about solving the level crossing problems as re-working the junction layout itself. Every train through it except a few using the West Curve pass through two automatic level crossings in the area (one if using the West Curve), which are at their acceptable safety limit in terms of train movements. Converting them to full-barrier crossings would give unacceptably long closure times as three out of the four are in series along the same short stretch of road. If I remember correctly, more trains could run through it now if the level crossings weren't there.

Doubling the single leads and timetabling the trains to pass on the junction would also help with this, because trains in opposite directions would be able to pass during one slightly longer closure.

 

[Magdalia]

companies are running their stock levels down

Actually the opposite is happening because of disruption to container flows through the Suez Canal and its knock on effects, which include big increases in container shipping costs. Retailers are already trying to get their deliveries secured for Black Friday and Christmas.

 

[Mag_seven]

A new rail connected intermodel based rail hub is planned to be built in Hinckley, Leicestershire, with the decision to be made in September, by local government.

The rail hub will be located on the Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail corridor, connecting it to various ports and existing rail terminals.

Read the full article here

Thread reopened to allow @InTheEastMids to provide an update.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Thanks @Mag_seven

The Secretary of State for Transport has refused planning permission for the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange project

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpq3l759vo

Developer Tritax Symmetry had wanted to build the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange (HNRFI) on 662 acres (268 hectares) of farmland between the town and Leicester.

However, on Monday, transport secretary Heidi Alexander refused planning permission for the scheme, ruling the expected benefits of the scheme were outweighed by the potential negative impacts.

Looking at the news story, and a brief inspection of a few of the docs on the DCO site suggests to me that the biggest factor leading to refusal was unresolved issues related to road transport - both the design of the highways close to the site, the impacts of traffic going to and from site, such as M1 J21. Network Rail did look at whether it would create a case for (re-) opening a station at Elmesthorpe, but decided it wouldn't be worth it.

 

[Shred Metal]

Not the worst idea really. This area is on the fringe of the ‘golden triangle’ freight hub in the midlands, and will be in competition with plenty of other railheads in that area. No real loss!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not the worst idea really. This area is on the fringe of the ‘golden triangle’ freight hub in the midlands, and will be in competition with plenty of other railheads in that area. No real loss!

My thoughts exactly. It is already in the Logistics Golden Triangle so as was said, negatives outweigh the positives.

 

[InTheEastMids]

This area is on the fringe of the ‘golden triangle’ freight hub in the midlands

I have to disagree with this. The 'golden triangle' normally means the area enclosed by the M1, M6 and M42/A42 (which Hinckley is towards the middle of), and if it has a spiritual home, it's probably Magna Park near Lutterworth, which is only 10k away and really served as the template for these kinds of developments as we know them today (although doesn't have a rail connection).

with plenty of other railheads in that area

I don't have a view one way or the other about this specific development. Whilst there are quite a lot of railheads already, (e.g. DIRFT, East Mids and Northampton Gateways, Hams Hall, it also feels vaguely frustrating that there are some quite significant developments that are close to rail lines, but where a railhead didn't happen (e.g. Bardon Hill).

There was a Restoring Your Railway proposal to reconnect Rugby-Leicester via Lutterworth that might have included a connection to Magna Park, but that was "highly speculative".

 

[Shred Metal]

I have to disagree with this. The 'golden triangle' normally means the area enclosed by the M1, M6 and M42/A42 (which Hinckley is towards the middle of), and if it has a spiritual home, it's probably Magna Park near Lutterworth, which is only 10k away and really served as the template for these kinds of developments as we know them today (although doesn't have a rail connection).


I don't have a view one way or the other about this specific development. Whilst there are quite a lot of railheads already, (e.g. DIRFT, East Mids and Northampton Gateways, Hams Hall, it also feels vaguely frustrating that there are some quite significant developments that are close to rail lines, but where a railhead didn't happen (e.g. Bardon Hill).

There was a Restoring Your Railway proposal to reconnect Rugby-Leicester via Lutterworth that might have included a connection to Magna Park, but that was "highly speculative".

Ah, of course it is. I was assuming the M69 was more relevant to the triangle there. But yes, with the links via the aforementioned highways, there is enough in the area (possibly that have extra capacity to absorb the Hinckley proposals?) and also better candidates. I’m sure the Bardon Hill one was muted to be somewhat backed by that lovely online bookstore..

 

[Dr Hoo]

Isn’t the key ‘railway’ advantage of Hinckley that it can be directly served from Felixstowe, Tilbury and London Gateway? Access to Daventry/DIRFT or Northampton Gateway involves reversals or running via the congested WCML. I fail to see how refusal of Hinckley will reduce HGV movements in the Golden Triangle overall at all. If the business goes to Lutterworth instead it will be HGV in and HGV out.

Is the Secretary of State aware that she is supposed to be supporting a 75% increase in rail freight?

 

[Class15]

Thanks @Mag_seven

The Secretary of State for Transport has refused planning permission for the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange project

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1lpq3l759vo



Looking at the news story, and a brief inspection of a few of the docs on the DCO site suggests to me that the biggest factor leading to refusal was unresolved issues related to road transport - both the design of the highways close to the site, the impacts of traffic going to and from site, such as M1 J21. Network Rail did look at whether it would create a case for (re-) opening a station at Elmesthorpe, but decided it wouldn't be worth it.

Sounds like a sensible decision. There are enough terminals in this area. Plus no easy route to London Gateway which is emerging as the UK’s most important port.

 

[The Planner]

Isn’t the key ‘railway’ advantage of Hinckley that it can be directly served from Felixstowe, Tilbury and London Gateway? Access to Daventry/DIRFT or Northampton Gateway involves reversals or running via the congested WCML. I fail to see how refusal of Hinckley will reduce HGV movements in the Golden Triangle overall at all. If the business goes to Lutterworth instead it will be HGV in and HGV out.

Is the Secretary of State aware that she is supposed to be supporting a 75% increase in rail freight?

Only if you go via Ely and Peterborough from Felixstowe. That isnt awash with capacity.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Only if you go via Ely and Peterborough from Felixstowe. That isnt awash with capacity.

I certainly don’t question that the Ely route needs capacity and resilience work at Haughley Junction, the Soham single line and Ely North.

Are we to conclude that the Secretary of State’s refusal was actually more about kicking the Ely route upgrade further down the road (or into the Fen completely) and saving money rather than supposedly ‘saving’ part of the Golden Triangle from HGV movements by, err, ensuring that somewhere nearby now cops HGV moves on both legs?

 

[The Planner]

I certainly don’t question that the Ely route needs capacity and resilience work at Haughley Junction, the Soham single line and Ely North.

Are we to conclude that the Secretary of State’s refusal was actually more about kicking the Ely route upgrade further down the road (or into the Fen completely) and saving money rather than supposedly ‘saving’ part of the Golden Triangle from HGV movements by, err, ensuring that somewhere nearby now cops HGV moves on both legs?

I doubt if that even factored into the decision.