Did Network Rail buy 189 freight sites back?

[daccer]

I scanned through the Network Rail end of year report awhile back and in there it was mentioned that they had paid 189 million quid for 100 freight sites last year. Now I can only assume that this is an error as I thought the buy back of sites from DBS had been scrapped after consultations. However its a big error to have it stuck in your annual report. The same claim is made in the July newsletter from The Railfreight Group.

Does anyone know if NR did pay this money and was it to DBS and if so at nearly 2 million per site why was this such a priority?

 

[The Planner]

Operation Mountfield it was called, I think it's still happening, can't verify the costs though.

 

[krus_aragon]

Contracts were exchanged on the 31st of March according to this announcement. Completion due 31st October.

On 31 March 2014 we unconditionally exchanged contracts on a deal to transfer ownership of more than 100 key rail freight sites across Britain from three of the country's biggest freight operating companies to Network Rail. A universal completion date has been set for 31 st October 2014.

With freight market growth predicted to more than double over the next 30 years, the acquisition of more than 100 leasehold sites from DB Schenker, Freightliner and GB Railfreight will help us to make better use of the network, providing improved access to freight operators and adding capacity at critical points on the East Coast and West Coast main lines.
Consolidating ownership and management of a large part of Britain's rail freight infrastructure will allow for far better long-term strategic management and development. It will make more sites available to more operators, increasing competition and driving growth in a sector which directly contributes almost £900m to Britain's economy each year and supports an economic output of £6bn.

 

[Masboroughlad]

Which ones?

 

[swt_passenger]

Which ones?

There is a link to a 3 page list in a pdf if you follow the above link to the NR news item,

 

[daccer]

When the original plan came out to buy all those sites from DBS back in 2012 it was jumped on by all and sundry as being wrong and was quietly dropped. What is so different about this plan. It is over 80% DBS sites with a few from Freightliner and GBrf. Thi is a massive windfall for DBS especially when their annual profits seem to be in the 20 million pound region . They must be pocketing 150 million or so for giving up very little. They will still have access to the sites and the sites will be retained for railfreight use. Not sure what the idea behind it is and why NR decided to do this.

Just as an aside DBS seem to be doing very well from property deals and sub-leasing locos etc. Maybe hauling freight is now just a secondary consideration.

 

[The Planner]

It is considering they got the sites for peanuts to start with. The vast majority of the sites will more than likely come back OOU and will stay like it for a good while or either be sold off if no forseeable use is found.

 

[MarkyT]

Clearly this is very good news for railfreight, for Network Rail's own maintenance and renewals operation and for general network capability and resilience. It was a mistake to vest these sites with a single railfreight operator in the first place as that usually prevented their use at all by any other operator even when it would have been highly expedient to do so. All Railfreight and engineering operations will now potentially have 105 new sites to shunt, run round, layover, and set up refuelling and loading facilities without having to negotiate with DBS or Freightliner as well as NR.

 

[The Planner]

That is far from the truth, most of the leased sites are in a right state and would need massive maintenance to bring them back into use. Unless NR are forcing DB to hand them back in a workable state (which I doubt....) then as I said before a large amount won't come back into use due the costs of doing so.

 

[MarkyT]

I wonder if the St Blazey depot turntable was a late unpublished addition to this list, as it miraculaously repaired itself last week after DBS had previously condemned it, and was used to turn locomotive 45407 working The Railway Touring Company's THE ROYAL DUCHY excursion last Sunday.

http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/St...spite-safety/story-21316734-detail/story.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is far from the truth, most of the leased sites are in a right state and would need massive maintenance to bring them back into use. Unless NR are forcing DB to hand them back in a workable state (which I doubt....) then as I said before a large amount won't come back into use due the costs of doing so.

OK fair enough but I stand by my statement that, if it makes sense to refurbish and use a particular site for any specific flow, then DBS or FL now don't have a monopoly stake in either running that traffic, demanding high fees to use the sites, or strategically preventing another operator using the site at all.

 

[AnonymousUser1]

Clearly this is very good news for railfreight, for Network Rail's own maintenance and renewals operation and for general network capability and resilience. It was a mistake to vest these sites with a single railfreight operator in the first place as that usually prevented their use at all by any other operator even when it would have been highly expedient to do so. All Railfreight and engineering operations will now potentially have 105 new sites to shunt, run round, layover, and set up refuelling and loading facilities without having to negotiate with DBS or Freightliner as well as NR.

i think that's the sensible answer

there would have been utter outcry if passenger stations were locked down to a single operator ( or franchised operators only) - and given the freight railway is even more Open access it's entirely sensible that the frieght sites should be in the hands of an independent operator ( whether that's NR or a 3rd party)

 

[lincolnshire]

EWS and Frightliner etc sites buyback.

That was another one of things that came about from the demise of British Rail. Lots of sites was leased to differant companies for there exclusive use at a peppercorn rent lease at the time. So as in the case of a EWS depot however small it would be leased to them at the peppercork rent for the next umpteen years, so if EWS decided after a re-organiseation that the depot was no longer required they would mothball it rather than let anonther operator use as there depot as they would no longeer be paying the peppercorn lease rent, but then it would be a more commerical lease rent for the site and it would also allow another operator to be able to offer loco serviceing facilities in competion to themselves. If the site was for example a marshalling yard leased at a peppercorn lease rent to say EWS and they had no further use for it and say a supermarket or DiY shed company wanted to build an establisemnet on it then again they would end up having to pay a commerical lease rent for the site. Also I would think that even if they owned the land then there would be a clause in the deeds which said if it was former BR land then Network Rail or Dept of whatever would recieve a proportion of the money from the sale of the land to there coffers.

So that why lots of former sidngs and depots look like abandoned tips as you don,t need to speed much money on them and just pay your peppercorn rent for the lease and maybe keep the site secure.