DB Cargo UK being sold

[Merle Haggard]

At the time I thought it was quite clear that EWS decided some of the existing loco fleet was becoming increasingly difficult and expensive to maintain, and that
a large percentage of the new 66s were to replace older locos, particularly some of the 47s.

EWS took a lot of existing locos, staff, yards, and contracts, no doubt much of which they would rather not have had. While newer companies were able to cherry pick
the bits they wanted.

cheers

The 47 were indeed on the hit list; even the ones with recent 10,000 hours exams. But RfD, the major if not only owner of freight 47s, was not included in the original sale to EWS. It was transferred later - by the Labour government - and on the basis that it would be marginal, requiring no extra resources.

There was a 'traction plan' which I did manage to see, briefly, once. This set out, over future years, the planned massive increase in business and, to match that, the return to service of most other loco types. It certainly included the 56s, I'm not sure about the 58s. It was over about 5 - 7 years and, to the surprise of almost no-one, the increase in business did not occur with no need for the planned return to service of locos.

I have seen that, when dealing with customers, EWS managers sometimes made very clearly - and sometimes rudely - that this was business that they didn't want. Oddly enough, it then passed to the new FOCs, who presumably welcomed it.

Bearing in mind that EWS were handed every freight traffic contract it's interesting how little they do now, and how much is handled by FOCs that didn't exist, pretty much, when EWS took over.

 

[Solweytracker]

The 47 were indeed on the hit list; even the ones with recent 10,000 hours exams. But RfD, the major if not only owner of freight 47s, was not included in the original sale to EWS. It was transferred later - by the Labour government - and on the basis that it would be marginal, requiring no extra resources.

There was a 'traction plan' which I did manage to see, briefly, once. This set out, over future years, the planned massive increase in business and, to match that, the return to service of most other loco types. It certainly included the 56s, I'm not sure about the 58s. It was over about 5 - 7 years and, to the surprise of almost no-one, the increase in business did not occur with no need for the planned return to service of locos.

I have seen that, when dealing with customers, EWS managers sometimes made very clearly - and sometimes rudely - that this was business that they didn't want. Oddly enough, it then passed to the new FOCs, who presumably welcomed it.

Bearing in mind that EWS were handed every freight traffic contract it's interesting how little they do now, and how much is handled by FOCs that didn't exist, pretty much, when EWS took over.

EWS must surely get some credit for introducing the 66s (250 themselves) which, with dispersions and additions by other FOCs has largely kept freight on the rails in the UK for 30 years.

I agree with your last point that how little DB Cargo have retained even of the much reduced pot, but it is not true that they were handed every freight contract. All the intermodal business went to Freightliner and at the current moment intermodal traffic seems to be the one sought after sector.

 

[Merle Haggard]

EWS must surely get some credit for introducing the 66s (250 themselves) which, with dispersions and additions by other FOCs has largely kept freight on the rails in the UK for 30 years.

I agree with your last point that how little DB Cargo have retained even of the much reduced pot, but it is not true that they were handed every freight contract. All the intermodal business went to Freightliner and that at the current moment intermodal traffic seems to be the one sought after sector.

Trainload Freight contracts specified the train size; for maximum profitability by both parties based on maximum trailing load possible. Unfortunately, 66s weren't as strong as 60s so some re-negotiation of contracts had to be done reducing EWS' profitability.

Another case where loco. specification did not perhaps include a full understanding of operating conditions was with the 67. When the first was landed at Newport Docks is was found by Railtrack to be out of gauge, which seems like a basic mistake, but considered trivial (but joking about it was a dismissal offence).

Perhaps more seriously Railtrack also considered them to be track bashers partly on account of the high axle load but also other design features. As a result the Railtrack Access Toll for 67-hauled trains was punitive compared to other classes - Railtrack seemed to charge the tonne-miles on the basis of the whole train being track bashing not just the loco. There were some other flows - limited by length not trailing load - where they might have been ideal, but this factor ruled their use out.

Interestingly, you mention Intermodal - and as an aside I distinguish 'Freight' from 'Intermodal' which I accept is not self-evident - it was interesting that a very successful (imo) General Manager in RfD was 'let go' by EWS (we were all paid too much ... ) and became the driving force behind Freightliner Heavy Haul, another FOC to collect up EWS' discarded traffic.

But, having been entertained the traction side's explanations for the wide variety of causes of 47 failure ("They've done that since they were new" being common .. ) I was very impressed that the 66s worked pretty faultlessly from the start. New traction on rail has certainly gone downhill since, at least passenger.

 

[hwl]

One thing not mentioned so far is the role of leasing companies (both loco and wagons) in allowing EWS/DBC competitors to expand. They probably thought the barriers to market entry were more significant than they later turned out to be.

 

[Swedenorer]

Thanks so much Wavertree and Merle for these insights.

 

[Grumpy]

Drax biomass flow volumes have already fallen more than 30% and will fall a lot more over then next year, hence this isn't the big contract it once was.

Meanwhile the TP electrification/upgrade project is spending big money to provide increased capacity for freight e.g. extra track west of Huddersfield.

 

[Solweytracker]

Another case where loco. specification did not perhaps include a full understanding of operating conditions was with the 67. When the first was landed at Newport Docks is was found by Railtrack to be out of gauge, which seems like a basic mistake, but considered trivial (but joking about it was a dismissal offence). Perhaps more seriously Railtrack also considered them to be track bashers partly on account of the high axle load but also other design features. As a result the Railtrack Access Toll for 67-hauled trains was punitive compared to other classes - Railtrack seemed to charge the tonne-miles on the basis of the whole train being track bashing not just the loco. There were some other flows - limited by length not trailing load - where they might have been ideal, but this factor ruled their use out.

Interestingly, you mention Intermodal - and as an aside I distinguish 'Freight' from 'Intermodal' which I accept is not self-evident - it was interesting that a very successful (imo) General Manager in RfD was 'let go' by EWS (we were all paid too much ... ) and became the driving force behind Freightliner Heavy Haul, another FOC to collect up EWS' discarded traffic.

But, having been entertained the traction side's explanations for the wide variety of causes of 47 failure ("They've done that since they were new" being common .. ) I was very impressed that the 66s worked pretty faultlessly from the start. New traction on rail has certainly gone downhill since, at least passenger.

Thanks for the further insight.

I had thought that the introduction of the class 67 typefied the problematic relationship between EWS then DB Schenker and Royal Mail, and that it had been the rail company pushing Royal Mail for higher speed services, which wasn't the direction RM wanted. Royal Mail pulling the plug on their use of rail in 2004 (later partially returning with a limited number of non-TPO flows), leaving the 67s with no real purpose.

When loco 67010 was named Keith Heller by DB Schenker, the former EWS CEO and DB Schenker UK co-chairman who was credited with fostering its development, I recall thinking: Who would want to be loco-named to be associated with such a commercial disaster? At least the class 67 have served royalty well since and found some passenger purposes.

 

[Dunfanaghy Roa]

I seem to remember that 'back in the day' Railtrack got most of the deadbeat managers; EWS got the rest as the rundown of BR freight had encouraged anyone with get-up-and-go to join the passenger mafia. Certainly felt like it at the time.

EWS then spent years on an almost continuous process of (botched) management reorganisations* - when that stopped and the managers actually had to do their jobs rather than apply for new ones the useless ones stood out and the axe fell (We had one like that; no loss).

* A perfect structure won't work if staffed by second-raters - an imperfect structure can work with good staffing.

Pat

 

[43096]

One thing not mentioned so far is the role of leasing companies (both loco and wagons) in allowing EWS/DBC competitors to expand. They probably thought the barriers to market entry were more significant than they later turned out to be.

Ed Burkhardt was reported as saying “EWS had the kit without the wit; Freightliner had the wit without the kit.”

The problem for EWS was that if you have the wit, then leasing companies will lease you all the kit you need. Which is exactly what happened.

 

[Grumpy]

Royal Mail pulling the plug on their use of rail including TPOs (later partially returning) in 2004

I cant be certain but didn't the manual sorting of mail in TPO's cease in 1996?

 

[Backroom_boy]

I cant be certain but didn't the manual sorting of mail in TPO's cease in 1996?

Yes i think the op meant use of rail returned, but not tpo's

 

[hwl]

Meanwhile the TP electrification/upgrade project is spending big money to provide increased capacity for freight e.g. extra track west of Huddersfield.

Just as well that increasing non-biomass traffic was the main aim!

 

[Solweytracker]

I cant be certain but didn't the manual sorting of mail in TPO's cease in 1996?

No, as I said, Royal Mail ceased all dedicated trains in (January) 2004, including the TPOs which were still sorting mail en route up to the end.

For example the Six Bells Junction website:

Six Bells Junction

notes 'This night (09/01/2004) marked the final departure of 1A93, the Carlisle - Willesden TPO service. ...

When we arrived at the station, the stock was already in the platform and run round with a respectably clean 90029 on the business end. We were rather surprised at the amount of people around, numbers increased steadily as departure time drew near to the extent that we estimate that the best part of 100 people witnessed the final up TPO leave.' I myself recall that a TPO sorter was handing out unused and redundant pre-printed sorting bag labels as souvenirs on this occasion.

Yes i think the op meant use of rail returned, but not tpo's

Yes, I meant Royal Mails' use of rail was to return subsequently (with the 325s in particular), but not with TPO's. Have edited that sentence to clarify.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Thanks for the further insight. I had thought that the introduction of the class 67 typefied the problematic relationship between EWS then DB Schenker and Royal Mail, and that it had been the rail company pushing Royal Mail for higher speed services, which wasn't the direction RM wanted. Royal Mail pulling the plug on their use of rail in 2004 (later partially returning with a limited number of non-TPO flows), leaving the 67s with no real purpose. When loco 67010 was named Keith Heller by DB Schenker, the former EWS CEO and DB Schenker UK co-chairman who was credited with fostering its development, I recall thinking: Who would want to be loco-named to be associated with such a commercial disaster? At least the class 67 have served royalty well since and found some passenger purposes.

There was a TV documentary filmed on board the Dover TPO - possibly the last. Its was 67 hauled and in the cab was the Adam Crozier, chief exec. of Royal Mail. He was a whizz kid who only stayed in top jobs for a couple of years then moved on - he had previously been chief exec of The FA, I think...

One of his comments was something on the lines of 'the only difference between railways in the time of Queen Victoria and now is they've done away with gas lamps. Sooner I get out of rail the better'. At which point the film cameraman panned down to the digital speedo showing 100.0 mph. All that was needed to challenge his assertion.

The Crozier was clearly biased against rail. It was interesting to me that, when he appeared at the Horizon inquiry he claimed to have no responsibility for any of the decision made by Royal Mail during his tenure. But, to be fair, that was the alibi of a lot.

I seem to remember that 'back in the day' Railtrack got most of the deadbeat managers; EWS got the rest as the rundown of BR freight had encouraged anyone with get-up-and-go to join the passenger mafia. Certainly felt like it at the time. EWS then spent years on an almost continuous process of (botched) management reorganisations* - when that stopped and the managers actually had to do their jobs rather than apply for new ones the useless ones stood out and the axe fell (We had one like that; no loss).

* A perfect structure won't work if staffed by second-raters - an imperfect structure can work with good staffing.

Pat

That is absolutely not true. There was no rundown of BR freight; the Channel Tunnel had just opened and the demise of electricity coal traffic was in the future.

It is true that the two freight sectors expected management staff to perform against objectives and, if they failed, they went; perhaps to the passenger sectors, I don't know, I stayed. The Freight sectors were focussed on profitability which was a handy bench mark for assessing staff performance within each subsection. I wonder how they did that in, say, Regional Railways ...

Berkhardt certainly had a low opinion of the staff he took over, and one new manager, staring out of the window in Islington, said 'anyone out there could do your job!' Curiously I know of no-one dismissed by EWS for poor performance.

One of my colleagues, with a good degree and a polyglot - quite useful for negotiations with the other UIC railways - was told he was paid far too much but offered the (government funded) golden handshake and an early pension and, unsurprisingly, jumped at it. Someone else who was 'paid too much' went, successfully, to a competitor. Management staff went under the very generous, Government funded, golden handshake + pension at 50+.

EWS sought replacements by advertising in Doncaster local papers for 'Graduates with European languages - salary rising to £10,500'. No travel facilities, of course. You get what you pay for.

Channel Tunnel traffic seemed to disappear quickly once EWS were in charge. One of the reasons was a total lack of understanding of Politics. I'll keep that one for my memoirs

When EWS moved to Doncaster they advertised for replacement staff; one offer was 'Graduate with good language skills, salary rising to £10,500'. These were the replacements. To explain repeatedly to a new member of staff the difference between a container and an air-braked van became tiresome.

 

[BRX]

Does DB still own Dollands Moor yard outright?

 

[Wavertreelad]

Does DB still own Dollands Moor yard outright?

There is a 42 page brochure on this link. https://uk.dbcargo.com/rail-uk-en/services/available-property

I haven't checked how many could be investment opportunities but it could interest more asset management companies bidding and/or a consortium like MSC and Blackrock who would then split up the investment to the bits they wanted. Blackrock is MSC partners bidding for the Hutchinson Ports network, a mere $22 billion.

 

[Express380]

Having gone on their website from the link above they seem to think their 66s are 40

Image shows a class 66 with side text it reads: A first-in-class fitment is no easy feat! It involves retrofitting brand-new ETCS equipment to a 40 year old locomotive for the very first time. Once designed, fitted, tested and approved, this will become the blueprint for all ETCS fitments on Class 66 and Class 67 locomotives in the UK. It’s a huge undertaking and we’re proud to be at the forefront of ETCS freight fitment.

 

[XCTurbostar]

40 year old design, maybe!

 

[Express380]

40 year old design, maybe!

Well there is that I suppose

 

[Rivercider]

When EWS moved to Doncaster they advertised for replacement staff; one offer was 'Graduate with good language skills, salary rising to £10,500'. These were the replacements. To explain repeatedly to a new member of staff the difference between a container and an air-braked van became tiresome.

I can only try to imagine the frustration of that.

For over the last decade of my railway career I was dodging bullets (repeated office closures).
At one office where the work was transferring to the CSDC at Doncaster we were told we were welcome to transfer there with our jobs,
but that if we did not go there would be plenty of people happy to do the work (or words to that effect).
Of my colleagues in that office at the time about a third did go to the CSDC, about a third took other local EWS jobs (including me),
and about a third took redundancy.
Eight years later, (and after two more reorganisations), with the final closure of the next EWS office I worked in we all took redundancy rather than move to Yorkshire,
I was the one who literally did turn out the lights as the last to leave.

cheers

 

[BRX]

There is a 42 page brochure on this link. https://uk.dbcargo.com/rail-uk-en/services/available-property

I haven't checked how many could be investment opportunities but it could interest more asset management companies bidding and/or a consortium like MSC and Blackrock who would then split up the investment to the bits they wanted. Blackrock is MSC partners bidding for the Hutchinson Ports network, a mere $22 billion.

I don't see Dollands Moor in there.

Reason I ask is that I know it's been acknowledged in various government reports that it was a mistake to give EWS sole ownership of it - it gave them effective monopoly on traffic through the channel tunnel. And there were recommendations I think to bring it into public ownership. But I'm not sure what's actually happened, for example does it remain in DB's ownership but they are required to give other operators access?

Whether a DB sell-off is good or bad news for the future of tunnel traffic is unclear to me.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I don't see Dollands Moor in there.

Reason I ask is that I know it's been acknowledged in various government reports that it was a mistake to give EWS sole ownership of it - it gave them effective monopoly on traffic through the channel tunnel. And there were recommendations I think to bring it into public ownership. But I'm not sure what's actually happened, for example does it remain in DB's ownership but they are required to give other operators access?

Whether a DB sell-off is good or bad news for the future of tunnel traffic is unclear to me.

Has it been transferred to Network Rail, this link Dollands Moor electrification states it's due to be electricified in a contract awarded by Network Rail. Is it reasonable to assume that only the owner would take this option.

What struck me about the brochure was that many of the sites appeared to be largely vacant or little used, rather than operational sites like for example Trafford Park Euro Terminal which is leased to Maritime Transport. This would suggest the land and property portfolio is considerably larger than that shown in brochure which in turn could considerably increase the value of assets should the eventual buyer decide to close some operational sites and sell or develop the land. It's also worth noting the document is dated April 2026, so there could be further changes.

 

[Solweytracker]

Has it been transferred to Network Rail, this link Dollands Moor electrification states it's due to be electricified in a contract awarded by Network Rail. Is it reasonable to assume that only the owner would take this option.

What struck me about the brochure was that many of the sites appeared to be largely vacant or little used, rather than operational sites like for example Trafford Park Euro Terminal which is leased to Maritime Transport. This would suggest the land and property portfolio is considerably larger than that shown in brochure which in turn could considerably increase the value of assets should the eventual buyer decide to close some operational sites and sell or develop the land. It's also worth noting the document is dated April 2026, so there could be further changes.

Yes, none of the main currently DB Cargo-operated yards/depots such as Tees, Doncaster Belmont, Warrington Arpley, Toton are in that brochure.

 

[BRX]

Has it been transferred to Network Rail, this link Dollands Moor electrification states it's due to be electricified in a contract awarded by Network Rail. Is it reasonable to assume that only the owner would take this option.

It's surprisingly difficult to pin down its ownership, by looking online! There is plenty of definitive stuff from some years ago saying that it is owned by DB, but none that indicates it's been sold since.

 

[172007]

Yes, none of the main currently DB Cargo-operated yards/depots such as Tees, Doncaster Belmont, Warrington Arpley, Toton are in that brochure.

Its interesting that the former depot side of Bestcot is up for sale. The West Midlands franchise were going to build a depot for Class 730s there, now it may be cheaper to aquire the land.

I am slightly surprised that this part of Bescot was never utilised more by DB ajd maybe perhaps with a new buyer. Amalgamate all of Totons and Crewe and perhaps office functions (is that still Doncaster) maintenance in one location that is central to the country, good rail access and also is easy to re-electrify.

Is it the road access through a housing esate that is the major problem and hence the disposal.

 

[dmncf]

As a outsider, I had assumed that among the factors for DB Cargo being less competitive than its rivals were:
- Higher overheads to pay for infrastructure that nimbler rivals don't have, e.g. Toton works and other large yards
- Less efficient staff contracts that are probably evolutions of BR-era contracts

But those are my assumptions. Thanks for the really interesting posts above about the Ed Burkhardt era and experience of working there as a manager.

 

[mr_moo]

The link is showing as broken now which is frustrating.

I have not seen any mention of Acton freight yard yet - that's on a long term lease to DB cargo too, and is very busy.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The link is showing as broken now which is frustrating.

I have not seen any mention of Acton freight yard yet - that's on a long term lease to DB cargo too, and is very busy.

The link is still working here Available Property Thinking about it, the clue is on the first page as the brochure on lists property available for renting/leasing rather than an inventory of the property and land the company owns and is currently in use.

 

[Oxfordblues]

When EWS moved to Doncaster they advertised for replacement staff; one offer was 'Graduate with good language skills, salary rising to £10,500'. These were the replacements. To explain repeatedly to a new member of staff the difference between a container and an air-braked van became tiresome.

In my time at Railtrack Swindon I had to deal with the person at EWS Doncaster in charge of South Wales coal traffic who had been recruited "off the street". He had never been to South Wales, had never been down a pit and couldn't even pronounce Cwmgwrach!

 

[The Planner]

I am slightly surprised that this part of Bescot was never utilised more by DB ajd maybe perhaps with a new buyer. Amalgamate all of Totons and Crewe and perhaps office functions (is that still Doncaster) maintenance in one location that is central to the country, good rail access and also is easy to re-electrify.

That doesn't always end well, experienced people don't always want to move and you end up taking a few years to recover.