Heinz Factory near Wigan to get its own siding?

[Fedupnorthern]

Can't wait to pay more for my beans resultant from this improved "green footprint".

 

[The Planner]

Sadly, I think that sums up my point rather well

So, nothing to do with safety, operational practicality or economic reality - regardless of circumstance it's a siding and crossover, or no use of rail.

Let me take a stab at which it would be.

I reiterate.....

If our railways are to remain relevant to our future, we have to break away from the 'We can't use a T3 because that's not what T3s are for' mindset.

Another call for a "like" function. The railway is skint, it is not going to put in a shed load of infrastructure for something like this unless it is either third party funded or there is a need for several trains a day.

 

[furnessvale]

Which is why the T3 option covers all of them. As has been suggested earlier, Heinz are not going to pay for an all singing solution.

Agreed that a (*modified) T3 could enable Heinz to test out the use of railfreight, but I would be gravely disappointed if the sum total of traffic to and from the biggest Heinz factory in the world (and the biggest food factory in Europe) ended up as one small train in the middle of the night.

*I mentioned modified because I cannot see the need for PICOPs, detonators etc, with the additional costs involved, being a long term solution.

 

[XAM2175]

A T3 may be acceptable for a trial but not when it is an excuse not to fund the infrastructure intervention to provide a siding and crossover to allow multiple trains to run during the day.

But they don't need multiple trains a day! It's not even a case of "excusing" an unwillingness to fund infrastructure, it's very simply that the benefits provided by a 'proper' siding do not justify the costs.

And who do you think should fund this platinum plating? Heinz? That'll just guarantee that they back out entirely. Or maybe NR? In which case should they also pay for sidings at every single business that could be served by rail?

If our railways are to remain relevant to our future, we have to break away from the 'We can't use a T3 because that's not what T3s are for' mindset.

Indeed. Obviously we should be careful not to adversely impact the safety of the railways, but there shouldn't be an automatic presumption that the way we've always done it is the way we should keep doing it. This is an especially egregious example given that you don't have go very far here to find threads bemoaning the fact that everything NR touches ends up costing an absolute fortune.

Can't wait to pay more for my beans resultant from this improved "green footprint".

Who said you would?

 

[D6130]

Are "Section 20" government grants - or a present day equivalent - still available for the installation of railfreight facilities at industrial premises where there would be concrete environmental benefits?

 

[furnessvale]

Can't wait to pay more for my beans resultant from this improved "green footprint".

Your beans are only "cheaper" now, thanks to a massive cross subsidy of HGVs by the heavily taxed private motorist, but that is another argument for another day.

Are "Section 20" government grants - or a present day equivalent - still available for the installation of railfreight facilities at industrial premises where there would be concrete environmental benefits?

No grants for infrastructure or wagons etc. Limited grants are available, Modal Shift Revenue Support, which basically assists in covering the extra costs involved in moving containers by rail. These are heavily over subscribed and far more would move by rail if the total amount available was more realistic.

 

[507020]

Sadly, I think that sums up my point rather well

So, nothing to do with safety, operational practicality or economic reality - regardless of circumstance it's a siding and crossover, or no use of rail.

Let me take a stab at which it would be.

I reiterate.....

If our railways are to remain relevant to our future, we have to break away from the 'We can't use a T3 because that's not what T3s are for' mindset.

If the concept of the T3 possession exists and despite not being designed for such purposes would be suitable to allow a baked bean train to reverse at an arbitrary location without waking up half of Parbold then that is of course a good thing. It shouldn’t be unsafe but I’m sure someone has some objection to it happening most nights on safety grounds. As for operational practicality it is obvious that a siding, runaround loop and crossover are the best solution whether or not the cost is justified.

Another call for a "like" function. The railway is skint, it is not going to put in a shed load of infrastructure for something like this unless it is either third party funded or there is a need for several trains a day.

There is a need to run several trains a day on that line, with most being the passenger services to Southport.

Agreed that a (*modified) T3 could enable Heinz to test out the use of railfreight, but I would be gravely disappointed if the sum total of traffic to and from the biggest Heinz factory in the world (and the biggest food factory in Europe) ended up as one small train in the middle of the night.

What first needs to be evaluated is exactly how many HGVs travel to and from the Heinz factory, at what times of day they arrive and how many (more heavily loaded) freight trains could replace them, then once a decision is made on how much of a modal shift they wish to start with. I am sure it will then become apparent that the siding and crossover are worth it in the long run.

But they don't need multiple trains a day! It's not even a case of "excusing" an unwillingness to fund infrastructure, it's very simply that the benefits provided by a 'proper' siding do not justify the costs.

And who do you think should fund this platinum plating? Heinz? That'll just guarantee that they back out entirely. Or maybe NR? In which case should they also pay for sidings at every single business that could be served by rail?

I’d hardly call a siding and crossover “platinum plating”. If it is to be a private siding then of course it will be paid for by Heinz, not Network Rail. If they were to make such an investment in the infrastructure to enable a modal shift, that would represent a commitment to decarbonisation from them in the long run, to stick with and expand their rail freight venture to get back their investment, with the consequences to their business being a more reliable supply chain and improved public image.

If they are not serious about decarbonisation, a pad can be provided for little to no expense and the baked beat flow can revert entirely to road once they get tired of it. This is why I’m sceptical of anything that will help avoid long term investment.

Indeed. Obviously we should be careful not to adversely impact the safety of the railways, but there shouldn't be an automatic presumption that the way we've always done it is the way we should keep doing it. This is an especially egregious example given that you don't have go very far here to find threads bemoaning the fact that everything NR touches ends up costing an absolute fortune.

I wouldn’t describe this as even coming close to egregious unless I find that they are either still working from a pad or the flow has reverted to road years in the future, yet there are many things I am aware are nothing more than egregious.

 

[furnessvale]

What first needs to be evaluated is exactly how many HGVs travel to and from the Heinz factory, at what times of day they arrive and how many (more heavily loaded) freight trains could replace them, then once a decision is made on how much of a modal shift they wish to start with. I am sure it will then become apparent that the siding and crossover are worth it in the long run.

I'm sure that is exactly what Heinz are doing at the moment, before committing to ANY use of rail let alone building a pad, siding or anything else.

 

[zwk500]

If the concept of the T3 possession exists and despite not being designed for such purposes would be suitable to allow a baked bean train to reverse at an arbitrary location without waking up half of Parbold then that is of course a good thing. It shouldn’t be unsafe but I’m sure someone has some objection to it happening most nights on safety grounds.

If the T3 possession isn't considered suitable then there is the option of writing a suitable rule and inserting it into the rulebook.

As for operational practicality it is obvious that a siding, runaround loop and crossover are the best solution whether or not the cost is justified.

By definition, the 'best' solution needs to justify it's cost. And the most operationally convenient solution is actually a passing loop connected to the main line at both ends, with 1 crossover. Finding a 15-minuted gap between trains on this line isn't hard, there's no need for a dedicated runround road. Single loop requires less land, but still allows direct arrival/departure with single loco operation.

There is a need to run several trains a day on that line, with most being the passenger services to Southport.

There is only the need to run 1 freight a day, hence the reluctance to spend £X million on new infrastructure.

What first needs to be evaluated is exactly how many HGVs travel to and from the Heinz factory, at what times of day they arrive and how many (more heavily loaded) freight trains could replace them, then once a decision is made on how much of a modal shift they wish to start with. I am sure it will then become apparent that the siding and crossover are worth it in the long run.

What makes you think that a) Heinz haven't done this and b) the bit in bold is accurate?

I’d hardly call a siding and crossover “platinum plating”. If it is to be a private siding then of course it will be paid for by Heinz, not Network Rail. If they were to make such an investment in the infrastructure to enable a modal shift, that would represent a commitment to decarbonisation from them in the long run, to stick with and expand their rail freight venture to get back their investment, with the consequences to their business being a more reliable supply chain and improved public image.

A siding and crossover are a level of provision above that which is needed for this operation. 3 extra S&C units, multiple extra signals and probably a preparatory requirement to resignal Wigan Wallgate to Southport before you can install the crossover. As opposed to a length of cement about 10m wide next to the existing track (which will make a very good base for installing a siding in future, as it happens).

If they are not serious about decarbonisation, a pad can be provided for little to no expense and the baked beat flow can revert entirely to road once they get tired of it. This is why I’m sceptical of anything that will help avoid long term investment.

On the contrary - doing a minimum-option pad helps make the case for the long term investment. Heinz aren't going to put in multi-millions of pounds into something on the back of a study or single trial. However, 6 months of regular running gives much more meaningful numbers. NR will be much happier doing related works if it knows there's genuine traffic waiting to use the released capacity.

 

[Brian1947]

Having had another look at the Inside The Factory video that was made a few years ago there is mention of 14 20’ containers each day, and the plant works 24x5 that is 70 containers per week. And that is just BEANS, without tomato paste and tinplate.

However, the starting point must be something simple, and by choosing ketchup/sauce products that are produced in Holland and imported through either Hull or Immingham does seem a logical way forward.

The railway is also on a rising gradient at the point where I believe any routine unloading would be done. No doubt this would requiring shunting movements by the loco. It could well be the residents of nearby Standish Lower Ground who are the ones to complain. After all, they are the ones who complained when Heinz built their 20 metre plus high bay warehouse over twenty years ago.

 

[CHAPS2034]

What first needs to be evaluated is exactly how many HGVs travel to and from the Heinz factory, at what times of day they arrive and how many (more heavily loaded) freight trains could replace them, then once a decision is made on how much of a modal shift they wish to start with. I am sure it will then become apparent that the siding and crossover are worth it in the long run.

As has been stated before, I cannot believe that Heinz have gone as far as arranging a trial, no doubt at some cost, without looking at stuff like this first. I expect they already have ball park figures for various options; now having proved one concept works, they are no doubt evaluating what to do next.

If the concept of the T3 possession exists and despite not being designed for such purposes would be suitable to allow a baked bean train to reverse at an arbitrary location without waking up half of Parbold then that is of course a good thing.

So you are happy with the concept of a T3 procedure or something like it in principle to make the concept work?

If so, it would appear your main issue seems to be at Parbold where

half the village would be woken up

Are you a resident of Parbold or have you just taken up the cudgels on behalf of the villagers?

 

[InOban]

If railfreight is to justify investment as part of the climate strategy, then it must be able to expand, at an economic cost, out of the trainload market into the wider area which makes up the vast majority of the tonnage. I saw a tweet saying that half of all the CO2 emitted by HGVs in Scotland comes from trucks on the M74. These will be deliveries direct from origin to destination.

BTW, sorry for being pedantic, but could someone correct the title of this thread. Its, not it's. Annoys me every time.

 

[CHAPS2034]

BTW, sorry for being pedantic, but could someone correct the title of this thread. Its, not it's. Annoys me every time.

Apologies - usually don't miss things like that.

Any chance you could change your user name to In Oban....?

 

[Donny_m]

They could use the ex Bridgend Ford cargo wagons for this. They’re rotting in some siding up in Manchester or Liverpool can’t remember where.

 

[WatcherZero]

Another factor that complicates the economics calculation is in June last year they proposed to begin manufacturing sauces at the Kitt Green plant again after they were moved abroad a couple of decades ago (At the moment it only manufactures Beans and soups) the site had won the competition among the companies various plants for the £140m investment but it still awaited US corporate signoff.

But they wanted their staff to accept a change in working conditions for the work (reduced shift allowances) the union supported the change in working conditions and urged the staff to vote in favour but they voted against it which has left whether they do move sauces back to Kitt Green again a bit in doubt. They cut the number of jobs in the warehouse after the vote as part of their reorganization of work space to make room but the workers have claimed it was punishment for the vote.

 

[Skie]

Agreed that a (*modified) T3 could enable Heinz to test out the use of railfreight,

I look forward to T57 appearing in the rule book

But Heinz must be able to afford a siding, surely?

 

[4F89]

I look forward to T57 appearing in the rule book

But Heinz must be able to afford a siding, surely?

A siding will be, for the sake of argument, a million quid. At 5 members of staff for a week (driver, shunter, picop, signaller, other ground staff) 5 nights a week, all on a grand a week, will cost 4 years to start making a comparable profit against a siding... most companies want payback inside 3 for Cap Ex.

And a siding, signalling, commissioning, upkeep..... Will be much more than a mill.

 

[Killingworth]

A siding will be, for the sake of argument, a million quid. At 5 members of staff for a week (driver, shunter, picop, signaller, other ground staff) 5 nights a week, all on a grand a week, will cost 4 years to start making a comparable profit against a siding... most companies want payback inside 3 for Cap Ex.

And a siding, signalling, commissioning, upkeep..... Will be much more than a mill.

And we wonder why so much goes by road!

Small consignments taking one or two HGVs, just in time loads at short notice, destination or start point not near a rail head for starters. Every time I drive down roads like the M11 or M1 my passenger remarks on the number of trucks, and I observe the diversity of loads and likely journeys they must be taking. I think of all the space needed to prepare an outgoing train load, or to hold an incoming train full with all the empty wagons to be spirited away if incoming and outgoing loads don't match.

So much quicker and easier to buy or lease a few trailers as required, most probably written off after half the life of railway rolling stock. And it's easier to lay in new roads and factory access with tighter corners and steeper gradients than for rail.

Long gone are the days when rail tracks ran into city centres with masses of flat land filled with industrial sidings alongside, almost every little station with its yard to hold a few trucks and the large marshalling yards to help send them on their way.

I hope Heinz can make it work for suitably large sized regular train loads. If it's a seriously viable proposition I'd also hope all the initial costs don't have to be paid up front by Heinz - yet they don't get an expensive facility for next to nothing that only gets used for a couple of years at best.

 

[zwk500]

I look forward to T57 appearing in the rule book

To be fair 'Person In Charge must phone signaller before hand, then take a line block in the normal manner' wouldn't be the hardest rule to introduce.

But Heinz must be able to afford a siding, surely?

A siding will be, for the sake of argument, a million quid. At 5 members of staff for a week (driver, shunter, picop, signaller, other ground staff) 5 nights a week, all on a grand a week, will cost 4 years to start making a comparable profit against a siding... most companies want payback inside 3 for Cap Ex.

And a siding, signalling, commissioning, upkeep..... Will be much more than a mill.

For context, extending some sidings in a port cost £3m. It'll be more when involving new connections to the mainline. https://www.forthports.co.uk/latest...tended-and-dualled-rail-freight-hub-now-open/
Building a new loop on the Hope Valley and doing other works involving platforms and signalling is currently projected to cost £137m. This wouldn't be anywhere near that much as there wouldn't be platforms and maybe not even signalling. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...d-to-restore-abandoned-railways-2-15-03-2021/

 

[gingertom]

To be fair 'Person In Charge must phone signaller before hand, then take a line block in the normal manner' wouldn't be the hardest rule to introduce.


For context, extending some sidings in a port cost £3m. It'll be more when involving new connections to the mainline. https://www.forthports.co.uk/latest...tended-and-dualled-rail-freight-hub-now-open/
Building a new loop on the Hope Valley and doing other works involving platforms and signalling is currently projected to cost £137m. This wouldn't be anywhere near that much as there wouldn't be platforms and maybe not even signalling. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...d-to-restore-abandoned-railways-2-15-03-2021/

I may be mistaken and happy to be corrected, but I'm sure I read somewhere that Highland Spring's siding and associated connection to the main line at Blackford was £12m. How much of that was grant assisted I don't know.

 

[zwk500]

I may be mistaken and happy to be corrected, but I'm sure I read somewhere that Highland Spring's siding and associated connection to the main line at Blackford was £12m. How much of that was grant assisted I don't know.

A figure of £14m was quoted for Buxton sidings earlier in this thread, so £12m at Blackford wouldn't surprise me. The Hope Valley example was an extreme one but had the advantage I could remember what to google!

I think a figure of £10-15m as a starting point can be assumed.

 

[tbtc]

I want to see more freight

But asking the Government for fifteen million worth of spending in the current environment seems "brave"

However, whilst I don't know much about Heinz, a lot of muti-national companies are quite canny in the way that they get various local factories/sites to compete with each other, threaten to switch production, see if you can secure state subsidy or get the Unions worried into accepting weaker staff conditions, play different places off against each other...

...so whilst a fifteen million investment by Heinz could pay off after a decade (after which the savings from one train replacing dozens of trucks is pure profit), the modus operandi of such firms is often "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" when it comes to local sites - you may be reluctant to commit too much to one site since your business model is based on periodically threatening to up sticks to ensure compliant Unions/ squeeze more money from the public sector (e.g. go to the press every few years, stating that the production line is out of date and you'd need costly new facilities to keep the factory competitive, and that may mean reluctantly having to close this site and move hundreds of miles away, but maybe if the Regional Development people threw a few million pounds of subsidy to protect local jobs and the Unions agreed to cheaper labour conditions then you can afford to stick around"...

... having sunk fifteen million pounds worth of costs into this site may make future threats to up sticks look a bit hollow

Yet at the same time, if I were going to spend fifteen million pounds of taxpayer money on it, I'd want some good guarantees about the long term use of the site - imagine spaffing all that money from a shrinking rail budget only to find that Heinz decided it was uneconomical to run trains after a few months

So the only realistic option is to significantly whack up fares on the Southport line so that, if the "influential" locals want to retain their Oxford Road services they can pay the fifteen million needed for this siding

 

[Killingworth]

A figure of £14m was quoted for Buxton sidings earlier in this thread, so £12m at Blackford wouldn't surprise me. The Hope Valley example was an extreme one but had the advantage I could remember what to google!

I think a figure of £10-15m as a starting point can be assumed.

Hope Valley will have cost a lot more from start to finish. It may have been in planning since before Railtrack was set up, with many changes before the contracts for the work were let. They include construction of two loops, a new station platform, two footbridges (one with lifts) and resignalling a long stretch. The two loops are not to be on level ground and will need embankment and cuttings constructing and bridges over access roads may need widening.

The Heinz site looks to be on far more level ground, although drainage will still be an issue. The big relevant lesson from the Hope Valley scheme is how incredibly expensive and complicating it is to even consider an extra cross over. Don't try mentioning bi-directional signalling!

 

[furnessvale]

On the investment front, in other news, Hanson have spent £300,000 refurbishing the loading facility at Penmaenmawr for one train a week. This demonstrates what people are prepared to pay to polish their green credentials.

 

[Meerkat]

On the investment front, in other news, Hanson have spent £300,000 refurbishing the loading facility at Penmaenmawr for one train a week. This demonstrates what people are prepared to pay to polish their green credentials.

That's a bit different as presumably it was use rail or dont get the contracts.

 

[furnessvale]

That's a bit different as presumably it was use rail or dont get the contracts.

Why would they spend £300,000 to win a contract if spending that money turned a profit into a loss?

Furthermore, although the rail link previously only supplied ballast, the article talks about quarried material more generally. I am sure if Hanson were to win a ballast contract it would have been cheaper for them to have used one of their existing rail served quarries rather than invest £300.000 on this one.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Having recently worked on this industrial estate in Austria, this thread is enough to make me weep.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.3118376,14.3183804,15.58z?hl=en

 

[johnnychips]

Having recently worked on this industrial estate in Austria, this thread is enough to make me weep.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.3118376,14.3183804,15.58z?hl=en

And there is even a rail-linked ketchup bottle factory on the site!

 

[muddythefish]

Having recently worked on this industrial estate in Austria, this thread is enough to make me weep.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@48.3118376,14.3183804,15.58z?hl=en

Me too. The comments on here make anyone with rail interests at heart are just depressing. It seems everything rail is "difficult" in the UK. Always a reason (usually money) when something entirely sensible can't be done. The huge Heinz factory, and others like it, would be rail connected in just about every country on the continent, but not in the UK apparently

 

[Meerkat]

It seems everything rail is "difficult" in the UK. Always a reason (usually money) when something entirely sensible can't be done.

Its not sensible if it costs more than its worth!