Freightliner calls on Government to set ambitious rail freight target

[Adrian1980uk]

There's an interesting article in Modern Railways (Feb 24) regarding the rail freight growth target (page 56).

The bit that caught my eye was this:



Now I'm all for the intelligent renewals concept - seems like a splendid idea (you'll have to read the magazine to find out about it) however, the following strikes me about reallocating "lightly used" passenger paths:

1) it's robbing Peter to pay Paul as usual. Unsurprisingly, no mention of the freight sector getting its own house in order regarding all those paths clogging up the railway which carry a train only occasionally.

2) Removing a lightly used passenger path could drive a coach and horses through clock face passenger timetables and make the passenger service less useful.

3) Even if there are these lightly used passenger services, would any passenger seriously trust anyone in the Establishment to adjudicate what constitutes a "lightly used" passenger service - especially after two years of them trying to convince us that our trains are empty.

Removing 'lightly used' passenger trains sounds all well and good but it would reduce passenger numbers across the board by making it less attractive to go by train plus I guarantee lightly used would not be where freight wants to go.

Take Ely junction, greater Anglia has ambitions to run more trains Norwich to Cambridge and Ipswich to Cambridge and Peterborough not less.

 

[yorksrob]

Removing 'lightly used' passenger trains sounds all well and good but it would reduce passenger numbers across the board by making it less attractive to go by train plus I guarantee lightly used would not be where freight wants to go.

Take Ely junction, greater Anglia has ambitions to run more trains Norwich to Cambridge and Ipswich to Cambridge and Peterborough not less.

Indeed. You can guarantee it would go beyond what passengers would consider to be lightly used services.

 

[Oxfordblues]

I've been reading today about Kellogg's breakfast-cereal factory at Trafford Park in Manchester. Apparently they produce over a million packets of corn flakes and other products every day. 100% of production is distributed by road, despite them once having a private siding. It is potential customers like Kellogg's who should be incentivised to use more sustainable transport

 

[The Planner]

I've been reading today about Kellogg's breakfast-cereal factory at Trafford Park in Manchester. Apparently they produce over a million packets of corn flakes and other products every day. 100% of production is distributed by road, despite them once having a private siding. It is potential customers like Kellogg's who should be incentivised to use more sustainable transport

How do you incentivise them? Unless its cheaper for them then they won't bother.

 

[Trainbike46]

How do you incentivise them? Unless its cheaper for them then they won't bother.

It does also depend on whether the supermarkets consider it worth it to have kellogs products moved to their distribution centre by rail - the fact that Tesco and others do use rail suggests that they are not opposed to it in principle, but maybe the volumes are simply too low

I've been reading today about Kellogg's breakfast-cereal factory at Trafford Park in Manchester. Apparently they produce over a million packets of corn flakes and other products every day. 100% of production is distributed by road, despite them once having a private siding. It is potential customers like Kellogg's who should be incentivised to use more sustainable transport

Do they use the siding for bringing in raw materials? or is it not in use at all?

 

[zwk500]

Do they use the siding for bringing in raw materials? or is it not in use at all?

Looking on google maps there's no rail connection left at all.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

I've been reading today about Kellogg's breakfast-cereal factory at Trafford Park in Manchester. Apparently they produce over a million packets of corn flakes and other products every day. 100% of production is distributed by road, despite them once having a private siding. It is potential customers like Kellogg's who should be incentivised to use more sustainable transport

Presumably you've read that the factory is closing at the end of 2026? Kellogg's other UK site is at Wrexham on the trading estate, which was rail connected many years ago, but no longer.

 

[furnessvale]

Presumably you've read that the factory is closing at the end of 2026? Kellogg's other UK site is at Wrexham on the trading estate, which was rail connected many years ago, but no longer.

Kellogg products are a problem for rail. Being so light they cube out quickly and are more suited to supercube road trailers which are out of gauge on rail.

 

[Trainbike46]

Kellogg products are a problem for rail. Being so light they cube out quickly and are more suited to supercube road trailers which are out of gauge on rail.

Bringing in raw materials (at least the bulk ones, so sugar, grains, etc.) may be more realistic than moving the final product away

Presumably you've read that the factory is closing at the end of 2026? Kellogg's other UK site is at Wrexham on the trading estate, which was rail connected many years ago, but no longe

Well, I guess that ends this discussion then!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Kellogg products are a problem for rail. Being so light they cube out quickly and are more suited to supercube road trailers which are out of gauge on rail.

Exactly - your standard VDA Speedlink air braked van was no competitor to a high cube road trailer (as was a Freightliner 40ft container) - a loss of business but regrettatably inevitable. I believe the Kellog traffic went to a PS at Marshmoor on the GN route.

Much the same for Rockwool insulation traffic from South Wales - lost to rail (and Freightliner)

 

[muddythefish]

Exactly - your standard VDA Speedlink air braked van was no competitor to a high cube road trailer (as was a Freightliner 40ft container) - a loss of business but regrettatably inevitable. I believe the Kellog traffic went to a PS at Marshmoor on the GN route.

Much the same for Rockwool insulation traffic from South Wales - lost to rail (and Freightliner)

Yes it did. Saw the Kelloggs train many times at New Barnet heading south from Hatfield to go up the WCML to Trafford Park. Big train too

 

[HSTEd]

Short of adding a metre or two to the loading gauge I am not sure how meaningfully rail can compete outside the limited sectors it does well today.

Maritime container transhipment and aggregates are going to have to be the focus of railfreight, unless we want to spend the tens of billions for a piggyback line from the Chunnel to the Golden Triangle via Thamesport et al.

 

[Scanderina]

The freight access charges levied on operators are already negligible.

It amounted to £11m in the last financial year, down from about £50m in the previous year.

All this is is Freightliner demanding vast increases in subsidies so they can avoid modernisation.

These figures aren't right, they include Schedule 4 and 8 payments which can swing around from year to year.

 

[Sonik]

Short of adding a metre or two to the loading gauge I am not sure how meaningfully rail can compete outside the limited sectors it does well today.

Maritime container transhipment and aggregates are going to have to be the focus of railfreight, unless we want to spend the tens of billions for a piggyback line from the Chunnel to the Golden Triangle via Thamesport et al.

Yet Tesco are constantly expanding their FMCG network on rail. And it's well known that they are not a charity, cost base is everything in retail.

It seems to me the barrier to getting more domestic FMCG on rail is simply one of scale. Tesco have sufficient volume to do trainload on their own, but few others do (Amazon?)

So we need to find ways to aggregate small bulk flows, from multiple end users, in between trainload and liner services. The potential here for modal shift from road is huge, and Tesco have already proven the economic case.

This is yet another reason why HS2 cancellation was utterly stupid, because WCML is undoubtedly where such domestic inter-modal flows could usefully concentrate, simply because of the population distribution.

 

[The exile]

If the

Short of adding a metre or two to the loading gauge I am not sure how meaningfully rail can compete outside the limited sectors it does well today.

Maritime container transhipment and aggregates are going to have to be the focus of railfreight, unless we want to spend the tens of billions for a piggyback line from the Chunnel to the Golden Triangle via Thamesport et al.

If the legislators wanted it, I’m sure they would find a way. A few draconian “H&S” laws would do it. Not saying they should….

 

[furnessvale]

Short of adding a metre or two to the loading gauge I am not sure how meaningfully rail can compete outside the limited sectors it does well today.

Maritime container transhipment and aggregates are going to have to be the focus of railfreight, unless we want to spend the tens of billions for a piggyback line from the Chunnel to the Golden Triangle via Thamesport et al.

I fail to see your fixation with piggyback. It is a massive waste of loading gauge to lift a complete HGV trailer onto a rail vehicle when you can just as easily lift the swap body, leaving 1m+ of height of wheels and underframe behind. If you are talking of "rolling road", where the whole HGV drives itself onto the train, this only survives in Europe with massive gov subsidy, which by your own admission is not sustainable.

Far better we follow the Tesco, WH Malcolm and JG Russell models. We can never match a supercube road trailer, and they are still a niche market. The body of a 4.2m high road trailer will fit within achievable UK loading gauge limitations but even so, how many of them are loaded to the top when you pull the curtains back?

 

[HSTEd]

I fail to see your fixation with piggyback. It is a massive waste of loading gauge to lift a complete HGV trailer onto a rail vehicle when you can just as easily lift the swap body, leaving 1m+ of height of wheels and underframe behind. If you are talking of "rolling road", where the whole HGV drives itself onto the train, this only survives in Europe with massive gov subsidy, which by your own admission is not sustainable.

Lifting a swap body will kill your rolling stock and staff productivity compared to a Chunnel style simultaneous load-unload.
By the time you get the swap bodies unloaded and reloaded the rolling-road train will have likely made most of another round trip.

You will need enormous additional infrastructure to park, load and unload all these additional trains.

Far better we follow the Tesco, WH Malcolm and JG Russell models.

Which also only survive because of massive government subsidy!
And only a tiny fraciton of Tesco's distribution traffic goes by rail.

 

[furnessvale]

Lifting a swap body will kill your rolling stock and staff productivity compared to a Chunnel style simultaneous load-unload.
By the time you get the swap bodies unloaded and reloaded the rolling-road train will have likely made most of another round trip.

You will need enormous additional infrastructure to park, load and unload all these additional trains.

Which also only survive because of massive government subsidy!
And only a tiny fraciton of Tesco's distribution traffic goes by rail.

Again half a tale. Staff productivity? HGVs with drivers queueing to drive onto the next train complete with driver, who could have dropped his swap body, collected another and be back on his short distance delivery. Ro-Ro on a moving train? Driver walks to front coach where he sits playing cards with his mates!

Subsidy to Tesco etc is a fraction of that applied to rolling road in Europe and that applied to road haulage in the UK, but we have been there before!

 

[RT4038]

If the

If the legislators wanted it, I’m sure they would find a way. A few draconian “H&S” laws would do it. Not saying they should….

And the effect on the cost of the end product to the consumer..... Oh, we are in a 'cost of living' crisis and won't want to adversely affect that.

 

[HSTEd]

Again half a tale. Staff productivity? HGVs with drivers queueing to drive onto the next train complete with driver, who could have dropped his swap body, collected another and be back on his short distance deliver. Ro-Ro on a moving train? Driver walks to front coach where he sits playing cards with his mates!

It's not really that simple though, by separating the load and driver you create opportunities for major costs and delays that have to be mitigated against.
With a rolling road, the driver arrives with their load, waits a few minutes for the next shuttle, drives their lorry aboard and secures it. They then move to the driver vehicle for the journey, assuming that the leg is over 45 minutes they will arrive at their destination having reliably reset their "work without break" timer and can drive their lorry away immediately.

With a swap body system, the delivering driver can simply drive up to the train, get their box lifted off and drive away, but at the collecting end it becomes way more complicated.
What happens if, thanks to the inherent unpredictability of road transport the load arrives on the train and the driver is not there to meet it?

The terminal will have to lift the container from the train onto a lorry owned by the terminal to get it off the train. The lorry will then have to drive to a hardstanding where the box will have to be lifted a second time onto the hardstand where it can be connected to shore power (as it may be a reefer). When the accepting driver arrives at the terminal the box will have to be lifted a third time to get it onto the accepting lorry for transit to its destination. Three lifts will be exceptionally expensive, and if you try to reduce that to two you will eat lots of demurrage from tying up large numbers of lorry trailers in the terminals.

In reality, to avoid paying for three lifts instead of one (which could easily be the most expensive part of their delivery leg), hauliers will be forced to have their drivers arrive at the terminal with enough padding in the schedule to guarantee that the drivers and lorries will be waiting at the terminal when their box arrives. Since this time is padding it cannot be depended on to reset your driver's rest clock because it is not reliably available.

The actual driver productivity probably won't be much better. Meanwhile your terminal needs many more staff and much more plant equipment and space to handle all this. It also only works well with large volumes of traffic being hauled by a single operator - by contrast a rolling road can accept any lorry that presents itself at the terminal.
There is a reason that rolling road is the operating model used in Europe - sure it consumes lots of subsidies, but the "traditional" freight rail model will consume even more.

 

[Trainbike46]

It's not really that simple though, by separating the load and driver you create opportunities for major costs and delays that have to be mitigated against.
With a rolling road, the driver arrives with their load, waits a few minutes for the next shuttle, drives their lorry aboard and secures it. They then move to the driver vehicle for the journey, assuming that the leg is over 45 minutes they will arrive at their destination having reliably reset their "work without break" timer and can drive their lorry away immediately.

With a swap body system, the delivering driver can simply drive up to the train, get their box lifted off and drive away, but at the collecting end it becomes way more complicated.
What happens if, thanks to the inherent unpredictability of road transport the load arrives on the train and the driver is not there to meet it?

The terminal will have to lift the container from the train onto a lorry owned by the terminal to get it off the train. The lorry will then have to drive to a hardstanding where the box will have to be lifted a second time onto the hardstand where it can be connected to shore power (as it may be a reefer). When the accepting driver arrives at the terminal the box will have to be lifted a third time to get it onto the accepting lorry for transit to its destination. Three lifts will be exceptionally expensive, and if you try to reduce that to two you will eat lots of demurrage from tying up large numbers of lorry trailers in the terminals.

In reality, to avoid paying for three lifts instead of one (which could easily be the most expensive part of their delivery leg), hauliers will be forced to have their drivers arrive at the terminal with enough padding in the schedule to guarantee that the drivers and lorries will be waiting at the terminal when their box arrives. Since this time is padding it cannot be depended on to reset your driver's rest clock because it is not reliably available.

The actual driver productivity probably won't be much better. Meanwhile your terminal needs many more staff and much more plant equipment and space to handle all this. It also only works well with large volumes of traffic being hauled by a single operator - by contrast a rolling road can accept any lorry that presents itself at the terminal.
There is a reason that rolling road is the operating model used in Europe - sure it consumes lots of subsidies, but the "traditional" freight rail model will consume even m

While you have identified a potential issue for swapbodies, I'd suggest thinking about how ferries handle unaccompanied freight, or how ports handle containers. Inherently, a railroad terminal isn't that different. It is also key to note that a lot depends on the time and distance the freight travels on the train. 45 minutes to an hour, and the advantages of the rolling road as you describe are clear, but the longer the distance, the bigger the advantages of swapbodies become.

your conclusion, is not at all supported by the rest of your post, would require a quantitative analysis, and would likely depend on the specific route proposed.

Unless you are proposing the massive infrastructure investment to allow a rolling road in the UK, which would require either a new railway or a big increase in the loading gauge, the whole point is a bit moot anyway, unless I'm missing something?

 

[The exile]

And the effect on the cost of the end product to the consumer..... Oh, we are in a 'cost of living' crisis and won't want to adversely affect that.

Never said it was likely or even desirable!

 

[HSTEd]

While you have identified a potential issue for swapbodies, I'd suggest thinking about how ferries handle unaccompanied freight, or how ports handle containers. Inherently, a railroad terminal isn't that different. It is also key to note that a lot depends on the time and distance the freight travels on the train. 45 minutes to an hour, and the advantages of the rolling road as you describe are clear, but the longer the distance, the bigger the advantages of swapbodies become.

There really aren't many routes with the sorts of distances that would be necessary for swapbodies to be competitive.
At 140km/h (the speed of Chunnel lorry shuttles) most significant routes will be run off in three hours or less. Indeed the M25 to Calais would be run off in an hour or less.

Ports handle containers by simply forcing the operators to pay for these costs because they would be imposed whatever happens, there is little opportunity to simply drive the container from China!
When you are competing with a straight-through-road solution they become far more of an issue.
If railfreight depots operated on that basis the container would have reached the destination on the lorry before it even makes it onto a train.

Unless you are proposing the massive infrastructure investment to allow a rolling road in the UK, which would require either a new railway or a big increase in the loading gauge, the whole point is a bit moot anyway, unless I'm missing something?

Well if we don't have massive infrastructure investment, substantial expansion of these categories of railfreight simply isn't going to happen. The economics simply can't work

 

[The Ham]

Couldn't see another suitable thread, however on the back of how do we encourage more use of rail freight this story is interesting:

Southampton: Port incentives switch freight from road to rail - BBC News

Subsidies for rail transport are taking thousands of lorries off the roads, a port cargo firm says.

www.bbc.co.uk

A major port has recorded a sharp increase in customers moving imported freight by train rather than by lorry. DP World Southampton introduced incentives to use rail in September, paying £70 per shipping container and then £100 from January. The firm said rail's share had risen from 21% of containers in early 2023 to 35% in March 2024. Director John Trenchard said the switch had avoided 13,500 lorry journeys in six months. Southampton docks IMAGE SOURCE,PHIL DUNN Image caption, DP World said the scheme was reducing carbon emissions Mr Trenchard said: "It saved about 4,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2). That is more than two-and-a-half times more than the total CO2 emitted by port operations at DP World Southampton for the time period." The incentive is paid for freight travelling to railheads within about 140 miles (225km) of Southampton, including large distribution centres in the Midlands. The scheme is funded by a £10 levy on all laden containers arriving at Southampton docks. Customers moving freight to railheads further away than 140 miles have the £10 refunded. The incentive was reduced to £80 from April. Presentational grey line Analysis By Paul Clifton, BBC South transport correspondent The ambition is to enable rail to compete better against lorries heading up the congested A34 and M3 to the giant distribution hubs in the Midlands. Previously those journeys were thought to be too short to be viable by train. In recent years the proportion of docks traffic going by rail has fallen, with lorries proving a cheaper option for moving global imports inland. DP World aims to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 - a difficult challenge when almost everything entering or leaving its terminals by land or sea is powered by oil. Presentational grey line Southampton port director Alistair Welch, from Associated British Ports, said: "We are putting the infrastructure in place to support growth in rail. "We are seeing an uptick. And the total volume now is much higher than we had 10 years ago." The port also sees a daily Freightliner service to Coatbridge near Glasgow, which uses HVO fuel as far as Crewe and electric power further north.

 

[zwk500]

Couldn't see another suitable thread, however on the back of how do we encourage more use of rail freight this story is interesting:

Southampton: Port incentives switch freight from road to rail - BBC News

Subsidies for rail transport are taking thousands of lorries off the roads, a port cargo firm says.

www.bbc.co.uk

Very interesting that £70/container incentive wasn't enough, but it could reduce from £100 to £80/container. 140miles from Southampton gets you to Stoke or Nottingham as the crow flies.

 

[hwl]

Very interesting that £70/container incentive wasn't enough, but it could reduce from £100 to £80/container. 140miles from Southampton gets you to Stoke or Nottingham as the crow flies.

They have tried multiple price levels but don't report the individual success levels at those prices which suggest testing elasticity and revenue (affordability) models.

But no further than Birch Coppice in route distance terms.

At £100 there may have been more demand than realistic space on trains in the short term.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I think what's interesting about this that NWR and National Highways did a joint multi-modal study about Solent-Midlands freight back in 2021. The conclusions are - in my humble opinion - the worst kind of non-commital waffle about working together with stakeholders etc.

They have tried multiple price levels but don't report the individual success levels at those prices which suggest testing elasticity and revenue (affordability) models.

Agree with this, DP World have done something much more pragmatic and tried to use the market to discover what the incentives need to be, in order to switch modes.

I suspect the major part of that £80/container gap here is "automation" i.e. moving from a 1:1 ratio of drivers to containers in trucks with 1:many on the train.

I did a beermat calculation and based on an 8mpg HGV driving 160 miles to Nottingham, with a carbon price of £50/tonne, the avoided CO2 emissions benefit was only about £10 (and that assumed no emissions from the train!). I suspect other benefits from reducing HGV use (road wear, local air quality, noise, journey times) etc., might all be smaller too.

 

[hwl]

I think what's interesting about this that NWR and National Highways did a joint multi-modal study about Solent-Midlands freight back in 2021. The conclusions are - in my humble opinion - the worst kind of non-commital waffle about working together with stakeholders etc.



Agree with this, DP World have done something much more pragmatic and tried to use the market to discover what the incentives need to be, in order to switch modes.

Indeed and it appears they have found a suitable price at ~80.
"Per container" is also interesting as this would appear to push more 20' to rail than 40' so this is about numbers of road trailers and associated issues (see below). For rail more 20's are easier to deal with with more spare 20' slots.

I suspect the major part of that £80/container gap here is "automation" i.e. moving from a 1:1 ratio of drivers to containers in trucks with 1:many on the train.

I did a beermat calculation and based on an 8mpg HGV driving 160 miles to Nottingham, with a carbon price of £50/tonne, the avoided CO2 emissions benefit was only about £10 (and that assumed no emissions from the train!). I suspect other benefits from reducing HGV use (road wear, local air quality, noise, journey times) etc., might all be smaller too.

The economics are complex, I'd add:

• The diesel saving will be about 70% with rail.
• The FOCs also do lots of empty container holding for the shipping lines so the ports don't get clogged with empty containers. Valuing this isn't simple. (Avoiding empty road trailers so ideally everything coming in and going out is loaded would be the aim to reduce traffic issues - Long Beach is a good example of where this goes very very wrong)
• Ports (especially Felixstowe in recent years who made some big oops assumptions with the new software) have lots of issues with road driver hours and practices being incompatible with maximum efficiency port staffing. Rail is much more compatible with maximising port staffing efficiency as 1 train will be being loaded or unloaded in each sub area (e.g. 2x sub-areas at Felixstowe and Southampton) of the rail side of each port, resulting in the work rate and equipment utilisation being more even
• The ideal containers for road hauliers are 40' with low density cargo (e.g. 4 tonnes of foam furniture in). Two moderately heavy 20' can't go on a single road trailer. (Hence primarily shifting 20' to rail).
• Midlands rail terminals have lots of need for improvement (compared to more northerly terminals currently) which probably isn't helping rail but Daventry improvements and new Northampton Gateway coming on line soon should help (up to 20-25 trains extra /day).
• Rail economics need decent train lengths and them to be sufficiently full.
• Some container lines also incentivise some rail services.

 

[zwk500]

• Rail economics need decent train lengths and them to be sufficiently full.

Thanks, a most interesting and useful post! On the specific point above, it would be interesting to see Southampton's rail share before and after the recent (2021ish?) upgrades for handling 775m lengths.

 

[Trainman40083]

I've been reading today about Kellogg's breakfast-cereal factory at Trafford Park in Manchester. Apparently they produce over a million packets of corn flakes and other products every day. 100% of production is distributed by road, despite them once having a private siding. It is potential customers like Kellogg's who should be incentivised to use more sustainable transport

Now consider how much of that goes to London or Daventry. Then add in a company like Heinz near Wigan

Indeed and it appears they have found a suitable price at ~80.
"Per container" is also interesting as this would appear to push more 20' to rail than 40' so this is about numbers of road trailers and associated issues (see below). For rail more 20's are easier to deal with with more spare 20' slots.

The economics are complex, I'd add:

• The diesel saving will be about 70% with rail.
• The FOCs also do lots of empty container holding for the shipping lines so the ports don't get clogged with empty containers. Valuing this isn't simple. (Avoiding empty road trailers so ideally everything coming in and going out is loaded would be the aim to reduce traffic issues - Long Beach is a good example of where this goes very very wrong)
• Ports (especially Felixstowe in recent years who made some big oops assumptions with the new software) have lots of issues with road driver hours and practices being incompatible with maximum efficiency port staffing. Rail is much more compatible with maximising port staffing efficiency as 1 train will be being loaded or unloaded in each sub area (e.g. 2x sub-areas at Felixstowe and Southampton) of the rail side of each port, resulting in the work rate and equipment utilisation being more even
• The ideal containers for road hauliers are 40' with low density cargo (e.g. 4 tonnes of foam furniture in). Two moderately heavy 20' can't go on a single road trailer. (Hence primarily shifting 20' to rail).
• Midlands rail terminals have lots of need for improvement (compared to more northerly terminals currently) which probably isn't helping rail but Daventry improvements and new Northampton Gateway coming on line soon should help (up to 20-25 trains extra /day).
• Rail economics need decent train lengths and them to be sufficiently full.
• Some container lines also incentivise some rail services.

Interesting you mention 20 to 25 extra trains a day. Elsewhere Doncaster iPort is going to double. So, 20 to 25 trains a day, replicated by other terminals, sure adds up to a lot more trains.