Freight Electrification for North Scrapped

[matacaster]

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...orth-s-freight-network-are-scrapped-1-9481108

Crucial plans to massively upgrade rail links for freight traffic across the North of England are set to be abandoned, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have let freight bosses know that they will only put forward plans to electrify the route between Leeds and Manchester for passenger trains, with plans to apply the same improvements to freight trains set to be scrapped for the foreseeable future.

The recommendation – given by the DfT’s internal Board Investment and Commercial Committee to Transport Secretary Chris Grayling – comes after more than two years of campaigning by the freight industry.

It hoped to secure an upgrade in infrastructure for the transportation of goods between the East and West of the country, allowing for the faster and greener movement of goods and the alleviation of congestion on the M62.

The campaign was based on extensive computer modelling and long-range projections....

 

[Aictos]

A load of twaddle from the DfT, why can't they have provision for freight from Day 1 as it just means more expense further down the line.

Mind you, the DfT must have a magical money tree with money being no object as they enjoy their caveman stance to infrastruture projects!

 

[DarloRich]

what upgrades have been scrapped? Where is this northern freight network? What provision has been removed?

 

[DarloRich]

A load of twaddle from the DfT, why can't they have provision for freight from Day 1 as it just means more expense further down the line.

Mind you, the DfT must have a magical money tree with money being no object as they enjoy their caveman stance to infrastruture projects!

what on earth are you talking about? it is precisely because there is no magic money tree that decisions have to be made about affordability, value for money and priorities. That is the real world.

 

[Aictos]

what on earth are you talking about? it is precisely because there is no magic money tree that decisions have to be made about affordability, value for money and priorities. That is the real world.

Fact is there WAS a business case to allow for freight to use it from day 1 and Fact this just means that there be MORE expense further down the line that COULD have been avoided.

This isn't about value for money and priorities, its about doing half a job then leaving even more work for the next administration to deal with a few years down the line.

If they want value for money they would scrap Trident, cut down on expenses claimed by public servants ie MPs and reform bloated public bodies.

 

[martin2345uk]

I don't understand... can't freight trains use the same electrified lines that the passenger trains will use?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I think all it means is that wires will not be continuous between Leeds and Manchester, and that NR/DfT has deleted any idea of freight loops on the way.
Freight locos have no real bi-mode capability (yet), and the TOCs are pretty leery about electric freight anyway (see all the 66s running the length of the WCML).
There was never a plan to electrify to the ports, except possibly at Liverpool.
Even if Leeds-Manchester were wired, the freight TOCs would still mostly run via Wakefield and L&Y routes, which won't be wired.

 

[Chris 76]

Even if Leeds-Manchester were wired, the freight TOCs would still mostly run via Wakefield and L&Y routes, which won't be wired.

Yes, and there are no plans to electrify the routes to East Coast ports, Teesside, Hull, Immingham, so very few transpennine freight flows suitable for electric traction.
As usual with local media reports, this raises more questions than it answers. You could infer that DfT will propose complete Leeds to Manchester electrification, which would be great except that so far DfT has carefully played down this expectation, and some have suggested that Huddersfield-Stalybridge will be unwired (see Transpennine upgrade thread).

 

[DarloRich]

Fact is there WAS a business case to allow for freight to use it from day 1 and Fact this just means that there be MORE expense further down the line that COULD have been avoided.

This isn't about value for money and priorities, its about doing half a job then leaving even more work for the next administration to deal with a few years down the line.

If they want value for money they would scrap Trident, cut down on expenses claimed by public servants ie MPs and reform bloated public bodies.

It is absolutely about value for money and deliverability to budget. A business case is a live document. It isnt set in stone. It can change. They often do. if my project costs £10 and only have £7.50 something has to go. I suggest the sensible thing to do is start with the non core items. I am more concerned about core items getting delivered.

The rest of your statement is making you look silly.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Yes we are being prepped for a Trans Pennine announcement of partial electrification. York to Leeds and Huddersfield and Leeds to Selby and Man Vic to Stalybridge only. The big bit in the middle ain’t going to happen.

 

[Chris 76]

Man Vic to Stalybridge only

what about Guide Bridge-Stalybridge?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

what about Guide Bridge-Stalybridge?

That is a bit of infill which sure makes sense to me but I am starting to get very despondent indeed and do not hold out much hope.

 

[Aictos]

Yes we are being prepped for a Trans Pennine announcement of partial electrification. York to Leeds and Huddersfield and Leeds to Selby and Man Vic to Stalybridge only. The big bit in the middle ain’t going to happen.

Which is daft but then again what can we expect from Grayling and Co...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Which is daft but then again what can we expect from Grayling and Co...

The money for it was lost on the GW project (and others).

 

[Aictos]

The money for it was lost on the GW project (and others).

Which is poor management to let costs balloon so much it affects other projects.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Which is daft but then again what can we expect from Grayling and Co...

The money for it was lost on the GW project (and others).

Which is poor management to let costs balloon so much it affects other projects.

I totally understand that there is a limited pot of money and I certainly don't want to start another " why does the north get screwed" debate, but it does seem unfair that one part of the country suffers because of another parts overspend. I say bring on rail devolution quicker please.

 

[DarloRich]

The money for it was lost on the GW project (and others).

Which is poor management to let costs balloon so much it affects other projects.

But is this not a CP6 project to be funded out of the discreet DfT held pot for enhancement works that does not form part of the c.£35bn awarded to NR as part of it's CP6 settlement?

I totally understand that there is a limited pot of money and I certainly don't want to start another " why does the north get screwed" debate, but it does seem unfair that one part of the country suffers because of another parts overspend. I say bring on rail devolution quicker please.

where is the money going to come form for devolved rail? I doubt the local authorities of the north have the funds to pay for the enhancement works. I think cutting parts of the electrification scheme are bonkers frankly!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I think cutting parts of the electrification scheme are bonkers frankly!

So do I - but I live in the real world and , quite frankly, until it is confirmed in Parliament by the SoS it is still speculation on our part and the above quoted newspaper. But if the past is anything to go by we are being prepped for it.

 

[furnessvale]

Far more importantly, it is looking like gauge enhancement for larger containers has gone in the same bin.

 

[DarloRich]

So do I - but I live in the real world and , quite frankly, until it is confirmed in Parliament by the SoS it is still speculation on our part and the above quoted newspaper. But if the past is anything to go by we are being prepped for it.

Agreed. I hope this is simply paring back the scope to the essential items only to make the budget stretch

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I hope but as I said above absolute minimum should be Leeds to Selby and York- Huddersfield and then Miles Platting area to Stalybridge (even more ideally to Heyrod grid feeder.)

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

One thing that appears to be being forgotten here is the actual viability of trans-Pennine freight by rail. Like it or not there is no appetite for subsidising any form of freight movement (apart from nuclear traffic) regardless of mode used. As such rail freight movements have to generate profit for their operators. One thing that has become obvious in recent decades is that profitable railfreight requires volume of both tonnage and distance. In general terms this tends to mean full trainloads travelling distances of at least 120-150 miles though some flows can be viable over shorter distances. But the width of the north of the country is mostly less than the profitable distance so the amount of genuinely profitable railfreight flows is rather small and highly unlikely to justify any significant expenditure on facilitating it.

It's all very well quoting the situations at Rotterdam-Europort or Antwerp but the tonnages and distances involved in the associated rail hauls tend to be several multiples of what is even possible in this country. Geographically speaking we are a relatively small country so we will not see the volume of freight that exists across the European mainland. And of course the largest growth in general freight movements is in multi-drop distribution, which rail has zero chance of competing with, and its smaller but rapidly growing cousin namely internet generated parcel deliveries. Such railfreight as can operate profitably in this country is always going to be a mere sideshow compared to the needs of the passenger network.

 

[deltic]

Given Network Rail costs continue to increase expect further descoping as the project develops.

 

[jayah]

Article copied from Yorkshire Post Today

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...orth-s-freight-network-are-scrapped-1-9481108

EXCLUSIVE: Anger as plans to electrify north’s freight network are scrapped

Crucial plans to massively upgrade rail links for freight traffic across the North of England are set to be abandoned, The Yorkshire Post can reveal.

Officials at the Department for Transport (DfT) have let freight bosses know that they will only put forward plans to electrify the route between Leeds and Manchester for passenger trains, with plans to apply the same improvements to freight trains set to be scrapped for the foreseeable future.


The recommendation – given by the DfT’s internal Board Investment and Commercial Committee to Transport Secretary Chris Grayling – comes after more than two years of campaigning by the freight industry.


It hoped to secure an upgrade in infrastructure for the transportation of goods between the East and West of the country, allowing for the faster and greener movement of goods and the alleviation of congestion on the M62.


The campaign was based on extensive computer modelling and long-range projections which all show that the volume of goods to be transported around the North of England is set to vastly increase in the coming years.

But now officials have decided that the electrification scheme will be progressed over the next five years without any provision being built in for freight.

Instead, ‘passive provision’ will be made for freight were funds to become available at an unspecified later date.

Freight bosses say they have been left “disappointed and dissatisfied” after DfT officials elected not to back the upgrade.



Mike Hogg, North of England representative for the Rail Freight Group, told The Yorkshire Post: “We are very disappointed and dissatisfied with the recommendation. We cannot see the rationale. With our members, we put together a 20-30 year traffic projection and passed this to the DfT last May.

“We have a lot of confidence in the market and that traffic will run to the quantity we project. It now looks like all of that is going to have to go onto the M62.”

We are still relying on a Victorian infrastructure.
Mike Hogg, Rail Freight Group
Mr Hogg said the North’s economy was being constrained by inadequate rail freight infrastructure when compared to neighbouring countries.

“When you go to Rotterdam and Antwerp, close to the docks there are an abundance of trains ready to transport goods all across Europe,” he said.

“When you get to the British side it is the road and nothing else – and the reason for that is the lack of capacity and the lack of capability. We are still relying on a Victorian infrastructure.”
The move to shelve the upgrade was branded “another broken promise on transport from this Government”, by Shadow Transport Secretary Andy McDonald

“It’s hugely disappointing to hear that the Department for Transport has downgraded the planned investment on the Transpennine route so that there is no new provision for freight,” he said.

“This is short-sighted cost cutting. Getting more freight onto rail is critical to boosting the economy of the north of England by improving logistics and distribution networks across the region and increasing connectivity with the ports.”

A DfT spokeswoman last night said rail freight played “a vital role” but did not commit to that upgrade.

“The Transpennine Route Upgrade is the biggest planned investment project in the UK on our existing railway,” she said. “Further upgrades will be considered once we have established what will be delivered first.”

She added that the DfT would focus first on “those upgrades which will lead to the biggest improvements for passengers”.

If freight can't work on Bi-Mode electrification with networks containing so many entry and exit points must be a very big ask. Generally the number of freight paths e.g. Transpennine is a tiny fraction of the passenger trains and loops facilitating a stop start operation against a 10 minute passenger frequency would do more harm than good.

Freight flows are also volatile, it is not so many years ago the S&C was being touted for a major upgrade and now the coal traffic has switched to different ports or completely ceased.

 

[moggie]

Keep up at the back. Of course Rail freight hauliers would like the option of using electric traction for a major part, if not the full journey. But the real issue for Freight is that this whole route upgrade costing (allegedly) £3Bn will not now include the vital gauge clearance and route capacity enhancements originally promised which would enable Rail to offer Port to Terminal transport from both the East and West coast. There is no doubt that where the network provides capability, rail freight hauliers see profitable business opportunity as do their clients. But they can't exploit these opportunities while the inadequate rail infrastructure severely constrains both paths and loading. Yet, it's long term government policy to see a transfer of freight to rail form road, both for the obvious environmental benefits as well as reducing road congestion.
Talk about money is a red herring. There will be no struggle to fund the neighbouring Pennine Road Tunnel and the miles of extra road capacity, thus further undermining rail. This is naked politics at work and will only change once we rid this industry of the cretin at the top for someone who believes in railway. All Grayling has ever achieved since taking office at the DfT is failure. Failure of confidence, failure of capability, failure of setting out a positive future and failure of service. His only achievement is to totally undermine all that he presides over.

 

[jayah]

Keep up at the back. Of course Rail freight hauliers would like the option of using electric traction for a major part, if not the full journey. But the real issue for Freight is that this whole route upgrade costing (allegedly) £3Bn will not now include the vital gauge clearance and route capacity enhancements originally promised which would enable Rail to offer Port to Terminal transport from both the East and West coast. There is no doubt that where the network provides capability, rail freight hauliers see profitable business opportunity as do their clients. But they can't exploit these opportunities while the inadequate rail infrastructure severely constrains both paths and loading. Yet, it's long term government policy to see a transfer of freight to rail form road, both for the obvious environmental benefits as well as reducing road congestion.
Talk about money is a red herring. There will be no struggle to fund the neighbouring Pennine Road Tunnel and the miles of extra road capacity, thus further undermining rail. This is naked politics at work and will only change once we rid this industry of the cretin at the top for someone who believes in railway. All Grayling has ever achieved since taking office at the DfT is failure. Failure of confidence, failure of capability, failure of setting out a positive future and failure of service. His only achievement is to totally undermine all that he presides over.

Where is your evidence?

Railfreight under all companies operates massive under wires diesel haulage and since privatisation have done close to zero on either pushing for electrification or developing traction in the Bi-Mode sphere.

 

[furnessvale]

. Yet, it's long term government policy to see a transfer of freight to rail form road, both for the obvious environmental benefits as well as reducing road congestion.

Anything said in that direction by politicians of whatever party, is pure theatre.

Every year track access charges paid by railfreight companies rise by inflation or even inflation plus.

Every year road access charges (excise duties) paid by road haulage companies are frozen. Inflation means these charges are effectively reduced annually.

 

[swt_passenger]

Hasn’t it been said before that there’s a minimum distance before railfreight becomes economic, and the Transpennine route just isn’t long enough?

 

[furnessvale]

Hasn’t it been said before that there’s a minimum distance before railfreight becomes economic, and the Transpennine route just isn’t long enough?

It may have been said but it isn't necessarily true.

For example, there are a number of freight trains daily from Manchester to Runcorn which is a distance well below the oft quoted 150 miles or whatever. There are other such examples.

 

[mr_jrt]

If my project costs £10 and only have £7.50 something has to go. I suggest the sensible thing to do is start with the non core items.

Nonsense. The government has the authority to create as much new money as it likes if it so chooses. All things in the wish list could be paid for tomorrow if the will was there, the price we all would pay would be increased prices due to inflation, which is why you don't do it willy-nilly. If there is sufficient return on the investment then it would be foolish not to do so if possible, all other factors considered. Pretending the country's finances are anything remotely like managing the budget of a household or business is extremely disingenuous technique used to great effect by certain politicians over the years.