Old Trafford freight relocation

[telstarbox]

Apparently Freightliner are looking to relocate the Old Trafford terminal to St Helens to release land for regeneration.

The St Helens site is near the Newton le Willows triangle.

If successful, the deal would see Freightliner relocate its rail terminal from Old Trafford to Parkside East in St Helens. Freightliner is understood to be operating at capacity in Trafford and is keen to expand in a new location. Savills is representing Freightliner on the land deal discussions.

Tritax in play to move Old Trafford rail terminal to St Helens - Place North West

A pivotal land deal that could help unlock the economic benefits of the proposed new Manchester United FC stadium is being worked on by metro mayors Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

 

[Freightmaster]

Apparently Freightliner are looking to relocate the Old Trafford terminal to St Helens to release land for regeneration.

The St Helens site is near the Newton le Willows triangle.

Tritax in play to move Old Trafford rail terminal to St Helens - Place North West

A pivotal land deal that could help unlock the economic benefits of the proposed new Manchester United FC stadium is being worked on by metro mayors Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

Bizarrely, the article claims that...

Removing rail freight would free up capacity for passenger services on the Liverpool-Manchester line and ease the bottleneck through Warrington. Council leaders in Warrington are said to be in agreement with the freight relocation.

How would closing Trafford Park FLT make any difference whatsoever to paths through Warrington Central??



MARK

 

[slipdigby]

Apparently Freightliner are looking to relocate the Old Trafford terminal to St Helens to release land for regeneration.

The St Helens site is near the Newton le Willows triangle.

Tritax in play to move Old Trafford rail terminal to St Helens - Place North West

A pivotal land deal that could help unlock the economic benefits of the proposed new Manchester United FC stadium is being worked on by metro mayors Andy Burnham and Steve Rotheram.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

How would closing Trafford Park FLT make any difference whatsoever to paths through Warrington Central??



MARK

The political guff continues to pile up on this one.

The whole house of cards relies upon being able to relocate the Freightliner terminal to the "IFT North" site by Newton. Freightliner are apparently convinced that they can find paths up the WCML, others remain significantly less sure. Even assuming the paths work in a post-HS2 to Handsacre Junction world, someone still needs to find the public money to fund the move, negotiate any further legal challenges, then start building the thing. Given railway industry timescales, this kicks Freightliner leaving Trafford Park down to 2030 at the earliest. Assuming similar stadium builds, United might be able to kick a ball in their new stadium for the start of the 34/35 season assuming a strong following wind up the ship canal.

All the while, Jim Ratcliffe (71) remains tight lipped on how much he's willing to stump up for the stadium (or remediation, or enabling works, or supporting infrastructure for that matter). The celebrity hype machine continues however.....

Slip

 

[Mcr Warrior]

How would closing Trafford Park FLT make any difference whatsoever to paths through Warrington Central??

Don't most passenger trains to/from Manchester and passing by Trafford Park Freightliner terminal continue to, or have come from, Warrington Central or beyond?

 

[Geeves]

I was under the impression that the new freight depot down at Barton that connected to the Chat Moss line was now under construction?

Port Salford railway, airport tweaks approved - Place North West

The extension of a rail container terminal would necessitate alterations to two runways at City Airport, but would lead to a modern container terminal hub.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

 

[Class15]

Would the new terminal be electrified? If not that would be a downgrade when we really need to see upgrades.

 

[slipdigby]

I was under the impression that the new freight depot down at Barton that connected to the Chat Moss line was now under construction?

Port Salford railway, airport tweaks approved - Place North West

The extension of a rail container terminal would necessitate alterations to two runways at City Airport, but would lead to a modern container terminal hub.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

The road served element has been in operation for quite a few years. The rail link, despite passive provision is yet to be delivered (paths on the network again being a sticking point).

 

[65477]

Also now on the BBC Sport pages

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wkpqegd89o

 

[telstarbox]

The political guff continues to pile up on this one.

The whole house of cards relies upon being able to relocate the Freightliner terminal to the "IFT North" site by Newton. Freightliner are apparently convinced that they can find paths up the WCML, others remain significantly less sure. Even assuming the paths work in a post-HS2 to Handsacre Junction world, someone still needs to find the public money to fund the move, negotiate any further legal challenges, then start building the thing. Given railway industry timescales, this kicks Freightliner leaving Trafford Park down to 2030 at the earliest. Assuming similar stadium builds, United might be able to kick a ball in their new stadium for the start of the 34/35 season assuming a strong following wind up the ship canal.

All the while, Jim Ratcliffe (71) remains tight lipped on how much he's willing to stump up for the stadium (or remediation, or enabling works, or supporting infrastructure for that matter). The celebrity hype machine continues however.....

Slip

I'm not involved in this, but a few thousand flats would put a decent wedge towards the stadium works.

 

[slipdigby]

I'm not involved in this, but a few thousand flats would put a decent wedge towards the stadium works.

Interesting point. Only issue is that the redevelopment doesn't appear to release any additional land. It looks like the plan is to build a new stadium next to the existing one which will be retained for Youth/WSL games.

 

[JamesT]

Interesting point. Only issue is that the redevelopment doesn't appear to release any additional land. It looks like the plan is to build a new stadium next to the existing one which will be retained for Youth/WSL games.

That appeared to be the plan a few weeks ago, but the images released today don’t show a second stadium https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30621135/man-utd-old-trafford-redevelopment-plans-stadium/

Ratcliffe's plans to build a new stadium rather than redevelop Old Trafford comes after a number of fact-finding missions to other stadiums including the Santiago Bernabeu and Nou Camp.

There had been plans to keep Old Trafford rather than demolish it and use it as a scaled down second venue.

However, it's looking increasing likely that it will in fact be entirely demolished.

Even if they decided to keep the original stadium site for other games, I suspect they would have to rebuild the stands. You don’t need a 74k stadium for academy games.

At least one of the images appears to show the freight terminal still in place. The redevelopment is largely on the car parks that surround the current stadium.

 

[slipdigby]

That appeared to be the plan a few weeks ago, but the images released today don’t show a second stadium https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/30621135/man-utd-old-trafford-redevelopment-plans-stadium/

Even if they decided to keep the original stadium site for other games, I suspect they would have to rebuild the stands. You don’t need a 74k stadium for academy games.

At least one of the images appears to show the freight terminal still in place. The redevelopment is largely on the car parks that surround the current stadium.

I wouldn't put much faith in that article, the new ground on the existing footprint shown in the renders would incur the wrath of locals regarding right to light, etc., just as former south stand redevelopment plans did. Also rebuilding on the existing footprint means no football at Old Trafford for at least a couple of years. Aside from the football politics, where would they play men's senior team games other than Leigh Sports Village (which would require upgrading)? And if the FLT terminal remains (as per the render), then why bother moving it in the first place?

 

[edwin_m]

The whole house of cards relies upon being able to relocate the Freightliner terminal to the "IFT North" site by Newton. Freightliner are apparently convinced that they can find paths up the WCML, others remain significantly less sure. Even assuming the paths work in a post-HS2 to Handsacre Junction world, someone still needs to find the public money to fund the move, negotiate any further legal challenges, then start building the thing.

I don't think Handsacre is so much of an issue here, as the same trains already go through Crewe on the way to Trafford Park, although sending them further up the WCML to Winwick may make things somewhat worse. But there's also the question of how long a full-length container train takes to crawl round the slow curve at Earlestown and then into the terminal, blocking the westbound Chat Moss (and the eastbound too unless they install some bi-di signalling).

Don't most passenger trains to/from Manchester and passing by Trafford Park Freightliner terminal continue to, or have come from, Warrington Central or beyond?

Yes, but their timings are dictated by the speed difference between the fasts and the stoppers, and the freight drops into one of the gaps between them, so eliminating it only gives the performance benefit of getting rid of a slow path that might delay the Warrington trains if one or other is running late.

 

[TheGrew]

As someone who lives close to the Parkside East development, I think this makes sense. While I appreciate capacity is constrained and very much agree with the slow Earlstown cover comment above I suspect removing the freight through the Castlefield corridor will have better local benefits than downsides.
Adding additional rail infrastructure in the proximity of Parkside East would also be easier I would have thought.

Warning Crayonista incoming (this is just some ideas that have no specific basis)
If you were to reopen the Glazebrook East Junction - Skelton Junction line and the Wigan Junction Railways at least as far as Chat Moss where a new junction would be put in (and I fully appreciate gradients would have to be managed and the ship canal bridge be rebuilt). You could also put in quite a decent amount of Eastern access.

 

[DiscoSteve]

I was under the impression that the new freight depot down at Barton that connected to the Chat Moss line was now under construction?

Port Salford railway, airport tweaks approved - Place North West

The extension of a rail container terminal would necessitate alterations to two runways at City Airport, but would lead to a modern container terminal hub.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

I wondered what happened to this - has been many years since that link was mooted - hasn't there been an empty bridge over the redirected A57 in Irlam for years?

 

[slipdigby]

As someone who lives close to the Parkside East development, I think this makes sense. While I appreciate capacity is constrained and very much agree with the slow Earlstown cover comment above I suspect removing the freight through the Castlefield corridor will have better local benefits than downsides.
Adding additional rail infrastructure in the proximity of Parkside East would also be easier I would have thought.

Issue is, the floated proposal only removes some of the Intermodal freight from Castlefield (there being two terminals at Trafford Park). Therefore the released capacity is whatever Freightliner move to IFT North, minus any backfilling Maritime are able to do using their terminal and the freed former Freightliner paths through Castlefield. Therefore a realistic analysis of the released benefits are limited to performance benefits of not running some intermodal services through Castlefield. Not enormously convincing.

 

[HSTEd]

Therefore a realistic analysis of the released benefits are limited to performance benefits of not running some intermodal services through Castlefield. Not enormously convincing.

I expect the true economic value of that freight path is rather large though, given the high demand for trains through Castlefield.

 

[TheGrew]

Issue is, the floated proposal only removes some of the Intermodal freight from Castlefield (there being two terminals at Trafford Park). Therefore the released capacity is whatever Freightliner move to IFT North, minus any backfilling Maritime are able to do using their terminal and the freed former Freightliner paths through Castlefield. Therefore a realistic analysis of the released benefits are limited to performance benefits of not running some intermodal services through Castlefield. Not enormously convincing.

As @HSTEd said I think the value of that freight path through Castlefield is considerable.
I didn't realize there were two separate yards but looking at the Maritime yard it looks as though access could be brought in from the West though I appreciate that with the exception of Liverpool that wouldn't be particularly helpful.
Interestingly I just found this document from 4 years ago discussing the Rail Freight possibilities at Parkside: https://new.sthelens.gov.uk/media/3...terminal-proposition-and-viability-rev-10.pdf

 

[edwin_m]

As @HSTEd said I think the value of that freight path through Castlefield is considerable.
I didn't realize there were two separate yards but looking at the Maritime yard it looks as though access could be brought in from the West though I appreciate that with the exception of Liverpool that wouldn't be particularly helpful.
Interestingly I just found this document from 4 years ago discussing the Rail Freight possibilities at Parkside: https://new.sthelens.gov.uk/media/3...terminal-proposition-and-viability-rev-10.pdf

It's not even very helpful for Liverpool. Access from the CLC to any freight facility in Merseyside involves at least one reversal.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The site at Parkside East has already been acquired by Tritax Symmetry who are the same organisation behind a similar scheme at Hinckley in which Maritime Transport was named as the operator.
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/1...part-of-rail-freight-interchange-project.html and https://www.maritimetransport.com/n...or-hinckley-national-rail-freight-interchange

At this point it is also worth considering that Maritime Transport Limited has recently been purchased by Swiss-based global logistics and supply chain provider, MEDLOG S.A. (MEDLOG) https://www.maritimetransport.com/n...atform-for-investment-and-growth-for-maritime . For those not aware MEDLOG is the logistics arm of Mediterranean Shipping Company https://www.medlog.com/en which is the worlds largest shipping line and already operates a facility at Doncaster. The development is addition to an investment by Maritime Transport Ltd at Hornby Dock which opened earlier in the month https://www.maritimetransport.com/n...ntainer-storage-site-at-the-port-of-liverpool where another MSC subsidiary Terminal Investments Ltd https://tilgroup.com/ owns 50% of the Peel Ports Limited Terminal 2 investment. Peel received planning permission in August 2023 to extend the Seaforth railhead https://pa.sefton.gov.uk/online-app...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=RZ10HRNWHOI00 and sought tenders from infrastructure constructors for this and other projects in their portfolio as well as tenders for rail mounted gantry cranes what will be used to re-equip the Seaforth Container Terminal (T1) and the Seaforth Railhead.

So you the land, the developer, and an operator and one of Switzerland's richest individuals Gianluigi Aponte involved suggests the scheme will go ahead. What Sir Jim does with the Theatre of Screams is another matter, the Glaziers have a huge amount of debt in the club and finding investors to take that on could limit their ambitions especially if they continue to fail to win silverware. Long may that continue.

 

[ayubdaud]

As someone who lives close to the Parkside East development, I think this makes sense. While I appreciate capacity is constrained and very much agree with the slow Earlstown cover comment above I suspect removing the freight through the Castlefield corridor will have better local benefits than downsides.
Adding additional rail infrastructure in the proximity of Parkside East would also be easier I would have thought.

Warning Crayonista incoming (this is just some ideas that have no specific basis)
If you were to reopen the Glazebrook East Junction - Skelton Junction line and the Wigan Junction Railways at least as far as Chat Moss where a new junction would be put in (and I fully appreciate gradients would have to be managed and the ship canal bridge be rebuilt). You could also put in quite a decent amount of Eastern access.

What would be stopping freight operators from keeping their existing freight paths and Y path a slot to Parkside East via Ordsall Lane? Or would the access to the new terminal prevent access from that side?

 

[Peter0124]

I take it the Newton le Willows site would link to the WCML through the Earlestown triangle?

 

[507020]

Surely it would be best if the new railfreight terminal connected to the WCML slows somewhere between Winwick Junction and Earlestown, but should there be a flyover at Winwick Junction to eliminate the bottleneck? It would be the HS2 Golborne link, not the Handsacre link that relieves Winwick.

Are we saying that redevelopment plans by both MUFC and Freightliner could conflict with each other in some way?

Theoretically without freight crossing Castlefield Junction, there is slightly higher capacity for services towards Warrington Central, but if that freight instead crosses Chat Moss, or the 2 track WCML north of Winwick Junction, then it just throttles services there instead.

 

[Pinus contorta]

I take it the Newton le Willows site would link to the WCML through the Earlestown triangle?

It has been put forwards that the currently closed line from St helens Central to St Helens Junction would reopen and this would enable services to access the Parkside Development from Scotland off the WCML at Wigan near to Springs Branch. This avoids service from that origin pointing the wrong way. There's probably no reason to stop other trains to the new terminal coming off the WCML there which have come from Crewe / south of England / wherever.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The major advantages of the Parkside East site for both Medlog/Maritime Transport Ltd and Freightliner is that trucks collecting and delivering containers to the site avoid the vehicle congestion within the M60 motorway associated with the present sites at Trafford Park/ This results in drivers loosing hours of valuable driving hours and late arrivals and deliveries to sites outside the area and has clear benefits should Greater Manchester introduce congestion charging by being outside the region and being adjacent to both the M6 and the M62 means it can better serve a much wider area more efficiently than the current sites. The separate developments at Liverpool mean access from Liverpool may not be a priority, but direct access to the WCML and Chat Moss line east will be priorities. I suspect the developer will do a deal with Medlog to operate the terminal and then Maritime if not Medlog by then will lease/rent facilities to Freightliner.

 

[slipdigby]

I expect the true economic value of that freight path is rather large though, given the high demand for trains through Castlefield.

In terms of what you can do with that released capacity? Yes in theory, no in practice, as that hourly freight path is shared with Maritime and wouldn't get you anywhere useful anyway.

The site at Parkside East has already been acquired by Tritax Symmetry who are the same organisation behind a similar scheme at Hinckley in which Maritime Transport was named as the operator.
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2023/1...part-of-rail-freight-interchange-project.html and https://www.maritimetransport.com/n...or-hinckley-national-rail-freight-interchange

At this point it is also worth considering that Maritime Transport Limited has recently been purchased by Swiss-based global logistics and supply chain provider, MEDLOG S.A. (MEDLOG) https://www.maritimetransport.com/n...atform-for-investment-and-growth-for-maritime . For those not aware MEDLOG is the logistics arm of Mediterranean Shipping Company https://www.medlog.com/en which is the worlds largest shipping line and already operates a facility at Doncaster. The development is addition to an investment by Maritime Transport Ltd at Hornby Dock which opened earlier in the month https://www.maritimetransport.com/n...ntainer-storage-site-at-the-port-of-liverpool where another MSC subsidiary Terminal Investments Ltd https://tilgroup.com/ owns 50% of the Peel Ports Limited Terminal 2 investment. Peel received planning permission in August 2023 to extend the Seaforth railhead https://pa.sefton.gov.uk/online-app...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=RZ10HRNWHOI00 and sought tenders from infrastructure constructors for this and other projects in their portfolio as well as tenders for rail mounted gantry cranes what will be used to re-equip the Seaforth Container Terminal (T1) and the Seaforth Railhead.

So you the land, the developer, and an operator and one of Switzerland's richest individuals Gianluigi Aponte involved suggests the scheme will go ahead. What Sir Jim does with the Theatre of Screams is another matter, the Glaziers have a huge amount of debt in the club and finding investors to take that on could limit their ambitions especially if they continue to fail to win silverware. Long may that continue.

Interesting, but it's the Freightliner terminal that is proposed to be moved - not the Maritime one. Or does the above point effectively stymie the whole move?

Surely it would be best if the new railfreight terminal connected to the WCML slows somewhere between Winwick Junction and Earlestown, but should there be a flyover at Winwick Junction to eliminate the bottleneck? It would be the HS2 Golborne link, not the Handsacre link that relieves Winwick.

Are we saying that redevelopment plans by both MUFC and Freightliner could conflict with each other in some way?

Theoretically without freight crossing Castlefield Junction, there is slightly higher capacity for services towards Warrington Central, but if that freight instead crosses Chat Moss, or the 2 track WCML north of Winwick Junction, then it just throttles services there instead.

The proposed ILP (not IFT as I previously wrote!) North SRFI site is situated to the east of the M6, and therefore could only realistically be connected to the Chat Moss.

The chain of causality is build ILP North>move Trafford Park Freightliner depot>use land at Trafford Park to develop new stadium and associated development. Therefore the MUFC plans as they are understood at present are reliant upon the Freightliner move.

As above, removing some freight services between Trafford Park and Crewe via Castlefield doesn't unlock a load of useful new capacity. And as you correctly identify, it could bobbins up capacity around Newton/Earlestown instead. This latter point is very much worth considering in light of Peel Group's active and ongoing conversations about identifying capacity on the Chat Moss to deliver the Port Salford rail link....

It has been put forwards that the currently closed line from St helens Central to St Helens Junction would reopen and this would enable services to access the Parkside Development from Scotland off the WCML at Wigan near to Springs Branch. This avoids service from that origin pointing the wrong way. There's probably no reason to stop other trains to the new terminal coming off the WCML there which have come from Crewe / south of England / wherever.

Put forward by whom?

The major advantages of the Parkside East site for both Medlog/Maritime Transport Ltd and Freightliner is that trucks collecting and delivering containers to the site avoid the vehicle congestion within the M60 motorway associated with the present sites at Trafford Park/ This results in drivers loosing hours of valuable driving hours and late arrivals and deliveries to sites outside the area and has clear benefits should Greater Manchester introduce congestion charging by being outside the region and being adjacent to both the M6 and the M62 means it can better serve a much wider area more efficiently than the current sites. The separate developments at Liverpool mean access from Liverpool may not be a priority, but direct access to the WCML and Chat Moss line east will be priorities. I suspect the developer will do a deal with Medlog to operate the terminal and then Maritime if not Medlog by then will lease/rent facilities to Freightliner.

Fantastic, except your lorries now have to drive into Manchester (which is a pretty sizable market, and now directly served by a competitor), rather than out. Looking forward to seeing the case for all those additional vehicle miles in the business case....

Best,
Slip

 

[158756]

The chain of causality is build ILP North>move Trafford Park Freightliner depot>use land at Trafford Park to develop new stadium and associated development. Therefore the MUFC plans as they are understood at present are reliant upon the Freightliner move.

This is assuming that keeping the Trafford Park site is an option. All the local politicians are on board with the stadium plans and it's being pitched as the key to a massive regeneration scheme. The freight terminal is already unwelcome for the paths it takes up through Castlefield. Seems like an obvious case for a CPO (Compulsory Purchase Order) if Freightliner don't move.

 

[sprite]

Knock down the Old Toilet and the toff-ball one too and make a park or affordable housing. Name the streets after legends of the only United that matters; Batty Way, Radebe Road, Speed Street, Beckford Lane.

Would moving the terminal increase lorry mileage? Where do most of the containers travel to/from 'locally' to the terminal?

 

[Wavertreelad]

Interesting, but it's the Freightliner terminal that is proposed to be moved - not the Maritime one. Or does the above point effectively stymie the whole move?

The proposed ILP (not IFT as I previously wrote!) North SRFI site is situated to the east of the M6, and therefore could only realistically be connected to the Chat Moss.

The chain of causality is build ILP North>move Trafford Park Freightliner depot>use land at Trafford Park to develop new stadium and associated development. Therefore the MUFC plans as they are understood at present are reliant upon the Freightliner move.

As above, removing some freight services between Trafford Park and Crewe via Castlefield doesn't unlock a load of useful new capacity. And as you correctly identify, it could bobbins up capacity around Newton/Earlestown instead. This latter point is very much worth considering in light of Peel Group's active and ongoing conversations about identifying capacity on the Chat Moss to deliver the Port Salford rail link....


Put forward by whom?

Fantastic, except your lorries now have to drive into Manchester (which is a pretty sizable market, and now directly served by a competitor), rather than out. Looking forward to seeing the case for all those additional vehicle miles in the business case....

Best,
Slip

The Parkside East site has already been purchased by the developer who has previous links to Maritime Transport Ltd, now part of Medlog so they will in all probability move anyway and be appointed as the operator of the site as I stated in my original reply which included a link showing this relationship elsewhere. It's then a question of whether the site could accommodate both operators volumes, but the fact that MUFC have even suggested the the option, and had it reported reported on BBC News tonight suggests to me there is mileage in the proposal. The proposal would potentially allow both the MUFC and the Maritime site to be be redeveloped.

As far as access to Parkside is concerned, I can't comment, except to say if a direct WCML connection is possible without causing further massive disruption to the M6 then I would not rule it out. Mr Alponte has seriously deep pockets. As far as Peels efforts to connect a rail link to Port Salford, as I understood it further development of site was reliant on improvements to the M60 junctions in the area which in present circumstances could be long way off.

As far as the HGV's driving into Manchester, I think you are assuming that the majority of containers railed to and from Trafford Park are destined for the local Manchester area. This I can assure you is not the case, the vast majority of movements are to destinations all over the North West of England, including in some cases even Liverpool. Thus and import container from China going to Burnley would be routed from Southampton or Felixstowe by rail to Trafford Park and then delivered by road to Burnley and then when the container has been emptied it will either be used for an export container which may return to Trafford Park for railing to the port, or alternatively delivered by road to Liverpool to catch the export ship. If the haulier has no export load the empty container, it will be returned to Trafford Park or another depot such as the one in Irlam. Surely you only want HGV's on Manchester's congested road if the start/end point of the journey is outside the area? I suspect even factoring in the extra mileage, the business case is far superior for having the terminal outside the M60 when you also factor the amount of time lost queuing particularly during the peak hours, whilst the drivers hours are ticking away.

And if there is any doubt about the project please see the link on the developer's website and note the comments about the Hinckley site which is one of the same as that mentioned in Maritime Transport Ltd website included in my original post.https://www.tritaxbigbox.co.uk/our-spaces/ilp-north/

 

[The Planner]

There are no plans for a direct WCML link. Its why the Newton le Willow platform works were delayed as they affected the entry/exit to the site.