Proposed large new Slade Green rail freight interchange

[ScotGG]

I saw this site campaigning against it. https://friendsofcrayfordmarshes.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/save-crayford-marshes/

Roxhill Development Ltd have submitted plans to build a rail freight interchange on this site. Not only will it cause damage to the Green Belt and a substantial part of designated Site Of Importance for Nature Conservation, it will reduce habitat available to the remaining populations of certain red-listed birds species in Bexley, notably Skylarks and Corn Bunting. It will destroy 50% of the Crayford agricultural and landfill site of importance for nature conservation (SINC) – shown to be of London – level importance for invertebrate species – and around a quarter of what little is left of the Crayford Marshes as a whole. There are many other arguments against this planning application including flawed sustainability claims, scale, visual intrusion, as well as losing our mental health benefits of quiet, wide, open ‘countryside’ feel that the Crayford Marshes currently provides.

And then looked up the plans. Seems a very big site is planned. Can that area take more freight though? Not many paths is there?

Also, looking at the photo if this is built it leaves some land to expand Southeastern's Slade Green facility. That could presumably store many more trains to enable a full 12-car railway in coming decades? Stabling is currently limited across SE. Is that idea feasible?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Judging by every other similar proposal that is posted on here I bet you a tenner that it never sees a freight train. Rail freight is only ever included in the plans in the hope that it helps with getting planning permission.

 

[Rail.Fan]

I live in Slade Green whilst this may be good for freight, it will destroy the wildlife and think that must come first.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Judging by every other similar proposal that is posted on here I bet you a tenner that it never see's a freight train. Rail freight is only ever included in the plans in the hope that it helps with getting planning permission.

Bit of a Radlett then ....

 

[furnessvale]

Judging by every other similar proposal that is posted on here I bet you a tenner that it never see's a freight train. Rail freight is only ever included in the plans in the hope that it helps with getting planning permission.

You mean like DIRFT?

 

[Bevan Price]

Judging by every other similar proposal that is posted on here I bet you a tenner that it never see's a freight train. Rail freight is only ever included in the plans in the hope that it helps with getting planning permission.

That is also my suspicion about the Parkside Colliery site at Newton Le Willows. With so many other nearby freight terminals (Trafford Park, Ditton, Garston, etc., - and Salford if that ever gets built) - does anyone here that any freight operators will wish to use a freight terminal at Parkside?

 

[najaB]

With so many other nearby freight terminals (Trafford Park, Ditton, Garston, etc., - and Salford if that ever gets built) - does anyone here that any freight operators will wish to use a freight terminal at Parkside?

Though, there is the business cluster effect - the presence of a number of related businesses in an area encourages more of the same.

 

[jopsuk]

I doubt the north kent line can take much more freight. And not can the A206 take much more traffic.

 

[moggie]

Unless there's a firm planning condition which permanently enforces use of rail otherwise for a % of the annual tonnage unlike many similar terminal, it will be an expensive to rail connected logistics site solely benefitting the road haulage industry which would never get planning consent if road was the only form of haulage.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You mean like DIRFT?

No because as far as I know that see's plenty of freight.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Bit of a Radlett then ....

Bit of a Castle Donington Marks & Spencer as well.......

 

[edwin_m]

Unless there's a firm planning condition which permanently enforces use of rail otherwise for a % of the annual tonnage unlike many similar terminal, it will be an expensive to rail connected logistics site solely benefitting the road haulage industry which would never get planning consent if road was the only form of haulage.

Any condition of that sort would have to be enforced by some sort of penalty on the landlord if it isn't achieved. Unless the penalty was trivially low, the landlord would have to price it in as a risk outside their control (it's the tenants who decide how to transport their goods). An equivalent terminal nowhere near a railway wouldn't have this risk so would be able to offer lower rents, thus making the terminal next to the railway less likely to go ahead and less likely to be successful.

The building of freight terminals which can be connected to rail, even if they have no rail connection when built, is surely better than building them at random sites that can never be connected to rail? Intermodal freight has been gradually increasing for long-distance flows where suitable terminals are available, and over a timescale of decades this could start happening for rather shorter flows if the terminals are ready for it.

There is an important proviso that the rail network must have available capacity for trains to service the terminal, otherwise the rail connection is truly just a gimmick. That should be the first question for a terminal on the congested Southern network, although in theory it is capable of carrying much more Tunnel freight than actually operates so possibly extra paths do exist.

 

[furnessvale]

You mean like DIRFT?

No because as far as I know that see's plenty of freight.

I was being facetious.

I tire of every time a new rail terminal is proposed, people come up with the old "it will never see a train" argument. I blame LA planning teams for not properly scrutinising the plans.

Yes, some are Trojan Horses to obtain planning permission under false pretences, but others come good. I always quote DIRFT as one that came good.

 

[XDM]

Unless there's a firm planning condition which permanently enforces use of rail otherwise for a % of the annual tonnage unlike many similar terminal, it will be an expensive to rail connected logistics site solely benefitting the road haulage industry which would never get planning consent if road was the only form of haulage.

Even firm planning conditions can be ignored. Wasn't Felixstowe harbour & port given expansion approval providing they paid for the branch to be doubled at their expense? They expanded, & then got council permission not to have to pay for the branch redoubling. Please correct me if wrong!

 

[Pinza-C55]

I saw this site campaigning against it. https://friendsofcrayfordmarshes.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/save-crayford-marshes/

And then looked up the plans. Seems a very big site is planned. Can that area take more freight though? Not many paths is there?

Also, looking at the photo if this is built it leaves some land to expand Southeastern's Slade Green facility. That could presumably store many more trains to enable a full 12-car railway in coming decades? Stabling is currently limited across SE. Is that idea feasible?

Looking at that aerial view it looks like a nondescript area of marshland next to a large housing estate. I suspect they are more worried about the impact on house prices. I used to work trains through Crayford and pretty isn't the word I would use to describe it.

Get it built.

 

[QueensCurve]

That is also my suspicion about the Parkside Colliery site at Newton Le Willows. With so many other nearby freight terminals (Trafford Park, Ditton, Garston, etc., - and Salford if that ever gets built) - does anyone here that any freight operators will wish to use a freight terminal at Parkside?

Hasn't the rail connection to Parkside Colliery been removed?

 

[furnessvale]

Hasn't the rail connection to Parkside Colliery been removed?

Highly likely that the actual trackwork has been lifted as it became life expired.

Given the history of the site as a potential reuse for a freight interchange, it is also highly likely that the signalling connections have been retained. This is where the real cost lies.

 

[moggie]

Even firm planning conditions can be ignored. Wasn't Felixstowe harbour & port given expansion approval providing they paid for the branch to be doubled at their expense? They expanded, & then got council permission not to have to pay for the branch redoubling. Please correct me if wrong!

I think you'll find it was the Port Authority who first had to obtain compulsory purchase of land under the normal protracted legal process to enable construction of the second line as well as planning consent. Network Rail have only recently submitted a separate TWO application for the powers to commence construction of the second line to the government and AFAIK are still awaiting this legal consent. One all this is obtained it will be for the interested parties to identify where and who provides the necessary funding.

One can't imagine after all this effort that they'll sit on their hands providing of course NR are not hamstrung by government is allocating resource to carry out the rail works being as they are 'too busy on numerous other projects' to undertake the likes of EW-R (according to Grayling)?

 

[BRX]

I see that planning permission for this was granted last month.

http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/PressRelease17-02-2017.htm

I'll certainly be interested to see what happens and whether it manages to attract any rail traffic.

 

[furnessvale]

I see that planning permission for this was granted last month.

http://www.freightonrail.org.uk/PressRelease17-02-2017.htm

I'll certainly be interested to see what happens and whether it manages to attract any rail traffic.

Indeed, will it be another Daventry.....................or a Telford!

 

[BRX]

Would be nice if it generates some new freight traffic through south London. Also keeping my eye on the new rail connected bulk cargo facility at Thamesport, currently under construction. Also, the one on the former Sheerness steel works site.