Freightliner calls on Government to set ambitious rail freight target

[The Planner]

Amongst other things, freight operators are now the primary obstacle holding back signaling modernisation and the abolition of most trackside signaling infrastructure.

They are pretty much the only people left without onboard train integrity monitoring (TIM), and even though the technology to provide that for freight operations exists (ECP braking) it is almost impossible to get them to adopt it in the current environment. Whilst technically all we would need would be freight train operators to fit ETCS Level 2, the capacity needs of the British railway are such that we'd have to retain so many axle counters as to make the whole exercise pointless unless they get TIM too.

With TIM we can move to communication-based train control systems such as ETCS Hybrid Level 3 (which now has a working installation in India!) or even a Seltrac solution. As it is we won't even be rid of traditional signal boxes until 2070.

Nonsense, if that was the case why is East Coast Digital Programme progressing and why are FOCs fully embedded in the West Coast North work?

 

[Adrian1980uk]

DB Cargo Turnover 2022: £271m, with a pre Tax loss of £48.9m
FL Turnover 2022: £470m, with a pre Tax loss of £27.9m

Those stats tell you all you need to know, losing money means they need extra support from somewhere

 

[mpthomson]

Those stats tell you all you need to know, losing money means they need extra support from somewhere

Not necessarily, it depends on the reason for the loss, which could be capital expenditure/investment based (or a host of other things). You'd need to look at the figures over a period of a few years to get a better idea. One year isn't much help.

 

[RyanOPlasty]

Why do Freightliner have to pay track access charges anyway? Take Southampton-Manchester via the A34 and M6. A road vehicle conveying a 40ft container encounters no toll gates on the entire trip. After paying Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty there's no further expense.

HGV VED is very low compared with cars. A large MPV pays more then a 40T HGV yet the HGV wears out the infrastructure 10 000 times as much. HGVS are heavily subsidised.

 

[Trainbike46]

DB Cargo Turnover 2022: £271m, with a pre Tax loss of £48.9m
FL Turnover 2022: £470m, with a pre Tax loss of £27.9m

Just to add to this, GBRf had a revenue of £270 million in 2022 (2021: £227 million), with an operating profit of £19 million (2021: £14 million)

 

[JamesT]

HGV VED is very low compared with cars. A large MPV pays more then a 40T HGV yet the HGV wears out the infrastructure 10 000 times as much. HGVS are heavily subsidised.

There is also an additional tax called the HGV Levy on top - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hgv-road-user-levy
So if you wanted to compare to a car, you'd need to add together the VED and Levy from https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/1175836/v149x1-rates-of-vehicle-tax.pdf

 

[RyanOPlasty]

There is also an additional tax called the HGV Levy on top - https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hgv-road-user-levy
So if you wanted to compare to a car, you'd need to add together the VED and Levy from https://assets.publishing.service.g.../file/1175836/v149x1-rates-of-vehicle-tax.pdf

I had taken this into account.

From table 3, the most a worst case HGV pays in total ( Euro V , non road friendly suspension and two axles ) is only £1353

Compare this with a Citroen Spacetourer

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...vehicles-and-private-light-goods-vehicles.pdf and https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/downloads/download.aspx?rg=2023

A Citroen Spacetourer BlueHDi automatic has CO2 of 177 and a list price over 40 000 so VED + supplement paid is £1040 + £390 = £1430

The Citroen is a little over a ton per axle laden. The HGV Could have at least 12 tons

That one axle at 12 tons is 20000 times worse for the road than a one ton axle ( 12 to the fourth power )

 

[HSTEd]

I had taken this into account.

From table 3, the most a worst case HGV pays in total ( Euro V , non road friendly suspension and two axles ) is only £1353

Compare this with a Citroen Spacetourer

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...vehicles-and-private-light-goods-vehicles.pdf and https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/downloads/download.aspx?rg=2023

A Citroen Spacetourer BlueHDi automatic has CO2 of 177 and a list price over 40 000 so VED + supplement paid is £1040 + £390 = £1430

The Citroen is a little over a ton per axle laden. The HGV Could have at least 12 tons

That one axle at 12 tons is 20000 times worse for the road than a one ton axle ( 12 to the fourth power )

That doesn't necessarily mean that HGVs are heavily subsidised, it just means they are taxed less heavily than private cars.
Those statmeents aren't really the same thing.

Given that revenue from fuel duty, VAT on road fuel, VED and HGV levy vastly exceeds the cost of road maintenance........
Total road spending, including maintenance of a vast network of roads that almost never see a HGV (and where the traffic based maintenance budget model breaks down completely) is about £11bn.

Fuel Duty income alone is over £25bn.

Total National Highways spending on the Strategic Road Network is only about £5.3bn per year, and that is a road system that provides about two thirds of lorry-miles.

 

[JamesT]

I had taken this into account.

From table 3, the most a worst case HGV pays in total ( Euro V , non road friendly suspension and two axles ) is only £1353

Compare this with a Citroen Spacetourer

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...vehicles-and-private-light-goods-vehicles.pdf and https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/downloads/download.aspx?rg=2023

A Citroen Spacetourer BlueHDi automatic has CO2 of 177 and a list price over 40 000 so VED + supplement paid is £1040 + £390 = £1430

The Citroen is a little over a ton per axle laden. The HGV Could have at least 12 tons

That one axle at 12 tons is 20000 times worse for the road than a one ton axle ( 12 to the fourth power )

The £1040 VED rate is only for the first year. For any subsequent year, it’s the standard rate of £140. The supplement is payable for the first 5 years of the cars life.
I agree the taxation is not aligned with the axle weight, but the HGV should end up paying more.

 

[furnessvale]

That doesn't necessarily mean that HGVs are heavily subsidised, it just means they are taxed less heavily than private cars.
Those statmeents aren't really the same thing.

Given that revenue from fuel duty, VAT on road fuel, VED and HGV levy vastly exceeds the cost of road maintenance........
Total road spending, including maintenance of a vast network of roads that almost never see a HGV (and where the traffic based maintenance budget model breaks down completely) is about £11bn.

Fuel Duty income alone is over £25bn.

Total National Highways spending on the Strategic Road Network is only about £5.3bn per year, and that is a road system that provides about two thirds of lorry-miles.

You are always willing to lump taxation from the private motorist in the same pot as HGVs to justify the low taxation on HGVs.

However, when the same is done with rail expenditure you cry foul.

I would ask the private motorist a simple question. Would you be happy if some, just some, of your excess taxation was diverted to supporting railfreight, thus reducing HGV traffic?

 

[HSTEd]

You are always willing to lump taxation from the private motorist in the same pot as HGVs to justify the low taxation on HGVs.

HGVs pay billions of pounds in fuel duty though!

It is such a money spinner that they actually make a substantial, if not total, contribution to the costs of operating the HGV relevant road system.

Whether private motoring is tasked heavily or not is inconsequential.

By contrast, the rail freight industry pays essentially nothing towards the infrastructure, either directly or indirectly.
No fuel duty, no excise duty, essentially no access charges

However, when the same is done with rail expenditure you cry foul.

Because the rail freight industry is a money pit that makes HGVs look like a money spinner for the taxpayer, consdiering it consumes hundreds of millions of pounds of net subsidies to move a tiny portion of freight. And much of the freight that it does move only moves those distances because the railway provides an artificially cheap transport method. Biomass deliveries would essentially cease immediately if not for the huge subsidies after all.

(EDIT: Cheap aggregate shipment by rail is also likely preventing the oft mooted underground aggregate extraction in the South East of England, as well as taking market share from maritime aggregate deliveries, not clear how much road traffic is actually avoided by it).

I would ask the private motorist a simple question. Would you be happy if some, just some, of your excess taxation was diverted to supporting railfreight, thus reducing HGV traffic?

I would prefer that money went into subsidising better passenger operations which are likely to get far more for my money than pouring money into the railfreight black hole.

 

[hwl]

HGVs pay billions of pounds in fuel duty though!

They do indeed.

It is such a money spinner that they actually make a substantial, if not total, contribution to the costs of operating the HGV relevant road system.

It is substantial but still falls far short of the damage according to HMT's estimates.

Whether private motoring is tasked heavily or not is inconsequential.

By contrast, the rail freight industry pays essentially nothing towards the infrastructure, either directly or indirectly.
No fuel duty, no excise duty, essentially no access charges

Red Diesel duty is currently 11.14p/l (an 80% discount on road duty). Hence rail freight does pay duty, the financial year ending in April they paid £17.11M

 

[Trainbike46]

That doesn't necessarily mean that HGVs are heavily subsidised, it just means they are taxed less heavily than private cars.
Those statmeents aren't really the same thing.

Given that revenue from fuel duty, VAT on road fuel, VED and HGV levy vastly exceeds the cost of road maintenance........
Total road spending, including maintenance of a vast network of roads that almost never see a HGV (and where the traffic based maintenance budget model breaks down completely) is about £11bn.

Fuel Duty income alone is over £25bn.

Total National Highways spending on the Strategic Road Network is only about £5.3bn per year, and that is a road system that provides about two thirds of lorry-miles.

Taxation of road traffic certainly doesn't cover all the externalities (chiefly health impacts from the vastly higher accident rate and from air pollution in places where people actually spend time, but carbon emissions, biodiversity impacts, etc. also contribute)

I'd also suggest that, given the state of many roads in these countries, the road maintenance budget may not actually be sufficient to cover the maintenance needed.

To go back to the main topic; In my view the government should support rail freight, but not necessarily by providing subsidies. Better ways might be:
- Do an assessment on what barriers there are to freight travelling by rail, and working to take those away (for example, if locomotives available for hire are a challenge, DRS could lease out locomotives to new entrants to the rail freight business)
- Do work that reduces cost across the whole industry (for example, electrify the felixstowe branch so that there is no need for a locomotive swap if running most of the way electric, as some freight operators currently do)
- Where paths are limiting, consider alternative routes and or upgrades (obviously this is happening in some places)

 

[GB]

HGVs pay billions of pounds in fuel duty though!

It is such a money spinner that they actually make a substantial, if not total, contribution to the costs of operating the HGV relevant road system.

Whether private motoring is tasked heavily or not is inconsequential.

By contrast, the rail freight industry pays essentially nothing towards the infrastructure, either directly or indirectly.
No fuel duty, no excise duty, essentially no access charges

Because the rail freight industry is a money pit that makes HGVs look like a money spinner for the taxpayer, consdiering it consumes hundreds of millions of pounds of net subsidies to move a tiny portion of freight. And much of the freight that it does move only moves those distances because the railway provides an artificially cheap transport method. Biomass deliveries would essentially cease immediately if not for the huge subsidies after all.

(EDIT: Cheap aggregate shipment by rail is also likely preventing the oft mooted underground aggregate extraction in the South East of England, as well as taking market share from maritime aggregate deliveries, not clear how much road traffic is actually avoided by it).


I would prefer that money went into subsidising better passenger operations which are likely to get far more for my money than pouring money into the railfreight black hole.

If you are going to use words or phrases like "black hole" and "money pit" or claim railfreight are receiving hundreds of millions of subsidies to move "a tiny portion of freight" can you at least post a source on it.

 

[HSTEd]

Taxation of road traffic certainly doesn't cover all the externalities (chiefly health impacts from the vastly higher accident rate and from air pollution in places where people actually spend time, but carbon emissions, biodiversity impacts, etc. also contribute)

The vast majority of air pollution in places where people actually spend time are not due to HGVs though!

HGVs don't spend much time driving round urban residential streets after all.
The vast majority of lorry traffic is on major arterial roads which are overwhelmingly not in the middle of high density urban areas.

I'd also suggest that, given the state of many roads in these countries, the road maintenance budget may not actually be sufficient to cover the maintenance needed.

And yet the road system continues to operate and has done for decades despite endless claims that road maintenance budgets were insufficient.

- Do work that reduces cost across the whole industry (for example, electrify the felixstowe branch so that there is no need for a locomotive swap if running most of the way electric, as some freight operators currently do)

Electric railfreight operations are being held back primarily by the extremely low cost of diesel, which removes any real incentive to electrify.
Electrifying the Felixstowe Branch will not change this.

- Where paths are limiting, consider alternative routes and or upgrades (obviously this is happening in some places)

Upgrades will consume billions in capital spend and take decades, at which point you might as well cut out the middleman and go to eHighway if you want to reduce freight transport externalities.

If you are going to use words or phrases like "black hole" and "money pit" or claim railfreight are receiving hundreds of millions of subsidies to move "a tiny portion of freight" can you at least post a source on it.

In 2022, rail freight managed 16 billion tonne kilometres, compared to 175 for road and 25 for coastal/inshore shipping.
Considering the tiny size of the commercially relevant inshore waterway system, the high share for water transport is impressive.

Road moves 81% of freight, compared to 7.4% for rail freight.
Rail freight share has been hit hard in recent years by the effective end of coal shipments, and the impending end of biomass.

Something like 70% of rail freight traffic is now aggregates/cement or maritime intermodal.


It is verging on impossible to get good figures for the subsidies to the rail freight industry, but given the railway infrastructure costs £13bn a year to operate even assigning 1-2% (almost certainly an underestimate) of percent of maintenance costs to freight trains will blow the indirect subsidies into the hundreds of millions of pounds per year.

The aggregates sector is one of the best parts of railfreight in terms of actively innovating to improve its economics, but the "Jumbo" train concept has still not reached 775m length. Neverthless, I don't think it is at all clear that reasonable subsidies will be able to revive any sectors outside of that, and its not clear whether further subsidies to aggregates etc operations will actually displace road transport rather than water. Water transport is currently ~33% dry-bulk operations after all, although that will include things other than aggregates.

 

[Trainbike46]

The vast majority of air pollution in places where people actually spend time are not due to HGVs though!

HGVs don't spend much time driving round urban residential streets after all.
The vast majority of lorry traffic is on major arterial roads which are overwhelmingly not in the middle of high density urban areas.

Absolutely true, which is why I said Road Traffic not HGVs! Your post I was replying to compared total road vehicle related taxes with the total road network expenditure, if doing that the other externalities should also be considered!

And yet the road system continues to operate and has done for decades despite endless claims that road maintenance budgets were insufficient.


Electric railfreight operations are being held back primarily by the extremely low cost of diesel, which removes any real incentive to electrify.
Electrifying the Felixstowe Branch will not change this.

While this is true, electrification of the branch would enable the trains that currently switch to an electric loco at Ipswich to run electric throughout, eliminating the cost of the loco switch. The fact it saves a little diesel on the relatively short stretch is not the point.

I would agree that over time rail diesel should probably be made to pay some fuel tax, though to allow companies to adapt it should be phased in.

Upgrades will consume billions in capital spend and take decades, at which point you might as well cut out the middleman and go to eHighway if you want to reduce freight transport externalities.


In 2022, rail freight managed 16 billion tonne kilometres, compared to 175 for road and 25 for coastal/inshore shipping.
Considering the tiny size of the commercially relevant inshore waterway system, the high share for water transport is impressive.

I suspect a significant portion of the coastal/inshore shipping will be between Northern Ireland and GB (assuming that isn't in a separate statistical category?)
Impressive numbers in any case for the shipping industry!

 

[HS2isgood]

How's the Indian level 3 test that has been mentioned here?

 

[HSTEd]

How's the Indian level 3 test that has been mentioned here?

Come back next year and we might know, as far as I know its not exploded or anything yet, but its been open a matter of weeks at this point.

 

[HS2isgood]

Come back next year and we might know, as far as I know its not exploded or anything yet, but its been open a matter of weeks at this point.

Would full moving blocks allow for higher frequency in low-speed congested cores like TL?

 

[renegademaster]

I had taken this into account.

From table 3, the most a worst case HGV pays in total ( Euro V , non road friendly suspension and two axles ) is only £1353

Compare this with a Citroen Spacetourer

From https://assets.publishing.service.g...vehicles-and-private-light-goods-vehicles.pdf and https://carfueldata.vehicle-certification-agency.gov.uk/downloads/download.aspx?rg=2023

A Citroen Spacetourer BlueHDi automatic has CO2 of 177 and a list price over 40 000 so VED + supplement paid is £1040 + £390 = £1430

The Citroen is a little over a ton per axle laden. The HGV Could have at least 12 tons

That one axle at 12 tons is 20000 times worse for the road than a one ton axle ( 12 to the fourth power )

I do think it's a bit unfair to compare worst case to worst case scenario, but average for average

 

[HSTEd]

I suspect a significant portion of the coastal/inshore shipping will be between Northern Ireland and GB (assuming that isn't in a separate statistical category?)
Impressive numbers in any case for the shipping industry!

The odd thing about it is that only a few percent is unitised cargo, which I assume would include lorries etc.

The vast majority is liquid bulk and dry bulk, so I assume it is things like petroleum and aggregate/cement.

Would full moving blocks allow for higher frequency in low-speed congested cores like TL?

Well the solution being prepped in India is not true moving block in the conventional sense, but simply very short fixed blocks.

But it could do that, although I'd argue the bigger advantage is the abolition of quite a lot of trackside equipment.
Rather off topic for this thread though!

 

[dangerousdids2]

I would be interested to know how many hgv's operating in Britain actually pay tax. Most of them I see are on European plates so obviously they don't contribute to anything. I would also bet they fill up with fuel before leaving Europe.

We have all these rail companies that apparently operate at a loss year after year. Something smells fishy to me.

 

[JamesT]

I would be interested to know how many hgv's operating in Britain actually pay tax. Most of them I see are on European plates so obviously they don't contribute to anything. I would also bet they fill up with fuel before leaving Europe.

We have all these rail companies that apparently operate at a loss year after year. Something smells fishy to me.

Non-UK HGVs have to pay the HGV Levy before entering the UK. https://www.eurotunnelfreight.com/uk/2020/06/your-guide-to-the-hgv-road-user-levy/

If you don’t pay the HGV Road User Levy, it is a criminal offence and you will risk being fined. All enforcement agencies will be automatically alerted when an HGV enters the UK road network without paying the levy. HGVs will be stopped and the driver will be issued a £300 fixed penalty.

If you can’t pay, your HGV will be immobilised and impounded until payment of the fine is made. Additional immobilisation and storage costs will also be charged.

 

[dangerousdids2]

At least they pay something then.

 

[YorkRailFan]

Freightliner welcomes the target set by Government today to grow rail freight by at least 75% but claims more can be done.
Freightliner, a subsidiary of Genesee & Wyoming Inc. (G&W), welcomes the target set by Government today to grow rail freight volumes by at least 75% by 2050, acknowledging that it is a vote of confidence in the sector. It underscores just how important rail freight is at driving down carbon emissions, supporting economic growth and delivering prosperity for all regions.
“We welcome this target set by the government today but know we can do more. We look forward to working with Government and the wider industry in unlocking the policies that will ensure that the target is a floor and not a ceiling. Setting the target is the easy part, it is now crucial that we maintain the momentum by establishing a clear policy framework that will support the private sector investments that will be key for growth and to secure the significant modal shift to rail.”
Tim Shoveller•G&W UK/Europe ,CEO
"We welcome this target set by the Government today but know we can do more. We look forward to working with the Government and the wider industry in unlocking policies that will ensure that the target is the floor and not a ceiling. Setting the target is the easy part, it is now crucial that we maintain the momentum by establishing a clear policy framework that will support the private sector investments that will be key for growth and to secure the significant modal shift to rail" A 75% minimum increase of rail freight volumes by 2050 will mean over 12 million Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) journeys are removed from our busy motorways each year, reducing carbon emissions by 1.5 million tonnes. An important step to the delivery of the UK’s zero greenhouse gas obligations.

https://www.freightliner.co.uk/news/freightliner-welcomes-the-target-set-by-government-to-grow-rail-freight-but-claims-more-can-be-done/

• government announces ambitious 2050 target to grow rail freight by at least 75%
• delivers Transport Secretary commitment to move more goods by rail while growing the economy and improving the environment
• sets the pace for the sector and builds on government’s strong record of investment in rail freight

Even more vital goods will be transported across the UK by rail, following an ambitious target announced by Transport Secretary, Mark Harper, today (20 December 2023) to grow rail freight by at least 75%.

From delivering food to supermarkets, to transporting building materials to construction sites, rail freight is a vital part of everyday life in the UK, carrying tens of billions of pounds worth of vital goods.

Today’s announcement demonstrates this government’s drive to grow the rail freight industry even further and boost the considerable economic growth it delivers across the country by supporting supply chains and thousands of high-skilled jobs.

Not only does this target provide the sector with certainty by setting a clear pace for growth by 2050, but it will also lead to significant environmental benefits by taking lorries off our roads – slashing emissions and congestion in the process. For example, just one train can replace up to 129 heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) and a tonne of freight moved by rail produces about a quarter of the carbon emissions it does by road.

Transport Secretary, Mark Harper, said:

Rail freight helps keep this country moving, ensuring our supermarket shelves are stocked and materials are supplied to our construction workers.
Not only is it the most efficient and environmentally friendly way of transporting many goods, but it helps grow the economy across the country.
This ambitious plan demonstrates this government’s confidence in the rail freight sector and I hope it encourages businesses to capitalise on the extra opportunities so the industry continues to thrive and deliver for our country.

Today’s announcement delivers on a commitment made by the Transport Secretary in his George Bradshaw address earlier this year, along with fulfilling a commitment in the Department for Transport’s Plan for Rail and Transport Decarbonisation Plan.

The target will encourage further private sector investment in projects that will grow and modernise the industry, such as GB Railfreight’s new state-of-the-art maintenance facility in Peterborough, which was officially opened by the Transport Secretary in September this year.

GBRTT Lead Director (interim), Rufus Boyd, said:

The government’s announcement today for a rail freight growth target of at least 75% growth by 2050 supports what our customers and stakeholders told us in the national call for evidence. That setting a clear ambition for rail freight growth will help bring the sector together, focus minds, break down silos and be a catalyst for private investment.
Rail freight is already a big success story. Moving goods by rail is a greener option and helps cut road congestion, and what we have here is an opportunity to grow rail freight’s modal share. I am convinced that through collaborative working the industry can rise to this challenge.

The Rail Freight Growth Target also forms a key part of the government’s continual drive to improve the long-term capacity of the rail freight network, with billions of pounds of redirected funding from HS2 now further supporting schemes to improve rail infrastructure and services in all parts of the country.

Director General of the Rail Freight Group, Maggie Simpson, said:

We are delighted that government has recognised the economic and environmental benefits of growing rail freight. This target sends a strong message about the benefits and potential of rail freight which will encourage investment by industry and private businesses and attract more customers to move their goods by rail.

As recently announced through the Network North plan, the transformative Ely Area Capacity Enhancement scheme, backed by around £550 million of government funding, will see an extra 6 freight trains per day to and from the Port of Felixstowe – the equivalent of taking 98,000 lorry journeys off the road every year.

The target has been set following a detailed call for evidence with industry leaders, customers and other stakeholders by the Great British Railways Transition Team (GBRTT). Going forward, GBRTT’s recently formed Strategic Freight Unit will spearhead strategic leadership in the freight sector, further unlocking the industry’s potential for growth.

Network Rail Freight Director, Henry Bates, said:

Rail freight has a key role to play in Britain’s economic and environmental wellbeing, keeping supermarkets stocked, builders building and medicine moving. We want to see more freight on rail and having a government-supported, long-term target will support the sector’s ambition to grow and attract investment.

Government sets ambitious target to grow rail freight by at least 75%

Target will boost economic growth and lead to significant environmental benefits by taking lorries off our roads, cutting emissions and congestion in the process.

www.gov.uk

Shoveller has dropped any talk about halving track access fees.

Rail freight helps keep this country moving, ensuring our supermarket shelves are stocked and materials are supplied to our construction workers.
Not only is it the most efficient and environmentally friendly way of transporting many goods, but it helps grow the economy across the country.
This ambitious plan demonstrates this government’s confidence in the rail freight sector and I hope it encourages businesses to capitalise on the extra opportunities so the industry continues to thrive and deliver for our country.

This annoyed me, if Harper believes that this is the case, then he should be investing more in rail instead of roads. Key projects like HS2 would have opened up more capacity for freight but, argh, I digress.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This annoyed me, if Harper believes that this is the case, then he should be investing more in rail instead of roads. Key projects like HS2 would have opened up more capacity for freight but, argh, I digress.

Yes, definitely speaking with the proverbial forked tongue imho.

 

[HSTEd]

This annoyed me, if Harper believes that this is the case, then he should be investing more in rail instead of roads. Key projects like HS2 would have opened up more capacity for freight but, argh, I digress.

There are a lot more cheaper ways to get effective railfreight capacity than HS2!

You could, for example, start lengthening freight refuge loops to a kilometre or more.

But given the problems the rail industry is having with infrastructure delivery at the moment, I'm not sure I trust in anyone's ability to deliver new rail infrastructure at all.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

There are a lot more cheaper ways to get effective railfreight capacity than HS2!

You could, for example, start lengthening freight refuge loops to a kilometre or more.

But given the problems the rail industry is having with infrastructure delivery at the moment, I'm not sure I trust in anyone's ability to deliver new rail infrastructure at all.

This target is based on very limited Investment and ’using the existing infrastructure better ' which is government code word for shut eyes and hope

 

[YorkRailFan]

RMT Press Office:

RAIL UNION RMT responded to the Department for Transport’s long-awaited rail freight growth target released today which pledged to increase rail freight by ‘at least 75% by 2050’ by calling for an end to the cuts agenda.

RMT general secretary Mick Lynch said that the 2050 target for rail freight growth target means nothing if at the same time the government was cutting vital rail infrastructure projects such as the Northern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse rail which would provide the desperately needed extra capacity.


“We have a government that simply does not understand the importance of investing in our railways, in rail freight and creating the mode-shift we need.

“This government seems hell bent on overseeing the managed decline of our railway by flogging the dead horse of a fragmented privatised railway, whilst making massive cuts to infrastructure funding that is jeopardising safety and performance,” he said.



ENDS

RMT calls for an end to cuts if rail freight growth targets to be met

RAIL UNION RMT responded to the Department for Transport’s long-awaited rail freight growth target released today which pledged to increase rail freight by ‘at least 75% by 2050’ by calling for an end to the cuts agenda.

www.rmt.org.uk

I have to say, I agree with Lynch here. Setting targets is all well and good, but the freight sector can't meet this target if they don't have the necessary infrastructure required.

 

[yorksrob]

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:

Funding will clearly be constrained but option 3 would become significantly more achievable if GBR reviewed capacity utilisation on a route by route basis to identify how additional freight capacity could be provided without major enhancement expenditure.

An example of how this could be done is the planning underway for the West Coast main line (North) through intelligent renewals. In addition an assessment of the value of paths in terms of contribution to GDP might well result in reallocation of some lightly used passenger paths to freight

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.