Rail connection for Port Salford advancing ?

[Wavertreelad]

It would make the costs none profitable moving from sea going container ships to barges. I cant see that working. When the idea was first thought sea going container ships were a lot smaller than those used today.


There is no connection to the WCML going west.

At the time this was proposed Peel were heavily promoting the use of the Manchester Ship Canal as a means of distributing traffic for the Port of Liverpool using initially barges, and more recently a 400 teu feeder vessel. Whilst the the blurb still appears on the website, the relatively of situation is that feeder service ceased operating a few years ago and I suspect stands little chance of it being returning. This is because a number of factors, Seaforth T1, apart from the ACL North Atlantic service is now entirely used by short sea feeders which range in size from 868 teu to 1200 teu vessels. These vessels service the trade between the NWC, Iberia and in the case of Borchard Lines, the Mediterranean for traffic to and from the North of England and Wales and in many cases compete with road freight, especially northbound from Iberia for the fresh produce markets, in which there is simply not the time available to mess around with double handling containers, let alone the additional costs involved. Liverpool2 or T2 as it now known only handles vessels above 1700 teu, due I believe to the risk of the freeboard being caught under the seawall on a rising tide, certainly in all the time the terminal has been open, there has never been a vessel on T2 smaller than 1700teu. The Manchester Ship Canal has a capacity limit of about 450 teu at best so when 300/350 teu vessels were delployed on a daily basis between Liverpool and Dublin/Belfast it was possible schedule a feeder to operate to Irlam twice a week and fit in a trip to Dublin given favourable weather conditions. However, now the Dublin and Belfast routes are served by 868 teu feeders on a rotation that includes Rotterdam and Zeebrugge so unless there unless a major or several major customers emerge alongside the ship canal my guess is that the days of feeders to Irlam are finished already. My suspicion is that Peel will want to develop the site to handle rail traffic from the south of England ports, but don't want to put too much resource into it yet, until T2 is fully operational with the expanded railhead at Seaforth and MSC and others have ships berthing on a daily basis. Hence the decision to delay further development of the site until the rail link is constructed or M60 junctions 10 & 11 are upgraded. https://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/port-salford-railway-airport-tweaks-approved/

 

[mwmbwls]

Could Port Salford could provide an alternative to Trafford Park virtue of its proximity to the M62 and the M60 thereby increasing pathing capability through Piccadilly and Oxford Road. The fact that Port Salford and Trafford Park are under separate ownership may be a complicating factor. Port Salford access and egress by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

 

[8A Rail]

Could Port Salford could provide an alternative to Trafford Park virtue of its proximity to the M62 and the M60 thereby increasing pathing capability through Piccadilly and Oxford Road. The fact that Port Salford and Trafford Park are under separate ownership may be a complicating factor. Port Salford access and egress by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

Trafford Park is truly well set up and has the space for the containers etc, so I don't see that ever reducing in size or closing. Not the fault of the FOC's for the issues on the corridor, that is down to Network Rail. Likewise I don't see Port Salford having the required space to replace Trafford Park either.

Interestingly looking at the map link which is a little out of date now as no 'east rail link to L&M line' I do wonder were the ships / barges are going to unload / load though for this proposed facility. Is it before or after the canal locks? Be daft if its after the locks. However, we are all working on assumptions that Peel actually do something to bring this all together which personally I have my doubts.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Trafford Park is truly well set up and has the space for the containers etc, so I don't see that ever reducing in size or closing. Not the fault of the FOC's for the issues on the corridor, that is down to Network Rail. Likewise I don't see Port Salford having the required space to replace Trafford Park either.

Interestingly looking at the map link which is a little out of date now as no 'east rail link to L&M line' I do wonder were the ships / barges are going to unload / load though for this proposed facility. Is it before or after the canal locks? Be daft if its after the locks. However, we are all working on assumptions that Peel actually do something to bring this all together which personally I have my doubts.

I think the feeders (if they get there) will berth to the west of the locks comparing the map with the Peel Ports images of the site here. https://peellandp.co.uk/our-expertise/port-salford/

 

[8A Rail]

I think the feeders (if they get there) will berth to the west of the locks comparing the map with the Peel Ports images of the site here. https://peellandp.co.uk/our-expertise/port-salford/

Looking at the image and also the propose rail layout, it is not exactly rail friendly then. To access the proposed quay / loading area as per image, trains will have to be reversed in both directions before accessing the link to the Chat Moss line - in other words it is not straight in and straight out for the trains like most container / intermodal depots. Mmmmm this makes me wonder whether as far as the 'rail' part of the project will it get off the ground or just another Peel marketing ploy (just to gain access to grants etc)?

 

[Greybeard33]

Looking at the image and also the propose rail layout, it is not exactly rail friendly then. To access the proposed quay / loading area as per image, trains will have to be reversed in both directions before accessing the link to the Chat Moss line - in other words it is not straight in and straight out for the trains like most container / intermodal depots. Mmmmm this makes me wonder whether as far as the 'rail' part of the project will it get off the ground or just another Peel marketing ploy (just to gain access to grants etc)?

I do not believe any reversals are necessary with the current plans for the rail link. The link would approach the site from the north then curve around to the southwest to run straight into the loading area alongside the canal. This render from the Peel website, linked above, shows a train on the curve.

The new planning application (linked in the OP of this thread) extends the loading area and headshunt further to the southwest than in the original plans, beyond the furthermost warehouses. The diagrams in the document do not show any provision for transferring containers to/from the canal, only between rail and road vehicles. Indeed the existing footpath between the site and the canal is retained.

As @Wavertreelad pointed out in post #31 above, there is no longer any realistic prospect of containers being transhipped up the Ship Canal to a wharf at Port Salford, as envisaged in the 2009 proposals. Therefore, if the terminal is ever built, Peel must intend that it will compete with Trafford Park for rail traffic between the Southampton, London and Felixstowe ports and North West England. Hence no longer any need for an eastward connection to the Chat Moss line.

The two Trafford Park terminals are owned by Freightliner and DB Cargo, two of the largest operators in the intermodal rail market. However, capacity restrictions through the Castlefield Corridor might help Port Salford compete.

The planning application says that it will be at least five years before the improved road links between Port Salford and the M60 are completed (final phase of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme). So I imagine that it would be at least that long before the rail terminal could be operational.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I do not believe any reversals are necessary with the current plans for the rail link. The link would approach the site from the north then curve around to the southwest to run straight into the loading area alongside the canal. This render from the Peel website, linked above, shows a train on the curve.
View attachment 138556
The new planning application (linked in the OP of this thread) extends the loading area and headshunt further to the southwest than in the original plans, beyond the furthermost warehouses. The diagrams in the document do not show any provision for transferring containers to/from the canal, only between rail and road vehicles. Indeed the existing footpath between the site and the canal is retained.

As @Wavertreelad pointed out in post #31 above, there is no longer any realistic prospect of containers being transhipped up the Ship Canal to a wharf at Port Salford, as envisaged in the 2009 proposals. Therefore, if the terminal is ever built, Peel must intend that it will compete with Trafford Park for rail traffic between the Southampton, London and Felixstowe ports and North West England. Hence no longer any need for an eastward connection to the Chat Moss line.

The two Trafford Park terminals are owned by Freightliner and DB Cargo, two of the largest operators in the intermodal rail market. However, capacity restrictions through the Castlefield Corridor might help Port Salford compete.

The planning application says that it will be at least five years before the improved road links between Port Salford and the M60 are completed (final phase of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme). So I imagine that it would be at least that long before the rail terminal could be operational.

Just to add that I suspect this also a question of Peel having a foot in both camps. The Trafford Park trains I believe tend to be well subscribed and whilst world trade is presently relatively quiet, there are a huge number of large ships due to enter service in the next few years some of which invariably will call at Felixstowe, London Gateway and Southampton which inevitably will result increased volumes moving to and from Manchester Area. While Peel will obviously promote Liverpool2, it should be remembered that this is jointly owned and operated with the world largest shipping line MSC who incidentally have an order book for new capacity the size of Hapag Lloyds fleet which is the fifth largest carrier in the world. Whilst this joint venture does not preclude other carriers using the terminal, CMA CGM and Maersk the ports next biggest users currently restrict involvement to feeders using the enclosed Seaforth Dock. Unless there is a massive change of policy which at the moment is very unlikely it means that the long term future of Liverpool2 would appear to rest with MSC who are as yet to commit their larger vessels to the terminal. This is in part due to their 2M partnership with Maersk which is due to end probably by the end of next year which will result in both Carriers probably going their separate ways. Another part of the reason is probably the facilities at the Seaforth railhead which Peel intend to expand to allow standard length intermodal trains to and from the port. This has already been put out to tender, but as far as I know the contacts have not been signed, but the timing suggests the project should be completed by the end of next year, just in time for when MSC splits from Maersk. Peel and MSC will need that additional rail capacity to shift the volumes generated by any large ships calls at T2. Having a railhead near Manchester would be very useful as a means of distributing containers or their cargo which have devanned in the sheds on to smaller vehicles should Manchester eventually impose a clean air policy. With the site potentially able to serve the southern ports, Peel would be able to offer through it's logistics wing an interesting package to would be customers.

In the early days of Liverpool2 Peel was heavily promoting the use of the Manchester Ship Canal to service the region, and fend off fears of a massive increase in road haulage from the Port of Liverpool. Interesting once the joint venture deal with MSC was announced the promotion seemed to dry up and eventually the use of the barge or feeder service, which had made calls at Ellesmere Port and plans drawn up for a call at Warrington where Peel owned the adjacent land. At Ellesmere Port Peel planned a motor vehicle industrial area, which potentially generate a regular volume of containers, but earlier in the year, Peel announced they were building a ro/ro berth a QE2 Dock Eastham to carry electric vehicles and components for the Stellantis (Vauxhall) plant at Ellesmere Port whilst little has emerged about the Warrington plans. I believe Peel used to carry substantial volumes of wine to the bottling plant near the Irlam facility, but whether this was viable is a another matter, but the cessation of the feeder probably means the business has now reverted back to road transport from Liverpool, and/or rail/road via Trafford Park from southern ports.

 

[mwmbwls]

https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/1996/EMP012-Parkside-SRFI-Capacity-Study/pdf/EMP012_Parkside_SRFI_Capacity_Study.pdf?m=637793962710330000

Port Salford may face some competition as evidenced by this study by Steer commissioned by St Helens Council for Parkside. The report also contains a broader analysis of gauging issues and the implications of longer term changes such as East West Rail to the overall box scenarios. Were Port Salford not to go ahead Peel could well find that the area could by virtue of its proximity to the M60 and M62 and an oven ready connection to Metrolink via the Trafford Centre, a north of the Ship Canal site could provide some of the need for extra housing in Manchester.

Note to Moderator - I was torn as to whether this contribution crossed the line into speculation but in view of the comprehensive nature of the information contained in the Steer Report for Saint Helens Coumcil I felt it more appropriate to refer to it here. But it is your call.

 

[Wavertreelad]

https://www.sthelens.gov.uk/media/1996/EMP012-Parkside-SRFI-Capacity-Study/pdf/EMP012_Parkside_SRFI_Capacity_Study.pdf?m=637793962710330000

Port Salford may face some competition as evidenced by this study by Steer commissioned by St Helens Council for Parkside. The report also contains a broader analysis of gauging issues and the implications of longer term changes such as East West Rail to the overall box scenarios. Were Port Salford not to go ahead Peel could well find that the area could by virtue of its proximity to the M60 and M62 and an oven ready connection to Metrolink via the Trafford Centre, a north of the Ship Canal site could provide some of the need for extra housing in Manchester.

Note to Moderator - I was torn as to whether this contribution crossed the line into speculation but in view of the comprehensive nature of the information contained in the Steer Report for Saint Helens Coumcil I felt it more appropriate to refer to it here. But it is your call.

I briefly read the report and was surprised to find little mention of freight traffic from the Port of Liverpool, particularly for intermodal traffic and what effect on existing flows this would have. At this stage i must stress I am not suggesting that Liverpool2 will change the dynamics of a logistics industry that has matured over 50 years, perhaps on a flawed idea that's it's cheaper to take the cargo to the ship, rather take the ship to the cargo which is essentially what happened in the late 1960's and early 1970's when the Containerbase network was set up. Unlike 50 years ago when the shipping lines were able to hide the true cost of the subsidy of railing containers, today's market is very different but interestingly DP World Southampton has just announced a modal shift scheme which will see laden import containers leaving the port by road paying a surcharge of GBP10.00 per container. Any container leaving the port by rail will see the GBP10.00 surcharge refunded, however, if the laden import container leaves the port by rail to a railhead within 140 miles of the port, the port will refund a subsidiary of GBP70.00.
https://www.dpworld.com/southampton...-to-drive-decarbonisation-of-uk-supply-chains

As can be see by the full announcement the policy is designed to boost the use of rail transport in the South of England which has dropped in recent years because of the inability of the industry to deliver containers on time and within the freetime. At this point it should be acknowledged this problem is in part directly also related to the shortages of HGV drivers in the road haulage industry who are responsible for the final local delivery, which effectively could stretch the radius of the scheme up to 200 miles. However, the scheme raises many questions, apart from the very obvious problem of how and to whom the GBP70.00 will be repaid but that is not for discussion here. The problem with the scheme is that effectively DP World is buying traffic in the catchment which potentially could distort the economics of using the port, particularly against it main rival at Felixstowe. But with the 200 mile limit also over lapping on the Port of Liverpool's natural hinterland, could it be that this is a move by DP World to prevent the port loosing business to Liverpool, should for example MSC introduce Asia Europe ships to T2? We already know that Peel have put out to tender the construction of an extended railhead at Seaforth which I would expect to be completed by the end of next year at the latest. At the same time MSC are introducing on a monthly basis a new 24000 teu containership to the Asia Europe trade, so should they decide to add a direct call at Liverpool to the schedule there would be an urgent need to have that up upgraded railhead in place to facilitate the distribution of containers to and from the port. This presumably would eat up many of the paths alluded to in the report and I just wonder if Parkside does in fact have a future as a rail hub.

As a interesting observation, it's notable for anybody who travels up and down the M62 to note the distribution developments west of Warrington, and in particular the huge Home Bargains warehouse that dwarfs the nearby Hut Group and Asda depots, and I believe two other developments behind them, which are I am told just in the St Helens Council area. I would also agree with your concerns about Peels Port of Salford plans, but until the problems of sorting out the many problems of Manchester's rail infrastructure are concerned, I suspect this is case of Peel backing both sides and for the moment it's a means of gaining revenue for a piece of land that it owns that otherwise would probably be left derelict.