Rail Freight Group Executive Director Maggie Simpson broadly welcomes the strategy: “If it is what central government could and should do as part of its bargain, and if you accept constraints around enhancement planning, I think it does a reasonably good job looking at the areas where government effects can give the best value. To get growth, everyone has to take action.”
Philippa Edmunds, Freight on Rail Manager at the Campaign for Better Transport, agrees that: “It gives clear vision and shows government support for rail freight, giving certainty to customers.”
What’s missing?
Firstly, assurance that whatever bespoke investment is made in rail freight schemes is delivered in a timely and efficient manner. NR’s consultation on the detailed Freight Network Study, looking at requirements over the next 30 years, is intended to specify the infrastructure work required to address capacity issues. But the recent record on implementation has not been good, with the package of projects under way to enhance the gauge clearance and paths for Felixstowe traffic a case in point.
Says Simpson: “There has been a failure of portfolio management somewhere between NR and the DfT. There has been no grip of the Felixstowe-Nuneaton upgrade. At the start of the last Control Period, they split the work so that each package was being done by a different area, and the original plan to bring all projects to fruition at the same time was scuppered by NR cost escalation. Someone needs to take end-to-end charge of such projects.”
As a consequence, the benefit of each project has been limited, and work has yet to start on the most important single package of work - the doubling of the Felixstowe branch.
The fact that rail freight traffic through the Channel Tunnel barely reaches the tonnages achieved by the previous train ferry is one of the most disappointing failures of recent decades in the railway industry. Only eight of the 35 paths for freight trains are currently used. To create a facility costing £4.65 billion (equivalent to £12bn today) and be using only 54% of its capacity after 23 years - for all three types of traffic through it - suggests the need for a new strategy.
Simpson sees the issues surrounding the Channel Tunnel as more about perception than reality, although rebuilding confidence will take time. It may be only a matter of time before Britain becomes one of the increasing number of countries in Europe served by trains taking three weeks to create a supply chain with China, rather than six weeks by ship.
Whatever the outcome of Brexit, better trade connections will always be important, and Britain’s security-secured rail terminals may prove a strong suit. But wagon size is another constraint, and it will be two decades before continental-gauge wagons can reach northern England and Scotland via HS2.
The reasons for Channel Tunnel rail freight not reaching tens of millions of tonnes a year, as had been confidently predicted at pre-opening conferences, are well known: endemic strikes on SNCF destroying users’ confidence in service reliability; the migrant crisis; and (until recent reductions) user charges that made the tunnel uncompetitive.
Moving customs clearance away from the tunnel and making sure the speed of freight trains does not drop below 40mph through the Calais area would help. But it seems that the difficulty of resolving the Tunnel’s problems has led many to give up and focus on lower-hanging fruit.
Although the Strategy recognises the importance of terminals, there is no move towards reintroducing the Freight Facilities Grants, which between 1974 and their abolition in England and Wales in 2011 helped companies with the costs of creating rail connections and terminals. They are still available in Scotland, although there are moves to end them there, too.
This omission is all the more regrettable given the key role played by rail connections to terminals, factories and distribution centres in achieving the cost savings that make rail competitive. Some may regard a planning requirement for rail connection where practicable as too dirigiste, but for certain terminals - such as ports, car plants and even certain National Distribution Centres - consideration should be given to making it essential.
Recognition of the particular challenges of growing intermodal traffic, and especially domestic intermodal, is reflected in the Mode Shift Revenue Support (MSRS) scheme.
However, this is guaranteed only annually from a pot covering a five-year period, which makes long-term planning more difficult - it amounts to £18m a year spread across five FOCs. Introduced in 2015, it currently saves around 800,000 lorry journeys a year.
