TERMINAL PREPARES FOR HS2 USE
New use for white elephant: the former Euroterminal alongside the West Coast main line at Willesden is to become a construction site for HS2 (p110). The terminal never became the busy interchange that was hoped in the 1990s; it became a stabling point for high output track renewal equipment after Continental workings ceased. The long-idle cranes dwarf No 56106 standing in Acton Lane reception sidings prior to propelling box wagons to sidings near Wembley in this photo taken on 18 September 2018. Steve Stubbs
EXPRESS FREIGHT TO EUSTON?
THE PLANNING Inspectorate has accepted for scrutiny a proposal for a new Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) at Blisworth in Northamptonshire that would incorporate an express freight terminal. The deadline for public comments is 15 January 2019.
Ashfield Land’s Rail Central terminal would be sited in the ‘V’ where the Northampton loop diverges from the West Coast main line. The main connection would be to the Northampton loop, with up to three gantry cranes and sidings capable of taking trains of 775 metres in length. There would also be a direct connection to the West Coast main line for an express freight terminal capable of accommodating trains up to 240 metres in length.
The Inspectorate already has under consideration another SRFI nearby: Roxhill’s Northampton Gateway proposal would be located south of Northampton and near to Junction 15 of the M1.
Freight must feature in trans-Pennine Upgrade
Rail Freight Group
Rail freight has always had its heart in the north of England, be that in its industrial past, or in the modern mix of containers and bulk products moved to, from and through the region today. Even with the decline of coal, the northern economy still benefits significantly from rail freight, with figures from the Rail Delivery Group showing an annual contribution in excess of £750 million per annum.
Yet despite this, some parts of the region remain poorly served. Manchester, for example, has far fewer rail freight interchanges than the West Midlands, and penetration of construction materials is below that of London and the South East. And although much freight is moved north – south on the key trunk corridors of the West and East Coast main lines, much less moves east – west across the region, particularly on the north trans-Pennine routes.
We have been trying to change that and make the case for a compelling vision for rail freight on that corridor and in the current upgrade. Early on we pressed for an hourly freight path, with suitable gauge, to be included in the project, and were successful in this being added to the initial ‘passenger only’ remit. For the past two years we have supported the development meetings with Network Rail and acted to refine and develop the options for the scheme at a detailed level.
Meanwhile, working with our members in the region, we have also supported the development of a business case for freight, identifying the potential for 20 to 30 trains which could start operating with the infrastructure in place. This includes intermodal services, as well as bulk and conventional freight, with the large ports at Liverpool, Tees and the Humber all contributing to the work. This has been worked through in detail by the Department for Transport and we understand that the Department has concluded a positive business case for freight.
FREIGHT STRUCK OFF
It was therefore both surprising and deeply disappointing to learn that at the most recent meeting of the DfT’s Board Investment and Commercial Committee the decision was taken to remove freight from the scope of work completely and permanently. No explanation has been offered to the industry, other than some vague promises that they may ‘come back to it at a later date in Control Period 7’, and we are left in the dark over their intentions or reasoning.
Certainly, this decision appears to be at odds with the stated position of Transport for the North, which made its position clear in a September announcement, stating that the upgrade should deliver ‘Provision for freight, with the option to transport containers by rail (which is not currently possible)’. The absence of freight on the corridor must therefore be a blow to the organisation’s ambitions, and to its authority.
Freight, it seems, is not the only part of the scheme that DfT’s committee has ‘trimmed’, with the decision finally confirming that the central core of the route will not be electrified. Although this was largely expected following political announcements on the issue, the final decision confirms the case, leaving the route reliant on bi-modes for the long term (and this over its steepest gradients) and with it a further likely degradation of journey time improvement.
Despite these reductions in output there is no apparent reduction in cost, with DfT still committed to the full allocation.
Worse still, with the infrastructure scope over the core of the route reduced through excluding freight, there has to be a real concern that the resulting network will not be able to accommodate even the new passenger services at anything like their expected levels of performance. There has as yet been no conclusion to the requested follow-on assessment to ascertain how high levels of performance can be established for freight and passenger trains sharing the route through judicious infrastructure intervention. It seems surprising that these questions are not being asked of Network Rail by Government ahead of firm commitments being made.
We all want the railways in the North to be successful and the north trans-Pennine upgrade is a hugely important project. Yet in constrained times, we must be certain that every penny invested is really delivering for the region.
As a comparator, £2.9 billion keeps the Greater Manchester Police Force going for 5½ years; there are many other calls on Government money too. How will Network Rail and the DfT justify that this is money well spent if key outputs cannot be delivered at all, or with any degree of certainty?
We would like to see the scheme urgently reviewed, and a renewed commitment from all to deliver both for freight and also for the wider northern communities that the railways are there to serve. Our members and stakeholders will continue to press for nothing less.
An opinion column of the Rail Freight Group, www.rfg.org.uk
GBRF’S LOCOS GET CONNECTED
GB RAILFREIGHT has teamed up with technology company 3Squared to help eliminate avoidable locomotive failures. The new system is also helping to establish a revised train driver review process.
The Remote Data Download application (RDD) will stream in near real time from each locomotive, yielding data such as fuel and coolant levels and train performance details such as speed and braking.
The data will be fed into 3Squared’s RailSmart fleet defect reporting and corrective action program.
Analysis of the data will allow GBRf to identify and deal proactively with any issue likely to cause a problem with the locomotive fleet before it happens. This preventative maintenance approach will reduce asset downtime and increase fleet utilisation.
DRIVER REVIEW
The data is also to be used by GBRf in a ground-breaking review of train driver performance.
Currently all drivers must undergo a review with an assessor each week, month or quarter. Assessors travel out to a locomotive, download data provided by the on-train monitoring recorder, take it back to the office and then review with the driver.
The RDD system turns this model on its head.
Now data is sent electronically in real time to the freight operator’s systems and is checked by the system for any irregularity such as speeding or excessive braking. This allows GBRf assessors to focus on the drivers that require support the most.
GBRf’s Class 66 locomotives were due to be fitted with RDD technology by the end of 2018, with the rest of the company’s fleet following in the new year.
BIOMASS EMPTIES
