CMA CGM purchase Freightliner UK intermodal unit.

[Numbskull100]

Is Pentalver (the container road transport company acquired by Freightliner/G&W) part of the deal?

Been told it includes all road and terminal services. So yes.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Been told it includes all road and terminal services. So yes.

All intermodal road and terminal services, so that would also include the old Pentalver business which ironically was at one time owned by P&O and then Maersk.

 

[misterredmist]

The short answer is the flexibility and cost effectivity of road transport.

The are very few industrial premises which boast their own rail facilities in the UK, these tend to produce either bulk cargo or a product in sufficient volumes to make trainload freight viable between a single load point to one or more rail connected delivery sites such as a port. This produces the situations for example where a ship carrying 50,000 tonnes of biomass can be moved entirely by rail to Drax whereas a similar ship carrying the same amount of grain results in the entire cargo being delivered by road. This is because the delivery points can vary from a factory in Manchester which can only take 30 tonne lots of material in one delivery to match it's daily or weekly production to a farmer in rural Cumbria who takes one 30 tonne delivery every six weeks. That cargo of grain may be delivered to dozens, possibly hundreds of sites around the country on tipper trucks that dump it straight into storage facilities in a couple of minutes, imagine the sort of facility that would be required for a rail truck to such efficiency. It's the same with liquid, semi liquid and specialist materials that are carried in road tankers, imagine trying to deliver fuel to a petrol station by rail, it's just not going to happen.

In the intermodal world containers move from our ports by road and rail, but the majority are collected or delivered to the producer or end user by road because the site is either not rail connected, can only load/unload a limited number of containers in a day or cannot physically load/unload containers on their own site so have the container loaded/unloaded by a third party elsewhere and then trucked to or from their premises. The intermodal model is basically a standard packaged size version of the grain ship distribution model, with the rail network and depots acting as part of a huge "warehouse" to distribute and if necessary store containers until they ready for delivery to the end user, or load on the next train to the port.

Below is a map of MSC's UK intermodal network which will be similar to all the other shipping lines. Apart from their well known volumes that move through Felixstowe, London Gateway, Southampton and Liverpool, they also serve other UK ports by their own feeders at the ports shown. This too is mirrored by other shipping lines to a lesser extent so there are smaller volumes moving by road.

However, in general terms it's generally accepted in the shipping industry that rail delivery is more effective when the distance is about 100 miles but this can be slightly less if the volumes demand as this allows maximum use of truck drivers hours when working out from a local rail connected depot.

It should also be considered that a single container load may also consist of goods destined or originating from multiple companies, which often can mean 20-30 different shipments in one load. Wherever the loading or unloading of the contents takes place will result in multiple truck movements as the collection from the manufacturers premises or the delivery to the end user take place and whilst some of the movements will take place on 44 tonne trucks, there will many completed on smaller vehicles including the humble transit van for those smaller shipments. For those who may have an interest in model railways just imagine how many vehicles it has taken to deliver your latest prized purchase from the major manufacturers whose factories are in China to your door. That I think will explain why rail carries only a relatively small amount of freight compared to road.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Sep 2025 ==


The reason for basing the fleet at Liege Belgium is because it's already a logistics hub for other operators and I believe allows night flights as well as it's central location in Europe.

I can't see the air division supporting the rail division in this country, for a start the payload of a single plane might just fill a single 40ft container so you would need a lot of planes and huge volumes to support those movements. The whole concept of airfreight is that it's designed to be quick, those parts arriving on a flight tonight could be required the following day in the factory especially if it's for the motor industry.

CMA CGM is only interested in purchasing Freightliner for two reasons. The first is to secure control of a haulier with sufficient capacity and reach to handle it's UK intermodal needs, bearing in mind that when MSC through Medlog took control of Maritime Transport Ltd through their Medlog subsidiary, MSC effectively purchased CMA-CGM main UK haulier. The second reason is to develop their logisitcs infrastructure, following again the lead taken by MSC. Apart from hauling containers around the country Maritime Transport provides logistics for many companies including loading/unloading containers which allow the contents to delivered to their warehouses and distribution centres in the exact standard sizes their warehouses technology require. For the same reason I would not be surprised if for example MSC made a move for GBRail which ultimately owned by an investment bank entity, and even DCcargo which is state owned being offloaded to Maersk or Hapag, following their offloading of Arriva busses and the freight forwarding division of DB Schenker to Denmarks' DSV.

being in the freight transportation business, I could not have summed it up better - great job

 

[hwl]

CMA CGM is only interested in purchasing Freightliner for two reasons. The first is to secure control of a haulier with sufficient capacity and reach to handle it's UK intermodal needs, bearing in mind that when MSC through Medlog took control of Maritime Transport Ltd through their Medlog subsidiary, MSC effectively purchased CMA-CGM main UK haulier. The second reason is to develop their logisitcs infrastructure, following again the lead taken by MSC. Apart from hauling containers around the country Maritime Transport provides logistics for many companies including loading/unloading containers which allow the contents to delivered to their warehouses and distribution centres in the exact standard sizes their warehouses technology require. For the same reason I would not be surprised if for example MSC made a move for GBRail which ultimately owned by an investment bank entity, and even DCcargo which is state owned being offloaded to Maersk or Hapag, following their offloading of Arriva busses and the freight forwarding division of DB Schenker to Denmarks' DSV.

I would add a third reason:
The rail operators (FL doing most of this) also provide a huge amount of empty container management for the shipping lines in terms of storing and feeding the containers into the ports at the right moment to getting them out the of the country smoothly and efficiently - something that happens in GB far better than most of the developed world.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I would add a third reason:
The rail operators (FL doing most of this) also provide a huge amount of empty container management for the shipping lines in terms of storing and feeding the containers into the ports at the right moment to getting them out the of the country smoothly and efficiently - something that happens in GB far better than most of the developed world.

I would not dispute this, but I would qualify it by stating that the numbers probably vary from shipping line to shipping line depending on the imbalance of import units compared to laden export units. At this point it's worth considering that in some markets, particularly the Asia Europe market the difference can be as much as five to one a problem which particularly affects Cosco, Evergreen, HMM and Yang Ming but I stress also affects the other lines. There are several reasons for this problem, apart from the obvious that we tend to import more than we export.

The first reason is that the Asian lines naturally secure more freight prepaid business (ie the freight it paid at origin) than the European lines and this means the shipper dictates the port of discharge and prepays the freight as far as that location with the UK importer paying the remaining costs from the UK port to their warehouse. In a market where a $50.00 difference can make or break a deal it's not surprising that the savy shippers opt for the cheapest alternative, unless their UK customer objects.

The second reason is partly historical and dates back to the days when the shipping lines first started calling at the UK and the agreements they have concluded with the port authorities during the period. Thus for example Cosco and Evergreen have always served Felixstowe, the later apart from a short term at Thamesport, whilst Yang Ming and HMM have traditionally been Southampton carriers although between them they have shifted between all three southern ports in time.

The third reason is the size of the UK sales force and operations. The Asian lines, apart from the Japanese lines which are now all merged under the ONE brand tend to have a relatively small sales force to service and generate export sales because the main concern of the UK business tends to be to service the import customers and make a profit. They will target certain types of traffic, but traditionally will not accept hazardous cargo or out of gauge business. It's also important to stress that the Asia Europe market tends to be the main market, but some of the Asian lines have relatively small volumes to some ports in the Indian Subcontintent and North America with OOCL and ONE enjoying a sizeable market share of the later. In comparison the European Lines and ONE sales forces and operations are much larger as they are selling every market and booking every type of cargo and in some cases not just the main ports of Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton to global destinations.

The fourth reason reason is the use of Liverpool and UK feeder ports. Whilst most of the global shipping lines can route cargo to the UK's smaller ports, apart from MSC, CMA-CGM and to a lesser extent Maersk the numbers are relatively small in comparison to total UK port throughput. Liverpool has the advantage it can also accept ships up to 18000 teu although so far MSC has only berthed vessels of up to 15000 teu. This means that that the likes of MSC can turn a delivered import container into an export container and deliver this back to Liverpool port, then pick up an empty export container, have it loaded and if necessary rail it back to Felixstowe maximising the drivers working hours. Whilst this of course is possible for the local railhead, if the railhead capacity is constrained this becomes a problem, whereas MSC can evacuate empties to Liverpool for loading on one of their own ships and return it to a location of demand avoiding filling intermodal trains with empties and having to pay for the privilege. The alternative for the other shipping lines is to subsidise the export movement, this is a common solution along the M62 corridor but outside this area the level of the subsidiary usually tends to drop sharply. However, for those lines which have none of these alternatives, the only solution for the shipping line is to charge the UK importer for the full round trip cost which can be significantly more than the $50.00 saved on the freight by the shipper.

A recent survey claims that 41% of global container movements are empty units due to imbalances in trade, a figure which has grown since the Covid pandemic. It was rumoured at the peak of the Covid crisis that Evergreen alone had 10,000 empty containers on the Felixstowe terminal which they could not load because berthing windows were fully occupied with discharging import containers. The result was chaos because Evergreen had no yard space like some other shipping lines and were telling importers to deliver empties to Immingham or Liverpool, they even reopened Thamesport to assist with the problems. Other lines were similar affected with the ports often refusing to accept empties.

Empties are a massive problem to the entire industry and without a more balanced trade it will remain a global problem.

 

[hwl]

I would not dispute this, but I would qualify it by stating that the numbers probably vary from shipping line to shipping line depending on the imbalance of import units compared to laden export units. At this point it's worth considering that in some markets, particularly the Asia Europe market the difference can be as much as five to one a problem which particularly affects Cosco, Evergreen, HMM and Yang Ming but I stress also affects the other lines. There are several reasons for this problem, apart from the obvious that we tend to import more than we export.

The first reason is that the Asian lines naturally secure more freight prepaid business (ie the freight it paid at origin) than the European lines and this means the shipper dictates the port of discharge and prepays the freight as far as that location with the UK importer paying the remaining costs from the UK port to their warehouse. In a market where a $50.00 difference can make or break a deal it's not surprising that the savy shippers opt for the cheapest alternative, unless their UK customer objects.

The second reason is partly historical and dates back to the days when the shipping lines first started calling at the UK and the agreements they have concluded with the port authorities during the period. Thus for example Cosco and Evergreen have always served Felixstowe, the later apart from a short term at Thamesport, whilst Yang Ming and HMM have traditionally been Southampton carriers although between them they have shifted between all three southern ports in time.

The third reason is the size of the UK sales force and operations. The Asian lines, apart from the Japanese lines which are now all merged under the ONE brand tend to have a relatively small sales force to service and generate export sales because the main concern of the UK business tends to be to service the import customers and make a profit. They will target certain types of traffic, but traditionally will not accept hazardous cargo or out of gauge business. It's also important to stress that the Asia Europe market tends to be the main market, but some of the Asian lines have relatively small volumes to some ports in the Indian Subcontintent and North America with OOCL and ONE enjoying a sizeable market share of the later. In comparison the European Lines and ONE sales forces and operations are much larger as they are selling every market and booking every type of cargo and in some cases not just the main ports of Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton to global destinations.

The fourth reason reason is the use of Liverpool and UK feeder ports. Whilst most of the global shipping lines can route cargo to the UK's smaller ports, apart from MSC, CMA-CGM and to a lesser extent Maersk the numbers are relatively small in comparison to total UK port throughput. Liverpool has the advantage it can also accept ships up to 18000 teu although so far MSC has only berthed vessels of up to 15000 teu. This means that that the likes of MSC can turn a delivered import container into an export container and deliver this back to Liverpool port, then pick up an empty export container, have it loaded and if necessary rail it back to Felixstowe maximising the drivers working hours. Whilst this of course is possible for the local railhead, if the railhead capacity is constrained this becomes a problem, whereas MSC can evacuate empties to Liverpool for loading on one of their own ships and return it to a location of demand avoiding filling intermodal trains with empties and having to pay for the privilege. The alternative for the other shipping lines is to subsidise the export movement, this is a common solution along the M62 corridor but outside this area the level of the subsidiary usually tends to drop sharply. However, for those lines which have none of these alternatives, the only solution for the shipping line is to charge the UK importer for the full round trip cost which can be significantly more than the $50.00 saved on the freight by the shipper.

A recent survey claims that 41% of global container movements are empty units due to imbalances in trade, a figure which has grown since the Covid pandemic. It was rumoured at the peak of the Covid crisis that Evergreen alone had 10,000 empty containers on the Felixstowe terminal which they could not load because berthing windows were fully occupied with discharging import containers. The result was chaos because Evergreen had no yard space like some other shipping lines and were telling importers to deliver empties to Immingham or Liverpool, they even reopened Thamesport to assist with the problems. Other lines were similar affected with the ports often refusing to accept empties.

Empties are a massive problem to the entire industry and without a more balanced trade it will remain a global problem.

Cracking post - I'd add that lots of Liverpool volume is transatlantic rather than just a being feeder port but many of the US ports are some what vessel size constrained.

The FOCs do a lot more empties management for the non-Asian lines (and ONE) compared to the Asian lines.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Cracking post - I'd add that lots of Liverpool volume is transatlantic rather than just a being feeder port but many of the US ports are some what vessel size constrained.

The FOCs do a lot more empties management for the non-Asian lines (and ONE) compared to the Asian lines.

Liverpool's traditional Transatlantic trade has changed in recent years, it only has two direct weekly services operated by ACL and a joint service operated by Hapag/OOCL/MSC but MSC, Maersk and CMA CGM feeder their traffic to Le Havre, Rotterdam and Antwerp (MSC) , London Gateway/Rotterdam (Maersk), and Dunkirk/Rotterdam (CMA-CGM) so it's difficult to determine the volumes specific numbers to each destination.

That said, the market is now very different to the way it operated ten to twenty years ago when the shipping lines offered multiple continuous loops when the trade was more balanced. Thus typically the shipping lines operating in groups or alliances would operate the following routes

1. NWC/UK to three or four US North Atlantic Ports and return to NWC/UK with four/five ships.
2 MWC/UK to four or five US South Atlantic and Gulf Ports possibly along with one or two Mexican ports returning to NWC with five/six ships depending on the rotation.
3. NWC/UK to US/Canada West Coast via the Panama Canal returning to NWC either directly or via Asia and back to the USWC then back to NWC with eight/twelve ships again depending on the rotation.
4. NWC/UK to Montreal operated jointly by the St Lawrence Coordinated Lines returning to the NWC/UK, the remnants of a joint service dating back to the 1970's using four ships joined by MSC in the 2000's using four ships on the Liverpool service, but does not participate on .

Today the three alliances comprising all the global lines plus MSC which operates independently of the rest in the Transatlantic market, except to Montreal operate a total of at least a dozen weekly westbound service to all US coasts split roughly over the first three routes shown above, along with ACL which only serves the North Atlantic ports on it's Transatlantic service operated by five vessels. The St Lawrence services remains largely unchanged although the number of loops and vessels deployed has fluctuated along with the port calls. However, the same lines, apart from ACL, only operate nine eastbound services and only half of them call at the UK on their North European rotations and these are all North Atlantic services with CMA-CGM/Cosco/OOCL/Evergreen calling Southampton along with Hapag/Maersk and MSC and Hapag/Maersk calling London Gateway all on the eastbound voyage, whilst MSC operate a separate service from Felixstowe on the westbound voyage which also calls Le Havre. All of which means that Liverpool via the ACL offers the fastest transit time to main market of New York.

Now sharp eyed readers will have noticed the number of east and westbound services differ, this is because of a huge imbalance in Transatlantic trade which has grown over the decades, hence Trumps tariff measures against the EU in particular. Thus to prevent further erosion of already rock bottom rates, the lines use the USEC port calls to also load empty reefers containers either for Central or South America once they complete their US port calls. They then load bananas and other fresh fruits in Ecuador, Colombia and Costa Rica for North Europe and in the case of MSC for Russia as sanctions do not apply to foodstuffs.

These measures are designed to minimise trade imbalances in the market that have plagued the trade since the introduction of container services as like Europe, US Ports suffer with huge amounts of empties from Asia some of which originate on the USWC. With US slow growth, if any, of US exports the global container lines are faced major challenges on returning thousands of empties to areas of demand. The problem is that whilst some US ports can handle some of the larger ships in service particularly on the USWC albeit not fully laden, on the east coast they are restricted to about 16000teu because of draft or air draft restrictions. This is why with the exception of
CMA-CGM/Cosco/OOCL/Evergreens joint service all other transatlantic services generally use smaller tonnage from 3000 teu to 9000 teu leaving little space on transatlantic services to evacuate the empties piling up in the port. In an effort to combat the problem last month MSC re-routed it's Albatross service which uses 15000/16000 teu vessels that calls Felixstowe inbound from Asia before calling at Bremerhaven and Gdansk and back to Bremerhaven before returning to Asia largely fully loaded with empties to return via Bremerhaven second calls via New York and Charleston to China via the Panama Canal.

Meanwhile back in Liverpool, the Liverpool2 riverside berth has handled this various 15000/16000 teu vessels on MSC Asia Europe services since last year although due to a revamp of their services following the split with Maersk these have been few and far between this year. However, given the investment MSC have made in the port, it is expected that they will eventually return with their larger ships to supplement their other services operating to and from the port, along with the subsidiary WEC lines which because of their smaller ships use the enclosed T1 Seaforth terminal. Peel Ports also have planning permission to extend the Seaforth railhead to allow 775 m trains to operate to and from the terminal without having to split them along with plans to replace the straddle carrier operation at T1 with a rail mounted gantry operation as well as at the railhead. Whilst as far as I know Freightliner has not served Seaforth on a regular basis for many years, the change of ownership may force a change given the volumes the new owners move through T1.




.

 

[D1511]

Really fascinating and informative thread this......great stuff and I've learned a lot about the world of intermodal. Particular thanks to @Wavertreelad and @hwl for sharing your knowledge of the industry with the likes of me.

 

[Wrexhamfc]

and even DCcargo which is state owned

Has DC ever been state owned?

 

[Wavertreelad]

Has DC ever been state owned?

Yes, it's the international commercial division of he German State operator Deutsche Bahn.

Founded in 2017 as a dynamic organisation within Deutsche Bahn, DB International Operations builds on Deutsche Bahn’s globally recognized operational experience and expertise, which have been developed amid strong competition over the decades. Our engagement outside of Europe enables us to apply our experience and know-how in the operation and maintenance of complex railway systems around the world. With our passion for rail solutions, we strongly support the drive for sustainable mobility and to bring goods to their destination in the best way. https://io.deutschebahn.com/en/about-

If you go to the DB Cargo website you will find links on it to get to the website above.

 

[156444]

Yes, it's the international commercial division of he German State operator Deutsche Bahn.


If you go to the DC Cargo website you will find links on it to get to the website above.

It is DB Cargo, not DC Cargo.

 

[20atthemagnet]

I know someone at HH and they have been told that they’re helping out for around 18 months to help the transition. I’m gonna assume internally they must’ve known about it as the trainee aprentice scheme was a pretty large group of people who are starting this/next week. HH did indeed cover a bits of Intermodal which I now assume will be covered by the expansion/creation of Gateway rosters from that intake.

 

[Numbskull100]

I know someone at HH and they have been told that they’re helping out for around 18 months to help the transition. I’m gonna assume internally they must’ve known about it as the trainee aprentice scheme was a pretty large group of people who are starting this/next week. HH did indeed cover a bits of Intermodal which I now assume will be covered by the expansion/creation of Gateway rosters from that intake.

The Gateway course has been in the planning since the Maersk contract was agreed. Predates this sale, was happening when the last sale was being looked at earlier this year (before they announced we weren't for sale )

 

[20atthemagnet]

The Gateway course has been in the planning since the Maersk contract was agreed. Predates this sale, was happening when the last sale was being looked at earlier this year (before they announced we weren't for sale )

Thanks. Gonna be a very interesting few years! The HH guys were happy to do the intermodal crossovers as there isn’t that much work at the moment for them at said depot… hopefully it’s beneficial for everyone. CMA CGM owned operator moving large amounts of Maersk/Hapag traffic…. I know everyone moves everything generally, but I’d be willing to bet there’s going to be some movement/re jigging around preferred carriers/partners!

 

[Wavertreelad]

It is DB Cargo, not DC Cargo.

Now corrected in original text. New keyboard!

Thanks. Gonna be a very interesting few years! The HH guys were happy to do the intermodal crossovers as there isn’t that much work at the moment for them at said depot… hopefully it’s beneficial for everyone. CMA CGM owned operator moving large amounts of Maersk/Hapag traffic…. I know everyone moves everything generally, but I’d be willing to bet there’s going to be some movement/re jigging around preferred carriers/partners!

Which brings us back to why this is happening. When Medlog (MSC) purchased Maritime Transport Ltd the road haulier was the preferred carrier for both Hapag and CMA-CGM as historically MSC had previously used Goldstar Transport Ltd, although they had also been building up their own fleet mainly in Felixstowe. However, in 2016 Goldstar was sold to Turners (Soham) Limited which historically had connections to OOCL and the following year Cosco who also used Maritime Transport purchased OOCL.

To make matters worse particularly for Hapag, as by January 2024 Wincanton their other preferred haulier was in negotiations with CEVA Logistics owned by CMA-CGM for them to buy Wincanton. However, Wincanton's board later recommended a higher offer from GXO Logistics in March 2024, and the deal was ultimately cleared for GXO to acquire Wincanton in June 2025. This in part explains Hapag's decision to by Tilbury based AHL Transport in January 2024 as part of a build up of it's own fleet. This took out of the London Gateway /Tilbury general market a haulier with a fleet of its own 120 vehicles and 200 other subcontracted vehicles which was a major provider for the reefer container movements which formed a fair chunk of the local business and are operated by Maersk, CMA-CGM, and MSC.

Hapag and Maersk had originally intended to use Felixstowe for it's Asia-Europe services, Southampton for it's Transatlantic services and London Gateway Port for it's Indian Subcontinent and Middle East services, but as the planning developed it became apparent to Hapag in particular that they could not secure sufficient road and rail capacity in and out of the Suffolk port so they quickly changed the plans moving the Asia -Europe Services to London Gateway Port.

 

[AD15]

Intermodal are nearly 50 drivers short. So they're going to be given them from HH as they have too many drivers. Not sure if its all over the country, or region specific they will be needed.

 

[Unobrow]

Intermodal are nearly 50 drivers short. So they're going to be given them from HH as they have too many drivers. Not sure if its all over the country, or region specific they will be needed.

That number is for the whole country. Regional requirements have yet to be decided/announced.

 

[AD15]

That number is for the whole country. Regional requirements have yet to be decided/announced.

Let's hope so, because im not sure i want to be forced across to the new intermodal business...although it may prove a wise move. Let's see what happens.

 

[20atthemagnet]

Let's hope so, because im not sure i want to be forced across to the new intermodal business...although it may prove a wise move. Let's see what happens.

Will be a tough one. Although I don’t know how that would work in practice as the terms and conditions and pay are different…. Hopefully if it came to that you’d be renumerated properly.

One of my ex colleagues is HH and says the work isnt exactly booming at the moment (at their depot at least) so the having too many drivers on HH has some truth in it.. the cross cover for intermodal is really useful. Several of their guys are learning some of the Intermodal routes to make sure there’s a smooth transition…He’s considering doing exactly that move. Like you said, nobody really knows!

 

[MR Grunter]

I wonder where this stands with the letter that was published on our Omnia system a few weeks ago, stating that any transfers between HH and IM will no longer be considered, with immediate effect due to the sale.
It stated it was agreed with Aslef.

 

[chalkijr]

I'm hoping that with this takeover they will look to employ more drivers if they have ambitious plans. I've been waiting in a talent pool for not far off 3 years now. Got my fingers crossed it's good news soon and not the other way around.

 

[357]

Word on the street is they are taking a large number of drivers from HH and are looking to open a IM depot at Wembley. Volunteers to begin with but might go down to seniority if there aren't enough volunteers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2025 ==

I'm hoping that with this takeover they will look to employ more drivers if they have ambitious plans. I've been waiting in a talent pool for not far off 3 years now. Got my fingers crossed it's good news soon and not the other way around.

Qualified or trainee?

 

[AD15]

70 - either Intermodal or Split. Can easily see them all with Intermodal for commonality.

All going to Heavy Haul

 

[Class15]

All going to Heavy Haul

That’s very interesting. Wasn’t expecting that.

 

[chalkijr]

Word on the street is they are taking a large number of drivers from HH and are looking to open a IM depot at Wembley. Volunteers to begin with but might go down to seniority if there aren't enough volunteers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2025 ==


Qualified or trainee?

As a trainee based in the northwest, would be for HH too most likely. At this point I'd be happy with a Shunter driver position, never thought I'd be waiting this long lol.

 

[Numbskull100]

Word on the street is they are taking a large number of drivers from HH and are looking to open a IM depot at Wembley. Volunteers to begin with but might go down to seniority if there aren't enough volunteers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Oct 2025 ==


Qualified or trainee?

Wembley wasn't on the list of HH to IM. That would have been the opportunity to sort it, so doubt it'll happen.

 

[357]

Wembley wasn't on the list of HH to IM. That would have been the opportunity to sort it, so doubt it'll happen.

The information I have is that this will be set up with drivers who have volunteered to transfer over from other HH depots.

Tilbury HH was another one mentioned that apparently does mostly IM work

 

[Class15]

Wembley wasn't on the list of HH to IM. That would have been the opportunity to sort it, so doubt it'll happen.

The information I have is that this will be set up with drivers who have volunteered to transfer over from other HH depots.

Tilbury HH was another one mentioned that apparently does mostly IM work

With the greatest of respect, in the absence of a source, I’m more inclined to believe NumbSkull100 here as they work for FL (or at least their posts very much suggest so).

 

[Numbskull100]

The information I have is that this will be set up with drivers who have volunteered to transfer over from other HH depots.

Tilbury HH was another one mentioned that apparently does mostly IM work

The HH drivers transferring will (according to the information provided) be staying where they are.

Absolutely no reference to relocation.

 

[357]

The HH drivers transferring will (according to the information provided) be staying where they are.

Absolutely no reference to relocation.

That's good to know at least.

My source is a friend who's a driver at HH, who got it from his DM who's been in a meeting about it where various proposals were spoken about.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Oct 2025 ==

With the greatest of respect, in the absence of a source, I’m more inclined to believe NumbSkull100 here as they work for FL (or at least their posts very much suggest so).

That's absolutely fine - much of the information on here can't be pinned to a source for a variety of reasons.

In other threads some people have worked out who I work for (not Freightliner) but I won't admit it myself for similar reasons.