Philip Haigh
The rapid decline of coal has struck the rail freight sector hard. Does the future of the industry lie in the hands of local operators with multi-skilled staff? asks PHILIP HAIGH
Rail freight’s challenges.
day in April marked Britain’s first without using coal to generate electricity. Wind and solar power played their part, but burning gas shouldered the bulk of electricity generation that day.
Coal fuelled the industrial revolution and spawned Britain’s rail network. The black stuff, dug from beneath this island, was a staple traffic for railway companies. No longer. Its recent rapid decline has struck rail freight hard. Coal is dead; long live… containers?
Just a week or so later, the Rail Freight Group held its annual conference in London. Graphs from Network Rail’s freight chief Paul McMahon starkly showed coal’s terminal decline. Also shown were graphs plotting the increase in intermodal and aggregates traffic, but even with a changed scale it was clear that both those traffics were only rising slowly. And, they’re the only freight traffics rising.
Freight measures ‘gross tonne miles’, which is a combination of goods moved (including the weight of locomotives and wagons) and the distance hauled. It’s fallen 20% since 201415 because of coal’s collapse.
That fall is the only thing that’s moved quickly in rail freight. Network Rail is still developing projects announced for 2009-14, such as clearing longer trains to run between Southampton and the West Midlands. Also in development are improvements to the branch line running to Felixstowe, but there are other obstacles between this great port and the West Midlands. Flat junctions with the Great Eastern Main Line (including the recently-built Bacon Chord at Ipswich) and sections of single line serve to constrain traffic. There’s plenty of detail in NR’s recently-published Freight
Network Strategy, but that detail is depressingly familiar to readers of previous NR documents.
Glaciers move more quickly than freight improvement projects, despite considerable efforts from all involved. So slowly, in fact, that they sometimes miss their intended target. It’s only a couple of years since NR built a flyover north of Doncaster so that coal trains no longer needed to run on the busy East Coast Main Line.
Nearby is Drax Power Station. Once dubbed ‘the mothership’ of Britain’s coal-fired power station network, it now burns wood shipped into ports. This wood, called biomass, cannot be stockpiled as easily as coal so Drax needs a regular flow. Yet it takes six hours for a train to run the 100 miles from Liverpool’s docks. Such a slow journey demands more drivers, locomotives and wagons than higher speeds would need. The problem, according to Drax Logistics Manager Steve Taylor, is that passenger train operators are running ever more small trains that fill the network.
There are important questions for governments and politicians. If they decide to keep calling for more passenger services when they let franchises, they should realise that they are pushing more freight traffic onto the roads. GWR, ScotRail and Virgin Trains East Coast have already taken capacity released by some
f h 3 700 f ih i bl h d
Doubtless, these decisions were sensible in themselves, but any presumption that passengers should always trump freight will clog the roads with unnecessary lorries.
Meanwhile, rail’s economic and safety regulator, ORR, talks about applying fixed cost mark-ups to all rail operators and removing price caps on charges those operators pay to run trains. Despite affirming support for rail freight, ORR Chief Executive Joanna Whittington’s words gave me little comfort. Not least because road fuel duties look set to continue to be frozen while rail charges rise. Coal trains paid extra charges because ORR considered the market could bear these charges (and to compensate NR for the higher cost of maintaining lineside equipment clogged with
ld )A h h b
rules, she would not take questions, and although McMahon did, he also admitted that purdah had restricted his freedom to speak. This is disappointing - more disappointing than ministers failing to attend for the same reason - at a time when rail freight clearly faces a range of challenges.
Those challenges come at local level as well as national. One of the growing traffics is aggregates, with demand from London’s building projects proving a key driver. This traffic needs terminals within London. One sits near Greenwich at Angerstein Wharf, with a rail link to the Charlton-Blackheath line. It serves three river wharves, as well as an asphalt, three recycling and four concrete plants. The wharves are protected from development by ministerial direction, but the railheads don’t benefit from such protection.
Handling stone and sand can be noisy and dusty. So, you can imagine the dismay of wharf user Day Aggregates when the local council granted a developer permission to build flats overlooking the terminal. It took legal action to force the developer to redesign the flats with decent noise protection, otherwise the threat to h i l’ i ldb bi activities, would doubtless shift more traffic to London’s roads. Tarmac reckons average rail freight speeds to London from Greenwich are around 7mph, and it reports pressure to only operate terminals during the day - yet trains can only run at night because of passenger timetables.
A little further west is a similar terminal at Battersea (Stewarts Lane). It was developed using government Freight Facilities Grants in 2003. Since then the local area has changed. The American Embassy is moving to a nearby site, there’s an extension to the Northern Line coming, Battersea Power Station is being converted to flats and further residential development will surely follow.
Glance at any classic locomotive photograph from Stewarts Lane depot and you’re sure to see Hampton’s Depository in the background. It’s a substantial brick building that Day admits is just ripe for conversion into flats. It directly overlooks the aggregates terminal.
Without terminals such as Angerstein Wharf and Battersea, the city’s redevelopment will be made harder. But, in turn, the very building work the terminals support threatens their
i l was a spark of brightness and a hint that freight might fight back. That came from Neil Sime, MD of Victa Railfreight, based in Kent. His is a small company but it holds a national freight operating licence that means it can run trains on Network Rail’s lines.
But Sime doesn’t plan to take on the likes of DB and Freightliner. He’s interested in local operations, running terminals and feeder services. In essence, he wants to release the main line company’s expensive locomotive and driver as soon as a train arrives in a terminal. His multi-skilled driver/shunter can take over, using an older and cheaper locomotive for those fiddly terminal operations. He could even run short local trains distributing or collecting containers or wagons to nearby customers.
“You need to make rail as easy as road,” he reckons, and suggests answers can come from looking at how road hauliers do things. When a truck arrives somewhere, who opens the trailer’s doors. Probably the driver. When a FOC train arrives somewhere, who opens the wagon doors? Probably not the driver. Using multi-skilled staff can help bridge the gap, Sime argues.
There’s a similarity between Sime’s suggestions and short-line operations in North America. Delivering local rail freight services for lower costs than the major main line operators can achieve will be key. This can only come by using cheaper and more flexible staff and cheaper locomotives.
It will not be easy. Today’s railway prefers its clockface, fixed-formation trains. Freight that might run on occasional days with different loads doesn’t fit. That’s ironic because that’s exactly what the railway did when its tracks were busy with coal.
“One of the growing traffics is aggregates, with demand from London’s building projects proving a key driver.”