EWS / DB Schenker container depot, Trafford Park

[Charlie Hulme]

This afternoon, on a train from Liverpool, I passed the EWS / DB
Schenker container depot alongside the line at Trafford Park, and
it was deserted except for a handful of ones and twos of empty
wagons dotted about, as were all the sorting sidings between
there and the football ground station.

Is it still used at all? There were a few of those big stacker
trucks still alongside.

Charlie

[Joyce Whitchurch]

Post by Charlie Hulme
This afternoon, on a train from Liverpool, I passed the EWS / DB
Schenker container depot alongside the line at Trafford Park, and it was
deserted except for a handful of ones and twos of empty wagons dotted
about, as were all the sorting sidings between there and the football
ground station.
Is it still used at all? There were a few of those big stacker trucks
still alongside.

It's been effectively mothballed for several months now, with such
traffic as could be retained transferred over the hills to Wakefield. If
you ask DBS they will say it's still open, and they will run a train
there, provided you have the traffic to fill it. For a while the place
seemed to have become a storage yard for empty containers, but as you've
noticed, even they have moved out now.

Sign of the times, I fear. Even Containerbase, at the end of the
Manchester Ship Canal Railway's remaining line, only sees one train a
day (each way) now.

Meanwhile there are still plans to open gigantic new Rail Freight
Interchanges at Parkside and Barton, if you can believe the local papers.

[m***@hotmail.com]

On Jul 16, 10:10 pm, Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Joyce Whitchurch

This afternoon, on a train from Liverpool, I passed the EWS /DB
Schenkercontainer depot alongside the line at Trafford Park, and it was
deserted except for a handful of ones and twos of empty wagons dotted
about, as were all the sorting sidings between there and the football
ground station.
Is it still used at all? There were a few of those big stacker trucks
still alongside.

It's been effectively mothballed for several months now, with such
traffic as could be retained transferred over the hills to Wakefield. If
you ask DBS they will say it's still open, and they will run a train
there, provided you have the traffic to fill it. For a while the place
seemed to have become a storage yard for empty containers, but as you've
noticed, even they have moved out now.
Sign of the times, I fear. Even Containerbase, at the end of the
Manchester Ship Canal Railway's remaining line, only sees one train a
day (each way) now.
Meanwhile there are still plans to open gigantic new Rail Freight
Interchanges at Parkside and Barton, if you can believe the local papers.
--
Joyce Whitchurch, Stalybridge, UK
=================================
Old enough to remember the great
rejoicing when RfD opened the
Trafford Park Euroterminal

Forgive me, I'm going to use this 'thread' as an excuse to indulge in
some intermodal scribblings that may bore you out of your minds.

Unsurprisingly, ProLogis is now no longer seeking to promote and
develop the facility at Parkside. The local opposition to the plans
has been strong enough it seems to put the company off, especially now
that the economy is a little less vibrant from a few years ago, when
the plans first came to light.

However, this in my view is no bad thing. Fom a design viewpoint, the
ProLogis proposal for Parkside had a serious weakness from the rail
operations viewpoint. Missing from the masterplans had been the
inclusion of an electrified yard for arriving and departing intermodal
trains - instead it seems that trains would have had to run straight
into and out of the actual intermodal terminal itself.

This would have of course have made a nonsense out of being located on
the electrified WCML. The pressure to make the development commercial
viable must have been the reason for the omission of a yard, because
it's not as if the footprint of the former colliery site is not large
enough to include one. But including a yard would have meant a
considerable reduction in the space available for warehousing.

With regards to the DB Schenker terminal in Manchester, it is a little
shocking to me that the company can neither justify routing any
container port-based trade via the terminal, and not find any
commercially viable Continental traffic to fill a complete train.
Manchester is, after all, a major centre of consumption, as well as,
to a certain degree at least, production.

Freightliner seems to be able to burst the Trafford Park terminal to
the seems, so much so that it has just bought a new pair of cranes for
the facility, so one would have thought that DB Schenker can find some
maritime trade for Trafford Park to serve either Southampton and/or
Felixstowe.

I remember being at the Euroterminal in 1993 or 1994 for a press
conference of some kind, just prior to the start-up of Channel Tunnel
intermodal services. There had been such optimism that this new modern
terminal would prove to be a massive success, spearheading the further
development of intermodal terminals across Britain.

The Armund cranes - paid for by UK taxpayers - now lie rotting, just
like the cranes at Willesden. It's a massive shame I think.

[Bruce]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Forgive me, I'm going to use this 'thread' as an excuse to indulge in
some intermodal scribblings that may bore you out of your minds.
Unsurprisingly, ProLogis is now no longer seeking to promote and
develop the facility at Parkside. The local opposition to the plans
has been strong enough it seems to put the company off, especially now
that the economy is a little less vibrant from a few years ago, when
the plans first came to light.
However, this in my view is no bad thing. Fom a design viewpoint, the
ProLogis proposal for Parkside had a serious weakness from the rail
operations viewpoint. Missing from the masterplans had been the
inclusion of an electrified yard for arriving and departing intermodal
trains - instead it seems that trains would have had to run straight
into and out of the actual intermodal terminal itself.
This would have of course have made a nonsense out of being located on
the electrified WCML. The pressure to make the development commercial
viable must have been the reason for the omission of a yard, because
it's not as if the footprint of the former colliery site is not large
enough to include one. But including a yard would have meant a
considerable reduction in the space available for warehousing.
With regards to the DB Schenker terminal in Manchester, it is a little
shocking to me that the company can neither justify routing any
container port-based trade via the terminal, and not find any
commercially viable Continental traffic to fill a complete train.
Manchester is, after all, a major centre of consumption, as well as,
to a certain degree at least, production.
Freightliner seems to be able to burst the Trafford Park terminal to
the seems, so much so that it has just bought a new pair of cranes for
the facility, so one would have thought that DB Schenker can find some
maritime trade for Trafford Park to serve either Southampton and/or
Felixstowe.
I remember being at the Euroterminal in 1993 or 1994 for a press
conference of some kind, just prior to the start-up of Channel Tunnel
intermodal services. There had been such optimism that this new modern
terminal would prove to be a massive success, spearheading the further
development of intermodal terminals across Britain.
The Armund cranes - paid for by UK taxpayers - now lie rotting, just
like the cranes at Willesden. It's a massive shame I think.

A massive shame? A disaster waiting to happen, more like.

From the early 1990s, all around the country, rail freight terminals
were built in the expectation of a huge increase in rail-borne freight
to/from mainland Europe using the Channel Tunnel. Many were built on
green belt land because government relaxed the planning rules as long
as at least 70% of the freight using those terminals either arrived or
departed by rail.

The increase in cross-Channel rail freight never happened. Indeed,
the volume of cross-Channel rail freight traffic is now **lower** than
it was before the Channel Tunnel opened, when the train ferries
operated.

So around the country, there are many rail freight terminals that are
grossly under-used. Of the ones built on green belt land, not one has
ever approached the 70% of freight in or out by rail that was the
basis for giving them planning permission. So all of them are
operating illegally outside their planning consent.

It is a good job no-one from government ever checks the 70% figure is
being achieved. But many of these terminals are doing well as busy
*road* freight terminals while their rail connections rust away and
are choked by weeds.

I don't know what are the underlying reasons for the collapse in
cross-Channel rail freight. However, it seems almost unbelievable
that, after billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent (in BR
days) on facilities for Channel Tunnel freight traffic, after hundreds
of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on other
facilities since, and after planning laws were relaxed to allow
rail-served distribution terminals to be developed on green belt land,
the cross-Channel rail traffic of the last few years has averaged only
five trains a day.

I know that there are some internal (within Britain) freight flows
that have made some use of the new facilities, but the expectation
was always that the majority of demand for them would come from
cross-Channel freight. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened.

In view of the huge amount of public money that has been spent, it
would be interesting to know why.

[Robert Cox]

Post by Bruce

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Forgive me, I'm going to use this 'thread' as an excuse to indulge in
some intermodal scribblings that may bore you out of your minds.
Unsurprisingly, ProLogis is now no longer seeking to promote and
develop the facility at Parkside. The local opposition to the plans
has been strong enough it seems to put the company off, especially now
that the economy is a little less vibrant from a few years ago, when
the plans first came to light.
However, this in my view is no bad thing. Fom a design viewpoint, the
ProLogis proposal for Parkside had a serious weakness from the rail
operations viewpoint. Missing from the masterplans had been the
inclusion of an electrified yard for arriving and departing intermodal
trains - instead it seems that trains would have had to run straight
into and out of the actual intermodal terminal itself.
This would have of course have made a nonsense out of being located on
the electrified WCML. The pressure to make the development commercial
viable must have been the reason for the omission of a yard, because
it's not as if the footprint of the former colliery site is not large
enough to include one. But including a yard would have meant a
considerable reduction in the space available for warehousing.
With regards to the DB Schenker terminal in Manchester, it is a little
shocking to me that the company can neither justify routing any
container port-based trade via the terminal, and not find any
commercially viable Continental traffic to fill a complete train.
Manchester is, after all, a major centre of consumption, as well as,
to a certain degree at least, production.
Freightliner seems to be able to burst the Trafford Park terminal to
the seems, so much so that it has just bought a new pair of cranes for
the facility, so one would have thought that DB Schenker can find some
maritime trade for Trafford Park to serve either Southampton and/or
Felixstowe.
I remember being at the Euroterminal in 1993 or 1994 for a press
conference of some kind, just prior to the start-up of Channel Tunnel
intermodal services. There had been such optimism that this new modern
terminal would prove to be a massive success, spearheading the further
development of intermodal terminals across Britain.
The Armund cranes - paid for by UK taxpayers - now lie rotting, just
like the cranes at Willesden. It's a massive shame I think.

A massive shame? A disaster waiting to happen, more like.
From the early 1990s, all around the country, rail freight terminals
were built in the expectation of a huge increase in rail-borne freight
to/from mainland Europe using the Channel Tunnel. Many were built on
green belt land because government relaxed the planning rules as long
as at least 70% of the freight using those terminals either arrived or
departed by rail.
The increase in cross-Channel rail freight never happened. Indeed,
the volume of cross-Channel rail freight traffic is now **lower** than
it was before the Channel Tunnel opened, when the train ferries
operated.
So around the country, there are many rail freight terminals that are
grossly under-used. Of the ones built on green belt land, not one has
ever approached the 70% of freight in or out by rail that was the
basis for giving them planning permission. So all of them are
operating illegally outside their planning consent.
It is a good job no-one from government ever checks the 70% figure is
being achieved. But many of these terminals are doing well as busy
*road* freight terminals while their rail connections rust away and
are choked by weeds.
I don't know what are the underlying reasons for the collapse in
cross-Channel rail freight. However, it seems almost unbelievable
that, after billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent (in BR
days) on facilities for Channel Tunnel freight traffic, after hundreds
of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on other
facilities since, and after planning laws were relaxed to allow
rail-served distribution terminals to be developed on green belt land,
the cross-Channel rail traffic of the last few years has averaged only
five trains a day.
I know that there are some internal (within Britain) freight flows
that have made some use of the new facilities, but the expectation
was always that the majority of demand for them would come from
cross-Channel freight. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened.
In view of the huge amount of public money that has been spent, it
would be interesting to know why.

This may be apocryphal, but one of the reasons for the loss of the
continental traffic that I heard some years ago dates back to the early
days of EWS when the operations centre at Doncaster was being built.
Until then all the international traffic had been managed from Victoria
where the Southern's train ferry and shipping interests had been
managed by the South Eastern division. These people spoke 'foreign' and
could speak to their counterparts in France and Belgium, and I assume,
the Netherlands and Germany in their native tongues. The passenger part
died with the opening of the tunnel and EWS wanted to move the freight
staff remaining to Doncaster - and it's a sort of no-brainer to realise
that there were no good reasons to move. So they used their language
skills for other businesses in London

International freight traffic then collapsed.

(It seems a little similar to Network Rail's plans to move HQ to Milton
Keynes - and the timetablers in Leeds don't want to move. Result -
collapse of accurate, timely timetabling. Those who don't learn from
history are condemned to repeat it.)

[amogles]

Post by Robert Cox
This may be apocryphal, but one of the reasons for the loss of the
continental traffic that I heard some years ago dates back to the early
days of EWS when the operations centre at Doncaster was being built.
Until then all the international traffic had been managed from Victoria
where the Southern's train ferry and shipping interests had been
managed by the South Eastern division. These people spoke 'foreign' and
could speak to their counterparts in France and Belgium, and I assume,
the Netherlands and Germany in their native tongues. The passenger part
died with the opening of the tunnel and EWS wanted to move the freight
staff remaining to Doncaster - and it's a sort of no-brainer to realise
that there were no good reasons to move. So they used their language
skills for other businesses in London
International freight traffic then collapsed.

With DBS in charge, one might expect this tendency to be reversed.
Why isn't that happening?

[Bruce]

Post by amogles

Post by Robert Cox
This may be apocryphal, but one of the reasons for the loss of the
continental traffic that I heard some years ago dates back to the early
days of EWS when the operations centre at Doncaster was being built.
Until then all the international traffic had been managed from Victoria
where the Southern's train ferry and shipping interests had been
managed by the South Eastern division. These people spoke 'foreign' and
could speak to their counterparts in France and Belgium, and I assume,
the Netherlands and Germany in their native tongues. The passenger part
died with the opening of the tunnel and EWS wanted to move the freight
staff remaining to Doncaster - and it's a sort of no-brainer to realise
that there were no good reasons to move. So they used their language
skills for other businesses in London
International freight traffic then collapsed.

With DBS in charge, one might expect this tendency to be reversed.
Why isn't that happening?

Good question!

[Bruce]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:40:46 +0100, Robert Cox

Post by Robert Cox

Post by Bruce
I don't know what are the underlying reasons for the collapse in
cross-Channel rail freight. However, it seems almost unbelievable
that, after billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent (in BR
days) on facilities for Channel Tunnel freight traffic, after hundreds
of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on other
facilities since, and after planning laws were relaxed to allow
rail-served distribution terminals to be developed on green belt land,
the cross-Channel rail traffic of the last few years has averaged only
five trains a day.
I know that there are some internal (within Britain) freight flows
that have made some use of the new facilities, but the expectation
was always that the majority of demand for them would come from
cross-Channel freight. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened.
In view of the huge amount of public money that has been spent, it
would be interesting to know why.

This may be apocryphal, but one of the reasons for the loss of the
continental traffic that I heard some years ago dates back to the early
days of EWS when the operations centre at Doncaster was being built.
Until then all the international traffic had been managed from Victoria
where the Southern's train ferry and shipping interests had been
managed by the South Eastern division. These people spoke 'foreign' and
could speak to their counterparts in France and Belgium, and I assume,
the Netherlands and Germany in their native tongues. The passenger part
died with the opening of the tunnel and EWS wanted to move the freight
staff remaining to Doncaster - and it's a sort of no-brainer to realise
that there were no good reasons to move. So they used their language
skills for other businesses in London
International freight traffic then collapsed.

Interesting ... there was also the issue of the freight paths having
been guaranteed, and paid for, by DfT Rail for the first ten years of
the Tunnel's operation. When that guarantee expired, the costs
rocketed thanks to Eurotunnel's greed. The fact that Eurotunnel
established its own freight business in competition with EWS didn't
help, although I am not aware that it operates any services.

Of course Eurotunnel makes most money from its own Shuttle operations
and both Eurostar and freight services just get in their way.

Post by Robert Cox
(It seems a little similar to Network Rail's plans to move HQ to Milton
Keynes - and the timetablers in Leeds don't want to move. Result -
collapse of accurate, timely timetabling. Those who don't learn from
history are condemned to repeat it.)

I happen to think that Network Rail's move to the grandiose and hugely
expensive new office complex in Milton Keynes is a very big mistake.
In so many areas, expertise will be lost because people just aren't
prepared to move home.

Network Rail have advertised locally for people to work in
timetabling, emphasising that previous experience - whilst desirable -
is not essential. So expect timetabling to get worse over the next
few years.

Although help may be at hand:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10660867

[Robert Cox]

Post by Bruce
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 13:40:46 +0100, Robert Cox

Post by Robert Cox

Post by Bruce
I don't know what are the underlying reasons for the collapse in
cross-Channel rail freight. However, it seems almost unbelievable
that, after billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent (in BR
days) on facilities for Channel Tunnel freight traffic, after hundreds
of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on other
facilities since, and after planning laws were relaxed to allow
rail-served distribution terminals to be developed on green belt land,
the cross-Channel rail traffic of the last few years has averaged only
five trains a day.
I know that there are some internal (within Britain) freight flows
that have made some use of the new facilities, but the expectation
was always that the majority of demand for them would come from
cross-Channel freight. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened.
In view of the huge amount of public money that has been spent, it
would be interesting to know why.

This may be apocryphal, but one of the reasons for the loss of the
continental traffic that I heard some years ago dates back to the early
days of EWS when the operations centre at Doncaster was being built.
Until then all the international traffic had been managed from Victoria
where the Southern's train ferry and shipping interests had been
managed by the South Eastern division. These people spoke 'foreign' and
could speak to their counterparts in France and Belgium, and I assume,
the Netherlands and Germany in their native tongues. The passenger part
died with the opening of the tunnel and EWS wanted to move the freight
staff remaining to Doncaster - and it's a sort of no-brainer to realise
that there were no good reasons to move. So they used their language
skills for other businesses in London
International freight traffic then collapsed.

Interesting ... there was also the issue of the freight paths having
been guaranteed, and paid for, by DfT Rail for the first ten years of
the Tunnel's operation. When that guarantee expired, the costs
rocketed thanks to Eurotunnel's greed. The fact that Eurotunnel
established its own freight business in competition with EWS didn't
help, although I am not aware that it operates any services.
Of course Eurotunnel makes most money from its own Shuttle operations
and both Eurostar and freight services just get in their way.

Post by Robert Cox
(It seems a little similar to Network Rail's plans to move HQ to Milton
Keynes - and the timetablers in Leeds don't want to move. Result -
collapse of accurate, timely timetabling. Those who don't learn from
history are condemned to repeat it.)

I happen to think that Network Rail's move to the grandiose and hugely
expensive new office complex in Milton Keynes is a very big mistake.
In so many areas, expertise will be lost because people just aren't
prepared to move home.
Network Rail have advertised locally for people to work in
timetabling, emphasising that previous experience - whilst desirable -
is not essential. So expect timetabling to get worse over the next
few years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10660867

At a quite glance that appears to be the same as BR's Junction
Optimisation Technique / Automatic Route Setting technology which has
been around for at least 20 years and is an integral part of all the
IECCs since Liverpool Street (which was, I think, the first one) in
1989.

I suppose the bureaucrats in Brussels have to spend our money on something....

[Willms]

Am Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:43:54 UTC, schrieb Bruce

The fact that Eurotunnel established its own freight business

called Europorte

in competition with EWS didn't help,
although I am not aware that it operates any services.

Europorte runs all the business of former Veolia Cargo France, and
what is more or less shunting between Dollands Moor and Coquelles
freight yards, as well as (still under the original name) all business
of GBRf.

Cheers,
L.W.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and
ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and
thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably
get a career in it.
Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural
order of things.
- Douglas Adams in "The Salmon of Doubt"

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Robert Cox

Post by m***@hotmail.com
Forgive me, I'm going to use this 'thread' as an excuse to indulge in
some intermodal scribblings that may bore you out of your minds.
Unsurprisingly, ProLogis is now no longer seeking to promote and
develop the facility at Parkside. The local opposition to the plans
has been strong enough it seems to put the company off, especially now
that the economy is a little less vibrant from a few years ago, when
the plans first came to light.
However, this in my view is no bad thing. Fom a design viewpoint, the
ProLogis proposal for Parkside had a serious weakness from the rail
operations viewpoint. Missing from the masterplans had been the
inclusion of an electrified yard for arriving and departing intermodal
trains - instead it seems that trains would have had to run straight
into and out of the actual intermodal terminal itself.
This would have of course have made a nonsense out of being located on
the electrified WCML. The pressure to make the development commercial
viable must have been the reason for the omission of a yard, because
it's not as if the footprint of the former colliery site is not large
enough to include one. But including a yard would have meant a
considerable reduction in the space available for warehousing.
With regards to the DB Schenker terminal in Manchester, it is a little
shocking to me that the company can neither justify routing any
container port-based trade via the terminal, and not find any
commercially viable Continental traffic to fill a complete train.
Manchester is, after all, a major centre of consumption, as well as,
to a certain degree at least, production.
Freightliner seems to be able to burst theTraffordParkterminal to
the seems, so much so that it has just bought a new pair of cranes for
the facility, so one would have thought that DB Schenker can find some
maritime trade forTraffordParkto serve either Southampton and/or
Felixstowe.
I remember being at the Euroterminal in 1993 or 1994 for a press
conference of some kind, just prior to the start-up of Channel Tunnel
intermodal services. There had been such optimism that this new modern
terminal would prove to be a massive success, spearheading the further
development of intermodal terminals across Britain.
The Armund cranes - paid for by UK taxpayers - now lie rotting, just
like the cranes at Willesden. It's a massive shame I think.

A massive shame?  A disaster waiting to happen, more like.
From the early 1990s, all around the country, rail freight terminals
were built in the expectation of a huge increase in rail-borne freight
to/from mainland Europe using the Channel Tunnel.  Many were built on
green belt land because government relaxed the planning rules as long
as at least 70% of the freight using those terminals either arrived or
departed by rail.
The increase in cross-Channel rail freight never happened.  Indeed,
the volume of cross-Channel rail freight traffic is now **lower** than
it was before the Channel Tunnel opened, when the train ferries
operated.
So around the country, there are many rail freight terminals that are
grossly under-used.  Of the ones built on green belt land, not one has
ever approached the 70% of freight in or out by rail that was the
basis for giving them planning permission.  So all of them are
operating illegally outside their planning consent.
It is a good job no-one from government ever checks the 70% figure is
being achieved.  But many of these terminals are doing well  as busy
*road* freight terminals while their rail connections rust away and
are choked by weeds.
I don't know what are the underlying reasons for the collapse in
cross-Channel rail freight.  However, it seems almost unbelievable
that, after billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent (in BR
days) on facilities for Channel Tunnel freight traffic, after hundreds
of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on other
facilities since, and after planning laws were relaxed to allow
rail-served distribution terminals to be developed on green belt land,
the cross-Channel rail traffic of the last few years has averaged only
five trains a day.
I know that there are some internal (within Britain) freight flows
that  have made some use of the new facilities, but the expectation
was always that the majority of demand for them would come from
cross-Channel freight.  For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened.
In view of the huge amount of public money that has been spent, it
would be interesting to know why.

This may be apocryphal, but one of the reasons for the loss of the
continental traffic that I heard some years ago dates back to the early
days of EWS when the operations centre at Doncaster was being built.
Until then all the international traffic had been managed from Victoria
where the Southern's train ferry and shipping interests had been
managed by the South Eastern division. These people spoke 'foreign' and
could speak to their counterparts in France and Belgium, and I assume,
the Netherlands and Germany in their native tongues. The passenger part
died with the opening of the tunnel and EWS wanted to move the freight
staff remaining to Doncaster - and it's a sort of no-brainer to realise
that there were no good reasons to move. So they used their language
skills for other businesses in London
International freight traffic then collapsed.
(It seems a little similar to Network Rail's plans to move HQ to Milton
Keynes - and the timetablers in Leeds don't want to move. Result -
collapse of accurate, timely timetabling. Those who don't learn from
history are condemned to repeat it.)
--
Robert

I agree that it is worth a serious investigation into the state of the
British rail freight market, purely on the grounds that taxpayers
money paid for a great deal of Channel Tunnel-specific investments,
including:


1. The Class 92 electric locomotives, several of which are now idle.
If more of these were transferred in ownership to a leasing company,
perhaps other operators might find a use for them, such as
Freightliner. Or indeed they can finally be made to run on the French
25kV system - this had been the original plan, as I understand it.

2. The 'Multifret' intermodal and 'WIA' car carrying wagons built by
Arbel Fauvet. Many of the latter are now idle, although at least the
Multifret wagons are earning their keep.

3. Three pairs of Morris RMG cranes and two pairs of Armund RMG
cranes.

In the last two years, Freightliner sent two pairs of these pairs of
Morris RMG cranes to the scrapyard, replacing them with Liebherr
units. They were barely a little over ten years old. One pair of
Morris RMGs still exist at Willesden, rotting, as the terminal fell
out of intensive use back in early 2000s. The Armund cranes, while I
think being to a better design than the Morris designs, are also
rotting at Willesden, and now of course they are rotting at Trafford
Park.

4. The civil engineering work associated with the revamping of the
Willesden terminal to turn it into the Euroterminal, and the
development of the brand new Trafford Park and Wakefield terminals. At
least the latter is still in use!


I'm sure there are several other investments made in relation to
Channel Tunnel rail freight that also need to be put on this list,
although for me it's the Class 92s and the Armund/Morris cranes that
stick out as outlandish wastage.

With regards to the point about the logistics developments on
greenfield sites, I'm not sure which locations you're referring to.
The only greenfield logistics park that came about as a result of the
Channel Tunnel that I'm aware of is the Daventry facility. While the
intermodal terminal at Daventry is certainly not working to capacity,
it is at least working and will, in my view, get busier in due
course.

On the point of identifying why the Channel Tunnel intermodal market
is nowhere near as large as it ought to be, I think it's important to
consider the two key areas of cost and reliability.

For example, it is extremely cost-efficient for forwarders to route
non-accompanied traffic via the North Sea ports to Belgium and
Holland, where more often than not they travel by train to other
Continental regions, such as Italy. In contrast, the pricing structure
for rail freight option via the Tunnel has, I think, been less than
user-friendly, although the former 'aggregators' CTL, ACI and Unilog
had considerable success in filling trains for some time.

Crucially, the reliability issues surrounding the militant trade
unions of the SNCF workers and the era of customs inspections at
Calais made rail freight via the Channel Tunnel something to be wary
of. I'd imagine that many freight forwarders and logistics companies
felt that they had their fingers burnt during this period, and since
then have been reluctant to even entertain the idea of using any
future services.

I think there'll be another five-to-ten years of restructuring before
the a common-user - as oppose to customer specific - intermodal
network using the Channel Tunnel is in place again.

[Joyce Whitchurch]

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I agree that it is worth a serious investigation into the state of the
British rail freight market, purely on the grounds that taxpayers
money paid for a great deal of Channel Tunnel-specific investments,
1. The Class 92 electric locomotives, several of which are now idle.
If more of these were transferred in ownership to a leasing company,
perhaps other operators might find a use for them, such as
Freightliner. Or indeed they can finally be made to run on the French
25kV system - this had been the original plan, as I understand it.

Now that rings a faint bell, but I can't remember quite why these fine
machines don't run through France. The obvious reason is Not Invented
Here syndrome. The pretext is probably some quirk of the in-cab
signalling system.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
2. The 'Multifret' intermodal and 'WIA' car carrying wagons built by
Arbel Fauvet. Many of the latter are now idle, although at least the
Multifret wagons are earning their keep.

I think the idleness of WIAs has more to do with the state of the motor
manufacturing industry than the railways. A fair number of these were
formerly kept pretty busy moving things like Jaguars to Southampton
Docks for shipment to places far beyond the reach of Channel Tunnel
train services.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
3. Three pairs of Morris RMG cranes and two pairs of Armund RMG
cranes.
In the last two years, Freightliner sent two pairs of these pairs of
Morris RMG cranes to the scrapyard, replacing them with Liebherr
units. They were barely a little over ten years old. One pair of
Morris RMGs still exist at Willesden, rotting, as the terminal fell
out of intensive use back in early 2000s. The Armund cranes, while I
think being to a better design than the Morris designs, are also
rotting at Willesden, and now of course they are rotting at Trafford
Park.

In fairness the cranes at Freightliner Trafford Park, of which I know a
little, were some 16 years old. I'm told they suffered from serious
fractures, never a good idea in a giant crane. They may well have been
paid for with taxpayers' money back in, er, 1993, but that wasn't
Channel Tunnel money, or shouldn't have been. (I think they were on
order from Railfreight Distribution but got allocated to the
Freightliner bit of RfD because Channel Tunnel was running late; new
cranes were subsequently ordered for the Euroterminal.) Anyway,
presumably the value of these cranes was a factor in the privatisation
of Freightliner, when the taxpayer got at least some dosh back.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
4. The civil engineering work associated with the revamping of the
Willesden terminal to turn it into the Euroterminal, and the
development of the brand new Trafford Park and Wakefield terminals. At
least the latter is still in use!

"Still"! ITYM "finally".

But most of the costs of Wakefield were covered by private developers,
local taxpayers in Wakefield and Euro-taxpayers in, er, Europe (through
Regional Development Fund grants). OK, still worth asking questions, but
the real justification was job creation not modal shift.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I'm sure there are several other investments made in relation to
Channel Tunnel rail freight that also need to be put on this list,
although for me it's the Class 92s and the Armund/Morris cranes that
stick out as outlandish wastage.

Most new terminals went for those new-fangled reachstacker thingies.
Anyway, what else was on the market if you were insistent on a rail
mounted gantry crane? Straddle carriers? RMGs make a lot of sense if
they're a) properly built and b) intensively used.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
With regards to the point about the logistics developments on
greenfield sites, I'm not sure which locations you're referring to.
The only greenfield logistics park that came about as a result of the
Channel Tunnel that I'm aware of is the Daventry facility. While the
intermodal terminal at Daventry is certainly not working to capacity,
it is at least working and will, in my view, get busier in due
course.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

Greenfield sites: well, Wakefield was very green, Green Belt in fact.
RfD would have extended Stourton (now just a Freightliner base) but
there was nowhere to extend it to. Mossend I think was greenish.
Doncaster was mostly green. Hams Hall was a brownfield site. Other early
terminals were existing or disused British Rail sites.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
On the point of identifying why the Channel Tunnel intermodal market
is nowhere near as large as it ought to be, I think it's important to
consider the two key areas of cost and reliability.
For example, it is extremely cost-efficient for forwarders to route
non-accompanied traffic via the North Sea ports to Belgium and
Holland, where more often than not they travel by train to other
Continental regions, such as Italy. In contrast, the pricing structure
for rail freight option via the Tunnel has, I think, been less than
user-friendly, although the former 'aggregators' CTL, ACI and Unilog
had considerable success in filling trains for some time.
Crucially, the reliability issues surrounding the militant trade
unions of the SNCF workers and the era of customs inspections at
Calais made rail freight via the Channel Tunnel something to be wary
of. I'd imagine that many freight forwarders and logistics companies
felt that they had their fingers burnt during this period, and since
then have been reluctant to even entertain the idea of using any
future services.

Can't fault your logic. Traffic is won on price, and lost on service.

Post by m***@hotmail.com
I think there'll be another five-to-ten years of restructuring before
the a common-user - as oppose to customer specific - intermodal
network using the Channel Tunnel is in place again.

Well, let's see what DB offer, now that they own so much on both sides
of the Channel.

Tick, tock!

[Joyce Whitchurch]

Post by Bruce
From the early 1990s, all around the country, rail freight terminals
were built in the expectation of a huge increase in rail-borne freight
to/from mainland Europe using the Channel Tunnel. Many were built on
green belt land because government relaxed the planning rules as long
as at least 70% of the freight using those terminals either arrived or
departed by rail.

Where you've got that idea from? And why do you say 70 per cent?

Post by Bruce
The increase in cross-Channel rail freight never happened. Indeed,
the volume of cross-Channel rail freight traffic is now **lower** than
it was before the Channel Tunnel opened, when the train ferries
operated.
So around the country, there are many rail freight terminals that are
grossly under-used. Of the ones built on green belt land, not one has
ever approached the 70% of freight in or out by rail that was the
basis for giving them planning permission. So all of them are
operating illegally outside their planning consent.

Illegally? That's a strong word. IIRC all the new terminals were built
entirely properly. In some cases they had deemed consent, because they
were built on existing railway land (e.g. Trafford Park Euroterminal).
In other cases they were granted planning consent after the promoters
demonstrated exceptional need to develop a Green Belt site (e.g.
Wakefield Europort). The need argument was generally job creation, not
modal shift.

And I can't think of any terminal where consent was conditional upon a
minimum volume or ratio of traffic moving by rail. Developers wouldn't
accept such a condition anyway, since a) it would scare off potential
occupiers, and b) it shuts the door on Freight Facility Grants.

Post by Bruce
It is a good job no-one from government ever checks the 70% figure is
being achieved. But many of these terminals are doing well as busy
*road* freight terminals while their rail connections rust away and
are choked by weeds.

Some of them are doing well as *rail* freight terminals, though their
traffic is maritime and domestic rather than "Channel Tunnel".

Post by Bruce
I don't know what are the underlying reasons for the collapse in
cross-Channel rail freight.

There are many reasons but the main one, the persistent one, is poor
performance by the mainland railways.

Post by Bruce
However, it seems almost unbelievable
that, after billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent (in BR
days) on facilities for Channel Tunnel freight traffic, after hundreds
of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on other
facilities since, and after planning laws were relaxed to allow
rail-served distribution terminals to be developed on green belt land,
the cross-Channel rail traffic of the last few years has averaged only
five trains a day.
I know that there are some internal (within Britain) freight flows
that have made some use of the new facilities, but the expectation
was always that the majority of demand for them would come from
cross-Channel freight. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened.
In view of the huge amount of public money that has been spent, it
would be interesting to know why.

Strikes in France
Fires in the Channel Tunnel
Trespass in the Tunnel by illegal immigrants
Inability to carry dangerous goods
Too great an emphasis on intermodal traffic rather than conventional wagons
The curious structure developed to market intermodal services through
separate companies part-owned by rail and road interests
The assumption that road hauliers would all invest in swop bodies
The disinclination of certain railways east of the Rhine to re-route
their traffic away from North Sea ports
The fact that the only suitable traction was for many years controlled
by EWS, SNCF and Eurotunnel
BRB's refusal to develop any terminals south of the Thames
The expense and bureaucracy associated with the Channel Tunnel Security
Order 1994
The disruption caused by restructuring and privatisation of the British
railway industry

Just IMHO of course.

These and many other reasons combined to give indequate service at too
high a price. But the fundamental error in the forecasting was the
assumption that lo-lo traffic crossing the North Sea and the wider bits
of the Channel would suddenly be diverted away from its traditional
crossing points and be literally funnelled into a tunnel many miles off
route.

Manchester - Milan via the Tunnel makes sense. So does St Blazey -
Zurich. But Manchester - Hamburg doesn't, and nor does Bristol - Bordeaux.

[amogles]

Post by Joyce Whitchurch
Manchester - Milan via the Tunnel makes sense. So does St Blazey -
Zurich. But Manchester - Hamburg doesn't, and nor does Bristol - Bordeaux.
--

Back in the 80s, didn't Swedish railways propose a train ferry (for
freight) between Britain and Sweden?

I wonder if there would be a case for one today?

There are several freight-only (*) train ferries in the Baltic region
today, probably more than carry passenger trains.

* = freight only as far as their rail usage is concerned. They often
do carry lorries, cars, foot passengers etc.

[Joyce Whitchurch]

Post by amogles
Back in the 80s, didn't Swedish railways propose a train ferry (for
freight) between Britain and Sweden?

I doubt it - that would be rather a long trip through the Kattegat.
There may have been a proposal from Danish Railways though I don't
remember one. What I do recall was a scheme for a train ferry between
Immingham and Cuxhaven (D).

This scored highly with Deutsche Bundesbahn as it maximised their
mileage within what was then the long and relatively thin West Germany.
But it scored nul points with British Rail, who correctly calculated
that it minimised their mileage within the equally long and thin U of K.

There was also a scheme for relaunching the Dover - Zeebrugge train
ferry with the twin goals of a) carrying dangerous goods and b)
by-passing la belle France.

Post by amogles
I wonder if there would be a case for one today?
There are several freight-only (*) train ferries in the Baltic region
today, probably more than carry passenger trains.

The Baltic is a splendid place for train ferries, being a big, mostly
inland, sea. To get from any random Baltic state to a different random
Baltic state usually involves a long detour through the Formerly USS of
R; whereas a train ferry goes pretty much as the crow, or possibly
herring gull, flies, and doesn't involve paying out gold francs [1] to
somebody else's railway.

[1] Presumably euros these days, but I'm out of touch. I'm very old.

[Robert Cox]

Post by Joyce Whitchurch

Post by Bruce
From the early 1990s, all around the country, rail freight terminals
were built in the expectation of a huge increase in rail-borne freight
to/from mainland Europe using the Channel Tunnel. Many were built on
green belt land because government relaxed the planning rules as long
as at least 70% of the freight using those terminals either arrived or
departed by rail.

Where you've got that idea from? And why do you say 70 per cent?

Post by Bruce
The increase in cross-Channel rail freight never happened. Indeed,
the volume of cross-Channel rail freight traffic is now **lower** than
it was before the Channel Tunnel opened, when the train ferries
operated.
So around the country, there are many rail freight terminals that are
grossly under-used. Of the ones built on green belt land, not one has
ever approached the 70% of freight in or out by rail that was the
basis for giving them planning permission. So all of them are
operating illegally outside their planning consent.

Illegally? That's a strong word. IIRC all the new terminals were built
entirely properly. In some cases they had deemed consent, because they
were built on existing railway land (e.g. Trafford Park Euroterminal).
In other cases they were granted planning consent after the promoters
demonstrated exceptional need to develop a Green Belt site (e.g.
Wakefield Europort). The need argument was generally job creation, not
modal shift.
And I can't think of any terminal where consent was conditional upon a
minimum volume or ratio of traffic moving by rail. Developers wouldn't
accept such a condition anyway, since a) it would scare off potential
occupiers, and b) it shuts the door on Freight Facility Grants.

Post by Bruce
It is a good job no-one from government ever checks the 70% figure is
being achieved. But many of these terminals are doing well as busy
*road* freight terminals while their rail connections rust away and
are choked by weeds.

Some of them are doing well as *rail* freight terminals, though their
traffic is maritime and domestic rather than "Channel Tunnel".

Post by Bruce
I don't know what are the underlying reasons for the collapse in
cross-Channel rail freight.

There are many reasons but the main one, the persistent one, is poor
performance by the mainland railways.

Post by Bruce
However, it seems almost unbelievable
that, after billions of pounds of taxpayers' money were spent (in BR
days) on facilities for Channel Tunnel freight traffic, after hundreds
of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been spent on other
facilities since, and after planning laws were relaxed to allow
rail-served distribution terminals to be developed on green belt land,
the cross-Channel rail traffic of the last few years has averaged only
five trains a day.
I know that there are some internal (within Britain) freight flows
that have made some use of the new facilities, but the expectation
was always that the majority of demand for them would come from
cross-Channel freight. For whatever reason, it just hasn't happened.
In view of the huge amount of public money that has been spent, it
would be interesting to know why.

Strikes in France
Fires in the Channel Tunnel
Trespass in the Tunnel by illegal immigrants
Inability to carry dangerous goods
Too great an emphasis on intermodal traffic rather than conventional wagons
The curious structure developed to market intermodal services through
separate companies part-owned by rail and road interests
The assumption that road hauliers would all invest in swop bodies
The disinclination of certain railways east of the Rhine to re-route
their traffic away from North Sea ports
The fact that the only suitable traction was for many years controlled
by EWS, SNCF and Eurotunnel
BRB's refusal to develop any terminals south of the Thames
The expense and bureaucracy associated with the Channel Tunnel Security
Order 1994
The disruption caused by restructuring and privatisation of the British
railway industry
Just IMHO of course.
These and many other reasons combined to give indequate service at too
high a price. But the fundamental error in the forecasting was the
assumption that lo-lo traffic crossing the North Sea and the wider bits
of the Channel would suddenly be diverted away from its traditional
crossing points and be literally funnelled into a tunnel many miles off
route.
Manchester - Milan via the Tunnel makes sense. So does St Blazey -
Zurich. But Manchester - Hamburg doesn't, and nor does Bristol - Bordeaux.

May I add some data to your list of difficulties for rail freight? On
Monday 11 October 2004 the House of Lords Select Committee on the
European Union (Sub-Committee B) took evidence as part of the Inquiry
Into European Union Rail Policy: Liberalisation of International Rail
Freight In Europe. The Minutes were published on the inter-web thingy
which I downloaded at the time, they may well be still available but I
haven't looked.

Mr Bill Gurmin, Director Material Planning & Logistics, and Mr Howell
James, Manager Material Planning & Logistics, Ford of Europe gave
evidence on their experience in running international freight trains.
The whole document is an eye-opener, but the following is a quote:


Finally, we believe that it is more environmentally friendly than road
transport and, as such, we would like to increase the amount of
business that we do on rail. If we look at the disadvantages, there is
one big disadvantage with rail and that is reliability. We cannot rely
on the train being at the destination on time. If I may illustrate
that. When I contract a truck driver or a truck company to deliver
material to our plants, we need that material within a certain time
period or we stop production. I can get a truck company to deliver on
time on a 15 minute plus or minus time window and 92 per cent of the
time those people are there. I did an analysis over the last three
months, July to September, of the train service from Dagenham into
Valencia. Thirty-nine per cent of the trains were late and, when I say
late, they were more than four hours late, many of them were 24 hours
late and some of them were 48 hours late. The major issue here is going
through France.
France is a very difficult area to move trains through. We have all
sorts of issues there. In this time period, we had some technical
issues that accounted for 14 per cent of the problems. This was heavy
rain and flooding on the track. There were catenary problems with the
power lines, we had some technical issues there, and we had a tunnel
fire and a loco breakdown. Acts of God and weather were ten per cent –
this was mainly the flooding that I referred to earlier. Then we had
strikes seven per cent of the time. As I speak, we are under threat of
strike from Renfe, a Spanish company. Indeed, we had three of our
trains cancelled due to strike action. The Spanish union of rail
workers are protesting against the privatisation. We are going to have
a one-day strike this week and probably further strikes coming. When
that happens, I have to find road transport to fill in for the train or
our suppliers do. Last week, we had to charter four aeroplanes to keep
our plant in Valencia going otherwise we would have lost production and
there is enormous cost involved in that. We had to move over 50 trucks
into that supply chain. This is getting so common that we are getting
good at it!

Later they went on to say:

There are a number of areas of concern that we have. It is not
exclusively France, let me say, but France tends to be the area of most
concern. Lack of drivers is a problem. Lack of locomotives. Strikes are
endemic and they can be by third parties not even rail workers – it can
be farm workers or truck drivers. They can stick a truck across a track
and we are finished. There is a whole miscellany of issues but they
tend to be in the area of France. We do have, as I say, right now
problems in Spain. They had a three-day strike last week. However,
until recently, it was not a big problem in Spain.


And concerning technical stuff and the UK loading gauge

I would like to see harmonisation of the standard used in the industry.
We have differences in rolling stock, voltage being used, pitch of the
axles, we have gauge difference and height, a whole miscellany of the
things that I think need to be standardised to the best in class level,
not standardised to the lower level which would not help the industry
at all. For example, in Britain, I cannot get two Focus C-MAX on a
double-deck car transporter because the gauge allowable prohibits me
from doing that. I can do it right through Europe but, in Britain, I
have to go with a C-MAX single deck on a flat-backed wagon. This makes
it twice as expensive to transport and also, importantly, the
availability of flat-backed wagons is not sufficient for the business
that I have. So, I would like to see harmonisation and optimisation of
many of those things. Axle weights need to be harmonised; I can take a
higher axle weight on the continent that I can in Britain. Then, train
lengths need to be harmonised. There are many things that we need to
optimise in the industry in order that we, as the customer, are
satisfied. Finally and very importantly for me, cost transparency. We
do not get cost transparency from the national rail companies. What we
get is, “Here is an increase. Now, go away and pay us”, to the point
where they will walk away if we do not pay.

End quote

So, with the loss of specialist skills at the UK, the UK structure
gauge end and with friends like these helping you on the other side of
the Channel, is it any wonder that cross-channel rail freight has
collapsed? I'm just surprised that /any/ freight goes by rail at all.