Peer review: John Smith
Managing Director, GB Railfreight
During the Transport Secretary’s recent Select Committee oral evidence session on the performance of Network Rail and rail policy, he was asked if rail freight would be included in the Terms of Reference for Sir Peter Hendy’s CP5 review. Both Patrick McLoughlin and DfT Permanent Secretary Philip Rutnam looked at each other and nodded.
However, the verbal response to committee members was less clear, indicating that freight would most likely be considered in ongoing discussions.
As a predominantly private industry that hauls goods worth over £30 billion for many of the UK’s core sectors, our primary concerns are around operating on a more “cost-effective and competitive” rail network. In order to enable rail freight growth, these two issues need to be tackled from an infrastructure, rolling stock and timetabling perspective.
The Government has so far paved the way for further infrastructure investment, under the Strategic Freight Network, the UK Government Freight Network and the National Policy Statement for National Road and Rail Networks. But a lot more still needs to be done across these three policy areas in CP5.
Contrary to Nick’s view, rail freight has been innovative and aggressive in its operations over the past ten to 15 years.
The Rail Delivery Group’s 2014 report, Keeping The Lights On And The Traffic Moving, affirmed that more efficient, longer trains are carrying on average 50% more cargo than they did a decade ago. Train crew productivity has also dramatically improved over the same period, as highlighted in the 2011 McNulty report.
I also take a slightly different position on some of Nick’s arguments for improving access to the network, particularly on the subjects of wagonload traffic and the ‘click and collect’ market. The container market now plays a crucial role in modern freight haulage, rendering the operations of separate wagons carrying separate goods inefficient. As for parcel delivery, consistent high volumes don’t currently exist to make these operations profitable and efficient on rail, so economic incentives will be needed.
Where my stance is more aligned with Nick is under what he describes as improving freight train productivity. Strategic Freight Network investment in CP4 concentrated on loading gauge enhancement and longer and heavier rolling stock. Despite the pausing of electrification projects in the Midlands and the North, it’s important that Network Rail safeguards the programme and budget in CP5.
In a letter published in RAIL 779, I identified two schemes set out in CP5 as critical: the four-tracking from Kettering to Corby, and from Bedford to just north of Kettering. The combination of stopping and non-stopping passenger services is a major constraint for freight paths along these routes and four-tracking will cater for future freight and passenger growth.
HS2 will help with capacity issues on the West Coast Main Line, but it will not be the panacea for national capacity across the network, in terms of gauge and number of trains. I have previously advocated the creation of secondary routes for W10 gauge freight services on the classic network.
With the first major construction and civil engineering contracts for HS2 going out to tender next month, we need to ensure that this doesn’t consume Network Rail’s and the Government’s attention in tackling capacity for the foreseeable future.
The Transport Secretary has confirmed that Sir Peter Hendy’s report findings will be published in October 2015, with Dame Colette Bowe’s following shortly after. That doesn’t give us much time to reaffirm much-needed commitments to rail freight in the reformed upgrade programme. If the Government is serious about supporting the industry, it must not be marginalised in favour of passenger services.
