• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Could / should more supermarket distribution centres have railheads ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

catfordbags

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
34
my local Aldi distribution centre is less than 500 metres from a rail line.... hundreds of lorry movements everyday. I understand the high cost of infrastructure and difficulty with paths and concern re security of supply but just wondered if more railheads could be or should be encouraged ?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Oxfordblues

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2013
Messages
664
As Aldi relentlessly grab market share from Tesco I can see them eventually copying Tesco's distribution system with a central hub at Daventry* with trains to Mossend for Livingstone, Wentloog for Magor and Ripple Lane/Purfleet.

(* though not necessarily at Daventry if they can find a cheaper alternative)
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,904
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Do the German discount supermarkets already use the train for hauling goods very much in Germany?

I remember when I rode on Swiss meter gauge lines there are numerous containers being moved around for the Coop supermarkets in the settlements en route. If there is a will there's a way, and that even includes food distribution across mountains by narrow gauge rail. It's just a matter of getting the financial incentives right. If heavy lorries payed for the damage they did to the roads surface there would be a lot fewer of them running.

For example, according to research from the Campaign for Better Transport, each of the heaviest HGV axles does over 150,000 times more damage to road surfaces than a typical car axle. Return the costs of road repair to the lorry operator - never mind the cost of fixing all the cars whose springs are wrecked by the resulting potholes - and the economics would change drastically.
 

civ-eng-jim

Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
396
Location
Derby
It's always tricky with retail with umpteen different products - Their suppliers will be from many multiple sources in far-flung corners of the world and their stores/customers are equally dispersed.

Unlike bulk materials - Coal for power stations/steel works is mined in one place and burnt in another.
 

GingerSte

Member
Joined
26 May 2010
Messages
255
Morrison's has a large distribution warehouse quite close to Outwood Station (between Wakefield Westgate and Leeds). I have wondered if it would be do-able. It would mean either a bridge or a level crossing over a local road, though. That, and the fact that the warehouse is within spitting distance of J41 of the M1, means that it probably wouldn't be worth it for them.
 

catfordbags

Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
34
It's always tricky with retail with umpteen different products - Their suppliers will be from many multiple sources in far-flung corners of the world and their stores/customers are equally dispersed.

Unlike bulk materials - Coal for power stations/steel works is mined in one place and burnt in another.
Sorry ... I should have been clearer ... we a talking port to distribution centre logistics here ... across the UK retail sector..... for example Morrisons/B and Q/Marks and Spencer's importing Bananas/power drills/French knickers in that order .... I assume products like these come into a small number of ports and head to a small number of distribution centres .... does much of this stuff goes direct by rail ?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
That's not really how regional distribution centres for supermarkets work. The inbound flows will come from a variety of origins; sometimes ports, sometimes the distribution centres of suppliers, sometimes direct from the manufacturers / food processors / farm producers. You'll rarely get more than around 3 artics into an RDC from the same origin in the same 12h period.

Let's start with everything except the ports. The origin points are rarely rail connected, and many will not send out more than a couple of lorry loads a day. The bigger ones will send out enough for a train load, perhaps 2, but they won't be going to the same destination - far from it. 50 lorries from a food factory in Yorkshire might go to 100 different RDCs of 5 or 6 different supermarkets. Just one artic full of, say, lettuces from Spain will come off the ferry at Portsmouth and be delivered to perhaps 2 or 3 RDCs. Rail can't do that.

There was / is(?) some limited traffic in refrigerated units that comes over from Spain by rail and through the tunnel; this was a bulk flow of produce from various farms to a concentration point in Spain that then took 24hrs or so to get to Barking. It was time critical, and door to door transit time was similar to road. If it was badly delayed (and it happened at least once) the whole stock goes in the bin. And then Chelmsford had no tomatoes the next day.

Ports traffic is a bit different. Any given port will see serval ships dock each day, unloading various numbers of boxes. Sometimes enough comes off one ship for one destination (ie container terminal), but more usually you need a few ships' worth. I think it would be quite rare for sufficient boxes to come off to form a train for one supermarket chain, let alone one RDC. However if the stuff isn't time sensitive (and it often is), it can go in the stack to wait for other boxes so that enough going to one destination can be made into a train load. Again, rarely would there be enough going to one RDC to justify a trainload. Hence the trains have boxes destined for several RDCs and go to the established intermodal terminals - eg Daventry, Trafford Park, Hams Hall etc, most of which have a number of RDCs - for different companies - in close proximity. The containers are then tripped by road to those nearby RDCs. The rail leg is thus a concentrated flow, over long distance, which is what works well for rail. Nevertheless for some products it works well. A large proportion of wine drunk in this country has been on a train at some point. Ditto electrical goods - fridges, freezers and power tools. Clothes, particularly at the cheaper end (the more expensive stuff is flown over). Toys. But there is rarely sufficent bulk to justify a trainload from one port to one RDC.

Of course there's exceptions to this at the margins - hence the Tescos trains up to and within Scotland - but the concentration & distance factors still apply. AIUI even then it's effectively a rolling road, the boxes to Inverness don't get unloaded at an RDC, they are usually off the train, on a wagon and then on the A9 to the destination store.

A new development is the principle of RDCs at the ports. Lidl have put a huge one next to London Gateway, and one of the other big supermarkets was going to also (not sure if they still are). The boxes come off the ship and are in the RDC in minutes. Potentially on a shelf in a store and then in your car boot within 24hours of being landed. No need to see a train at all.
 
Last edited:

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Just as an aside, I don't know why the press (and thus people here I see) continue to refer to'discount supermarkets'. There is no difference between a LIDL and ALDI and any other supermarket. I shop at two in my area (LIDL and Morrisons) and the only difference is that LIDL is cheaper for many things, but Morrisons is better for meat and fish and other fresh produce and there's more choice, except that generally. LIDL has more interesting 'foreign' products.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
Just as an aside, I don't know why the press (and thus people here I see) continue to refer to'discount supermarkets'. There is no difference between a LIDL and ALDI and any other supermarket. I shop at two in my area (LIDL and Morrisons) and the only difference is that LIDL is cheaper for many things, but Morrisons is better for meat and fish and other fresh produce and there's more choice, except that generally. LIDL has more interesting 'foreign' products.

Pile it high, sell it cheap. Mind you, that's how Ted Cohen started with Tesco.

I remember living in Birmingham when an Aldi opened in Bordesley Green. This was before bar code scanning was ubiquitous. The range in store was small enough that the checkout staff knew the price of every single item, therefore it didn't need price stickers (or staff to put them on). They could send a weekly shop through the checkout in about 30 seconds.

Haven't been to one in years though, there isn't one anywhere near where I live!
 

fergusjbend

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
141
Bald Rick's posting is erudite and informative, but is essentially a justification for the current economic model which ascribes infrastructure costs to the public purse and effectively subsidises road transport. This is a matter of political choice. There is no reason why the costs of road construction and maintenance should not be allocated to road users rather than to general taxation - after all, this is precisely what successive governments have been doing with rail finances, and which have resulted in a significant increase in fares. Time the boot of the goose was sauce for the foot of the gander, I think!
 

158756

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2014
Messages
1,447
Bald Rick's posting is erudite and informative, but is essentially a justification for the current economic model which ascribes infrastructure costs to the public purse and effectively subsidises road transport. This is a matter of political choice. There is no reason why the costs of road construction and maintenance should not be allocated to road users rather than to general taxation - after all, this is precisely what successive governments have been doing with rail finances, and which have resulted in a significant increase in fares. Time the boot of the goose was sauce for the foot of the gander, I think!

All the increase in costs will be passed on though, so the effect would be minimal or no modal shift to the railway which is completely impractical for most freight, whilst the costs to the end user of the goods (ie everyone, but disproportionately hitting the poor) increase. Regular rail users by contrast are a small minority of the population who are generally better off.
 

fergusjbend

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
141
All the increase in costs will be passed on though, so the effect would be minimal or no modal shift to the railway which is completely impractical for most freight, whilst the costs to the end user of the goods (ie everyone, but disproportionately hitting the poor) increase. Regular rail users by contrast are a small minority of the population who are generally better off.
Ah yes, but are not the costs of subsidised road transport passed on already, and not simply to 'the generally better off': The M20 and A2 are severely pot-holed because of the huge volume of 40-plus tonne trucks using these routes. During the last 24 hours a car hit one such pot-hole and overturned. The roads are no longer repaired in a timely manner. The costs of congestion, delays and pollution are externalised and not paid for by road users, but by general taxation. Not really a level playing field, is it?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
Bald Rick's posting is erudite and informative, but is essentially a justification for the current economic model which ascribes infrastructure costs to the public purse and effectively subsidises road transport. This is a matter of political choice. There is no reason why the costs of road construction and maintenance should not be allocated to road users rather than to general taxation - after all, this is precisely what successive governments have been doing with rail finances, and which have resulted in a significant increase in fares. Time the boot of the goose was sauce for the foot of the gander, I think!

Well that's one way of looking at it.

With my economist's hat on, I tend to look at the facts. Apologies in advanced if this is uncomfortable reading. For the record I am a career railwayman, with an absolute commitment to improve the rail network. Also two degrees in Logistics, specialising in transport economics. And a third degree in Reality.

The total cost of road maintenance in the UK by all public authorities is a little short of £5bn pa (source: Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance Survey; TfL accounts; Highways England and Transport Scotland accounts). The total capital investment in new road project by all authorities in the UK is around £3bn pa (and we are in a road building 'spree' at present) (Source CBT).

Vehicle excise duty alone brings in just short of £6bn a year (HMRC) Fuel duty is £28bn* (HMRC). VAT on fuel adds another £9bn (HMRC). VAT on the purchase of new cars for private use brings in at least £5bn (my calcs, based on SMMT data, almost certainly underestimated).

Taken together the road transport industry contributes getting on for £50bn a year though direct taxation. Compared to £8bn a year in direct costs. The difference pays for nearly 40% of the NHS.

Of course there are indirect costs of the road industry (eg CO2, other pollutants, cost of accidents). But then there are other taxes too, such as Insurance Premium Tax (well over £1bn on vehicles alone, possibly twice that) not to mention tolls. Just the London congestion charge plus Dartford and Severn crossings generated half a billon last year.

Therefore I think it is fair to say that road transport is not subsidised, indeed quite the opposite.

Meanwhile we know the rail industry is directly subsidised. To the tune of £3.4bn last year for the national rail network (ORR figures).

Sometimes, those of us in the rail industry need to check the facts and realise how lucky we are.


* not all of this is from road transport fuel, but a very significant majority is.
 
Last edited:

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
13,190
Bear in mind that rail only will only work for inbound supplies to RDCs. When it comes to outbound supply to the stores that has to go by road (the exception being some trunking to Scotland by rail). Vehicles returning from stores to RDCs don't run empty - they often collect goods from suppliers on the day back to the depot to maximise efficiency.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
The M20 and A2 are severely pot-holed because of the huge volume of 40-plus tonne trucks using these routes. During the last 24 hours a car hit one such pot-hole and overturned. The roads are no longer repaired in a timely manner.

If anything, that shows that not enough is spent in roads - don't conflate costs with subsidy.

The roads you mention (and many many others, including the one outside my house) are potholed because a) February is peak pothole season, and b) the highways authorities have not been given sufficient cash and thus resources to fix them. But that has nothing to do with the amount of tax the road industry pays.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
Therefore I think it is fair to say that road transport is not subsidised, indeed quite the opposite.
Overall, roads pay sufficient tax to cover their direct costs. However, if by "road transport" you mean freight transport it is not true to say it "is not subsidised, indeed quite the opposite".

Road haulage benefits from a massive cross subsidy from the private motorist. Cars pay for the roads but HGVs do most of the damage.

The private motorist has never been asked if he would prefer some of this massive subsidy to be diverted to rail use and help remove HGVs from the roads. If they ever were asked, both the government and haulage companies could well receive a shock.
 

fergusjbend

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
141
Well that's one way of looking at it.

With my economist's hat on, I tend to look at the facts. Apologies in advanced if this is uncomfortable reading. For the record I am a career railwayman, with an absolute commitment to improve the rail network. Also two degrees in Logistics, specialising in transport economics. And a third degree in Reality.

The total cost of road maintenance in the UK by all public authorities is a little short of £5bn pa. The total capital investment in new road project by all authorities in the UK is around £3bn pa (and we are in a road building 'spree' at present).

Vehicle excise duty alone brings in just short of £6bn a year (HMRC) Fuel duty is £28bn* (HMRC). VAT on fuel adds another £9bn (HMRC). VAT on the purchase of new cars for private use brings in around £5bn (my calcs, based on SMMT data)

Taken together the road transport industry contributes getting on for £50bn a year though direct taxation. Compared to £8bn a year in direct costs. The difference pays for nearly 40% of the NHS.

Of course there are indirect costs of the road industry (eg CO2, other pollutants, cost of accidents). But then there are other taxes too, such as Insurance Premium Tax, not to mention tolls. Just the London congestion charge plus Dartford and Severn crossings generated half a billon last year.

Therefore I think it is fair to say that road transport is not subsidised, indeed quite the opposite.

Meanwhile we know the rail industry is directly subsidised. To the tune of £3.4bn last year for the national rail network (ORR figures).

Sometimes, those of us in the rail industry need to check the facts and realise how lucky we are.


* not all of this is from road transport fuel, but a very significant majority is.
My point remains unanswered: any increase in expenditure on rail is funded through highly visible fare increases while road spending is disguised in general taxation.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
Bear in mind that rail only will only work for inbound supplies to RDCs. When it comes to outbound supply to the stores that has to go by road (the exception being some trunking to Scotland by rail). Vehicles returning from stores to RDCs don't run empty - they often collect goods from suppliers on the day back to the depot to maximise efficiency.
As do the return containers on the various Tesco trains.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
Bear in mind that rail only will only work for inbound supplies to RDCs. When it comes to outbound supply to the stores that has to go by road (the exception being some trunking to Scotland by rail). Vehicles returning from stores to RDCs don't run empty - they often collect goods from suppliers on the day back to the depot to maximise efficiency.

And, significantly, usually the roll cages filled with cardboard / plastics for recycling, thereby reducing lorry miles for the waste lorries.
 

MAV39

Member
Joined
10 May 2017
Messages
47
Well that's one way of looking at it.

With my economist's hat on, I tend to look at the facts. Apologies in advanced if this is uncomfortable reading. For the record I am a career railwayman, with an absolute commitment to improve the rail network. Also two degrees in Logistics, specialising in transport economics. And a third degree in Reality.

The total cost of road maintenance in the UK by all public authorities is a little short of £5bn pa (source: Annual Local Authority Road Maintenance Survey; TfL accounts; Highways England and Transport Scotland accounts). The total capital investment in new road project by all authorities in the UK is around £3bn pa (and we are in a road building 'spree' at present) (Source CBT).

Vehicle excise duty alone brings in just short of £6bn a year (HMRC) Fuel duty is £28bn* (HMRC). VAT on fuel adds another £9bn (HMRC). VAT on the purchase of new cars for private use brings in at least £5bn (my calcs, based on SMMT data, almost certainly underestimated).

Taken together the road transport industry contributes getting on for £50bn a year though direct taxation. Compared to £8bn a year in direct costs. The difference pays for nearly 40% of the NHS.

Of course there are indirect costs of the road industry (eg CO2, other pollutants, cost of accidents). But then there are other taxes too, such as Insurance Premium Tax (well over £1bn on vehicles alone, possibly twice that) not to mention tolls. Just the London congestion charge plus Dartford and Severn crossings generated half a billon last year.

Therefore I think it is fair to say that road transport is not subsidised, indeed quite the opposite.

Meanwhile we know the rail industry is directly subsidised. To the tune of £3.4bn last year for the national rail network (ORR figures).

Sometimes, those of us in the rail industry need to check the facts and realise how lucky we are.


* not all of this is from road transport fuel, but a very significant majority is.

Well said Bald Rick, good to see some facts laid out.

Don't suppose it will impress the large number of prejudiced ranters who seem to inhabit the Rail.UK forum though. Should be some interesting weasel worded posts now.
 

fergusjbend

Member
Joined
11 Sep 2011
Messages
141
Well said Bald Rick, good to see some facts laid out.

Don't suppose it will impress the large number of prejudiced ranters who seem to inhabit the Rail.UK forum though. Should be some interesting weasel worded posts now.
A pity that a courteous and interesting debate should be spoilt by such an intemperate posting.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,205
My point remains unanswered: any increase in expenditure on rail is funded through highly visible fare increases while road spending is disguised in general taxation.

That wasn't your point. Your point was that the road industry is heavily subsidised. It isn't. Also that increases in rail spending have resulted in 'a significant increase in fares': they haven't, at least not in real terms.

But let's assume I misunderstood (it happens) and that it was your point. Since the start of Control Period 4, in April 2009 (the start of the big rail investment in Crossrail, Thameslink, electrification, new fleets for the north, etc), rail fares have risen almost exactly in line with RPI (source: ORR fares index data). They are only so visible because the fare rises occur in the first week of January when there is rarely anything else newsworthy. I often think the fares rise should always take place on the first Friday in May.

Increases in rail expenditure come specifically from government funds, indeed the very same budget that the Highways England funding comes from, or in local authority areas the same budget that their road maintanence comes from.
 
Last edited:

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,820
Location
Scotland
Your point was that the road industry is heavily subsidised. It isn't.
Well, it is but it's indirect. The road haulage industry benefits from not having to pay road access charges in the same way that the rail industry pays track access charges. They don't pay any costs as a result of causing congestion unlike the railway where FOCs have to pay delay attribution costs.
 

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,351
Well, it is but it's indirect. The road haulage industry benefits from not having to pay road access charges in the same way that the rail industry pays track access charges. They don't pay any costs as a result of causing congestion unlike the railway where FOCs have to pay delay attribution costs.

The 'road access charges' are VED, fuel duty, VAT on fuel etc and while they don't pay any costs if they cause congestion they don't get compensated if someone else delays them either .
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,820
Location
Scotland
The 'road access charges' are VED, fuel duty, VAT on fuel etc
Except that VED is a fixed fee (unrelated to the number of miles driven) and fuel duty and VAT are only indirectly related to the weight and composition of the vehicle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top