Rail Freight Depot at Radlett, Hertfordshire

Skimpot flyer · 12 Apr 2019

Does anyone know if the Strategic Rail Freight Interchange that the then Secretary Of State Eric Pickles gave planning permission to, will ever get built? It seems to still be bogged-down in planning / housing permission issues...

RailUK Forums

richieb1971 · 13 Apr 2019

From memory, the site would be on the fast line west side of the MML which would mean an expensive flyover would be required in due course. Secondly, I do not believe the MML is cleared for intermodal traffic as the gauge is not capable of supporting it south of Bedford, needing further upgrades and the congestion south of Bedford is already an issue. Any depot in that area would most likely be for consumer goods (I would have thought).

And then Cricklewood is just down the road with enough track to put other depots to shame which is on the east side. Once EMT goes bi-mode electric I'm convinced that Cricklewood will somewhat be emptier and could be used as a freight terminal once again. There is a DBC working on RTT which I haven't seen working yet which runs from Cricklewood. The Easidispose train ran from Cricklewood from the 1970s until 2005 or 2006 I think.

With all this in mind I believe the planning/housing permission are just part of it. I remember Darlorich and a few others stating that a lot of these proposed depots only include rail connectivity because it adds weight to the argument that rail is greener and cleaner and takes trucks off roads but there isn't actually anyone contractually wanting to use the rail depot so it sits idle.

I read that another depot was proposed for Sundon near Leagrave. If all these depots are built that's a lot of depots for a 30 mile stretch of track.

InTheEastMids · 13 Apr 2019

richieb1971 said:
And then Cricklewood is just down the road with enough track to put other depots to shame which is on the east side.

That will be part of a larger redevelopment around Brent Cross, including the new Brent Cross West station.

richieb1971 said:
I read that another depot was proposed for Sundon near Leagrave.

The M1 J11a Sundon Rail Freight Interchange is part of the Central Bedfordshire development master plan, and I expect will happen, although whether there is much capacity for new freight trains in the MML must be an issue

ChiefPlanner · 13 Apr 2019

richieb1971 said:
From memory, the site would be on the fast line west side of the MML which would mean an expensive flyover would be required in due course. Secondly, I do not believe the MML is cleared for intermodal traffic as the gauge is not capable of supporting it south of Bedford, needing further upgrades and the congestion south of Bedford is already an issue. Any depot in that area would most likely be for consumer goods (I would have thought).

And then Cricklewood is just down the road with enough track to put other depots to shame which is on the east side. Once EMT goes bi-mode electric I'm convinced that Cricklewood will somewhat be emptier and could be used as a freight terminal once again. There is a DBC working on RTT which I haven't seen working yet which runs from Cricklewood. The Easidispose train ran from Cricklewood from the 1970s until 2005 or 2006 I think.

With all this in mind I believe the planning/housing permission are just part of it. I remember Darlorich and a few others stating that a lot of these proposed depots only include rail connectivity because it adds weight to the argument that rail is greener and cleaner and takes trucks off roads but there isn't actually anyone contractually wanting to use the rail depot so it sits idle.

I read that another depot was proposed for Sundon near Leagrave. If all these depots are built that's a lot of depots for a 30 mile stretch of track.

The number of (present) EMT trains berthing at Cricklewood is rarely more than 3 at any one time , and presumably zero overnight. CW's work for passenger berthing is primarily for Thameslink and is absolutely critical for the operation. I understand that the imminent Brent Cross redevelopment eats into the railway solum and will need relocation of the present up side freight terminals and some of the rather new berthing sidings.

The last non bulk or waste traffic I recall at Cricklewood was around a handful of VGA's carrying Scottish grown Xmas trees - very much a one off - about 15 years ago - one stands to be corrected.

The Radlett site is under considerable debate - the desire to meet the local plan on housing , being one of the issues.

Bald Rick · 13 Apr 2019

In my personal opinion, it won’t happen, at least not for rail freight. If it gets built as a freight depot, it is unlikely to see a freight train, at least not an intermodal one. Reasons:

1) the cost of the connections to the MML will be too high
2) the paths don’t exist*, at least not in daytime
3) the route isn’t clear for high cube containers, and the work to do so will be phenomenally expensive and disruptive, therefore...
4) services would have to use well wagons, but...
5) given the distance such trains would be running, this would render the trains uneconomic.

*paths do exist, but assume the freight trains are passing Radlett at 60mph. They do not allow for a 500m+ train starting from a stand on a 1:100 gradient and trundling on to the slow lines at 20mph max.

I have never seen any evidence that counters these points. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist.

But the land is now out of green belt, so my bet is that the development will see an increasing proportion of houses. It would quite neatly fulfill St Albans District Council’s housing allocation requirements. Although SADC remains (rightly) strongly opposed to the development.

Trailfinder · 13 Apr 2019

In the 1960s, I remember watching Victor bombers taking off from the site when it was Handley Page airfield.

Bald Rick · 13 Apr 2019

Trailfinder said:
In the 1960s, I remember watching Victor bombers taking off from the site when it was Handley Page airfield.

Now that, I would have liked to see.

DanDaDriver · 13 Apr 2019

Trailfinder said:
In the 1960s, I remember watching Victor bombers taking off from the site when it was Handley Page airfield.

I’ve heard from some of the old hands that there were rows and rows of British Leyland cars just left to rot there at one point?

John Webb · 13 Apr 2019

The Sundon site in Bedfordshire was suggested as an alternative site to the Radlett one rather than as an extra. Pros for the Sundon site were not only a direct connection to the MML but specifically to the parallel M1 motorway, unlike the Radlett site where DoT have made clear they would not allow a direct connection to the M25 due to the number of junctions already in that area. This would have needed traffic to use roads (the A414 and A405 particularly) which are already pretty busy. Sundon is also close to Luton which has more unemployed people than the South Herts area around Radlett.
There are fewer trains on the MML north of Luton as well once the St Albans and Luton terminators are accounted for, so Sundon adds up rather better than Radlett for a freight terminal. Only drawback is that there might have been a chance of reinstating Napsbury station as part of a rail freight terminal development to serve the south side of St Albans, especially London Colney - the latter has doubled in population size since I moved there some 40+years ago. (Not due to any activities of mine, I hasten to add!)

muddythefish · 14 Apr 2019

Trailfinder said:
In the 1960s, I remember watching Victor bombers taking off from the site when it was Handley Page airfield.

Yes, I remember passing the airfield on a Peak-hauled Derby train in the early 1970s and there must have been about 20 Victors lined up by the side of the runway. I imagine they would have been taken out of service by then but it was a wonderful sight

Skimpot flyer · 2 Dec 2019

Just bumping this thread to advise that the developers have begun work on the site, although no specifics are given. This is to prevent the planning permission lapsing
https://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/rail-freight-work-begins-on-radlett-site-1-6396788

Bald Rick · 2 Dec 2019

Skimpot flyer said:
Just bumping this thread to advise that the developers have begun work on the site, although no specifics are given. This is to prevent the planning permission lapsing
https://www.hertsad.co.uk/news/rail-freight-work-begins-on-radlett-site-1-6396788

Not surprising, but it doesn’t really matter. That site is worth a lot more as actual houses than warehouses and a lorry park. All they need to do is put a couple of piles in and they can claim to have started work.

Skimpot flyer · 2 Dec 2019

Opponents of the Rail Freight scheme have cited traffic congestion on local roads as a reason to object to the outline planning permission.
If such a vast site were turned over to housing, how do they think the new residents would travel to and from home? Teleportation?

Class45 · 2 Dec 2019

DanDaDriver said:
I’ve heard from some of the old hands that there were rows and rows of British Leyland cars just left to rot there at one point?

I remember there being rows and rows of withdrawn London Transport AEC Merlin buses parked up there in the 1970s

Mordac · 2 Dec 2019

Skimpot flyer said:
Opponents of the Rail Freight scheme have cited traffic congestion on local roads as a reason to object to the outline planning permission.
If such a vast site were turned over to housing, how do they think the new residents would travel to and from home? Teleportation?

If someone tried to build housing there, they'd object again for the same reason. Our planning system gives vested interests disproportionate power to stall and delay development.

John Webb · 2 Dec 2019

Skimpot flyer said:
Opponents of the Rail Freight scheme have cited traffic congestion on local roads as a reason to object to the outline planning permission.
If such a vast site were turned over to housing, how do they think the new residents would travel to and from home? Teleportation?

No, but it would not be very large lorries in quantity trying to get onto the inadequate local roads.

John Webb · 2 Dec 2019

Mordac said:
If someone tried to build housing there, they'd object again for the same reason. Our planning system gives vested interests disproportionate power to stall and delay development.

There is far less local objection to using part of the site to improve local housing stocks. Indeed this was proposed in the past as an alternative to the rail terminal when that was first suggested.

kermit · 2 Dec 2019

DanDaDriver said:
I’ve heard from some of the old hands that there were rows and rows of British Leyland cars just left to rot there at one point?

I had a few that managed that very nicely outside my house..........

furnessvale · 2 Dec 2019

John Webb said:
There is far less local objection to using part of the site to improve local housing stocks. Indeed this was proposed in the past as an alternative to the rail terminal when that was first suggested.

This lack of objection to housing will evaporate faster than a snowball in hell as soon as the rail depot plan is off the table.

AM9 · 2 Dec 2019

Skimpot flyer said:
Opponents of the Rail Freight scheme have cited traffic congestion on local roads as a reason to object to the outline planning permission.
If such a vast site were turned over to housing, how do they think the new residents would travel to and from home? Teleportation?

The A414 is a two-lane each way dual-carriageway trunk road which is busy most of the day frequently severely congested during the morning and evening peaks. If the Radlett Airfield site was used for housing, domestic traffic would predominately access it from the A5183 through Park Street and Frogmore. and as John Webb says that would be largely cars and light goods vans.
The big issues htere with the SRFI (Strategic Rail Freight Interchange) is that the developers are insisting that if the rail interface doesn't happen on time, they should be allowed to operate it as a road to road interchange, which would double the amount of arriving and departing HGVs. The access would be from and to the westbound carriageway of the A414 so the traffic (which presumably would use the M1, M25 and A1M routes into the area) would add to the heavily congested Parkstreet and London Colney roundabouts.
As the experts here have said, the MML does not have any spare paths that would allow long freight workings to join and leave either the fast (100mph) or slow (80+mph) lines even via the suggested diveunder. So all in all, there is no real reason for locating an SRFI anywhere near St Albans. Despite that, the developers keep pressing even though Luton is keen to get it located at Sundon.

158756 · 2 Dec 2019

AM9 said:
As the experts here have said, the MML does not have any spare paths that would allow long freight workings to join and leave either the fast (100mph) or slow (80+mph) lines even via the suggested diveunder. So all in all, there is no real reason for locating an SRFI anywhere near St Albans. Despite that, the developers keep pressing even though Luton is keen to get it located at Sundon.

A cynic would say they aren't really interested in the rail connection at all, but once they've got permission for that it will be easier to switch to a housing development, and houses near St Albans are more expensive than houses in Luton...

Bald Rick · 2 Dec 2019

furnessvale said:
This lack of objection to housing will evaporate faster than a snowball in hell as soon as the rail depot plan is off the table.

There is far less objection to housing there than most of the other sites proposed in the local plan, seem of which are frankly ridiculous.

This has been going on for a decade or more now, and the basics haven’t changed - it’s too close to the main container ports to generate much if anything in the way of container traffic by rail, and even if it was, the MML does not have the capacity nor gauge to get them there anyway. It is, however, very convenient for the M25 and M1.

furnessvale · 3 Dec 2019

Bald Rick said:
There is far less objection to housing there than most of the other sites proposed in the local plan, seem of which are frankly ridiculous.

This has been going on for a decade or more now, and the basics haven’t changed - it’s too close to the main container ports to generate much if anything in the way of container traffic by rail, and even if it was, the MML does not have the capacity nor gauge to get them there anyway. It is, however, very convenient for the M25 and M1.

Exactly my point. Once they have seen off the rail depot, just watch the objections to houses multiply.

Bald Rick · 3 Dec 2019

furnessvale said:
Exactly my point. Once they have seen off the rail depot, just watch the objections to houses multiply.

I disagree. Partly because the ‘objection’ (consultation) period for the local plan has been and gone. There was actually quite a lot of local support for it as housing.

ChiefPlanner · 9 Jul 2020

Local press advises that Herts CC have given up the fight on a "terminal" due to gridlocked issues with the local (largely) housing plan. We await developments , if any. Obviously not a great time for some kinds of development.

AM9 · 9 Jul 2020

ChiefPlanner said:
Local press advises that Herts CC have given up the fight on a "terminal" due to gridlocked issues with the local (largely) housing plan. We await developments , if any. Obviously not a great time for some kinds of development.

For most St Albans residents, this is a lose, lose, lose solution:

1) The MML, the key rail link to London, which is already not far short of being maxed out, will be threatened by the need to accommodate decelerating and accelerating freight trains along the first full-speed length of line out of St Pancras. ISTR that NR didn't raise any objections over 10 years ago saying that they could absorb the additional traffic on the route. The local commuter group pointed out that in practical terms there was a problem so the developer was able to secure permission to run the facility as a road to road operation until a viable connection to the MML was built (if at all).

2) The road to road traffic would dump a continuous stream of HGV traffic onto the A414 between London Colney roundabout and Park Street Roundabout. This 2x2 lane dual carriageway is basically unchanged in layout since the M1/M10 was opened in 1959. It takes a proportion of the traffic from M1 J7 heading clockwise from M25 J22 and vice-versa. It also takes a considerable amount of the traffic from the M25 J21A to join the A1M northbound at J3 (and vice-versa). It also is part of an E-W link across South Hertfordshire from Hemel Hempstead to Hertford, and a local by-pass for St Albans. It is possible that the road will become unusable for much of the day as traffic in general increases.

3) By removing the opportunity to build on Radlett Aerodrome, it will be necessary to find room for another 2000 homes within the St Albans district area. For those that aren't familiar with the area, it will be extremely difficult and probably quite damaging to local amenities to achieve this.

So there we have it, a strategic railfreight interchange that will either worsen the rail services in the area or compound existing traffic problems, and add to an already difficult residential land-use issue.

Bald Rick · 9 Jul 2020

I once had quite a decent argument with someone VERY senior in the freight industry about this. I was, perhaps, a little forthright in my view that there would never be a freight train serving the ‘rail freight interchange’ once it is constructed. The other party to the exchange assured me that logisitics companies were queuing up to give their business to the FOCs. I asked where the trains were going to and from. Answer there came none.

There is simply no chance that it will ever be a rail served intermodal depot. The runs to the ports are too short, and there are too many structures with restricted clearance en route to them, or to the markets the other way, with no plans for clearing them.

If it happens, it will just be the next in line of big grey/blue boxes alongside the motorway, served by an endless procession of 44 tonners.

Skimpot flyer · 11 Jul 2020

Well if the government and GTR continue their message of ‘do not travel for leisure’ and ‘only use public transport if you have no other option’, then presumably passenger numbers will stay low, the number of Thameslink services will be reduced, and there will then be lots of paths for freight trains...

Bald Rick · 11 Jul 2020

Skimpot flyer said:
Well if the government and GTR continue their message of ‘do not travel for leisure’ and ‘only use public transport if you have no other option’, then presumably passenger numbers will stay low, the number of Thameslink services will be reduced, and there will then be lots of paths for freight trains...

Even if there were, container trains wouldn’t be able to get there!

furnessvale · 11 Jul 2020

Bald Rick said:
Even if there were, container trains wouldn’t be able to get there!

Megafret wagons would allow containers to reach Radlett until such time as the gauge was enhanced to W10.

Rail Freight Depot at Radlett, Hertfordshire

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member