New freight yard in Cannock chase

[CdBrux]

I don't think there is already a thread for this:

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ad-approved-for-west-midlands-freight-company

A new £18m railhead has been given the go-ahead connecting a freight firm to the Chase Line in the West Midlands.

Freight company Pentalver are to create a new road-rail interchange facility. The project includes new railway sidings, acoustic fencing and two rail-mounted gantry cranes.

The company is based north of Birmingham, between Landywood and Cannock stations, on a site where there was a previous railhead that fell into disuse.

The project will create 50 jobs and is designed to significantly decrease the number of HGVs using the road network. Approval for the plan came from Cannock Chase Council.

Pentalver managing director Chris Lawrenson told the Express & Star newspaper that if the rail plan had not been approved, he would have been forced to move the business elsewhere.

He said: “We’ve got to keep pace. There is a mega trend for switching from road to rail. This decision is right for Cannock and for the retail industry.

“Although there will not be a fall in the number of movements in and out of the site, this will cut down on 16 million road miles, particularly along the A5 and the M6.”

The company plans to run up to six trains a day directly to and from south coast ports, cutting down on ‘empty’ trips to rail depots to pick up containers

 

[thecrofter]

Lead in already in place.

 

[The Planner]

Mid Cannock Jn, was all sorted as part of Walsall Rugeley re-signalling.

 

[Andyjs247]

When I read the thread title I had visions of a freight yard on Cannock Chase ie in the forest. How an earth would they get planning permission for that? But I see that it is elsewhere within the council district of the same name; which makes more sense being close to the A5/M6 Toll.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I think there is a good chance that this freight terminal will see no freight traffic what so ever, especially if other brand new freight terminals are anything to go by such as the one at Castle Donington. Or for that matter the one at Tinsley which is used for aggregate traffic and nothing else. The only reason they have a rail link is to get funding from the Government.

 

[59CosG95]

I think there is a good chance that this freight terminal will see no freight traffic what so ever, especially if other brand new freight terminals are anything to go by such as the one at Castle Donington. Or for that matter the one at Tinsley which is used for aggregate traffic and nothing else. The only reason they have a rail link is to get funding from the Government.

Wasn't aware that Castle Donington had a freight yard-might make for some good pre/post Download Festival snapping!

 

[dysonsphere]

I think there is a good chance that this freight terminal will see no freight traffic what so ever, especially if other brand new freight terminals are anything to go by such as the one at Castle Donington. Or for that matter the one at Tinsley which is used for aggregate traffic and nothing else. The only reason they have a rail link is to get funding from the Government.

Out of intreast how much does the point and associated signalling cost the delvolpers or does the goverment pick up the bill

 

[matt]

Wasn't aware that Castle Donington had a freight yard-might make for some good pre/post Download Festival snapping!

As RichmondCommu has pointed out it does have a freight yard but as yet nothing actually uses it.

 

[CdBrux]

I think there is a good chance that this freight terminal will see no freight traffic what so ever, especially if other brand new freight terminals are anything to go by such as the one at Castle Donington. Or for that matter the one at Tinsley which is used for aggregate traffic and nothing else. The only reason they have a rail link is to get funding from the Government.

A (non rail related) company I have worked for recieved a government (or a government agency) grant towards some additional manufacturing capacity we installed and jobs thus we created. When, three or four years later, we had to cut back capacity & hence jobs at that factory due to some loss of business we had to repay at least part of the grant.

Is any similar thing in operation for such freight terminal fundings they may get from the government so that they are repayable if certain conditions are not met? I can accept it's probably not so easy as there is presumably some element of installing capacity ahead of solid demand and you don't want to discourage such things.

In this particular case the article does state they intend on running 6 trains a day so it seems it will be in use from the start.

 

[The Planner]

Don't be fooled into thinking this is a new idea for this terminal, it has been knocking about for years trying to get off the ground and has never got far.

 

[edwin_m]

The only reason they have a rail link is to get funding from the Government.

Do you have any evidence for that? As I understand it a freight terminal is a commercial venture and grants are now targeted on the use of rail freight rather than the provision of facilities. The rail connection may help with planning permission, but (as I've posted before) this does at least mean it is available if needed in future. However I'd welcome any further information.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Do you have any evidence for that? As I understand it a freight terminal is a commercial venture and grants are now targeted on the use of rail freight rather than the provision of facilities. The rail connection may help with planning permission, but (as I've posted before) this does at least mean it is available if needed in future. However I'd welcome any further information.

Well perhaps it is planning permission in which case I appreciate the correction but never the less it is no more than a means to an end. They are not forced to make use of the facilities and there is nothing to suggest that it will be any more successful than other brand new facilities that have seen little if any traffic and are now not in use at all. On the face of it rail connected freight terminals are a good thing but I think we would be foolish to start getting our hopes up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In this particular case the article does state they intend on running 6 trains a day so it seems it will be in use from the start.

I think that statement is about as reliable as my wife saying she will only buy one dress this summer as she happily paraded up and down our living room at the start of May. I suspect that they have no intention of running one train a day let alone six! I would be interested to know whether even the nearby Lawley Street container terminal receives that many trains a day.

 

[edwin_m]

Well perhaps it is planning permission in which case I appreciate the correction but never the less it is no more than a means to an end. They are not forced to make use of the facilities and there is nothing to suggest that it will be any more successful than other brand new facilities that have seen little if any traffic and are now not in use at all. On the face of it rail connected freight terminals are a good thing but I think we would be foolish to start getting our hopes up.

So would you be completely indifferent to whether a new freight terminal is built next to a railway or not?

 

[CdBrux]

I suspect that they have no intention of running one train a day let alone six!

Whom, if anyone, do you believe?

 

[class 9]

Do you have any evidence for that? As I understand it a freight terminal is a commercial venture and grants are now targeted on the use of rail freight rather than the provision of facilities. The rail connection may help with planning permission, but (as I've posted before) this does at least mean it is available if needed in future. However I'd welcome any further information.

This is correct, there used to be freight facilities grants, which were done away with in England a few years ago.
The grants available now I believe are called 'modal shift' grants that are only payable if the containers actually move by rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Often proposals for brand new developments will propose the use of rail to appease planners only to see no railfreight but this is a proposal to connect an existing site that has been there since 2007 and the connection to the mainline is still there.
Why would you invest all that money and then not use it? And it's the company themselves planning this not fly by night developers!

 

[richieb1971]

6 trains a day is a tall order. I had to laugh when someone said Felixstowe is set for 60 trains a day. If you had that many the network would be gridlocked.

 

[ac6000cw]

6 trains a day is a tall order. I had to laugh when someone said Felixstowe is set for 60 trains a day. If you had that many the network would be gridlocked.

It is close to 60 on the busiest days over 24 hours, counting both directions (it's a single-track line to Felixstowe). Then add the passenger trains to the mix...(1 tph in each direction).

 

[richieb1971]

Really, from what I've seen it barely reaches 20-30.

 

[the sniper]

I think there is a good chance that this freight terminal will see no freight traffic what so ever, especially if other brand new freight terminals are anything to go by such as the one at Castle Donington. Or for that matter the one at Tinsley which is used for aggregate traffic and nothing else. The only reason they have a rail link is to get funding from the Government.

I don't believe this was the case with Castle Donington or Tinsley, but this site in Cannock is a functioning container operation and always looks to be fairly busy.

I understand the scepticism, but this may be a different set up.

This is where the place is: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6789571,-2.0212274,689m/

 

[The Planner]

6 trains a day is a tall order. I had to laugh when someone said Felixstowe is set for 60 trains a day. If you had that many the network would be gridlocked.

6tpd is nothing, its a train every 4 hours which would sound right for one in, unloads/loads and out again on a site that size.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

From Cannock Chase District council website:

Green light for road-rail interchange project

Published on Tuesday 15th July 2014

A project that is set to boost the District’s connectivity and reduce the number of HGVs on the road network has been approved by the Government.


The Government announced on 7th July that the Greater Birmingham & Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership (GBSLEP) is to receive £357.3 million from the Local Growth Fund to help provide up to 19,000 jobs as part of its Growth Deal.


The Growth Deal has seen £1.3 million of funding approved for the Chase Line and Mid-Cannock container depot. The project will create a new road-rail interchange facility with rail sidings and container handling cranes on the Chase Line.

The project will create 50 jobs and is designed to significantly decrease the number of HGVs using the strategic road network while increasing the inward investment offer for export-based industries. Cannock Chase Council is working with Pentalver Cannock Ltd, part of one of the UK's largest container depot and transport companies, on the project....

...Pentalver managing director Chris Lawrenson added: "Pentalver is very committed to adding value to our customers' supply chain in the West Midlands and Staffordshire area, as well as investing in the local region and contributing to C02 reduction. This project is of strategic importance to the development and sustainability of the region's economy."

Andy Street, GBSLEP Chair, said: "This Growth Deal is a clear vote of confidence in the economic renaissance of Greater Birmingham and a sign that Government has faith in our ability to deliver. We have been able to secure funding for much needed projects - a carefully chosen mix of shovel-ready schemes we can kick on with almost immediately and support for longer-term projects."

From the Pentalver Website:

Pentalver Transport began operations in 1980 in Southampton, offering road haulage services to shipping lines using the Port of Southampton. Since that time, the company has expanded and diversified and is now widely regarded as the leading provider of container-related activities in the UK. Pentalver, now after 30 years of business within this industry has a fantastic insight into logistical requirements of the 21st century. Since 1995 we have been part of the AP Moeller-Maersk group.

The site looks a bit cramped to receive six full trainloads per day, perhaps they mean 6 movements per day i.e. three in and three out. Or perhaps six trip movements from somewhere nearby, such as Bescot or Lawley Street?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think there is a good chance that this freight terminal will see no freight traffic what so ever, especially if other brand new freight terminals are anything to go by such as the one at Castle Donington. Or for that matter the one at Tinsley which is used for aggregate traffic and nothing else. The only reason they have a rail link is to get funding from the Government.

Agecroft in Manchester for example. Simple single siding installed, never saw a revenue earning train, siding now removed.

 

[RichmondCommu]

So would you be completely indifferent to whether a new freight terminal is built next to a railway or not?

Yes I would be completely indifferent until we start to see some of these brand new freight terminals being served on a regular basis by freight trains. It seems to me that at the moment none of the companies using these terminals have any intention of using rail freight.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whom, if anyone, do you believe?

My parents, other than that some people most of the time.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes I would be completely indifferent until we start to see some of these brand new freight terminals being served on a regular basis by freight trains. It seems to me that at the moment none of the companies using these terminals have any intention of using rail freight.

But if freight terminals are built remote from railways there is a risk that the demand for freight terminals will be fully satisfied, so there won't be a case to build more alongside railways in future. This would make it much more difficult to move traffic to rail later, if and when it becomes economic to do so.

Why can't some people get that this is a long term game? While the public sector can require a rail connection as a condition of planning permission they can't compel it to be used (except in very limited circumstances to do with construction traffic for a particular project). If they tried to, the terminal developers would simply walk away and find a site in a nearby authority without such restrictions.

One of the main complaints from rail freight operators is the lack of a network of connected terminals - and a journey has two ends, so connected terminals must be available near the start and finish of each potential rail freight flow.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Wasn't aware that Castle Donington had a freight yard-might make for some good pre/post Download Festival snapping!

it is not helpeed by M+S much vaunted NDC/EDC not progressing to plan due to 'issues' with the automated warehousing solution ....

i rmember being told they (M+S) would be 'out' of 3pl usage by mid 2014 ... firends who work for onthe 3pls used by M+S were telling me that the 3PL in question has just taken on a second unit to house the business they got to 'replace' M+S ...

however some sites in their 3pl network have been closed or downgraded ...