Prioritised Gauge Enhancements Debate

[Legolash2o]

Most freight traffic goes in a north-south direction which creates congestion on the ECML and WCML, resulting in the need for HS2. This should not be a long term solution and other alternatives are required. Dover, Felixstowe and Southampton can only handle so much traffic so more resilience is needed; especially with Brexit.

The aim is look at the map and plan gauge clearances that either you or I would prioritise for strategic purposes and resilience, if we had the chance; taking into consideration that the majority of freight is now becoming high-cube and the West Coast Mainline is congested.

So below is a map of routes that can support high-cube containers (blue being W10-12 and orange being W8-9 with low height wagons). Highlighted in thick black and grey is the routes I would chose to upgrade and the reasons below.

A: Calder Valley
Current: W7
Proposed: W12
Priority: High

The M62 is heavily congested with many 45' high-cube containers leaving at Hull port alone. The line isn't as heavy as the Huddersfield line so there should be capacity to move freight from the M62 onto rail from both sides of the Transpennine (Liverpool/Manchester to Hull, Goole or Immingham).

This could also take rail freight from Dover to Manchester/Liverpool, freeing up capacity on the WCML and around London.

B: Hope Valley
Current: W7 (with restictions)
Proposed: W12
Priority: Medium

Same reasons as option 'A'. Alternatively, re-open the Woodhead Line. Good diversionary route.

C: Hull Port to Selby/Doncaster (via Goole)
Current: W8
Proposed: W10 minimum
Priority: Low

As above, many trucks with 45' high-cube containers leave the port each and every day. Stacks of containers are at the port which has rail capability. The aim of this upgrade would be to reduce the often heavily congested A63 and reduce traffic in and around Hull. This would become more important if upgrade 'B' (above) as implemented.


D and E: Felixstowe to Ipwich and Peterborough to Syston/Nuneaton
Current: W10
Proposed: W12 & 750m+ train length.
Priority: High

The line does support high-cube containers but it does not support W9 for swapbodies/european containers. Freight can sometimes go south via London and then back north on the WCML. Data suggests that the only major differences is that the route they chose supports 750m+ trains and more W9 support.

This would decrease the required time taken to get to Manchester area, reduce congestion around London and ease capacity on the WCML.

What are your thoughts? Which would you choose? If anyone wants a fresh map so they can draw their own lines and reasoning, let me know.

 

[30907]

D/E makes good sense (along with electrification, of course).

I am much less convinced about serving Hull and Liverpool as I suspect the flows are too diverse (and therefore individual volumes too small) to be easily transferable to rail. However, I am open to correction on this.
(Actually, I wonder if the biggest flow from Hull is landbridge to Holyhead, in which case that's another route to enhance - it's just an impression from driving the M62 occasionally).

Calder Valley is preferable to Hope Valley as it's easier to get through the North of Manchester than the South, and Copy Pit would be even better in terms of tunnelling but for the gradients.

 

[edwin_m]

I am much less convinced about serving Hull and Liverpool as I suspect the flows are too diverse (and therefore individual volumes too small) to be easily transferable to rail. However, I am open to correction on this.
(Actually, I wonder if the biggest flow from Hull is landbridge to Holyhead, in which case that's another route to enhance - it's just an impression from driving the M62 occasionally).

Brexit may throw a spanner into landbridge options, as depending what deal we get (or don't) the EU may not be keen on transit through a non-EU country. I believe Ireland has already increased its ferry links directly to the continent. If you believe in a trade deal with the USA (which I don't) then it might boost Liverpool as a west-facing port - although this might depend on enough traffic being generated for the shipping companies to divert a long way off their usual routes.

The map illustrates that Calder Valley and Hope Valley are to some extent alternatives to each other. I'd prioritise Calder Valley on several grounds:

• One destination from Liverpool that might be far enough away for rail to make sense is north east England, more easily reached via Calder Valley (potentially via Ormskirk, Preston and Copy Pit if there are no options through Manchester).
• Hope Valley drops trains into some lines round Sheffield that are pretty busy now and will be worse with HS2 services. Calder Valley has a relatively uncongested onward route via Wakefield Kirkgate.
• Although Hope Valley links through via Northwich, there are no obvious container destinations via Chester (unless landbridge really takes off) and getting to Liverpool involves crossing a fast section of the WCML.
  
• Hope Valley has more non-stop passenger services as well as a lot of heavy freight, so capacity is likely to be more difficult. ​
• Derby-Crewe is probably better than Hope Valley for freight access between NW England and the West Midlands, with a relatively light passenger service and feeding into existing gauge-enhanced routes.

 

[Legolash2o]

Hull can be very busy with large amounts of containers on road, it's more about giving the option to use freight, as at the moment they are essentially forced to road. Not really sure where the road hauliers are going though. Quite a few freight operators I've spoken to indicate they mostly use high-cube and don't use low-liner wagons. When Southampton had a gauge increase, high-cube containers started to go through it. Sometimes you have to build it first, which isn't a good business case but the same happened with the internet from dial-up to ADSL to fibre. It doesn't need to be full W12 as W10 would be good enough.

I agree that Calder should definitely be done first. It appears to the be easiest in terms of tunnels but also doesn't contain that much passenger traffic. Hope valley, I would consider the alternative.

The map with the green arrows below show passenger movements, whereas the yellow shows freight only movements. If you overlay them both, the WCML line is huge showing the need for HS2. Having an east-west corridor as well as everything coming from the south, should ease up some of the capacity on the WCML. Also note the yellow line going from Felixstowe to London, then back up north again; showing why D and E are needed.

There's also a thicker yellow line from Immingham to Doncaster, to Lichfield(?) and then back north again on the WCML which is another solution to release some capacity on the WCML. It's a W12 route avoiding the Pennines.

If I had to prioritise my priorities, it would be to build A,D and E.

D/E makes good sense (along with electrification, of course).

Is it used a lot by passenger services?

Freight only.


Passenger only

 

[The Planner]

Euxton to Castlefield , East West should be W10 as a given anyway as part of the works.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Could anyone advise how many containers pass through Hull these days? By way of a starter comparison Felixstowe handles over 4,000,000TEU per year (only a minority of which are transferred to or from rail).
The 45’ units mentioned usually have rather poor loadability for rail, with wagon and train lengths often optimised for 20’ and 40’ units.

 

[Legolash2o]

Could anyone advise how many containers pass through Hull these days? By way of a starter comparison Felixstowe handles over 4,000,000TEU per year (only a minority of which are transferred to or from rail).
The 45’ units mentioned usually have rather poor loadability for rail, with wagon and train lengths often optimised for 20’ and 40’ units.

I haven't counted to be honest. There's also quite a few 40' as well, next time I walk home I will walk passed the lorry yards (live near two) and make proper not of the container types. With Immingham now being W12, Hull doesn't need to be W12 as well. I have a list of interventions and with the recent re-signalling scheme, I'm hoping it wont cost much.

Anyways, Hull would be a lower priority. If Calder gets completed and freight traffic increases significantly east-west, then Hull can be deemed justified. I'll update the initial post with priorities.

 

[Ken H]

Brexit may throw a spanner into landbridge options, as depending what deal we get (or don't) the EU may not be keen on transit through a non-EU country. .

There are longstanding international treaties about sealed containers transiting a country not being subject to customs on entry and exit, providing the customs seal is unbroken.

for road transport, there is the TIR arrangements.

So a container arriving at hull would be sealed by customs, would travel to Holyhead. If the seal is intact it can leave for Ireland with no tariffs payable.

Similar arrangements would be valid for a container arriving at Rotterdam/Antwerp bound for the UK.

I doubt the EU will be willing to break an international treaty.

 

[edwin_m]

I doubt the EU will be willing to break an international treaty.

Only if Britain did first, which considering the behavior of our government is entirely possible.

There's also the risk of delays at both ports due to being stuck behind traffic that does require customs clearance.

 

[Alfie1014]

If I had to prioritise my priorities, it would be to build A,D and E.


Is it used a lot by passenger services?

Freight only.
View attachment 68777

Passenger only
View attachment 68778

If I had to prioritise my priorities, it would be to build A,D and E.


Is it used a lot by passenger services?

Freight only.
View attachment 68777

Passenger only
View attachment 68778

Those maps are interesting, where do they come from, what are the metrics used? On closer inspection there seem to be some irregularities? Specifically on the GEML the traffic doesn’t seem to logically build up closer to London but varies up and down. Specifically it appears to be most dense between Colchester and Marks Tey and not south of Chelmsford as one would expect! Indeed if the spots are stations there appear to be 4 extra ones between Col and Marks Tey?

 

[JKF]

Would there be any benefit in upgrading the Leeds-Bradford-Halifax line to tie into upgraded Calder valley route? It would need the section from Laisterdyke that bypasses Interchange putting back. Think there is capacity on that route.

 

[Legolash2o]

It's just a few maps that I've made myself. I have quite a few interactive track level detail showing infrastructure capability such as electrification, gauging, trailing weights, lengths, route availibily.

The data came from the December to May 2019 timetable and the amount of services and mapped at the tiplocs. At the time I didn't have all the tiplocs mapped which is why there are some gaps. Some schedules had optional tiplocs mapped which is probably why it appears 4 extra stations in that location. On my phone so can't check.

 

[Legolash2o]

Would there be any benefit in upgrading the Leeds-Bradford-Halifax line to tie into upgraded Calder valley route? It would need the section from Laisterdyke that bypasses Interchange putting back. Think there is capacity on that route.

If it's the line I'm thinking of, it may only be useful if 'C' was upgraded as well.

 

[HSTEd]

There's also the risk of delays at both ports due to being stuck behind traffic that does require customs clearance.

Political considerations, especially avoiding the appearance of enormous queues, will lead to traffic that is bonded being prioritised, simply to get it out of the docks and away.

Perhaps someone could develop a business case for a Calais to Holyhead sealed-train freight service, using pocket wagons so the containers physically can't be opened on route.

Would need a loco change though..... (Class 92 to diesel at Crewe)

 

[Tobbes]

D & E are very sensible, and ideally I'd like to get all non-London bound frieght off GEML south of Ipswich. As well as guage enhancement (and, ideally, electrification) you'll need to redouble Haughley Junction, double the line through Soham, sort out Ely North Junction, and sundry other things that @Bald Rick will add to the list. Doubling the single-lead junction at Westerfield and more of the track to Felixstowe wouldn't hurt, either.

 

[Legolash2o]

D & E are very sensible, and ideally I'd like to get all non-London bound frieght off GEML south of Ipswich. As well as guage enhancement (and, ideally, electrification) you'll need to redouble Haughley Junction, double the line through Soham, sort out Ely North Junction, and sundry other things that @Bald Rick will add to the list. Doubling the single-lead junction at Westerfield and more of the track to Felixstowe wouldn't hurt, either.

Fly over/under junction at Ely Dock Jn?

Political considerations, especially avoiding the appearance of enormous queues, will lead to traffic that is bonded being prioritised, simply to get it out of the docks and away.

Perhaps someone could develop a business case for a Calais to Holyhead sealed-train freight service, using pocket wagons so the containers physically can't be opened on route.

Would need a loco change though..... (Class 92 to diesel at Crewe)

Why a class 92? Why not a class 60? (Just curious). A sealed service from Immingham to Holyhead would also be good; when taking into consideration capacity issues on the WCML.

 

[30907]

Would there be any benefit in upgrading the Leeds-Bradford-Halifax line to tie into upgraded Calder valley route? It would need the section from Laisterdyke that bypasses Interchange putting back. Think there is capacity on that route.

You don't want the freight going near Leeds unless it's unavoidable - the Calder Valley route gets you to Hull, York and Stourton terminal and will certsinly have capacity once Mirfield is sorted out.

 

[Meerkat]

Political considerations, especially avoiding the appearance of enormous queues, will lead to traffic that is bonded being prioritised, simply to get it out of the docks and away.

Perhaps someone could develop a business case for a Calais to Holyhead sealed-train freight service, using pocket wagons so the containers physically can't be opened on route.

Would need a loco change though..... (Class 92 to diesel at Crewe)

Or it could work the other way. Politically iffy to be rushing EU-Eire traffic through whilst our own got stuck. And it could be used as leverage if the EU are awkward at the ports.

 

[HSTEd]

Fly over/under junction at Ely Dock Jn?


Why a class 92? Why not a class 60? (Just curious). A sealed service from Immingham to Holyhead would also be good; when taking into consideration capacity issues on the WCML.

Class 92 means the train can be loaded in Calais and avoid the material handling area at Folkestone entirely.

 

[Bald Rick]

The premise of this thread fundamentally misunderstands the basics of the logistics industry, and in particular deep sea containers.

The ships that come from the Far East and US will, usually, make one stop in this country. Generally these are at Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway because the south east quarter of the country is where most of the demand for such imported goods is. Of course some will dock at Liverpool / Hull etc, with boxes predominantly (but not exclusively) for ‘northern’ destinations.

Boxes usually need a run of 100-150miles minimum to make it worthwhile to put on a train vs using the roads. Hull to Manchester / Liverpool isn’t long enough. Alternatively - the reason only about 30% of boxes leaving Felixstowe are on a train is that most of the rest are heading to London and the South East.

 

[Legolash2o]

The premise of this thread fundamentally misunderstands the basics of the logistics industry, and in particular deep sea containers.

The ships that come from the Far East and US will, usually, make one stop in this country. Generally these are at Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway because the south east quarter of the country is where most of the demand for such imported goods is. Of course some will dock at Liverpool / Hull etc, with boxes predominantly (but not exclusively) for ‘northern’ destinations.

Boxes usually need a run of 100-150miles minimum to make it worthwhile to put on a train vs using the roads. Hull to Manchester / Liverpool isn’t long enough. Alternatively - the reason only about 30% of boxes leaving Felixstowe are on a train is that most of the rest are heading to London and the South East.

I have to for the most part disagree. Although, I understand that it takes a minimum mileage in order to make a profit from rail.

One could naively argue that they go to those ports because the rail infrastructure supports those; which in itself isn't a great argument but when Southampton was gauge cleared, it saw an increase of these containers being sent on rail via the port. Trains go around the Transpennine as that's where the infrastructure is cleared for those containers. Same around Scotland. Transport for the North showed us a presentation once that had a diagram matching mine that showed that all the heavy freight routes happen to also be W10/W12. The map above also shows a lot of freight leaving Felixstowe and London to then head up to the North-West.

The aim of this topic is to propose realistic routes to gauge clear to increase resilience and opportunity within the rail network. The south is already congested and running out of capacity, if something goes wrong on the key routes, it will then cause trouble for supply chains. With Brexit, the congestion could had been mitigated for example by having increase shipping services to Immingham or Liverpool and sending it east-west - if the infrastructure was ready. I say realistic as I would just love to build a GC gauge cleared route from Hull/Immingham to Liverpool and HS2; although I hear HS2 is going to be GB+ and not GC cleared, which is shame and short-sighted.

Relying on through ports and sending all matter of freight upwards is not a good thing in the long run. Sending thousands of trucks along the M62 is not great either as a single incident jams the whole thing up. So by upgrading Calder Valley for example, that would help both situations, ease capacity, reduce emissions, ease the driver shortage problem and so on.

Going back, I completely agree about the minimum distance for profit; it's fact, can't object with you on that one. However, price is not the only factor as at least reliability, resilience and emissions is a factor in supply chains.

 

[Legolash2o]

So here's an update taking into consideration the conversations above.

A: Calder Valley
Current: W7
Proposed: W12

The M62 is heavily congested with many 45' high-cube containers leaving at Hull port alone. The line isn't as heavy as the Huddersfield line so there should be capacity to move freight from the M62 onto rail from both sides of the Transpennine (Liverpool/Manchester to Hull, Goole or Immingham).

This could also take rail freight from Dover to Manchester/Liverpool, freeing up capacity on the WCML and around London.

B: Felixstowe to Ipwich and Peterborough to Syston/Nuneaton
Current: W10 (not W9)
Proposed: W12 & 750m+ train length.

The line does support high-cube containers but it does not support W9 for swapbodies/european containers. Freight can sometimes go south via London and then back north on the WCML. Data suggests that the only major differences is that the route they chose supports 750m+ trains and more W9 support.

This would decrease the required time taken to get to Manchester area, reduce congestion around London and ease capacity on the WCML.

A suggestion would be to re-double some sections of the track, allow 750m+ trains and a grade separated junction at Ely Dock Jn.

C: Syston to Sheet Stores Jn & D: North Stafford Jn to Stoke.
Current: W7
Proposed: W12

Take further traffic of the WCML.

 

[Dr Hoo]

It would be rather more convincing if there were some numbers of containers available for movement over the routes listed. Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton can deal with the current generation of >20,000TEU ocean-going container ships that also have ‘rotations’ calling at Le Havre, Rotterdam, Antwerp, etc. Places like Hull and Immingham can only handle smaller feeder vessels.
A large proportion of containers are going to major clusters of logistics hubs in the Midlands, Yorkshire and the North West and the current pattern of services deals with these fairly well. As ‘global’ flows, not generally moving containers between mainland Europe and the UK, Brexit is of secondary importance. The bulk of European unitised trade is not in containers, rather being via accompanied HGVs on short sea ferries and the Channel Tunnel lorry shuttles or unaccompanied trailers via a range of ferry routes. This traffic is not suitable for easy or cheap transfer to rail.

 

[Meerkat]

If only they had built that piggyback gauge Line from Germany to Manchester etc.....

 

[Legolash2o]

Trying to find some figures. It's interesting to see where rail freight go to/from Felixstowe and Immingham. Not sure which tiploc is best to use to show Southhampton.

 

[Dr Hoo]

But the (existing) Immingham rail flows are all bulk or products like steel. The chart gives no clue about the containers that all go by road.

 

[Legolash2o]

It's from Immingham port. I know, just thought I'd share. I'll look at HMRC figures and such for road

 

[tbtc]

I'd love the idea of removing freight from the WCML/ MML/ ECML, if it freed up sufficient paths to remove some of the urgency for HS2, but I just can't see it - we don't have predictable enough bulk freight flows - there are lots of disperate flows around the country. Maybe if you were building the railway from scratch you'd put a dedicated freight line from a port on one side of the country to a port on the other, but it seems quite a luxury compared to other projects today.

The map above also shows a lot of freight leaving Felixstowe and London to then head up to the North-West

The map may show that a lot of rail freight goes towards the north west of England but that doesn't mean that the majority of freight heads that direction, just that rail is always going to be uneconomic for distances within a hundred miles or so of the (southern) ports.

Sending thousands of trucks along the M62 is not great either as a single incident jams the whole thing up

...although a single incident may still permit traffic to pass on two lanes (rather than three), unlike rail which doesn't always have that level of "resilience".

Plus there's the argument that lots of slow lorries on the M62 may make passenger trains more attractive to frustrated motorists.

Going back, I completely agree about the minimum distance for profit; it's fact, can't object with you on that one. However, price is not the only factor as at least reliability, resilience and emissions is a factor in supply chains

I wish that emissions were a factor in supply chains, as it may have encouraged freight companies to move towards more electric haulage, rather than the current approach of sticking a 66 on the front of everything. But it doesn't seem to be.

 

[HSTEd]

If only they had built that piggyback gauge Line from Germany to Manchester etc.....

Very capital intensive, but ultimately if you want to increase the modal share of rail freight, it is things like that that we need....

Before either magic batteries or, more likely, eHighway makes the railways into an anachronism for freight transport.

 

[Bald Rick]

I have to for the most part disagree. Although, I understand that it takes a minimum mileage in order to make a profit from rail.

One could naively argue that they go to those ports because the rail infrastructure supports those; which in itself isn't a great argument but when Southampton was gauge cleared, it saw an increase of these containers being sent on rail via the port. Trains go around the Transpennine as that's where the infrastructure is cleared for those containers. Same around Scotland. Transport for the North showed us a presentation once that had a diagram matching mine that showed that all the heavy freight routes happen to also be W10/W12. The map above also shows a lot of freight leaving Felixstowe and London to then head up to the North-West.

The aim of this topic is to propose realistic routes to gauge clear to increase resilience and opportunity within the rail network. The south is already congested and running out of capacity, if something goes wrong on the key routes, it will then cause trouble for supply chains. With Brexit, the congestion could had been mitigated for example by having increase shipping services to Immingham or Liverpool and sending it east-west - if the infrastructure was ready. I say realistic as I would just love to build a GC gauge cleared route from Hull/Immingham to Liverpool and HS2; although I hear HS2 is going to be GB+ and not GC cleared, which is shame and short-sighted.

Relying on through ports and sending all matter of freight upwards is not a good thing in the long run. Sending thousands of trucks along the M62 is not great either as a single incident jams the whole thing up. So by upgrading Calder Valley for example, that would help both situations, ease capacity, reduce emissions, ease the driver shortage problem and so on.

Going back, I completely agree about the minimum distance for profit; it's fact, can't object with you on that one. However, price is not the only factor as at least reliability, resilience and emissions is a factor in supply chains.

We’ll have to disagree on the ports issue. I only raise it as I used to deal with the ports and the hauliers. Ships dock at the ports mentioned because that’s where it is best for the shipping line.

If Ships that dock at Southampton were diverted to Liverpool, say, then the WCML would be even more full. That’s because, as I said, most of the boxes off at Southampton go to the south east corner of the country (Solent to Wash); indeed a much higher proportion head here than go on the back of trains / lorries to the midlands and north. The same applies to Felixstowe. Divert the ships ‘up north’ and all those boxes are going to have to head south.

Deep sea Container ships rarely call more than once in any one country. Indeed there’s quite a few that will only call once in NW Europe; Felixstowe is up against Rotterdam and Hamburg in that respect. There are plenty of boxes for the U.K. dropped at Rotterdam which are then put on short-sea ships across to east coast ports.