Rail Freight Depot at Radlett, Hertfordshire

[Bald Rick]

Megafret wagons would allow containers to reach Radlett until such time as the gauge was enhanced to W10.

The freight guys really don’t like using those wagons for anything but long haul flows. Radlett woudl not have those.

Neither will the line won’t be gauge cleared for W10. Who would pay? Who will accept the MML being s two track railway at WestHampstead, Elstree and Ampthill for several months whilst the work is being done and pay for the lost custom?

And that’s before the cost of building a connection into the terminal which will, conservatively, be well over £100m.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

We have gone round this circuit many times before - let us wait and see what happens.

There are obviously people raring to see anything than the normal bulks and fuel oils etc on the MML (which there are a good enough number) , but the market (a cruel mistress) will decide if there really is any worthwhile non-bulk business around.

Of course , the "Market" seems to like distribution terminals a bit further north than the very edge of London for national distribution. A fair number of these extra terminals now in service , being planned or even built. Not to mention from what i gather to be distribution facilities at new ports like London Gateway ..........

 

[Skimpot flyer]

It has long been rumoured within Royal Mail that they were one of the prospective tenants for one of the industrial units on that site.
It is a fact that they are building 3 parcel superhubs. One in Warrington is open, one in Northamptonshire is planned, and if they had one at Radlett, then the Princess Royal Distribution Centre near Stonebridge Park (NW10) would almost certainly close. Perhaps their fleet of EMUs may be transferred to this site?

 

[ExRes]

It has long been rumoured within Royal Mail that they were one of the prospective tenants for one of the industrial units on that site.
It is a fact that they are building 3 parcel superhubs. One in Warrington is open, one in Northamptonshire is planned, and if they had one at Radlett, then the Princess Royal Distribution Centre near Stonebridge Park (NW10) would almost certainly close. Perhaps their fleet of EMUs may be transferred to this site?

I'm not so sure it would happen quite that way, if you do actually mean parcel superhubs rather than mail superhubs then the PRDC would not close as it's a mail centre not a parcel centre, as for the 325s, without full electrification of the MML then diesel locos would have to be used additionally to haul them over the non electrified sections

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps their fleet of EMUs may be transferred to this site?

For all those parcels between Corby and London...

 

[John Webb]

The freight guys really don’t like using those wagons [Megafret] for anything but long haul flows. Radlett woudl not have those.

Neither will the line won’t be gauge cleared for W10. Who would pay? Who will accept the MML being s two track railway at WestHampstead, Elstree and Ampthill for several months whilst the work is being done and pay for the lost custom?

And that’s before the cost of building a connection into the terminal which will, conservatively, be well over £100m.

Has anyone considered double-tracking the Watford-St Albans Abbey branch and reinstating the line used to bring in materials during the 1860s construction of the Midland's 'London Extension'? This line (never used for passengers) ran right across the site of the proposed rail-linked depot.
And double-tracking much of the branch would also allow a greater frequency of passenger trains......

 

[Bald Rick]

Has anyone considered double-tracking the Watford-St Albans Abbey branch and reinstating the line used to bring in materials during the 1860s construction of the Midland's 'London Extension'? This line (never used for passengers) ran right across the site of the proposed rail-linked depot.
And double-tracking much of the branch would also allow a greater frequency of passenger trains......

I think it’s been given a cursory look, but it’s riddled with issues, not least that it was never double track, there’s Watford North Level Crossing, and any freight would have to go to/from the south.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I think it’s been given a cursory look, but it’s riddled with issues, not least that it was never double track, there’s Watford North Level Crossing, and any freight would have to go to/from the south.

Well the first thing is to identify a supported traffic need and funding.

A bit challenging - but much can be done with the above , plus the necessary consents , environmental protection and so on.

Issues include restricted access to the WCML - now on the "panel" but there are long track circuit constraints for moves on / off the branch via the slow lines. (basically an up train needs to be clear of Bushey platfrm before another train can be accepted.

Watford Yard has more going on these days - aggregate terminal for one and there are ideas / aspirations for major brownfield development.

There was "double track" to Watford North for carriage sidings etc and various factory sidings at one time (including a wafer biscuit plant !) - space for double track beyond Watford North crossing almost to Garston (site of the old coal concentration depot - now "woodland")

A new formation is needed from Garston station to Park Street - including going under the M1 and across the M25. The former probably OK - the latter needs a new bridge span. Of much more concern is a particularly sensitive stretch of attractive (old) woodland , Bricket Wood station - "the common" and picking a widened alignment through what are now quite well populated suburban developments. There are of course hopes for the new loop at Bricket Wood.

Interfaces at Park Street - a location already more than aware of development. Well organised I should think.

Of course , all of this - and not affecting the MML is a "win" - and it would link into a gauge cleared WCML South - but we all know how challenging that is for capacity and performance - (yes HS2" etc) - but the value of a Watford - Wembley path even post HS2 compared to the same path extended to say Daventry (to be fair and to quote another freight destination is a debate to have) - I would expect the M25 crossing would be a superb little job for an up and coming civil engineer , or even a seasoned one.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I'm not so sure it would happen quite that way, if you do actually mean parcel superhubs rather than mail superhubs then the PRDC would not close as it's a mail centre not a parcel centre, as for the 325s, without full electrification of the MML then diesel locos would have to be used additionally to haul them over the non electrified sections

It was a mail centre when built, but it now handles mostly parcels. The letter traffic has shrunk enormously, and the decline in letters accelerated during the lockdown, whilst parcel growth accelerated.
The EMUs are sometimes diverted, for example during the floods at Preston. It’s not uncommon for them to be diverted via the North London Line and head up north on the ECML. So if going south for a relatively short distance before undertaking a long run north is currently an option, why would they need the full MML to be electrified? Is there no electrified link from the MML to the NLL ?

 

[edwin_m]

Is there no electrified link from the MML to the NLL ?

No there isn't, and as far as I can see none is possible without reversing somewhere. Royal Mail is a time-critical business and I wouldn't expect them to want to run 15+ miles in the wrong direction plus some complicated shunting round North London, where at least one section will often be closed for engineering access at the times they need it.

 

[mr_jrt]

I seem to recall noting at the time that the proposed connection from the MML lined up perfectly with the former Abbey branch branch Whether you could fit in a triangular connection is something else entirely though. Would be nice to see the Abbey branch upgraded though, even if it was just a single unsignalled bidi track for passengers and a single unsignalled bidi track for the freight connection.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I seem to recall noting at the time that the proposed connection from the MML lined up perfectly with the former Abbey branch branch Whether you could fit in a triangular connection is something else entirely though. Would be nice to see the Abbey branch upgraded though, even if it was just a single unsignalled bidi track for passengers and a single unsignalled bidi track for the freight connection.

The Tram idea foundered - there is a "plan" for the Bricket Wood Loop and a 30 min all day service - and at the moment there is no train running since 23/3 or so. Overall - the line and stations are (or were) in the best condition ever.

I suspect people have begun to forget it was ever there.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm with @Bald Rick - I can't see how it makes economic sense for containers from Felixstowe or Southampton to use rail to Greater London. A case could be made for the intermodal trains from China that currently go to Tilbury to go to Radlett (or others from across Europe) but it is hard to see how Radlett is sufficiently more attractive than Tilbury for it to be economically worthwhile building diveunders and whatnot to reach it.

This one has housing written all over it.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm with @Bald Rick - I can't see how it makes economic sense for containers from Felixstowe or Southampton to use rail to Greater London. A case could be made for the intermodal trains from China that currently go to Tilbury to go to Radlett (or others from across Europe) but it is hard to see how Radlett is sufficiently more attractive than Tilbury for it to be economically worthwhile building diveunders and whatnot to reach it.

This one has housing written all over it.

It certainly doesn't make sense for maritime containers to/from the South East via Felixstowe or Tilbury. From Tilbury they would have to pass through much of their destination area to get to Radlett, and from Felixstowe either do the same or take a very roundabout route via Leicester (EWR would ultimately shorten this if the right connections went in at Bedford, but still not enough to make it worthwhile). Essentially if the ultimate origin/destination is within a truck driver's shift out and back then it's probably cheaper and quicker to send the load by road.

I guess a terminal on the northern fringe of London would be of interest to anyone shipping containers via a Northern port for the South East market. But I doubt much of that happens, as shippers will favour the ports closest to the main population and with London Gateway there is plenty of port capacity in the South East itself. Even if a shipper uses a northern port they probably use a southern one too. And a terminal on the WCML would be better for Liverpool and one on the ECML for the Humber, Tees or Tyne.

The final market is domestic intermodal, which is currently viable only for long flows like Daventry to Scotland. A well-sited terminal might build up some traffic here by getting the bulk rail run closer to London. But Daventry is within an out and back shift from most of the South East so the benefit is marginal unless there are big increases in traffic congestion or the cost of using the roads. And again Radlett is on the wrong route - it's probably quicker for a container heading to Scotland to stay on the road to Daventry than to trans-ship at Radlett and wend its way through the East Midlands before getting onto the WCML northwards.

 

[Bald Rick]

The big international shipping companies have a wide range of services, but the intercontinental box ships will often only call at one port in NW Europe, and rarely more than once in the U.K. The U.K. calls are usually one of Felixstowe, Gateway or Southampton, but Avonmouth, Liverpool, and the Humber / Tyne ports do get a look in. Much of the stuff into the smaller ports is short sea crossings for boxes that have been taken off the ‘long haul’ at Rotterdam or Hamburg.

I’ve written previously that no freight forwarder would normally consider a train from Felixstowe, Gateway or Southampton to Radlett; the trip is too short, and the lack of gauge clearance makes it even less economic.

 

[furnessvale]

We can only hope that the developers, who have spent £millions on this project and have fought off all attempts to convert this to housing, have a better understanding of their potential market than this forum.

 

[Bald Rick]

We can only hope that the developers, who have spent £millions on this project and have fought off all attempts to convert this to housing, have a better understanding of their potential market than this forum.

No doubt they do understand the market for warehousing and distribution better than the forum. They may not understand the issues around building and making use of rail connections to the Midland Main Line as well as some on the forum.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The big international shipping companies have a wide range of services, but the intercontinental box ships will often only call at one port in NW Europe, and rarely more than once in the U.K. The U.K. calls are usually one of Felixstowe, Gateway or Southampton, but Avonmouth, Liverpool, and the Humber / Tyne ports do get a look in. Much of the stuff into the smaller ports is short sea crossings for boxes that have been taken off the ‘long haul’ at Rotterdam or Hamburg.

I’ve written previously that no freight forwarder would normally consider a train from Felixstowe, Gateway or Southampton to Radlett; the trip is too short, and the lack of gauge clearance makes it even less economic.

Whilst appreciating the specific capacity, gauging and connectivity issues of the Midland Main Line at Radlett (I even remember the connection to the then-new stone terminal being created back in the 1970s as part of the West Hampstead scheme) these views do raise wider questions about the future scope and role of intermodal freight.

There is an amazing absence of intermodal facilities to serve London apart from in the Ripple Lane-Purfleet-Tilbury corridor. Other conurbations such as the Midlands, Yorkshire and Central Scotland already have several and seem to be gaining more. I get that London is relatively close to the main ports but in any future with modal shift and de-carbonisation using electric freight trains London is surely going to have to be part of a national network.

There are already intermodal services in the 100-mile range, such as Tees-Doncaster iPort and Ripple Lane-Daventry. These have the scope to offer good equipment utilisation with at least two round trips per day.

Radlett is almost exactly 100 rail miles from Southampton and Felixstowe, so not exactly round the corner.

Future patterns of carbon neutral movement may well involve many more services via the Channel Tunnel, with Radlett reasonably well placed to be fed via Ripple Lane.

If not Radlett, where would you go? Or do you see London's own rail freight future purely in terms of construction materials and any intermodal traffic just 'passing through' on longer journeys from London Gateway to Trafford Park or wherever?

(Don't think that I am getting at you, Bald Rick, these issues need to be widely discussed.)

 

[John Webb]

.....If not Radlett, where would you go? Or do you see London's own rail freight future purely in terms of construction materials and any intermodal traffic just 'passing through' on longer journeys from London Gateway to Trafford Park or wherever?

(Don't think that I am getting at you, Bald Rick, these issues need to be widely discussed.)

Mention has been made several times in posts on this thread of a site at Sundon, north of Luton, which would provide a better alternative for the following reasons:
(a) Adjacent to both the M1 motorway and the Midland ML;
(b) direct connection to the M1 - a considerable improvement on the smaller main roads around Radlett;
(c) an area more in need of jobs;
(d) fewer trains being handled as both Luton and St Albans terminators don't go so far north, so more space for freight.

Great shame that so much railway land was sold off at Cricklewood; that with the separate freight lines, close connection to the West London line etc and to the North Circular would have been far better for distribution to at least the North London area.

 

[AM9]

... Great shame that so much railway land was sold off at Cricklewood; that with the separate freight lines, close connection to the West London line etc and to the North Circular would have been far better for distribution to at least the North London area.

From Cricklewood, it would even have been possible to provide a short direct link onto the start of the M1.

 

[Dr Hoo]

From Cricklewood, it would even have been possible to provide a short direct link onto the start of the M1.

I very much doubt that there would have been anything like enough land at Cricklewood for the footprint of a modern Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) complete with several 1,000,000 square feet distribution warehouses, especially with the triangular track layout basically going right through the middle.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

From Cricklewood, it would even have been possible to provide a short direct link onto the start of the M1.

There already is a slip road connection to the roundabout of the A406 / M1 - you have to be a brave person to use it. There was a "freight depot" at Cricklewood (the old carriage shed) , which is presently being flattened along with the very new carriage sidings used by GTR / EMR as part of the Brent area redevelopment. The only traffic inwards which was visible in recent years was some Scottish Xmas trees........presumably one way , highly seasonal traffic that no road haulier desired.

 

[John Webb]

I very much doubt that there would have been anything like enough land at Cricklewood for the footprint of a modern Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) complete with several 1,000,000 square feet distribution warehouses, especially with the triangular track layout basically going right through the middle.

I had a look at my maps and must admit I hadn't realised just how much larger the Radlett site is compared to the former railway land at Cricklewood. The alternative possible site at Sundon is much closer in area to the Radlett site.

 

[Bald Rick]

Double post.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst appreciating the specific capacity, gauging and connectivity issues of the Midland Main Line at Radlett (I even remember the connection to the then-new stone terminal being created back in the 1970s as part of the West Hampstead scheme) these views do raise wider questions about the future scope and role of intermodal freight.

There is an amazing absence of intermodal facilities to serve London apart from in the Ripple Lane-Purfleet-Tilbury corridor. Other conurbations such as the Midlands, Yorkshire and Central Scotland already have several and seem to be gaining more. I get that London is relatively close to the main ports but in any future with modal shift and de-carbonisation using electric freight trains London is surely going to have to be part of a national network.

There are already intermodal services in the 100-mile range, such as Tees-Doncaster iPort and Ripple Lane-Daventry. These have the scope to offer good equipment utilisation with at least two round trips per day.

Radlett is almost exactly 100 rail miles from Southampton and Felixstowe, so not exactly round the corner.

Future patterns of carbon neutral movement may well involve many more services via the Channel Tunnel, with Radlett reasonably well placed to be fed via Ripple Lane.

If not Radlett, where would you go? Or do you see London's own rail freight future purely in terms of construction materials and any intermodal traffic just 'passing through' on longer journeys from London Gateway to Trafford Park or wherever?

(Don't think that I am getting at you, Bald Rick, these issues need to be widely discussed.)

I suppose there is a wider question, which is - what do large intermodal terminals do, and does London need one?

The answer to the first part is: to receive or dispatch block trains of boxes that are heading to / from the same approximate location, more efficiently that can be done by other modes, for transfer to co-located distribution centre warehousing and logistics.

With that in mind, the answer to the second part is : perhaps not. London is sufficiently close to Southampton, Felixstowe and particularly Gateway that the movement of block trains from those ports is not likely to be more efficient than direct road haulage. Southampton and Felixstowe are both under a 2h road haul from port to Radlett. In the case of Gateway, there is plenty of warehousing and logistics capability adjacent to the port (which is part of the reason railborne traffic out of the port has failed to live up to expectations, but that’s another subject). Similarly, there isn’t much of a major manufacturing base in London that would drive the transport of goods out - say to the north.

Whilst an intermodal terminal in the London / M25 area probably would attract a train or two from the ports -probably for a single customer like the daily Tesco train from Ripple Lane to Daventry, I can’t see how that would justify major expenditure on new rail connections, which is going to be the case for Radlett.

My personal view remains that Radlett may well end up covered in big box warehouses, possibly with some new residential to help placate the council and make some more money for the developer; but it is unlikely to see a train. It will simply cost too much to connect it to the rail network for the use it would have. I’d be interested to see what the planning conditions sa6 about the rail link, but can’t find them online.