Memorandum from Kelvin Hopkins MP (FT
42)
EURORAIL FREIGHT
ROUTE (EFR)
1. We are pleased to have an opportunity
to make this submission to the Transport Select Committee and
to explain our proposals for the Eurorail Freight Route (EFR),
a scheme which we believe will make a very substantial contribution
to rail freight in Britain and which we consider will be significant
for the country's long term economic success. The essence of the
EFR scheme is the construction of a rail freight line from the
Channel Tunnel to Glasgow, linking the major economic and population
centres of Britain and built to a large gauge capable of transporting
full sized (9ft 6ins) containers, (and ultimately double-stacked
containers), as well as full sized lorry trailers between inter-modal
terminals in Britain and continental Europe.
2. The scheme has been conceived and is
being promoted by a team comprising the following:
Andy Berry—railway engineer and consultant
with special expertise in signalling.
Tim Brown—railway engineer and consultant with
30 years experience in permanent way engineering.
Ken Russell—Director of Russell Transport,
one of Scotland's largest freight haulage companies.
Kelvin Hopkins MP.
We have received much help and advice from others,
including Railway Consultant Richard Tilden-Smith.
3. Our submission is developed in more detail
below but this paper is still merely a summary text intended for
ease of use by the Committee. More details can be provided as
required and our team would be pleased to present oral evidence
to the Committee if this was considered helpful.
4. We have made a number of presentations
of our scheme to a wide range of interested parties. These have
included Rail Freight Group (on five occasions), The Association
of Railway Civil Engineers, Department for Transport officials,
the Chief Executive of Network Rail, the President of the Institution
of Civil Engineers, the Northwest RDA and SEEDA and others. The
scheme was also presented to the House of Commons in an Adjournment
Debate on 19 February 2007.
5. Beyond that we have made written representations
and corresponded with many others, and we have on occasion informed
the Chair of the Select Committee in writing of our ongoing representations.
Our communications have included correspondence with Lord Neil
Kinnock, former European Transport Commissioner, who has responded
supportively, the Mayor of London, all of the RDAs on the line
of route, the Freight Transport Association, a House of Lords
rail freight inquiry chaired by Lord Woolmer and Sir Rod Eddington.
We have also had private meetings with a range of experts, especially
from the railway industry. The responses to our representations
have been positive. Our representations are continuing and an
ongoing series of meetings is planned.
6. What follows is a summary of our case
for the construction of the Eurorail Freight Route.
THE NEED
FOR A
NEW FREIGHT
ROUTE
7. Britain's roads and ports are suffering
from considerable and increasing congestion. Estimates put the
total cost to the economy of congestion at £20 billion a
year, (FTA Estimate based on a previous OECD exercise), an enormous
sum by any standards. Rail freight volumes have been growing but
so too has passenger traffic, and in spite of increased levels
of investment rail route capacity is increasingly under stress.
Existing track routes must be used to the maximum, with modern
signalling and higher operating speeds, but the reality is that
existing routes will not cope with future growth.
8. Nor is it sensible to try to increase
passenger and freight traffic on the same routes. Passengers and
freight do not mix easily, with different operating speeds among
other things, and there is therefore a great need both for additional
track routes and for segregating freight and passenger traffic
wherever possible. The Eurorail Freight Route will make possible
a step change on both fronts. Statistical assessments of freight
needs undertaken by MDS Transmodal show that there is a very substantial
need for additional rail freight capacity north-south along the
backbone of Britain. The EFR precisely matches that need.
THE EURORAIL
FREIGHT ROUTE
9. As stated in the introduction to this
paper, the essence of the EFR scheme is the construction of a
railway line from the Channel Tunnel to Glasgow, linking Britain's
major population centres and economic regions. The key to the
success of the scheme and essential to it is that it would be
built to a gauge capable of carrying full -sized (9ft 6ins) containers
on standard wagons and would ultimately be capable of accommodating
double-stacked 9ft 6ins containers on its core route all way to
and through the Channel Tunnel. Another essential feature of the
scheme is that it would be capable of transporting road trailers
on trains both between terminals in Britain and between Britain
and the Continent of Europe. The trailers would be delivered at
both ends of their rail journey by short distance road haulage.
10. Our preliminary estimates suggest that
the route would accommodate more than five million lorry journeys
a year, operating effectively as a rolling motorway. It would
thus provide for a large modal shift of freight to rail both within
Britain and between Britain and the Continent. The EFR would also
take freight traffic off the East Coast and West Coast Main lines,
freeing up those routes for faster and more frequent passenger
trains. If this were done, further and relatively modest investment
in these two existing main rail routes would provide for 140mph
trains on the East Coast Mainline and 135mph trains on the West
Coast Mainline with the possibility of non-stop services at these
speeds between London and Scotland. The East Coast Mainline in
particular simply requires quadrupling of the track with a new
viaduct to the north of Welwyn and some passing loops further
north, together with signalling upgrades to make 140 mph non-stop
working passenger services between London and Scotland possible.
Indeed, on a test run in 1992 a train travelled from Kings Cross
to Edinburgh with a two minute stop at Newcastle, in three and
a half hours.
A DETAILED ROUTE
FOR EFR
11. The EFR team has developed a detailed
route plan making use of old track bed and under-utilised existing
railway lines. The whole route would require only some fourteen
and a half miles of new track route, 10 miles of which would be
in tunnels, with a four mile link across open farmland in the
Midlands. The chosen route would thus present minimal planning
difficulties and would be very economical to build.
12. The EFR would be constructed in phases
so it could begin to take traffic through the Channel Tunnel very
soon. The first phase suggested would be a terminal on the North
Thames linked directly to CTRL and using the CTRL line for the
immediate future. CTRL has indeed been built to sufficient gauge
to cope with full sized containers (and ultimately double-stacked
containers) as well as lorry trailers. This would be a temporary
arrangement until the EFR route under and to the south of the
Thames is completed at a later stage.
13. The next phase of the route would include
the existing Barking and Gospel Oak route round the east and north
of London to join a new tunnel through Hampstead linking through
to the Midland freight lines at West Hampstead. From there the
route would branch off at Cricklewood to link up with the Chiltern
lines where track would be reinstated. Another terminal would
be constructed to the north west of London close to the M25, M4,
M40 and M3 capable of taking lorry traffic from the South and
West as well as the Midlands and North.
14. The route would then travel northwards
on reinstated track on the old Great Central track bed to a terminal
in the East Midlands and a branch linked to another terminal in
Birmingham serving the West Midlands. Continuing northwards the
route would link into the Midlands freight lines past Leicester
and track northwards again to South Yorkshire to another terminal
at Tinsley, between Sheffield and Rotherham, an existing but under-utilised
freight terminal.
15. The line would then pass through the
Pennines by way of the currently disused Woodhead Tunnel to a
South Lancashire terminal near the M6 and M62 motorways. This
would serve the North West and the major cities of South Lancashire.
The line would then snake northwards to link with the Settle Carlisle
route and on through Scotland to Glasgow. A link to Newcastle
serving the North East would be built and additional links to
other areas including the South West would be added.
16. The use of the CTRL route would be a
temporary arrangement until the EFR is completed with a new tunnel
under the Thames to the Medway Valley route and then on to the
Channel Tunnel. Maps accompanying this paper illustrate the precise
route[71]
and this can be explained mile by mile as required. We must emphasise
that our route has been very precisely researched and designed.
It has also been presented to senior engineering figures from
the railway industry, each of whom has confirmed that the route
is precisely right and would be easy to construct. Standard operating
speeds would range up to 100 mph.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
17. Using the Channel Tunnel Rail Link costs
as a model, our first estimate of costs for constructing the EFR
line was between £3 and £4 billion. We have therefore
used a working figure of £4.5 billion which is on the generous
side. Indeed, one expert from the railway construction sector
has suggested to us that he could construct the line for under
£3 billion. We can provide a breakdown of costs as required.
18. The main reason why costs are so modest
is that our team has gone to great lengths to avoid unnecessary
expense in the choice of route. The former Central Railway proposal,
which was significantly different in concept to the EFR, involved
among other things a considerable length of new route circling
London to the west, as well as a route through the centre of Manchester.
We considered both of these to be unnecessary and both technically
and politically difficult as well as expensive. EFR also links
right through to Scotland which the Central Railway proposal did
not. The EFR presents little technical or political difficulty
and this has been confirmed in discussions with a number of experts.
EFR should, we believe, become an integral part of Network Rail.
THE CHANNEL
TUNNEL AND
THE EFR
19. The Channel Tunnel was a bold and important
advance linking Britain's railways with those of the Continent
of Europe. However, since it opened it has been in almost continuous
financial crisis and can only become financially viable with vastly
increased traffic. Even with CTRL, the number of passenger trains
through the Tunnel will always comprise only a very small proportion
of its potential capacity. Indeed, with good signalling and timetable
management, the Tunnel can comfortably accommodate 150 trains
a day in each direction additional to Eurostar services. (Several
times more than that number of trains could be accommodated each
day with signalling upgrades.) 150 trains with 40 units (lorry
loads) on each train would amount to 6,000 lorry journeys each
way every day, potentially over four million lorry units a year.
Even a fraction of that quantity would transform the economics
of the Channel Tunnel and avoid the need for continued subsidies
to the Tunnel paid in effect by taxpayers in Britain and France.
The difficulty in achieving these levels of freight traffic through
the Tunnel is simply that the rail network on the British side
of the Channel is incapable of delivering the trains to and from
the Tunnel. The track capacity is not there and the gauge required
wholly absent. The EFR overcomes that difficulty.
SUPERMARKETS AND
RETAILERS
20. There would also be considerable scope
for domestic freight traffic on the EFR route. A group of supermarkets
and large retailers are currently exploring the potential for
transferring large quantities of their road borne services and
traffic on to rail, should the capacity be available to make this
possible. This group of nine such companies are discussing the
possibility of some ten thousand lorry journeys a week being transferred
to rail within Britain and there are other major supermarkets
and retailers not in this group of nine who are also planning
to seek similar modal shifts to rail. The EFR route would be ideally
placed to accommodate much and perhaps most of their traffic.
Without EFR, modal shift to rail of such traffic would inevitably
be constrained by lack of track capacity.
21. These considerations have arisen because
the supermarkets and other retailers wish to improve their green
footprint and have been prompted partly by government request.
The Department for Transport's own figures point out that CO2
emissions per ton mile for road freight are up to 12 times higher
than that for rail freight. Transferring millions of units of
road freight on to rail will therefore make a very large contribution
to reducing CO2 emissions.
CONTINENTAL RAIL
FREIGHT DEVELOPMENT
22. A large scale rail freight network is
being developed on the Continent of Europe with enormous investments
already under way. Among other things, two tunnels some 35 miles
long in each case and dedicated to freight traffic are being built
through the Alps from Switzerland to Italy and through the Brenner
Pass in Austria. The 100 mile freight dedicated Beteuweroute in
Holland has recently been built linking Rotterdam with the Ruhr
with tunnels built to accommodate double stacked containers in
the future.
23. These developments have been driven
in part by the NEW OPERA initiative and the Trans-European networks
concept. Lord Kinnock in his capacity as European Transport Commissioner
personally took the initiative in promoting the development of
a rail freight network across Europe and that is now moving on
apace.
24. Britain is geographically peripheral
to the continent of Europe and cannot afford to be left out of
these major Europe-wide rail developments. Britain's existing
rail network is incapable of taking the volumes of traffic required
and most of the UK network is in any case incapable of taking
full size container traffic and road trailers on trains. The Eurorail
Freight Route would provide a major and vital artery for Britain's
economy as well as making possible a step change modal shift of
freight from road to rail.
SAVINGS TO
THE TREASURY
AND THE
ECONOMY
25. There would be a number of indirect
financial and economic benefits deriving from the EFR scheme.
First of all, a significant shift of road traffic on to rail would
have a proportionate effect in reducing road damage caused by
lorries. It is the heavy axle weights of lorries which cause road
damage and thus the need for road repairs with coned-off motorways
and which in turn create congestion and associated costs. Both
congestion costs and motorway repair costs would therefore be
reduced. Heavy freight also has an impact on rail passenger routes,
so taking freight off the East Coast and West Coast Main lines
would among other things reduce rail maintenance and repair costs
on those routes.
26. The road haulage industry would also
benefit by guaranteeing delivery times on a dedicated and unrestricted
rail freight network between Britain and the Continent and within
Britain itself. Drivers' hours regulations would be less burdensome
because many lorry journeys would simply be between points of
origin and rail terminals and between rail terminals and final
destinations, relatively short distances. There is currently a
national shortage of road haulage drivers which the EFR would
help to alleviate. It has to be emphasised however that EFR would
provide a service to private hauliers and not be in competition
with them. It would make a reality of an integrated freight transport
industry.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
27. This is a brief sketch of the EFR proposals
and we would be very pleased to have an opportunity to make an
oral presentation to the committee. We have a relatively short
power point presentation which might be helpful. We are continuing
to discuss our scheme with the widest possible range of interests
and experts and have been greatly encouraged by general expressions
of support.
28. We believe that the EFR scheme would
make a major and vital contribution to Britain's transport infrastructure.
For a 400 mile long railway line at a cost around half that of
the West Coast Main Line modernisation, half that of CTRL and
a quarter of the expected costs of Crossrail, the EFR would represent
great value for money. We are confident that the EFR would pay
for itself without the need for ongoing subsidy.
29. We hope that our scheme for a Eurorail
Freight Route will be of interest to the Select Committee and
would be pleased to address any questions or comments members
may have.
Kelvin Hopkins MP
For and on behalf of: Andy Berry, Tim Brown, Ken
Russell
October 2007
71 Not printed. Back
| 
