Felixstowe branch: a bit of double track at Trimley

[LAX54]

The extra trains, will remove 75 to 80 lorries off the A14 every day

 

[HSTEd]

Your usual anti rail freight jibes!

In return I will again remind you that railfreight subsidies are given in recognition of rail's superior environmental performance, and in any case are a mere fraction of the massive subsidies given to road freight.

Road freight subsidies exist primarily because of the political and economic difficulty of removing them - road pricing is simply verboten. Although this is slowly changing in response to foreign lorries able to avoid paying fuel duty.

This does not justify the utilisation of incredibly expensive infrastructure to move a small number of containers around.
Despite the enormous resources thrown at improving the liner train's market share, the bulk of the containers leaving the port still do by road.

Mixed-use railway systems are a dying breed internationally, and in the UK - Crossrail and HS2 shows the future.
If you want a freight system worthy of the name it has to be freight only - the operational requirements of a modern passenger and modern freight railway are simply too divergent to be reconciled. A 700m container train is simply never going to be economic.

 

[eastdyke]

Press release
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...freight-and-more-reliable-passenger-services/

Thank you for the link. I have had eye issues culminating in surgery yesterday which has limited my computer time. So am just catching up!
Has Network Rail has been using its random number generator again? 14 has become 10!
In particular from the latest release:

The work on the branch line in this area will support up to 10 additional trains [per day] in each direction to move goods to and from the Port of Felixstowe. With each additional freight train taking the equivalent of up to 76 lorries off the roads, the upgrade works will help to reduce congestion and pollution for the local community and the wider region.

The scheme as originally presented and taken from the 'Statement of Case' used for The Network Rail (Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements – Level Crossings Closure) Order which is the subject of a Public Inquiry that commenced Jan 2018. The enquiry completed 26th Jan 2018, outcome awaited. (unless not yet recorded in the TWA Reports and Decision Letters website).
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Network-Rail-Felixstowe-Branch-Line-Improvements-–-Level-Crossings-Closure-Order.pdf

5.1.13 Infrastructure enhancements to the Felixstowe Branch Line will increase the capacity on the rail network to allow greater rail freight services to operate without reducing the passenger service. The Felixstowe Branch Line enhancement works as outlined in paragraph 1.1.5 will provide the capability to increase the number of rail freight trains per day from 33 (currently operating) to 47 freight trains per day (CD/ 2.8).
5.1.14 Further analysis of the capacity constraints on the rail network beyond the Felixstowe Branch Line demonstrates that up to four additional freight trains will be able to operate beyond the Branch Line using current infrastructure. In order to increase this number and realise the full benefits this scheme provides further infrastructure enhancements are required along the line of route to Nuneaton. As part of Network Rail’s long term freight strategy, enhancements along the route between the Port of Felixstowe to the West Midlands and the North will be required (CD/ 2.9)

So not only are the benefits misquoted in the latest release, but the start date takes the outcome of the Public Inquiry as fait accompli else freights standing in the new 'loop' will block public crossings the subjects of the yet to be enacted TWAO order!

 

[snowball]

Maybe constraints elsewhere on the rail network, as indicated in #56, explain the variation in claimed numbers of extra paths created.

 

[LAX54]

Road freight subsidies exist primarily because of the political and economic difficulty of removing them - road pricing is simply verboten. Although this is slowly changing in response to foreign lorries able to avoid paying fuel duty.

This does not justify the utilisation of incredibly expensive infrastructure to move a small number of containers around.
Despite the enormous resources thrown at improving the liner train's market share, the bulk of the containers leaving the port still do by road.

Mixed-use railway systems are a dying breed internationally, and in the UK - Crossrail and HS2 shows the future.
If you want a freight system worthy of the name it has to be freight only - the operational requirements of a modern passenger and modern freight railway are simply too divergent to be reconciled. A 700m container train is simply never going to be economic.

1 lorry, 1 container, 1 train, 30+ containers

 

[LAX54]

Thank you for the link. I have had eye issues culminating in surgery yesterday which has limited my computer time. So am just catching up!
Has Network Rail has been using its random number generator again? 14 has become 10!
In particular from the latest release:

The scheme as originally presented and taken from the 'Statement of Case' used for The Network Rail (Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements – Level Crossings Closure) Order which is the subject of a Public Inquiry that commenced Jan 2018. The enquiry completed 26th Jan 2018, outcome awaited. (unless not yet recorded in the TWA Reports and Decision Letters website).
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/The-Network-Rail-Felixstowe-Branch-Line-Improvements-–-Level-Crossings-Closure-Order.pdf

So not only are the benefits misquoted in the latest release, but the start date takes the outcome of the Public Inquiry as fait accompli else freights standing in the new 'loop' will block public crossings the subjects of the yet to be enacted TWAO order!

There never was going to be an additional 10 trains each way at the start, it needs at least Ely to be done as well, as for crossings, there are some being closed, and a bridge built, the AHB's are going OD and Westerfield CCTV.

 

[eastdyke]

There never was going to be an additional 10 trains each way at the start, it needs at least Ely to be done as well, as for crossings, there are some being closed, and a bridge built, the AHB's are going OD and Westerfield CCTV.

Thanks! I have no idea where @furnessvale has sourced the figures of 8 and 12.
I do know that figures of 4tpd (initial across branch and wider network) and 14tpd (on the branch subject to wider network enhancements) have been quoted by NR hitherto in ascribing benefits to the project.
The crossings cannot be closed until the TWAO has been made.

 

[MarkyT]

Road freight subsidies exist primarily because of the political and economic difficulty of removing them - road pricing is simply verboten. Although this is slowly changing in response to foreign lorries able to avoid paying fuel duty.

This does not justify the utilisation of incredibly expensive infrastructure to move a small number of containers around.
Despite the enormous resources thrown at improving the liner train's market share, the bulk of the containers leaving the port still do by road.

Mixed-use railway systems are a dying breed internationally, and in the UK - Crossrail and HS2 shows the future.
If you want a freight system worthy of the name it has to be freight only - the operational requirements of a modern passenger and modern freight railway are simply too divergent to be reconciled. A 700m container train is simply never going to be economic.

While slow heavy aggregates trains inter-running on busy HS lines during the day are neither practical nor desirable, inter-modals and faster freights generally can coexist well with moderate speed passenger traffic and the slower goods with local stopping services where the overall system is designed well to accommodate including good junctions, dynamic loops and other such facilities for getting them on and off general use tracks quickly and reliably with minimum conflict. The brand new Gotthard base tunnel relies very much on mixed running and some of the operating parameters are set around this. In particular, express passenger traffic is speed limited to preserve path space for frequent freights during the day. Because of the level, straight alignment, protected from the elements, all trains' performance is highly predictable, and the modern electric haulage with ETCS ensures freight can run at the highest possible speeds. The route is so much faster and shorter than its twisty mountain predecessor that journey time savings for passengers are significant nonetheless. Whether boxes leave UK southeast ports via road or rail very much depends on the length of the land haul. rail hasn't been competetive for SE ports ports to London for decades, so that is (probably close to) 100% road today, while longer hauls to midlands, north west and scotland seems to remain competitive, successful and growing, give or take general economic hiccoughs. As far as possible, segregating freight from the highest speed tiers of passenger traffic on the busiest and fastest corridors, is is the most practical way of engineering more capacity overall for both. That's a key benefit of building HS2.

 

[hexagon789]

1 lorry, 1 container, 1 train, 30+ containers

Exactly, often 40 containers in fact.

 

[eastdyke]

While slow heavy aggregates trains inter-running on busy HS lines during the day are neither practical nor desirable, inter-modals and faster freights generally can coexist well with moderate speed passenger traffic and the slower goods with local stopping services where the overall system is designed well to accommodate including good junctions, dynamic loops and other such facilities for getting them on and off general use tracks quickly and reliably with minimum conflict. The brand new Gotthard base tunnel relies very much on mixed running and some of the operating parameters are set around this. In particular, express passenger traffic is speed limited to preserve path space for frequent freights during the day. Because of the level, straight alignment, protected from the elements, all trains' performance is highly predictable, and the modern electric haulage with ETCS ensures freight can run at the highest possible speeds. The route is so much faster and shorter than its twisty mountain predecessor that journey time savings for passengers are significant nonetheless. Whether boxes leave UK southeast ports via road or rail very much depends on the length of the land haul. rail hasn't been competetive for SE ports ports to London for decades, so that is (probably close to) 100% road today, while longer hauls to midlands, north west and scotland seems to remain competitive, successful and growing, give or take general economic hiccoughs. As far as possible, segregating freight from the highest speed tiers of passenger traffic on the busiest and fastest corridors, is is the most practical way of engineering more capacity overall for both. That's a key benefit of building HS2.

To that end a new freight line Trimley to Werrington Junction would be 'quite useful'.
Anybody with £5billion to 'invest'?

 

[hexagon789]

To that end a new freight line Trimley to Werrington Junction would be 'quite useful'.

Either a new freight line or doubling the existing line in full or part.

 

[Class 170101]

While slow heavy aggregates trains inter-running on busy HS lines during the day are neither practical nor desirable, inter-modals and faster freights generally can coexist well with moderate speed passenger traffic and the slower goods with local stopping services where the overall system is designed well to accommodate including good junctions, dynamic loops and other such facilities for getting them on and off general use tracks quickly and reliably with minimum conflict.

That being said it will also depend on geography and the weight of intermodal trains. The trains running today are timed to run as either 1200, 1400 or sometimes 1600 tonnes trailing weight. The motive power also has an influence. Class 66s apparently cannot keep up with the all stations stopper with 1600 tonnes trailing on the GEML between Stratford and Ipswich.

 

[LAX54]

That being said it will also depend on geography and the weight of intermodal trains. The trains running today are timed to run as either 1200, 1400 or sometimes 1600 tonnes trailing weight. The motive power also has an influence. Class 66s apparently cannot keep up with the all stations stopper with 1600 tonnes trailing on the GEML between Stratford and Ipswich.

Now that could open another issue, with some delays going down to 'Train Spec' (FX), with many at 1800 tonnes and TLOD of 1200/1400, Freights seem to drop 2 to 3 mins Ipswich to Manningtree, and not quite so common, Manningtree to Colchester on the GEML, once off and running, do leave the 'stoppers' behind.

 

[The Planner]

GBRf have previous for overloading when compared to the timing load, it isn't just weight, the longer they are causes problems.

 

[LAX54]

GB may have started it, well 4L69 was the first (FLIM), but they all soon started to do the same thing ! it was 69 that opened the flood gates

 

[zaax]

As Mr

as regards passenger traffic - just WHO uses the branch? Do most just go into Ipswich for work, or does a sizeable proportion go foreward to London? Is the branch used by port workers?

Not only London, but Norwich and all stops west

 

[zaax]

Colonel George Tomline set-up the line / land so it could be a double track all the way to the dual East Coast line, other than Spring road viaduct (which does have the land for another bridge).

 

[eastdyke]

Colonel George Tomline set-up the line / land so it could be a double track all the way to the dual East Coast line, other than Spring road viaduct (which does have the land for another bridge).

And why did the famous Colonel not build a double track line at the time? Can I suggest that the service did not need it hence the extra money was not spent?
Even now Network Rail can manage to run more freight without fully doubling the line. Further freight becomes increasingly problematic on the wider network before the branch will need work (and so money) beyond the current scheme.
Sadly not sufficient clear land is available on parts of the route for doubling, especially but not only, on the eastern edge of Ipswich where housing is now present within 10 metres on both sides of the single track.

 

[zaax]

If watch the video most of the bridges are double width and therefore the land is there.

The bastions are even there for the A14

 

[LAX54]

Currently, if everything runs right time, the timetable works well, but it only needs one late runner to throw it into turmoil, be that a late freight, or the 153, can take hours to swing it back round to right time, the AGA is so tightly timed, that even a loss of one or two minutes is enough to send it into a downward spiral

 

[Class 170101]

Its one unit in 'steam' that doesn't help either. If there was a second unit and crew the branch would be more reliable, of course that costs money.

 

[LAX54]

" 2 on the branch".... kiss of death for hours ahead !

 

[ChiefPlanner]

And why did the famous Colonel not build a double track line at the time? Can I suggest that the service did not need it hence the extra money was not spent?
Even now Network Rail can manage to run more freight without fully doubling the line. Further freight becomes increasingly problematic on the wider network before the branch will need work (and so money) beyond the current scheme.
Sadly not sufficient clear land is available on parts of the route for doubling, especially but not only, on the eastern edge of Ipswich where housing is now present within 10 metres on both sides of the single track.

I think you will find by historical research that the Port of Felixstowe in Col Tomline's period was a bit of a sleepy place , handling a small volume of traffic akin to many other East Anglian ports. I doubt in his wildest dreams he would have foreseen ISO containers and a truly global port....

Memo to self - has anyone written about the spectacular growth of Felixstowe as a port ..? (one time , and first Freightliner Operations Manager circa 1981/2)

 

[eastdyke]

I think you will find by historical research that the Port of Felixstowe in Col Tomline's period was a bit of a sleepy place , handling a small volume of traffic akin to many other East Anglian ports. I doubt in his wildest dreams he would have foreseen ISO containers and a truly global port....
Memo to self - has anyone written about the spectacular growth of Felixstowe as a port ..? (one time , and first Freightliner Operations Manager circa 1981/2)

Indeed. I lived next to the branch (Ipswich end) for most of my first 23 years. In the 1950's Felixstowe was a day out, often taking in a visit to the small tidal dock basin, the adjacent RAF seaplane base and 'The Little Ships' (originally the Pier Hotel, built by Tomline in 1883). The main cargo port in the area was Ipswich (when built the largest wet dock in the country) along with the deeper water afforded by the adjacent Cliff Quay.
Andy T Wallis did a small photographic record of the line 'Ipswich to Felixstowe Branch Through Time'
(2012 - ISBN 978 1 4456 0766 5), sadly no pictures of the old dock basin and the rail mounted steam cranes!
Hutchison Port of Felixstowe website has a timeline and a potted history.
Timeline: https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/50-years/timeline/
History: https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/50-years/history/

 

[Alfie1014]

As Mr


Not only London, but Norwich and all stops west

Enjoyed a day trip on the branch (during half term) with ChiefPlanner last month. The 153 was comfortably full arriving at Felixstowe, many getting on at Derby Road. WIth the arrival of the Stadler bi-modes the capacity of the hourly service will increase from 1 to 3 cars minimum, more than enough for all eventualities I would imagine well into the future. I doubt there’s a great deal of traffic just to Ipswich as the station is a little way out and First run 4 buses an hour to the centre of town, some of which in the peaks are Express.

 

[furnessvale]

Thanks! I have no idea where @furnessvale has sourced the figures of 8 and 12.
I do know that figures of 4tpd (initial across branch and wider network) and 14tpd (on the branch subject to wider network enhancements) have been quoted by NR hitherto in ascribing benefits to the project.
The crossings cannot be closed until the TWAO has been made.

The figure of 12 trains each way per day was issued by Freight on Rail in a press release in Sept 2017.
Thinking back, my figure of 8 trains (each way) per day was probably me mistakenly adding the 4 per day each way together, as 4 per day each way certainly seems to ring a bell.

 

[zaax]

For those interest there are some pictures on the Trimley facebook page showing the workings for the new passing “loop” near Trimley.

Does anyone know when the track laying machine is booked for here?

More at https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213723568276500&set=pcb.999479913560761&type=3&theater

 

[furnessvale]

For those interest there are some pictures on the Trimley facebook page showing the workings for the new passing “loop” near Trimley.

Does anyone know when the track laying machine is booked for here?

With new construction like this it is by no means certain that any sort of dedicated track laying machine will be used, especially if the new construction is not immediately adjacent to existing running lines as looks to be the case here.

It may well be brought in piecemeal by road and assembled on site.

 

[GB]

What ever the method of construction, I doubt you will see any sleepers or rails laid untill early next year at the earliest.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Enjoyed a day trip on the branch (during half term) with ChiefPlanner last month. The 153 was comfortably full arriving at Felixstowe, many getting on at Derby Road. WIth the arrival of the Stadler bi-modes the capacity of the hourly service will increase from 1 to 3 cars minimum, more than enough for all eventualities I would imagine well into the future. I doubt there’s a great deal of traffic just to Ipswich as the station is a little way out and First run 4 buses an hour to the centre of town, some of which in the peaks are Express.

That's interesting because in February you would have virtually no tourist traffic, I'd assume?

Could it be that a sizeable proportion of those that use the branch continue onwards by rail, as opposed to use the train merely to get to Ipswich itself? (and vice versa, of course).