The Network Rail (Hope Valley Capacity) Order
NR/INQ/27
TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
TRANSPORT AND WORKS (INQUIRIES PROCEDURES)
RULES 2004
THE NETWORK RAIL (HOPE VALLEY CAPACITY) ORDER
INQUIRY DOCUMENT
NETWORK RAIL FREIGHT TRAIN LENGTH
CLARIFICATION NOTE
Thomas Drury
Document control no.
Date
12 May 2016
Page 2 of 5
The Network Rail (Hope Valley Capacity) Order
12 May 2016
NR/INQ/27 Network Rail Freight Train Length Clarification Note
FREIGHT CLARIFICATION NOTE
1. This note has been produced to clarify the constraints affecting longer freight
trains being able to access the Hope Valley Route (the Route), and the current
situation in terms of both current and future freight train lengths.
2. The length of a train is not of itself a constraint on where it is able to operate,
because any length of train is theoretical capable of running on the network.
Therefore, in principle longer trains can enter the Route either from east to
west. However, the length of a train can introduce operational inflexibility and
loss of available capacity. As is the case on the Route, slower moving freight
trains can delay faster passenger services, and long freight trains can impede
other routes, as at Dore. In order for the faster passenger service to pass
there must be a suitable location for the freight train to ‘move out of the way’. If
there is not, for example, a passing loop of sufficient length, then it will not be
possible to pass the freight train. This will reduce the operational capacity of
the network.
3. The recently published update to the Freight Network Study (Network Rail
2016) (Appendix A), states that 775m long freight trains are the minimum
standard against which network capability should be assessed. The aspiration
for longer freight trains was identified in the 2009 Strategic Freight Network:
Longer Term Vision document published by the DfT (Appendix B).
4. From my experience of working on a number of recent freight schemes (see
below), all Network Rail freight schemes are expected to endeavour to meet
this standard.
5. Current train lengths are dictated by the actual tonnage of the train. Firstly,
the locomotive must be able to pull the tonnage. Secondly, the higher the
tonnage, the slower the train is likely to be able to operate. For this reason
some freight trains run with lighter loads than the locomotive could pull.
Alternatively, if there are sufficient passing locations, a heavier/longer freight
train can operate without introducing operational constraints.
6. Current freight services on the Route can operate at lengths of up to 465m.
The example noted in the email to Mr Dickson (OP/INQ/11) stated that
Tarmac operate 22 or 27 wagon trains. With the length of a freight wagon
being 16.459m and the length of a Class 66 locomotive being 21.34m, a 27
wagon train would therefore equate to 465.7m in length. Trains consisting of
22 wagons equate to 383.4m in length.
7. The initial specification for the Hope Valley Scheme identified an aspiration to
accommodate 775m freight trains. However, this was reduced to 640m in
recognition of the fact that the gradients of the Route would make it
impractical for a train of 775m to operate, both in terms of speed and of the
additional stresses on the wagon couplings.
8. Examples of recent and ongoing schemes in the North-West that recognise
the intention to run longer freight trains include:
a. Buxton re-modelling: currently being developed to provide sidings of
845m, which would accommodate a freight train of up to approximately
750m;
b. Ditton intermodal freight terminal: which has received planning consent
is currently being developed to provide a 780m siding facility, again to
accommodate a freight train of approximately 700m;
c. Port Salford freight terminal: designed to handle 775m freight trains.
9. I have endeavoured to ascertain the length of existing sidings in the vicinity of
the Route, but the information is not readily accessible. Network Rail’s
Sectional Appendix, which details the operational railway, does not include
detail of infrastructure that is either no longer in use, or not controlled by
Network Rail.
Page 4 of 5
APPENDIX A
Freight Network Study
DRAFT 2016
1
Contents
Freight Network Study .............................................................................................................. 1
Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary ................................................................................................................... 6
The benefits of rail freight ....................................................................................................... 11
1.
2.
Background ...................................................................................................................... 13
1.1
Long term planning process .................................................................................... 13
1.2
Draft for Consultation structure .............................................................................. 15
Scope and planning context ............................................................................................ 16
2.1
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 16
2.2
Purpose and scope of the Freight Network Study .................................................. 16
2.3
Governance ............................................................................................................. 17
2.3.1 Rail Industry Planning Group (RIPG) ....................................................................... 17
2.3.2 Working Group ....................................................................................................... 17
3.
2.4
Time horizon ............................................................................................................ 18
2.5
Planning context ...................................................................................................... 18
2.5.1
England and Wales .......................................................................................... 18
2.5.2
Scotland ........................................................................................................... 20
2.5.3
European Freight Corridor............................................................................... 21
Current demand and the baseline network .................................................................... 23
3.1
Freight operators ..................................................................................................... 23
3.2
Profile of the freight market .................................................................................... 23
3.3
Summary of base year freight demand ................................................................... 25
3.3.1
Actual train paths ............................................................................................ 25
3.3.2
Actual gross tonnage ....................................................................................... 27
3.4
Key freight corridors ................................................................................................ 28
3.5
Utilisation of paths .................................................................................................. 29
3.5
Utilisation of paths .................................................................................................. 29
3.6
Capability Baseline................................................................................................... 30
3.6.1
Length limits .................................................................................................... 30
3.6.2 Weight restrictions ................................................................................................. 33
3.6.3 Average speed ........................................................................................................ 34
3.7
4.
Baseline at the end of CP5....................................................................................... 35
Forecast of change .......................................................................................................... 36
2
4.1
Approach to forecasting .......................................................................................... 36
4.2
Industry demand results.......................................................................................... 37
4.2.1. Intermodal sector .................................................................................................. 37
4.2.2 Electricity Supply Industry (ESI) coal sector............................................................ 38
4.2.3 Biomass sector........................................................................................................ 38
4.2.4 Construction materials ........................................................................................... 38
4.2.5 Other sectors .......................................................................................................... 38
4.2.6 Comparison of forecast growth against actual growth .......................................... 38
4.3
Commodity Review.................................................................................................. 39
4.3.1. Intermodal Industry (Spring 2013) ........................................................................ 40
4.3.2. Energy (August 2015) ............................................................................................ 41
4.3.3. Construction (Spring 2015) .................................................................................... 41
4.3.4. Automotive Sector (Summer 2015)....................................................................... 42
5.
4.4
Train paths required to accommodate growth ....................................................... 43
4.5
Cross-boundary analysis methodology ................................................................... 48
4.6
Improved access to the rail network ....................................................................... 48
4.7
TEN-T objectives ...................................................................................................... 49
Summary of gaps identified............................................................................................. 52
5.1
Capacity ................................................................................................................... 52
5.1.1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 52
5.1.2
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 52
5.1.3
DRIVERS OF CAPACITY GAPS ........................................................................... 53
5.1.4
KEY GAPS IDENTIFIED ...................................................................................... 55
5.2
Capability ................................................................................................................. 58
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 58
Capability Studies ................................................................................................................ 58
Intermodal ........................................................................................................................... 60
Higher Axle Loads ............................................................................................................ 60
Higher Maximum Speed .................................................................................................. 60
Bulk ...................................................................................................................................... 61
Aggregate ............................................................................................................................ 61
Locomotive Requirements .................................................................................................. 61
Summary of Studies............................................................................................................. 61
5.3
Gauge....................................................................................................................... 61
3
6.
5.3.1
Background ...................................................................................................... 62
5.3.2
Industry aspiration........................................................................................... 63
5.3.3
Summary of gaps in gauge .............................................................................. 68
5.4
Conclusions of studies ............................................................................................. 69
5.5
Freight electrification .............................................................................................. 70
5.6
Nodal Yards.............................................................................................................. 72
Priorities for funders ....................................................................................................... 74
6.1
Background to option development ....................................................................... 74
6.1.1
Strategic safety ................................................................................................ 74
6.1.2
Alignment with other objectives ..................................................................... 75
6.1.3
Digital Railway ................................................................................................. 75
6.1.4
Hendy Review .................................................................................................. 76
6.2
Capacity ................................................................................................................... 76
6.3
Capability ............................................................................................................... 100
Velocity (Average and Maximum) ................................................................................. 100
Gauge............................................................................................................................. 101
Train Lengthening .......................................................................................................... 101
Nodal Yards.................................................................................................................... 102
Electrification................................................................................................................. 103
Corridor Assessment ..................................................................................................... 103
7.
Strategy and long-term priorities for funders ............................................................... 107
9.
Glossary ......................................................................................................................... 119
4
Foreword
I am pleased to publish the Freight Network Study, which considers the future development
of rail freight across the rail network in Great Britain. This study forms part of the rail
industry’s Long Term Planning Process (LTPP), which looks at the requirements of the rail
network over the next 30 years and is intended to support the series of Route studies that
have been published or are under development.
Today, the railway carries tens of millions of passengers and many millions of tonnes of
freight a year. Working closely with industry stakeholders, Network Rail is delivering an ever
expanding service provision for freight users, and for passengers. Demand for freight is
expected to continue to grow, as it is increasingly recognised as an economically attractive
and environmentally efficient form of transport. Growth will be particularly strong around
ports such as Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton. This success brings challenges.
Currently, a programme of works is being undertaken to enhance rail freight access to these
ports. Schemes such as Ipswich chord, train lengthening enhancements on many routes and
continued investment in local projects seeks to support the development of this rail sector.
Developing longer-term plans for the network to 2043 is important. It enables consideration
of these changes in the context of major schemes being developed, such as High Speed Two,
with a view to creating a prioritised context of requirements for the next Control Period
(Control Period 6, 2019 – 2024). Using future service characteristics (such as capacity,
frequency, and journey times) which the industry aspires to deliver over the next 30 years,
this study has developed options to deliver these outputs subject to value for money,
deliverability and affordability. Consideration has been given to where the capacity and
capability of the network in 2019 will be insufficient to accommodate these requirements,
with a number of ‘choices’ being presented for consideration for future investment in the
sector.
The dominant issue is the need to create the capacity and capability to serve the future
needs of the rail freight market and enabling the sector to grow. The type of freight carried
by rail is changing, and overall demand continues to grow significantly. Catering for this
requires careful assessments of options to ensure that this demand is met in a sustainable
way. It recognises the need to improve resilience of the railway in order to maintain
connectivity.
The study seeks to outline what the rail industry considers to be the future priorities for
enhancing the rail freight network. Through the LTPP, it takes account of the needs of the
passenger sector. We would like to thank industry stakeholders for their participation in the
Long Term Planning Process to develop this strategy. Details on the consultation process
can be found in Chapter xx.
Network Rail has led the production of this Route Study on behalf of the industry and as
such it has been developed collaboratively with industry partners and wider stakeholders,
including passenger and freight operators, the Department for Transport, Transport for
London, Local Authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships. We thank them all for their
contribution.
5
Executive summary
The Freight Network Study forms part of wider rail industry Long Term Planning Process
(LTPP). Network studies look at network-wide issues and look to future capacity and
capability related issues for the railway.
This study was commissioned to consider the requirements of the rail freight industry in
future control periods to inform the basis for choices for funders. The freight network study
brings together the strategic freight recommendations from individual route studies and
provides an outline of the wider priorities for capability of rail freight that is not route
specific.
The remit agreed for the Network Study was developed by the Rail Industry Planning Group
with governs the study. The scope of the study is intended to:




Provide an overview of the current plans for the enhancement of the rail freight
network in Great Britain
Propose a range of future capacity options for the enhancement of the rail
freight network including a summary of route study recommendations
Consider the short and longer term capability requirements to increase the
availability and efficiency of the network, assessing the case for investment
Provide a range of options for investment over a number of key rail freight
corridors for a 30 year period.
The rail freight market has grown significantly in recent decades. Total volumes have
increased by around 70 per cent from 13.0 billion net tonne kilometres (btk) in 1994/95 to
22.2 btk in 2014/15. This growth, coupled with the rapid evolution of the markets served,
has led to increasing capacity constraints and the network. Investment in infrastructure is
necessary to unlock the potential of key sectors of the market and accommodate anticipated
growth on a network which is also experiencing growing passenger traffic.
Since the Freight Market Study was published in 2013, the main development over recent
years has been the sharp decline in coal volumes. During this time the intermodal sector has
seen restricted growth which is expected to be partly due to depressed total deep sea
container trade volumes since 2011/12. Recent falls in oil prices may also have restricted
increases in rail’s market share. There has, however, been a faster growth in the
construction and automotive sectors that was previously predicted.
The Freight Network Study assesses the future requirements for the rail freight market
looking at a number of individual corridors. A summary of these corridors and the location of
where the key challenges for rail freight in the future are shown in table XX.
6
For the construction sector, booked paths may not be required every week due to market demand
and external factors such as weather and seasonal variations. Additionally, diversionary routes are
booked to provide resilience and flexibility for freight which, assuming normal operating
characteristics, should be required.
Intermodal services typically have a higher utilisation rate as the market requires a frequency of
service delivery and loaded container flows in both directions. When there is lower container
demand, services still operate but with lower utilisation of wagon space.
A ‘Capacity Management’ workstream has been developed with the aim of reviewing unused freight
schedules. This is a collaborative workstream between Network Rail and all Freight Operating
Companies (FOCs) and is intended to generate freight capacity without the need for infrastructure
enhancements.
The review of schedules is agreed through FOC submission of schedules they are willing to relinquish
and Network Rail identifying schedules that have not been used in the last 90 days.
Following the first number of meetings to review unused freight capacity, over 1,700 freight
schedules have been relinquished by FOCs. The schedules cover all commodity types and across the
entire network in Great Britain.
The removal of freight schedules from the timetable will provide greater flexibility in future
timetable production, improve existing schedules to make better use of capacity and enhance
performance. Additionally, a proportion of relinquished schedules are being preserved for freight
which have strategic value for the future.
The utilisation of paths is of particular significance for cross London routes. On many of these routes,
particularly the North and West London Lines, there are aspirations for higher frequency passenger
services, particularly in the peak hours. Particular priority should be given to ensuring utilisation of
paths is increased on these routes to ensure the maximum economic value can be gained from
them. Consideration should also be given to the potential for trading-off peak freight paths for a
greater number of off-peak freight paths where there can be benefits achieved by both the freight
and passenger sectors.
3.6 Capability Baseline
Section 3.2 and 3.3 detailed a profile of the current freight market and the baseline level of demand.
Availability of high-quality freight paths is dependent on the capability of the network to enable this
demand, specifically the ability to run trains of appropriate length and weight at a competitive
average speed. Current constraints in relation to length, weight and speed restrictions affecting key
corridors are set out in this section in order to establish the baseline level of capability against which
the Network Study aims to improve.
3.6.1 Length limits
Key drivers of rail freight’s advantage relative to road are linked to its ability to carry a greater
volume of goods per journey, meaning that the effectiveness and viability of freight corridors can be
damaged where longer trains cannot run.
30
Relatively light goods, primarily ports and domestic intermodal, are the main beneficiaries of longer
trains as the necessary traction power is more readily available compared to an equivalent length
construction train. Currently, 775m trains (including locomotive) represent the upper length
boundary for intermodal trains. Long-term aspiration exists across the industry to research the
possibility of running trains of even greater length, although this study considers 775m the minimum
baseline against which capability should be assessed.
Capability to run 775m trains is also reliant on adequate loading and unloading facilities at ports and
terminals, highlighting the need for integration across the industry. A high-level study of the
potential to form longer trains using nodal yards, for example between Crewe and the Scottish
border may facilitate additional long-term capability where ports facilities cannot meet demand.
The maps below show the current baseline for the four primary intermodal corridors, showing both
current and committed 775m capability. The anticipated baseline at the end of CP5 is therefore
shown here, rather than present-day capability. This is because the Network Study suggests
priorities for funders in order to further improve network capability, so it is useful to establish a
baseline including forthcoming enabling works. It is important to note that 775m trains may
additionally be able to run on sections which are not cleared, but would require special
authorisation in order to do so.
31
APPENDIX B
Britain’s Transport Infrastructure
Strategic Rail Freight Network:
The Longer Term Vision
September 2009
Britain’s Transport Infrastructure
Strategic Rail Freight Network:
The Longer Term Vision
September 2009
The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted
people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s
website in accordance with the W3C’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The text may
be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other
accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department.
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR
Telephone 020 7944 8300
Website www.dft.gov.uk
© Crown copyright, 2009, except where otherwise stated.
Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.
This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium
for non-commercial research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This
is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright
source of the material must be acknowledged and the title of the publication specified.
For any other use of this material, apply for a Click-Use Licence at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/
index.htm or e-mail [email protected]
Photo acknowledgements
Front cover: First GBRf and Freightliner Limited
Pages 6,8,10,16: DB Schenker Rail UK
Page 12: First GBRf
Page 17: Freightliner Limited
Page 14: Stobart Group
To order further copies contact:
DfT Publications
Tel: 0300 123 1102
E-mail: [email protected]
ISBN 978-1-84864-034-4
75%
Printed in Great Britain. September 2009.
Contents
Executive summary
5
Introduction
6
Context
7
Definition of the Strategic Rail Freight Network
9
Strategic Rail Freight Network development: Control Period 4
(2009-10 to 2013-14)
11
Strategic Rail Freight Network: longer-term development
13
Freight Routeing Studies
17
Annex A: Strategic Rail Freight Network maps
18
Annex B: Strategic Rail Freight Network projects funded in
CP4 (2009-14)
22
Annex C: Productivity Transport Innovation Fund projects for
CP4 (2009-14)
22
Annex D: Strategic Rail Freight Interchange policy
23
Annex E: Rail freight loading gauge diagram
24
3
Executive summary
1.
Rail freight plays a key role in a delivering a sustainable distribution system,
contributing to the achievement of the United Kingdom’s economic and
environmental objectives.
2.
The Strategic Rail Freight Network (SFN) is designed to optimise the freight
performance of our intensively utilised mixed-traffic rail network, allowing the
efficient operation of more, longer and selectively larger freight trains.
3.
Interventions will be required to:
●●
optimise freight trunk routeings to minimise passenger/freight conflicts;
●●
make the network available 24-hours a day, all year round;
●●
eliminate pinch points; and
●●
upgrade network capability.
4.
SFN investment in Rail Control Period 4 (2009-10 to 2013-14) is focused on
loading gauge enhancement to W10/12 and train lengthening.
5.
Longer-term action and investment in the SFN will be required to deliver the
following key elements:
●●
longer and heavier trains;
●●
efficient operating characteristics;
●●
seven-day/24-hour capability;
●●
W12 loading gauge on all strategic container routes;
●●
6.
European (UIC GB+) loading gauge from High Speed 1 (HS1) to the
Midlands;
●●
increased freight capacity;
●●
electrification of freight routes;
●●
development of strategic rail freight interchanges and terminals; and
●●
protection of strategic freight capacity.
Network Rail studies have been commissioned to identify the future
preferred freight routes between the London and the South-East and the
Midlands and North of England; and, in conjunction with that, an optimal
cross-London freight strategy.
5
Introduction
7.
Efficient and sustainable freight transport is increasingly important both
to the UK’s economy and to the achievement of our environmental goals.
Rail transport generally has a less negative impact on society than road
transport and so has a crucial role to play in delivering significant reductions
in pollution and congestion. For this reason, the 2007 Rail White Paper
announced the Government’s intention to develop a Strategic Rail Freight
Network (SFN) to facilitate the continued growth of rail freight services.
8.
The 2007 High Level Output Specification (HLOS) committed £200 million to
take forward the development of the SFN in Control Period 4 (CP4: 2009-10
to 2013-14), and provided funding for major infrastructure works at Reading
and on the East Coast corridor, both of which will significantly enhance
freight operations. This investment builds on the programme to increase
the loading gauge and capacity of key freight routes serving major ports,
announced under the Productivity Transport Innovation Fund scheme.
9.
This paper looks to the future, beyond CP4, and sets out ways in which we
envisage that further development of the SFN and enhancement of freight
operations will enable UK’s intensively utilised mixed-traffic network to
accommodate rail freight growth forecast to 2030.
European logistics – steel exports via the Channel Tunnel
6
Context
10.
We need to make the fullest use of the UK’s predominantly mixed-traffic rail
network. Conflicts occur between passenger and freight requirements (and
between different types of passenger services) at numerous points on the
railway, eroding network capacity and reliability. At present the network is
almost nowhere optimised for freight, which reduces the efficiency of the
UK’s rail distribution logistics.
11.
The SFN is intended to provide a framework for targeting investment and
network management better to meet freight requirements and to resolve
such conflicts. This should both improve the logistical efficiency of the
railway and secure network capacity and reliability gains to the benefit of all
users. The SFN is therefore a key element in making the best use of existing
and future rail resources.
12.
Network Rail (NR) is working with the industry and the Department to agree
robust freight forecasts for 2030. The maps at Annex A provide: a picture
of the proposed SFN; key freight/passenger network interaction; coal traffic
flows for the electricity supply industry in 2006 and 2030; and the main
flows of intermodal traffic anticipated in 2030. Analysis to date indicates
growth of up to 75 per cent, concentrated on the deep sea intermodal
sector but offset somewhat by a 20 per cent decline in coal traffic. Further
information on the maps used in Annex A, the 2030 forecasts and NR’s
work on the SFN is available on the NR website (www.networkrail.co.uk).
7
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
International trade – maritime containers to and from UK ports
8
Definition of the Strategic Rail
Freight Network
13.
The 2007 Rail White Paper defined the SFN as: “a core network of trunk
freight routes, capable of accommodating more and longer freight trains,
with a selective ability to handle wagons with higher axle loads and greater
loading gauge, integrated with and complementing the UK’s existing mixed
traffic network.”
14.
An ideal freight network would accommodate optimum sized freight trains
travelling at appropriate line speed, without checks, over optimum routeing
to commercially preferred timings. In practical terms this suggests that the
SFN should:
●●
●●
●●
●●
15.
optimise the pattern of freight trunk routeing to minimise passenger/
freight conflicts. This may lead to fewer, higher capacity trunk routes/
diversionary routes but also to the definition of ‘new’ trunk routes. This
would provide potential gains in reliability, environmental performance
and operating cost savings;
develop appropriate diversionary routes and implement a standard
network-wide possessions regime, with general use of single line
working (SLW), to provide 24-hour/365-day network availability;
upgrade an optimised pattern of freight trunk routes to eliminate
traffic conflict and pinch points. This may require construction or
reinstatement of chords, avoiding lines, investment in grade separated
junctions etc; and
upgrade trunk freight routes to meet the requirements of traffic, which
may include any (or all) of the following: measures to increase the
number of freight train paths; provision for increased train length;
increased loading gauge (including the longer term objective of securing
a European gauge route from High Speed1 (HS1) to the North);
increased axle-load; and infill electrification.
The SFN will continue to evolve over time to reflect emerging national and
international logistics and freight network requirements. We should therefore
consider safeguarding strategic disused freight alignments, etc.
9
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
Premium logistics – Royal Mail letters
10
Strategic Rail Freight Network
Development: Control Period 4
(2009-10 to 2013-14)
16.
The 2007 Rail White Paper stated that the Government would work with
the industry to develop and facilitate the delivery of the SFN, but would not
specify freight requirements. Responsibility for producing a SFN delivery
plan rests with NR, acting in its industry leadership role, within the context
of the Department’s freight policy and the wider strategic requirement to
optimise overall railway capacity, reliability and availability for all users. NR is
required by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) to publish SFN proposals in
its Strategic Business Plan.
17.
NR set up a SFN Working Group comprising key stakeholders, including
DfT, to identify and evaluate potential SFN schemes. Proposals have been
evaluated against various criteria including a set of freight-based measures
(whether the scheme provides for enhanced loading gauge1, capacity,
train lengthening, axle weight increases or better use of assets), and wider
network benefits, principally route optimisation (including greater separation
of passenger and freight flows) and additional benefits to passenger
services. NR has assessed the Benefit/Cost Ratio of each scheme, where
possible drawing on work already carried out through Route Utilisation
Strategies, or previously funded by the Strategic Rail Authority. A list of
proposed SFN schemes for CP4 has been published by NR in its CP4
Delivery Plan and is shown in Annex B.
18.
The SFN CP4 schemes will be complemented by CP4 High Level Output
Specification (HLOS) schemes which deliver additional freight capacity and
capability alongside that for passenger services. These include the upgrade
of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) capacity-relieving ‘Joint Line’ via
Spalding, Lincoln and Gainsborough; Shaftholme junction re-modelling; and
Reading area re-development.
1
A diagram of the various rail loading gauges is attached at Annex E
11
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
Powering UK industry – coal for electricity generation
12
Strategic Rail Freight Network:
longer-term development
19.
The SFN schemes for Control Period 5 (CP5: 2014-15 to 2018-19) and
beyond will be developed as an integral part of the network planning
process which will underpin the next HLOS and the emerging strategies for
dealing with future passenger demand on the main line routes.
20.
The nine principles set out below define the key requirements for the longerterm development of the SFN.
20.1 Longer and heavier trains
●●
To optimise path utilisation, the future ‘standard’ inter-modal train length
should be 775 metres (755m plus locomotive2). As an early priority,
key intermodal routes should be upgraded to accommodate trains up
to 775m in length. Where appropriate, similar provision should also be
made on bulk routes and consideration should be given to the use of
less steeply-graded routes to improve train haulage efficiency.
●●
●●
●●
775 metre train length should be the design standard for new freight
terminal developments and enhancement of existing terminals.
Selective ‘super-length’ route capability should be provided where there
is a business case for running trains longer than 775 metres.
Selective route capability should be provided, where there is a business
case, for operating trains at 32 tonne axle loading.
20.2 Freight and network-efficient operating characteristics
●●
As an operating principle, NR should aim to achieve through running
of freight trains, seeking timetabling and signalling solutions in
preference to the use of passing loops. This has the potential to
deliver significant environmental, operating and economic efficiencies,
particularly if delivered alongside existing plans to reduce the level of
delay to freight trains.
2
Equivalent to 118 Standard Length Units of 6.4 metres
13
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
●●
20.3
Freight should be regarded as the leading rail sector for locomotive early
fitment programmes for the roll-out of the Global System for Mobile
Communications for Railways (GSM-R) and the European Railways
Traffic Management System (ERTMS)3. This recognises both the freight
industry’s operational ‘go-anywhere’ requirement and its commercial
‘can-do’ capability.
Seven-day/24-hour capability
●●
Distribution customers are increasingly requiring a 7 day/24 hour
capability from their suppliers, including inter-modal rail operators. This
requires the ‘seven day railway’ to support freight as well as passenger
services. This will require single line working (SLW) as a standard
engineering possession practice and/or diversionary routes with
appropriate capability, for each strategic freight route.
●●
Recognising that many freight routes are long-distance cross-country
routes incorporating more than one NR region or strategic route, the
achievement of seven-day/24 hour capability for freight also requires
coordinated national planning of engineering possessions.
UK logistics – sustainable distribution
20.4
3
14
W12 loading gauge
●●
W12 should be implemented as the standard loading gauge for all
strategic container routes including diversionary routes (except by
specific route derogation) because it caters both for standard short sea
ERTMS: The European Union system for cab based signalling and control
Strategic Rail Freight Network: longer-term development
and deep sea containers – unlike W10 which only accommodates deep
sea containers. (See Annex E: Rail Freight Loading Gauges).
●●
20.5
European freight link (UIC GB+ Gauge4)
●●
A European loading gauge freight link has been secured as far
as Barking through Channel Tunnel access liberalisation and tariff
reductions, and HS1 agreement to provide viable off-peak freight paths.
●●
●●
●●
20.6
Small scale ‘infill’ gauge clearance schemes should be progressed as
opportunity and funding allows.
Electrification of the Midland Main Line (MML) would provide an
exceptional opportunity to create a UIC GB+ gauge cleared route to the
Midlands. As a minimum first step, UIC GB+ height clearance should be
safeguarded in any MML electrification programme.
A UIC GB+ cleared link should be identified and created between HS1
and the MML on the basis of a case developed in the SFN funded
Freight Routeing Studies (see paragraph 21 below).
As a general principle, the rail network should be ‘future-proofed’ by
ensuring that work to renew or enhance the network makes at least
passive provision for UIC GB+ gauge, wherever this is practicable.
New freight capacity
●●
New SFN capacity, particularly on key intermodal routes, will be required
to meet industry growth forecasts if this additional traffic is not to be
forced onto the congested road network.
●●
Routes for consideration for early capacity enhancement are likely to
include:
– Ipswich to Nuneaton (CP4 and CP5);
– the ‘Joint Line’ (to be upgraded in CP4 as the ECML Peterborough
to Doncaster via Spalding freight line, with possible further capacity
enhancement in CP5);
– East-West Line (Oxford-Bedford with upgraded links to the
West Coast Main Line (WCML) and MML;
– MML 4-tracking;
– Stourbridge to Walsall and subsequently Walsall to Lichfield
restitution;
– Southampton to WCML – possibly with upgrades to routes and/or
examination of alternative routeing options to provide capacity for
growth;
– Freight routes to Manchester Hub terminals including Trafford Park.
●●
4
SFN capacity should also be boosted by the safeguarding as ‘strategic
freight capacity’ of part of any route capacity released on ‘classic’ lines
in the event of the development of any new line(s) (see 20.9 below).
Also known as GB1 gauge
15
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
Powering the UK economy – delivering petroleum products
20.7
Electrification of freight routes
●●
To secure early diversionary and resilience benefits, and to provide
incentives for the use of electric freight traction, the SFN should
consider selective strategic and infill electrification. Candidate routes are
likely to include:
– Ipswich to Nuneaton;
– Joint Line (Peterborough to Doncaster via Spalding);
– small scale infill schemes.
20.8
Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges and terminals
●●
The development of Strategic Rail Freight Interchanges will be
supported by the National Networks and the Ports National Policy
Statements.
●●
20.9
Freight paths: the Strategic Freight Capacity scheme
●●
The Department has strongly supported the industry’s initiative to
develop a Strategic Freight Capacity (SFC) scheme to protect existing,
released and newly created long distance strategic freight paths.
●●
16
The Department will seek to facilitate freight facility grant support
applications for rail terminal works to handle trains 775m long and to
accept electric traction.
Once the SFC scheme is operational, the Department will look to the
industry to develop tighter, sector-specific, use-it-or-lose-it (UIOLI)
criteria to optimise the use of existing freight paths and to facilitate
competition.
Freight routeing studies
21.
As a key element in developing the SFN, the Department has asked NR to
undertake two freight routeing studies and recommend:
●●
●●
22.
the preferred routes between London and the South-East, and the
Midlands and North of England, and the enhancements necessary to
accommodate rail freight activity forecast to 2030 (the ‘Routes to the
North’ (RTN) study); and
an optimal cross-London freight strategy (CLFS).
The RTN study will include advice on accommodating UIC GB+ gauge
freight vehicles whilst maintaining passenger and station capability, and
the incremental cost of providing this. The CLFS is being taken forward as
part of Network Rail’s proposed London and South-East Route Utilisation
Strategy (RUS).
Delivering the goods – ‘24/7’
17
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
Annex A
Strategic Rail Freight Network maps
Map 1: The Proposed Strategic Rail Freight Network
© Network Rail
18
Annex A
Map 2: Freight and Passenger Network Interaction
© Network Rail
19
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
Map 3: Electricity Supply Industry (ESI) Coal Flows 2006 & 2030
© Network Rail
20
Annex A
Map 4: Intermodal Traffic: Main Flows in 2030
© Network Rail
21
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
Annex B
Strategic Rail Freight Network projects funded for
delivery in Control Period 4 (2009-10 to 2013-14)
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
Ipswich to Nuneaton capacity enhancement: £50 million for
capacity and signalling enhancements – some planned for early CP5 to
tie in with Leicester re-signalling.
W10 Gauge clearance: £55 million for Southampton to Basingstoke
diversionary route via Laverstock and Andover.
In-fill gauge schemes: £40 million for schemes to be identified by the
industry.
Train lengthening: £40 million for schemes to be identified by the
industry.
Channel Tunnel route: £10 million for signalling modifications to allow
trains hauled by Channel Tunnel electric freight locomotives to use the
route to the south of London via Redhill.
Development studies: £5 million for work to develop Strategic Rail
Freight Network next stage investment proposals.
Annex C
Productivity Transport Innovation Fund projects for
delivery in Control Period 4 (2009-10 to 2013-14)
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
22
Peterborough – Nuneaton route: £80.0 million to enhance loading
gauge and capacity, providing a crucial alternative to the busy rail routes
via London.
Southampton – Nuneaton corridor: £42.8 million to enhance the
loading gauge to W10.
Humber Ports to the East Coast Main Line: £8.0 million to increase
capacity on the rail link with the port.
West Coast Main Line to Liverpool Docks: £1.7 million to improve
rail access to the port.
Gospel Oak to Barking line in London: £18.5 million for gauge
clearance and freight capacity work.
North London Line: to increase freight capacity on this vital
cross-London route.
Annex D
Annex D
Strategic Rail Freight Interchange policy
A Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) is a large multi-purpose rail freight
interchange containing rail-connected warehousing and container handling
facilities. The site may also contain manufacturing and processing activities.
The aim of an SRFI is to optimise the use of rail in the freight journey by
minimising some elements of the secondary distribution leg by road through
co-location of other distribution and freight activities. SRFIs are a key element
in reducing the cost to users of moving freight by rail and therefore are
important in facilitating the transfer of freight from road to rail.
The Government’s Strategy for Sustainable Distribution, which seeks to
maximise the economic, environmental and social benefits of transferring
freight movements from road to rail, incorporates a strategy for major freight
interchanges, including rail-intermodal terminals. SRFIs represent major
gateways to the national rail network which allow businesses to move
freight by rail for distances and in quantities appropriate to their operational
and commercial priorities. They are therefore key features of national rail
infrastructure.
A network of SRFIs, complemented by other freight interchanges and
terminals, is required to support longer-term development of efficient rail freight
distribution logistics. Whilst SRFIs operate to serve regional and cross regional
catchment areas, they are also key components in national and international
networks. These networks are of strategic importance in facilitating links
between UK regions and the EU.
It is important that SRFIs are located near the key business markets they will
serve, which will largely focus on major urban centres, or groups of centres,
and key supply chain routes. The need for effective connections for both rail
and road means that the number of locations suitable as SRFIs will be limited.
It is essential that there is open access to such facilities to enable competitive
rail haulage and customer choice. This means that the commercial structure
controlling access at the site must ensure that all rail freight operators should
be able to serve the SRFI without impediment.
23
Strategic Rail Freight Network: The Longer Term Vision
Annex E
Rail freight loading gauges
© Network Rail
24
ISBN 978-1-84864-034-4
9 781848
640344