Extracts from the Reporter's report on the benefits:-
"A 775 metre electric rail terminal would handle longer trains and carry 3 times more goods per journey, with each train typically taking 90 lorry journeys off the road.
Rail freight operates most economically when goods are moved in full length (775 metre/ 90 tonne box) Euro standard trains between rail terminals. The development of large distribution parks has an important role to play in promoting rail freight by concentrating goods at one location, thereby providing full length train opportunities. Full trainload rail flows between rail freight terminals in the English Midlands and Scotland should always be cost competitive with road transport. "
And the not so good news:-
"the council has indicated that it is minded to grant consent for a substantial rail freight facility south of Gartcosh (Kilgarth) on the same electrified line. The council considers that the proposed development at Mossend would not support the direction of planned growth to the most appropriate location, or support regeneration. The council considers it very unlikely that both schemes could progress. (The appellants, however, point out that over 5 years there has been no progress in completing a Section 75 agreement for Kilgarth, so they regard this proposal as moribund.)
Freightliner Limited owns and operates a rail freight terminal at Gartsherrie Road, Coatbridge. Freightliner's plans for investment to improve its existing facility would have to be reconsidered if the Mossend scheme were approved, and this could seriously prejudice Freightliner's ability to remain competitive at Coatbridge. Ultimately the Coatbridge terminal could face closure, with the loss of 65 jobs. "
https://eplanning.northlan.gov.uk/o...pdf/13_02079_PPP-Reporter_s_report-621984.pdf
