Heinz Factory near Wigan to get its own siding?

[Skie]

With more joined up thinking NR (or their predecessors) would have built a few speculative industrial 'boxes' with rail access in locations where old railway siding infrastructure and major roads met. Probably all the spare land near to roads has been sold off to Barratt Homes by now.

 

[zwk500]

With more joined up thinking NR (or their predecessors) would have built a few speculative industrial 'boxes' with rail access in locations where old railway siding infrastructure and major roads met. Probably all the spare land near to roads has been sold off to Barratt Homes by now.

How is it joined up thinking to start getting into speculative property development purely on the basis of what used to be there?

 

[Meerkat]

With more joined up thinking NR (or their predecessors) would have built a few speculative industrial 'boxes' with rail access in locations where old railway siding infrastructure and major roads met. Probably all the spare land near to roads has been sold off to Barratt Homes by now.

That rather sounds like the job of the planning authorities.

 

[dgl]

Could they build a crane next to the factory? A cantilever with enough reach or even gantry crane. Obviously rules out putting wiring up!

Class 88 or the new 93's would solve the wires issue, the 88's diesel is specifically meant for situations at the end of a journey where wires aren't suitable, depot's sidings and the like

 

[plugwash]

I presume his point was if you build fixed loading infrastructure over the mainline then you block future electrification of the mainline.

If you build it over a siding then you don't have that issue.

 

[Meerkat]

I presume his point was if you build fixed loading infrastructure over the mainline then you block future electrification of the mainline.

If you build it over a siding then you don't have that issue.

The safety case for having something moveable and non NR over an active passenger line would be errrr interesting!

 

[Skie]

How is it joined up thinking to start getting into speculative property development purely on the basis of what used to be there?

Crown estates did it with quite a few retail/industrial parks. Take old land that isnt doing anything, put a slab of concrete down and a few simple warehouses and connect it to the road. Advertise the space and you end up with tenants as long as it's not in a terrible location. Having an industrial estate with a shared railhead would be mighty attractive for some tenants and you get the rent and line access fees. It's not simple and needs a concerted effort, but it's a damn sight more doable for organisations that own huge swathes of land in good locations and that dont quite need to worry about short term payback (NR might fall down there, admittedly. Depends on political will)

The safety case for having something moveable and non NR over an active passenger line would be errrr interesting!

Cheaper than a siding though? Probably not by much if it required interlocking to prove it was in a safe location.

 

[zwk500]

Crown estates did it with quite a few retail/industrial parks. Take old land that isnt doing anything, put a slab of concrete down and a few simple warehouses and connect it to the road. Advertise the space and you end up with tenants as long as it's not in a terrible location. Having an industrial estate with a shared railhead would be mighty attractive for some tenants and you get the rent and line access fees. It's not simple and needs a concerted effort, but it's a damn sight more doable for organisations that own huge swathes of land in good locations and that dont quite need to worry about short term payback (NR might fall down there, admittedly. Depends on political will)

Unfortunately, the opportunity to do this would have been in the 70s and 80s when goods yards were being torn up left right and centre, and at that time there was absolutely no political will to put any more money than could be avoided into the railway.
Today's NR would need to balance the opportunity for access fees against the certainty of having to maintain at least 3 extra S&C units plus a bit more signalling. Worth it in quite a few places no doubt, but the UK's size means rail flows are viable for every provider.

 

[Killingworth]

Infrequent wagon loads v. frequent train loads! The economics differ greatly.

 

[InOban]

But if rail freight is to justify public investment it must find some way of economically expanding beyond trainloads.

 

[zwk500]

But if rail freight is to justify public investment it must find some way of economically expanding beyond trainloads.

1) Why does it need to justify public investment?
2) Why can the public investment in rail freight not be through more efficient Locos and more capable wagons, which would benefit existing flows and passengers as well as generate new rail freight flows?

 

[furnessvale]

1) Why does it need to justify public investment?
2) Why can the public investment in rail freight not be through more efficient Locos and more capable wagons, which would benefit existing flows and passengers as well as generate new rail freight flows?

1) Good question. Perhaps the UK should question why so much public investment is put into the road haulage industry as well.

2) Grants for infrastructure and wagons stopped years ago. Government gives a small grant to rail to assist modal transfer. I say small, compared to road grants, as the recent government grant to road haulage for training HGV drivers alone, is 3 times the entire grant to railfreight for modal shift.

 

[zwk500]

1) Good question. Perhaps the UK should question why so much public investment is put into the road haulage industry as well.

Indeed it should. Although personally public finance in the logistics sector should be mode-blind.

2) Grants for infrastructure and wagons stopped years ago. Government gives a small grant to rail to assist modal transfer. I say small, compared to road grants, as the recent government grant to road haulage for training HGV drivers alone, is 3 times the entire grant to railfreight for modal shift.

So it is possible, just not done now by the current round of politicians.

 

[tbtc]

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

You may think it's "entirely sensible" but it's also going to cost over ten million pounds, if experience elsewhere is an indicator, so who would you like to pay for that?

The taxpayer, at a time when we are struggling to pay for the slump we have been in?

Heinz, on the assumption that this "trial" will be a huge success in the long term (that's quite a big sum, which will put companies off such trials in future)? Especially given that one reason that firms like Heinz make money is because they move operations around the country/ between countries to try to trim costs (or threaten to make such moves) - there's no guarantee that any food factory will still be in its current location in five/ten years time, but the economics of a siding may mean it takes longer to pay off.

I'm sure we'd all like to see this factory (and others) connected to the railway, but what's your solution?

With more joined up thinking NR (or their predecessors) would have built a few speculative industrial 'boxes' with rail access in locations where old railway siding infrastructure and major roads met. Probably all the spare land near to roads has been sold off to Barratt Homes by now.

If this were the situation then you'd possibly make more money selling the land off to Barratt (given that companies like Heinz will want the right size of "box" as a priority, and probably a suitable labour market and good road access before they worry about a railway siding

Infrequent wagon loads v. frequent train loads! The economics differ greatly.

Agreed

 

[Grumpy Git]

Its not sensible if it costs more than its worth!

Ah, that old addage;

Knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[Meerkat]

Ah, that old addage;

Knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

That adage is normally spoken by people who dont understand cost and value (or think value is what they arbitrarily decide it is), and are trying to justify their personal choice of how to spend other people's money.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

Aren't there government grants for small "green" projects such as this which take traffic off the roads? One would have thought so if the government were serious about its climate targets

There was the Freight Facilities Grant, for exactly that purpose, but the Westminster Government has abolished it for England. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-10-18.HL3143.h

 

[muddythefish]

There was the Freight Facilities Grant, for exactly that purpose, but the Westminster Government has abolished it for England. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-10-18.HL3143.h

Short-sighted and disappointing. The FFG was very successful in helping rail freight so why would a government that is (supposedly) pro-green abolish it? Unless of course the government's donors in the road haulage industry has had a quiet word in its ear

 

[Killingworth]

Short-sighted and disappointing. The FFG was very successful in helping rail freight so why would a government that is (supposedly) pro-green abolish it? Unless of course the government's donors in the road haulage industry has had a quiet word in its ear

The Mode Shift Revenue Support (MSRS) Scheme may be slightly helpful here once loads are moving? https://assets.publishing.service.g...ds/attachment_data/file/966209/msrs-guide.pdf

 

[zwk500]

The Mode Shift Revenue Support (MSRS) Scheme may be slightly helpful here once loads are moving? https://assets.publishing.service.g...ds/attachment_data/file/966209/msrs-guide.pdf

Unless there's a separate scheme for non-intermodal traffic that document looks awfully restrictive for actually getting rail funding out of it. And according to the tables at the bottom, the flow this thread is concerned with would get a maximum of £55 a container.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Short-sighted and disappointing. The FFG was very successful in helping rail freight so why would a government that is (supposedly) pro-green abolish it? Unless of course the government's donors in the road haulage industry has had a quiet word in its ear

I thought that the Freight Facilities Grants were suspended by the Strategic Rail Authority in around 2003 or 2004.

Do you have any details of road haulage industry donations to the Labour Party at that time?

 

[Killingworth]

Unless there's a separate scheme for non-intermodal traffic that document looks awfully restrictive for actually getting rail funding out of it. And according to the tables at the bottom, the flow this thread is concerned with would get a maximum of £55 a container.

It means the DfT doesn't pay multi-millions for sidings that only get used for 6 months before the operator goes back to road. £20m allocated in 2021-2, but how much will be drawn? Not a great deal by the looks of it.

Department for Transport written question – answered on 27th October 2021 by Baroness Vere of Norbiton;

"The Department for Transport currently has no plans to re-instate the Freight Facilities Grant in England. However, Government remains strongly committed to modal shift and continues to operate two freight revenue grant schemes (£20m allocated in 2021/22). This supports the Mode Shift Revenue Support scheme for modal shift to rail and inland waterways; and Waterborne Freight Grants for coastal and short sea shipping.

Government has also announced in the Transport Decarbonisation Plan and Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail its intention to set a rail freight growth target and will continue to consider further incentives – working closely with the rail freight industry - to encourage modal shift from road to rail."

 

[zwk500]

It means the DfT doesn't pay multi-millions for sidings that only get used for 6 months before the operator goes back to road. £20m allocated in 2021-2, but how much will be drawn? Not a great deal by the looks of it.

Department for Transport written question – answered on 27th October 2021 by Baroness Vere of Norbiton;

"The Department for Transport currently has no plans to re-instate the Freight Facilities Grant in England. However, Government remains strongly committed to modal shift and continues to operate two freight revenue grant schemes (£20m allocated in 2021/22). This supports the Mode Shift Revenue Support scheme for modal shift to rail and inland waterways; and Waterborne Freight Grants for coastal and short sea shipping.

Government has also announced in the Transport Decarbonisation Plan and Williams-Shapps Plan for Rail its intention to set a rail freight growth target and will continue to consider further incentives – working closely with the rail freight industry - to encourage modal shift from road to rail."

I do love just how detached from reality politicians are (including the ones that end up as CEOs/chairs of directors). They think setting a target is an 'incentive' to encourage modal shift. As if hauliers will change a single damn thing they're doing because the government's written a single sentence about raising railfreight by 10% on Page 426 of a white paper nobody's done more than skim through.

Although from the government's point of view, they'll get far better returns on investing in railfreight by unlocking bottlenecks like Werrington Jn and Ely than by investing in single flows.

 

[furnessvale]

I thought that the Freight Facilities Grants were suspended by the Strategic Rail Authority in around 2003 or 2004.

Do you have any details of road haulage industry donations to the Labour Party at that time?

A look at trades union donations may be more fruitful?

Unless there's a separate scheme for non-intermodal traffic that document looks awfully restrictive for actually getting rail funding out of it. And according to the tables at the bottom, the flow this thread is concerned with would get a maximum of £55 a container.

There is a separate scheme for non intermodal bulk traffic. However, the main problem is that both schemes are heavily over subscribed meaning that many potential users miss out.

Even allowing for the loss of fuel duty revenue to the exchequer, it would pay the government to transfer cash from the roads budget to ensure that every eligible scheme was funded. This benefit would come from the reduction in road maintenance costs a removal of HGVs would generate.

 

[Speed43125]

A look at trades union donations may be more fruitful?


There is a separate scheme for non intermodal bulk traffic. However, the main problem is that both schemes are heavily over subscribed meaning that many potential users miss out.

Even allowing for the loss of fuel duty revenue to the exchequer, it would pay the government to transfer cash from the roads budget to ensure that every eligible scheme was funded. This benefit would come from the reduction in road maintenance costs a removal of HGVs would generate.

Exactly, taken to it's extremes as in Switzerland of virtually mandated rail connections for new warehouses etc is probably over the top, but certainly a one off grant towards the construction of rail facilities would in time reduce road wear a significant amount

 

[Mollman]

Exactly, taken to it's extremes as in Switzerland of virtually mandated rail connections for new warehouses etc is probably over the top, but certainly a one off grant towards the construction of rail facilities would in time reduce road wear a significant amount

Problem is rail is also very good at taking connections away, for example as part of Manchester - Preston electrification the disused freight link to the warehouses at Buckshaw Parkway was taken out.

 

[The Planner]

Problem is rail is also very good at taking connections away, for example as part of Manchester - Preston electrification the disused freight link to the warehouses at Buckshaw Parkway was taken out.

Remember that to do that, the freight operators have to agree to it.

 

[furnessvale]

Remember that to do that, the freight operators have to agree to it.

You won't find a greater supporter of railfreight than me, but I can see the futility of trying to retain connections into locations that will never use a direct rail link again, at a cost that is detrimental to the overall finances of railfreight.

 

[furnessvale]

Investment of £140m in the Heinz plant at Kitt Green has been diverted to Spain and Poland thanks to a vote by the workforce not to accept changes in working practices.

Looks like the siding may not be coming after all.

Kraft Heinz issues statement on future of major factory

The Kitt Green plant makes Heinz tomato ketchup and employs more than 1,000 workers

www.business-live.co.uk

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Investment of £140m in the Heinz plant at Kitt Green has been diverted to Spain and Poland thanks to a vote by the workforce not to accept changes in working practices.

Looks like the siding may not be coming after all.

Kraft Heinz issues statement on future of major factory

The Kitt Green plant makes Heinz tomato ketchup and employs more than 1,000 workers

www.business-live.co.uk

Does anyone know what were the changes the workforce rejected?