Freight bypass for London

[PTR 444]

Has any thought been given into building a new railway to connect London Gateway port with the main radial lines north of the capital? If a line was built mostly following the M25 to Watford, it would free up a lot of capacity on the North London Line and GOBLIN and allow for a far more intensive Overground service on those lines.

Or would it be more effective to build a cheaper chord from the LTS to the GEML so freight can go the long way round via Ipswich and EWR?

 

[HSTEd]

Given the total Network Rail income from freight operations is ~£50m per year, whilst such a project will inevitably cost billions or tens of billions of pounds.....

Good luck getting a BCR above about 0.5!

And will EWR ever get east of Bedford?

 

[swt_passenger]

Has any thought been given into building a new railway to connect London Gateway port with the main radial lines north of the capital? If a line was built mostly following the M25 to Watford, it would free up a lot of capacity on the North London Line and GOBLIN and allow for a far more intensive Overground service on those lines.

No, but you’re not the first to suggest it in the forums.

Or would it be more effective to build a cheaper chord from the LTS to the GEML so freight can go the long way round via Ipswich and EWR?

EWR even if extended to Cambridge is of no advantage for freight from East Anglia to the midlands or north. All the junctions face the wrong way and are no improvement on the existing route via Peterborough and Nuneaton.

 

[PTR 444]

No, but you’re not the first to suggest it in the forums.

EWR even if extended to Cambridge is of no advantage for freight from East Anglia to the midlands or north. All the junctions face the wrong way and are no improvement on the existing route via Peterborough and Nuneaton.

Okay, but freight from London Gateway to the north could still go via Peterborough and Nuneaton if a new link existed to the GEML.

 

[JonathanH]

Okay, but freight from London Gateway to the north could still go via Peterborough and Nuneaton if a new link existed to the GEML.

That is a long way round. If it needs to go via Peterborough and Nuneaton the freight might as well be unloaded in Felixstowe instead.

Note that some freight which is unloaded in Felixstowe uses the North London Line as well.

 

[PTR 444]

I think it’s a real shame that freight has no choice but to use the North London Line. This limits the potential for the line to be used for an improved Overground Service. Felixstowe might have some relief if EWR ever gets to Cambridge but for London Gateway there is no chance.

The alternative would be for TfL to four track the NLL or build a new alignment exclusively for Overground services.

 

[martin2345uk]

The NLL seems to have a train every 5 minutes at some points, what improved service were you thinking of...?

 

[PTR 444]

The NLL seems to have a train every 5 minutes at some points, what improved service were you thinking of...?

Tube line frequencies. Perhaps some through trains from Richmond/Clapham to Barking too.

 

[mr_jrt]

Regarding the junctions facing the wrong way... wasn't a triangular junction north of Bedford proposed at one point? No such luck at Bletchley, but there's plenty of room west of Bletchley flyover to build some loops to stash freights off the running lines and for locos to run around for a reversal, the Cotswold line could easily have the former chords restored, and the GWML does have junctions facing both ways, so all in all not too bad.

 

[zwk500]

Tube line frequencies. Perhaps some through trains from Richmond/Clapham to Barking too.

If you want tube line frequencies, you will need to build largely segregated tracks as the tube has. Otherwise a sneeze at Hackney downs risks taking out half the country's rail services to delays. It's bad enough as it is.

Regarding the junctions facing the wrong way... wasn't a triangular junction north of Bedford proposed at one point? No such luck at Bletchley, but there's plenty of room west of Bletchley flyover to build some loops to stash freights off the running lines and for locos to run around for a reversal, the Cotswold line could easily have the former chords restored, and the GWML does have junctions facing both ways, so all in all not too bad.

Maybe at a blue-sky day, but AFAIK not in anything serious. The EWR preferred route joins in from the North of Bedford and there is no obvious space/route for a triangular junction.
Regarding Bletchley, runrounds require staff so that's not going to be popular for regular operation.

I've sometimes wondered about a chord at Hertford to allow traffic to route via South Tottenham and Broxbourne to the ECML but that only solves the smaller problem and would cost a fortune.

 

[jimm]

Regarding the junctions facing the wrong way... wasn't a triangular junction north of Bedford proposed at one point? No such luck at Bletchley, but there's plenty of room west of Bletchley flyover to build some loops to stash freights off the running lines and for locos to run around for a reversal, the Cotswold line could easily have the former chords restored, and the GWML does have junctions facing both ways, so all in all not too bad.

I assume you are referring to the former connection between Yarnton junction on the Cotswold Line and Banbury Road junction at Kidlington (aka Oxford Parkway)?

There would be northing easy about trying to put that back. The landscape has changed radically since the line was closed. The embankment has been removed entirely at the Yarnton end and the line then ran through the area occupied by what is now the Loop Farm roundabout on the A44 and across the A4260 Frieze Way and the A34 dual carriagways. See map on this page https://www.railscot.co.uk/locations/O/Oxford_Banbury_Road/

 

[Meerkat]

No point for one port's traffic.
IMO rather than HS2 we should have built a version of the Central Railway proposal that was to take piggyback trucks from Europe all the way to the north, but gone round the East of London, rather than the plan's western route, to pick up the intermodals from the ports on that side.
Whether there would be any free paths for them if Central Railway's predictions were correct would be a good question though.

 

[JonathanH]

IMO rather than HS2 we should have built a version of the Central Railway proposal that was to take piggyback trucks from Europe all the way to the north, but gone round the East of London, rather than the plan's western route, to pick up the intermodals from the ports on that side.

I think the advantage of the Redhill route was that it could have used existing railways and then picked up a route broadly alongside the Surrey section of the M25 through fairly open countryside.

It isn't as clear to me that there is as obvious a route through the east and north side of London that would be as easy to use existing routes. Of course, four tracking HS1 could have been an option but the gradients for passenger trains are likely to be less of an issue than they would be for freight.

 

[Meerkat]

I think the advantage of the Redhill route was that it could have used existing railways and then picked up a route broadly alongside the Surrey section of the M25 through fairly open countryside.

It isn't as clear to me that there is as obvious a route through the east and north side of London that would be as easy to use existing routes. Of course, four tracking HS1 could have been an option but the gradients for passenger trains are likely to be less of an issue than they would be for freight.

It wasnt using existing railways - it couldnt as it was piggybacking lorries (ie the huge lorry shuttle wagons through the Tunnel)
My first choice corridor (ie with no geology/planning rules thoughts) would be to go under the Thames East of Tilbury, dropping off London trains, picking up Gateway ones, then a big Sweep round Cambridge way picking up Felixstowe, then splitting with one branch going to the Midlands distribution centres and one branch going north to Doncaster area before going through the Pennines to Manchester/Merseyside, enabling a cross Pennine intermodal operation.
As you can see I dream big! The line could be more twisty as not HS but the NIMBYs aren't going to like mile long freights rumbling/whooshing by! And there is the small matter of funding.....unlike the Swiss the traffic is ending here so we can't tax lorries to pay for it without making ourselves deeply uncompetitive.
But just imagine taking millions of trucks off the M2, M25, M1, and M6......

 

[Nottingham59]

Has any thought been given into building a new railway to connect London Gateway port with the main radial lines north of the capital? If a line was built mostly following the M25 to Watford, it would free up a lot of capacity on the North London Line and GOBLIN and allow for a far more intensive Overground service on those lines.

Or would it be more effective to build a cheaper chord from the LTS to the GEML so freight can go the long way round via Ipswich and EWR?

I have always wondered about a new freight line between Pitsea and Wickford. It would take about 3 miles of new single-track railway and could be built on undeveloped land next to the A130, Canvey Way. Eastbound access to the Shoeburyness line, and an E-N chord at Shenfield, would give Gateway intermodals access to the North without having to go through London, and release paths for London passenger traffic.

No doubt someone on here will be able to tell my why it would be impossible.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The problem here is right in the OP, London Gateway port should really only be handling freight bound for London as its name suggests. Traffic for elsewhere should be routed via ports with better connections to non-London destinations. Of course a major factor is that shipping from Asia tends to consist of the largest vessels calling at a UK port as part of a "multi-drop" schedule also serving continental ports, so tending to serve Southampton or Felixstowe. Both those ports are very busy and operating at close to capacity at times so the best answer is either to provide yet more capacity at those two ports, with appropriate upgrades to their rail connections, or build another large (container) port suitable for the "multi-drop" itineraries while being a little closer to non-London markets. However it's rather difficult to suggest anywhere north of Felixstowe that would work for the shippers. Yarmouth perhaps? Perhaps as a nation we need to find ways to be less dependent on imports.

 

[zwk500]

The problem here is right in the OP, London Gateway port should really only be handling freight bound for London as its name suggests. Traffic for elsewhere should be routed via ports with better connections to non-London destinations. Of course a major factor is that shipping from Asia tends to consist of the largest vessels calling at a UK port as part of a "multi-drop" schedule also serving continental ports, so tending to serve Southampton or Felixstowe. Both those ports are very busy and operating at close to capacity at times so the best answer is either to provide yet more capacity at those two ports, with appropriate upgrades to their rail connections, or build another large (container) port suitable for the "multi-drop" itineraries while being a little closer to non-London markets. However it's rather difficult to suggest anywhere north of Felixstowe that would work for the shippers. Yarmouth perhaps? Perhaps as a nation we need to find ways to be less dependent on imports.

We could be better about investing in freight capacity from existing ports. The UK has Post-Panamax terminals at Liverpool, Southampton, Felixstowe and London Gateway. These should all be electrified and investment in capacity on connecting lines.
There are limited options for additional deepwater Post-Panamax terminals on the southern coast of the UK suitable to a trip on towards Rotterdam - Port Talbot is Panamax sized, Newport and Avonmouth could feasibly be made post-Panamax as well. Falmouth and Portland are also existing terminals but suffer from poor rail connectivity. Portsmouth, Kent and Sussex suffer from rail constraints getting through London. Obviously the Haven Ports are already very busy. Once you get beyond the Wash though you start adding too much time into the schedules.
Perhaps one option would be to offload containers to smaller ships at Felixstowe that can make trips up to the Humber, Tees and Tyne ports, which could be combined with rail improvements to help distribute the traffic?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Perhaps one option would be to offload containers to smaller ships at Felixstowe that can make trips up to the Humber, Tees and Tyne ports, which could be combined with rail improvements to help distribute the traffic?

Does this not already happen to a limited extent at western ports, ie Liverpool for Glasgow and Belfast, Bristol for Dublin? A mega-port at Plymouth could conceivably serve the whole country with a combination of ship, train and truck connections!

 

[zwk500]

Does this not already happen to a limited extent at western ports, ie Liverpool for Glasgow and Belfast, Bristol for Dublin?

I think it does, but it could happen to a greater extent.

A mega-port at Plymouth could conceivably serve the whole country with a combination of ship, train and truck connections!

Issue with Plymouth is that it's a long run on lower-capacity routes to get from Plymouth to the rest of the country. The city is also built right up around the Docks, so it's hard to see where you'd put a Felixstowe or Southampton-sized terminal.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Issue with Plymouth is that it's a long run on lower-capacity routes to get from Plymouth to the rest of the country. The city is also built right up around the Docks, so it's hard to see where you'd put a Felixstowe or Southampton-sized terminal.

While I wasn't being totally serious with that suggestion "Plymouth" doesn't have to mean within the existing urban area though there might come a time when the current RN facilities are deemed redundant and could be repurposed. In theory almost anywhere on the Tamar below Saltash could host a port. Or with a suitably dredged channel perhaps even the Plym, say opposite bank to Laira. As you say the quality of current transport infrastructure for forward land connections would need massive upgrading. OTOH simply transfer the bulk of the freight to smaller ships for carriage to any number of ports elsewhere. This is all decidedly cloudy blue-sky thinking!

 

[zwk500]

While I wasn't being totally serious with that suggestion "Plymouth" doesn't have to mean within the existing urban area though there might come a time when the current RN facilities are deemed redundant and could be repurposed. In theory almost anywhere on the Tamar below Saltash could host a port. Or with a suitably dredged channel perhaps even the Plym, say opposite bank to Laira. As you say the quality of current transport infrastructure for forward land connections would need massive upgrading. OTOH simply transfer the bulk of the freight to smaller ships for carriage to any number of ports elsewhere. This is all decidedly cloudy blue-sky thinking!

I think your suggestion of the RN base closing is the only forseeable situation that would release enough land for a terminal. The Laira bridge stops the Plym being used much beyond the mouth.
If you were wanting a transfer port, Poole is a better option. The existing ferry dock could be expanded and it still has a mothballed rail connection. The Road connections are of course not great but a combination of rail and forwarding by lighter to Southampton may be able to take up the slack. Or Marchwood/Fawley, of course.

 

[Meerkat]

I think your suggestion of the RN base closing is the only forseeable situation that would release enough land for a terminal. The Laira bridge stops the Plym being used much beyond the mouth.
If you were wanting a transfer port, Poole is a better option. The existing ferry dock could be expanded and it still has a mothballed rail connection. The Road connections are of course not great but a combination of rail and forwarding by lighter to Southampton may be able to take up the slack. Or Marchwood/Fawley, of course.

Seeing as the carriers don’t go into Devonport, and AIUI the bomber subs can only go in when the tide is right, I think they would need a lot of dredging to get post Panamax ships in. And I assume there is a limit you can dredge before you hit rock??

 

[zwk500]

Seeing as the carriers don’t go into Devonport, and AIUI the bomber subs can only go in when the tide is right, I think they would need a lot of dredging to get post Panamax ships in. And I assume there is a limit you can dredge before you hit rock??

I would guess that yes dredging would be needed - although Post-panamax draught is 12m, and the Vanguard Class Subs officially draw 12m. There presumably is a limit until you hit rock, but I would imagine there to be a reasonable amount of sediment first in an estuary, and you can always blast/drill the rock if needed.

Regardless, Plymouth would not be a good place for a Post-Panamax terminal. Poole or even better Marchwood/Fawley would work much better as an overflow to Southampton.

 

[Meerkat]

I would guess that yes dredging would be needed - although Post-panamax draught is 12m, and the Vanguard Class Subs officially draw 12m. There presumably is a limit until you hit rock, but I would imagine there to be a reasonable amount of sediment first in an estuary, and you can always blast/drill the rock if needed.

Regardless, Plymouth would not be a good place for a Post-Panamax terminal. Poole or even better Marchwood/Fawley would work much better as an overflow to Southampton.

Do places like Felixstowe require ships to only move at certain tide states? Would seem pretty restrictive.
blasting/drilling a ship channel out of the harbour would be some job, if you could get permission!
Getting a huge container ship through the Poole entrance and round Sandbanks without demolish8ng Brownsea Island would be interesting….
Dont the Southampton docks owners own a load of land on the Marchwood side for future expansion?
And I think there was permission given, but not used, for a terminal between Harwich and Parkestone?

 

[zwk500]

Do places like Felixstowe require ships to only move at certain tide states? Would seem pretty restrictive.

I doubt it, given that a Post-Panamax ship probably takes most of a full tide cycle to load.

blasting/drilling a ship channel out of the harbour would be some job, if you could get permission!
Getting a huge container ship through the Poole entrance and round Sandbanks without demolish8ng Brownsea Island would be interesting….

Dredging the channel is likely to be relatively straightforward though, as it's all sediment. However Poole would need massive expansion of the berth and major investment in the road and rail connections so it's also not a good choice.

Dont the Southampton docks owners own a load of land on the Marchwood side for future expansion?

I don't know - I think Marchwood is still MOD property, but it certainly has been floated as a relief terminal for Southampton.

And I think there was permission given, but not used, for a terminal between Harwich and Parkestone?

Not got a clue on that, I'm afraid. It certainly has had container ships at times, but don't think it's quite Panamax.

 

[Nottingham59]

Do places like Felixstowe require ships to only move at certain tide states?

Felixstowe has a relatively narrow tidal range, compared to other parts of the UK.

Tidal Energy – Severn Estuary Coastal Group

severnestuarycoastalgroup.org.uk

[Map showing Spring tide range of 3-4m]

 

[Meerkat]

Dredging the channel is likely to be relatively straightforward though, as it's all sediment. However Poole would need massive expansion of the berth and major investment in the road and rail connections so it's also not a good choice.

Have you seen the ferries go through past Sandbanks? It’s really not a wide channel!!

a quick google suggests that ABP (Southampton’s owner) own all the land between Marchwood and Hythe for future port expansion (surprised this was not brought up as relevant to a Fawley branch revival), and Hutchison are actually starting work on Bathside Bay. The latter a huge four berth container terminal that reclaims the whole bay between Harwich international and Harwich. As they are building it with a big rail terminal I assume they have got NR to build some extra paths for the trains right? Right….??

 

[JKF]

Avonmouth has planning permission for a deep water container port, this was delayed by the 2008 recession but the consent was renewed not that long ago so it’s still an ambition. It might finally justify the doubling of the line through Henbury which never really had the volume of coal traffic that it was built for.

Deep Sea Container Terminal | The Bristol Port Company

www.bristolport.co.uk