GA letter to Therese Coffey MP re v poor Felixtowe service recently

[Jonny]

This may be less true if you happen to live/travel on one of the miles in question.


Economic productivity is not linear with the number of jobs.

More jobs is not automatically better when the actual productive output (ie. moving x containers from A to B) is the same.

In fact, it could be argued that it is less efficient to employ more labour than necessary. The only contra-argument that remains viable is if the cost of capital (additional railway infrastructure and, where necessary, additional rolling stock in this case) will be (or be likely to be) more than the cost of additional labour.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is one of the most important freight lines in the UK. It is also patently fit for purpose as such. It is well to remember that Hutchinson Port have a planning commitment to double most of the branch, which they have consistently tried to get out of for at least 7 years.

Perhaps it is time to lobby Hutchinson Port to honour their obligations. They could also be persuaded that OLE is in their best interests, given competition from London Gateway.

Playing Devil's advocate, the branch could accommodate all the freight traffic forecast with the planned expansion of the port if the Felixstowe passenger service was turned peak only. So what is better for UK plc (or even Suffolk plc) - spending upwards of £50m to, effectively, enable a continued hourly passenger service on the branch off peak, or spend practically nothing by asking the passengers affected to get the bus? (Which for most journeys is actually quicker and more convenient, according to the locals I know up there).

Firstly, rail is superior to road for passenger travel both in terms of efficiency and safety - it is not much fun having to travel out-of-town to get a train when there is perfectly good infrastructure in the town. Secondly, the Felixstowe locals will not like Hutchinson Port very much if they lose their local train service for little gain.

Thirdly, a logistical issue - maximum booked traffic and disruption due to an issue elsewhere on the railway network will leave the Port vulnerable to disruption. Given the competition in the greater Thames Estuary ports market, this may be another reason why Hutchinson Port should consider dualling of the track to be in their best interests.

 

[HSTEd]

Also if Felixstowe is unable to support additional container traffic the containers will just go to other ports with essentially no impact on the economy at all.

This is not the case for passenger traffic.

 

[Bald Rick]

Firstly, rail is superior to road for passenger travel both in terms of efficiency and safety - it is not much fun having to travel out-of-town to get a train when there is perfectly good infrastructure in the town.

I won't argue safety, but in this case I will argue efficiency. A single car 153 trundling up the branch 3/4 empty in the off peak is not going to be as efficient as any bus in operating or capital costs (ignoring infrastructure). And the bus actually goes where most people want to go, ie Central Ipswich, and not the station.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Also if Felixstowe is unable to support additional container traffic the containers will just go to other ports with essentially no impact on the economy at all.

This is not the case for passenger traffic.

Not as simple as that, most of the traffic that comes to Felixstowe is down to where several freight companies send them too inbound and outbound, also these freight companies have stable offices in Felixstowe

Then you look at cost and capacity, has Immingham got the capacity to take anymore traffic than it already does, Immingham for example takes alot of Sweden and Finland cargo as it is

What is the extra cost by sailing the boats further and this cost will have to be passed on, will this extra cost have an impact on the ecomony
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I won't argue safety, but in this case I will argue efficiency. A single car 153 trundling up the branch 3/4 empty in the off peak is not going to be as efficient as any bus in operating or capital costs (ignoring infrastructure). And the bus actually goes where most people want to go, ie Central Ipswich, and not the station.

Where has this 3/4 empty come from

I struggle to imagine a 153 to trundle along to Felixstowe and back with only a handful of passengers on it, especially during the summer months

 

[HSTEd]

The cost of moving tonne miles by ship is almost zero.

For example it costs more to ship a pair of Jeans from the dockside to the shop than to ship them all the way from Shanghai or Bangladesh on a ship.
Large container ships are ridiculously efficient.

Deep Water ports at places like Liverpool and the oft proposed transhipment port at Scapa Flow (once the Northwest passage finally opens properly) will eat into the market for Felixstowe anyway.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The general railway produces recognisable social goods - it is hard to see what those goods are in the case of freight operations that only exist because of massive subsidies.

One massive good that freight does is keep the number of lorries on the road down. Each freight service can haul 30ish containers. That's thirty 44 tonne trucks that are not on the road per train!. That's a huge social benefit, particularly around Felixstowe to the midlands as it keeps them off the A14.

Without those services, there would be many jobs in Felixstowe that would be lost.

Additionally freight operation 'farebox recovery' has collapsed since privatisation as a result of these subsidies and is now worse than that of the passenger railway in many cases. A passenger railway to a town of 30,000 should not be abandoned so that more subsidy junkie freight operations can be run on a track to generate income for an industry that has repeatedly failed to live up to its commitments.

Hmm, whilst I cannot argue with you that a town of 30K has a need for a passenger railway, the fact that it gets by with a 153 speaks volumes about its usage! How much of that is down to poor punctuality is debatable

If Hutchinson Port has attempted to get out of it - take them to court and make them pay.
That or simply deny requests for any additional paths to the dock and eliminate existing paths as the contracts that grant them expire (if NR has the authority to do that that is)

First off the requirement is a planning requirement. That sounds like the local planning authority (Suffolk Coastal District Council) put the requirement in. They could withdraw the planning consent, however that would mean there would be an appeal with the planning inspector and the requirement would probably be dropped altogether to preserve the jobs at the port. Meaning that the requirement is effectively unenforceable (although some compensation could well be extracted to provide a suitable alternative service for passengers).

Network Rail wouldn't get involved. It's a planning matter. They certainly won't deny paths as they get paid for them!

 

[HSTEd]

One massive good that freight does is keep the number of lorries on the road down. Each freight service can haul 30ish containers. That's thirty 44 tonne trucks that are not on the road per train!. That's a huge social benefit, particularly around Felixstowe to the midlands as it keeps them off the A14.
Without those services, there would be many jobs in Felixstowe that would be lost.

Assuming all the rakes are fully loaded, which they are not necessarily (they will run the full rake even if there is only one container on it because shunting it costs money and so on).

And that assumes that without more and more money being thrown at rail freight operations into Felixstowe that the containers would even be disembarked there rather than at some other port, of which there are an increasing number.

If they are being shipped to the midlands they could even be transhipped at Liverpool for the MSC or shipped to half a dozen other places.

First off the requirement is a planning requirement. That sounds like the local planning authority (Suffolk Coastal District Council) put the requirement in. They could withdraw the planning consent, however that would mean there would be an appeal with the planning inspector and the requirement would probably be dropped altogether to preserve the jobs at the port. Meaning that the requirement is effectively unenforceable (although some compensation could well be extracted to provide a suitable alternative service for passengers).

So in other words the Council was taken for a ride by a private sector body that never had any intention of complying, and the people are hung out to dry to allow some big business to increase its subsidy farming.

Hmm, whilst I cannot argue with you that a town of 30K has a need for a passenger railway, the fact that it gets by with a 153 speaks volumes about its usage! How much of that is down to poor punctuality is debatable

An hourly service which is often cancelled with no alternative transport laid on is hardly an indictment of the demand for a passenger railway.

EDIT:
The single track sections do not appear to be overly long - how much would it cost to just double the entire route and have done with it, obviously excluding the giant viaduct in Ipswich?

 

[ac6000cw]

There is no 'giant viaduct' on the branch - just a short but tall one between Westerfield and Derby Road, but that is on a short, 2.5 mile single track section which also has narrow, steep sided cuttings.

The big problem is the 8 mile single section from Derby Road to Trimley - and Trimley is not a passing place, just the junction for the north end terminals, so it's actually nearly a 10 mile section to Felixstowe station and the junction for the south terminal. It only works (in operational terms) because trains 'go for it' over the section - full throttle all the way on the 153, pretty much, and I assume the same applies to the freights. I think there are intermediate block signals, but that only helps when trains are following each other.

Most of the Derby Road - Trimley section runs through flat, open farmland (other than the A14 bridge) so should be easy to double/add a long passing loop. In places the existing railway 'land' looks wide enough take double track already.

The Ipswich - Westerfield section is already double-track, but the layout at Westerfield doesn't allow freights to overtake passenger trains standing at the platform - should be easy to fix with a redesigned junction layout.

My impression (as an interested train watcher) is that the line doesn't so much need more absolute capacity as more operational flexibility, to allow easier recovery of the service when things don't run to the WTT (as will always happen sometimes). The freights get delayed as well as the passenger trains, but they are travelling much longer distances overall so it's easier for them to recover the time later on (and their schedules are probably padded much more anyway).

 

[306024]

Where has this 3/4 empty come from

I struggle to imagine a 153 to trundle along to Felixstowe and back with only a handful of passengers on it, especially during the summer months

It was Mr Rick playing Devil's Advocat. On a nice summer's day, you can struggle to get everyone aboard the 153 at Derby Road. Lots of buggies.

However if you live in Felixstowe and have a car, it is quicker to drive to Manningtree if you want to go to London. A14 over the Orwell bridge and down the A137.