12. COMBINED TRANSPORT OF GOODS (104352/98)
Letter from Lord Tordoff, Chairman of
the Committee, to Lord Whitty, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Thank you for your letter of 18 May[3]
and the supplementary Explanatory Memorandum (EM) on this proposal.
These were considered by Sub-Committee B at its meeting this morning.
The Committee found it useful to be brought
up to date in this way. However, we note that the proposal has
evolved since the original EM. Not least in the light of the Government's
continuing concerns, it seems likely that further changes will
be made before the matter requires formal decision—though
the prospects for progress are uncertain at present.
While noting the present position, the Committee
will want to consider this important topic in the light of an
authoritative text and further EM in the normal way. The scrutiny
reserve is therefore maintained.
In the meantime, the Committee would be grateful
for your comments on the report in Railwatch for July 1999
(page 4) about Railtrack's seeking to persuade the Government
to opt for a limited extension of the loading gauge, which would
seem to inhibit the greater transfer of freight from road to rail
which your letter of 18 May attached importance.
1 July 1999
Letter from Lord Whitty, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 1 July about the
proposed Council Directives on the Combined Transport of Goods.
You asked, in passing, about the article in Railwatch magazine
on Railtrack's proposal for improving the rail freight loading
gauge.
First, let me assure you that our commitment
to facilitating growth in rail freight has not wavered, and that
we expect Railtrack to comply with its licence obligation to invest
in enhancements to the rail freight infrastructure to satisfy
the reasonable requirements of the rail freight operators and
funders.
Railtrack's 1999 Network Management Statement
(NMS) contains proposals for a rail freight loading gauge upgrade,
to what it terms "W10", on a number of key routes across
the network. This gauge would allow for the carriage of 9 feet
6 inch high ISO containers and swapbodies. In addition, Railtrack
says that when altering structures it would seek to upgrade them
to the "W11w" piggyback gauge, "in anticipation
of the later development of a W11 gauge".
Railtrack has applied to the Department for
a freight grant to fund upgrading to W10 of two routes from the
Channel Tunnel to London. That application will be treated on
its merits, but we are currently awaiting further information
from Railtrack in support of its case. This upgrade is intended
to form part of a wider W10 network, to include:
— the London-Glasgow West Coast Main
Line route, which Railtrack will have upgraded this year without
grant;
— routes from the container ports of
Felixstowe and Southampton to the West Coast Main Line, for which
freight grant would also be sought.
I should add that we have commissioned consultants
to assess Railtrack's figures for the piggyback and W10 schemes.
The initial audit of the costs and benefits of the W10 and piggyback
cases show that the core (Channel Tunnel-Glasgow) W10 route provides
about 66 per cent of the environmental benefits of piggyback at
only 15 per cent of the cost.
The NMS has been the subject of consultation
by the Rail Regulator. That consultation ended on 8 June and it
is now for the Regulator to determine whether the freight proposals
contained in it meet the reasonable requirements of the rail freight
operators and funders. To assist him in making such a determination,
the Regulator sent a letter to Railtrack on 13 July in which he
sought answers to some 21 questions about the NMS' approach to
freight. These included six questions on the freight loading gauge
issue.
In the longer term we shall be looking to the
Strategic Rail Authority to promote rail freight. In the meantime,
the shadow SRA will be able to make a start on strategic planning
for rail freight growth.
4 August 1999
Letter from Lord Tordoff, Chairman of
the Committee, to Lord Whitty, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Thank you for your letter of 4 August in reply
to mine of 1 July 1999. This was considered by Sub-Committee B
at its meeting yesterday.
On the issue of gauge, the Committee would be
grateful for further information on the likely demand for traffic
to fit both W10 and W11 gauges on the various routes you identified,
and which are considered to be the priorities for upgrade.
We would also be glad to receive your explanation
of how the cost/benefit on the London to Glasgow route has been
calculated for both sizes of gauge upgrade since it would appear
that the demand for deep sea container traffic flow (requiring
only W10 gauge) on that route might be somewhat limited.
As noted in my letter of 1 July, the Committee
will want to consider this important topic in the light of an
authoritative text and further explanatory memorandum in the normal
way. This therefore continues to be under scrutiny reserve.
5 November 1999
Letter from Lord Whitty, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, to Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee
Thank you for your letter of 5 November about
the proposed Council Directives on the Combined Transport of Goods.
You asked for further information on the likely
demand for traffic to fit both W10 and W11 gauges for the various
sections of route considered to be priorities for upgrade. The
information we have available is contained in Railtrack's proposals
for the Channel Tunnel to Glasgow route as a whole. This proposal
does not break down demand between Glasgow and London and London
to the Channel Tunnel route sections. To date, Railtrack have
not submitted gauge enhancement proposals for the spurs to the
container ports of Felixstowe and Southampton. Therefore, we are
not able to compare forecasts of demand for deep sea container
and other traffic on the various sections of route as we would
like to. However, as I mentioned in my letter of 4 August we commissioned
consultants to assess Railtrack's proposals; I attach information
from their audit for traffic demand between the Channel Tunnel
and Glasgow for the W10 option (at Annex A) and the W11 option
(at Annex B).
As regards the calculation of the cost/benefit
the consultant's figures I quoted in my letter of 4 August referred
to the Channel Tunnel to Glasgow route as a whole. Railtrack has
not disaggregated the demand figures by route section so the cost/benefit
on the London to Glasgow section cannot be calculated separately.
However, the costs for the W10 and W11 options have been disaggregated
by route section, and by engineering, disruption to rail users,
and project management, design and supervision costs. Our consultants
summary of these costs are attached at Annex C.
1 December 1999
Annex A
W10 Option
"LIKELY" DEMAND FORECASTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR 9ft. 6in. GAUGE
| | 2000
| 2005 | 2010 |
2015 | 2020 | 2025
|
| INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS—9ft. 6in. GAUGE
| | | |
| | | |
| Volume with 9ft. 6in. Gauge (000T) |
| | |
| | | |
| Rail: Piggyback | | 226
| 763 | 1,058 | 1,358
| 1,635 | 1,848 |
| Rail: High Cube Units (C46-C63) |
| 208 | 327 | 528
| 822 | 1,166 | 1,574
|
| Rail: Standard Cube Units (less than C45) |
| 3,583 | 3,489 |
3,720 | 3,962 | 4,361
| 4,982 |
| LoLo: Container | | 5,651
| 6,949 | 8,421 | 10,183
| 12,278 | 14,763 |
| RoRo: Accompanied RGV | |
12,671 | 15,366 | 18,420
| 22,048 | 26,331 | 31,382
|
| RoRo: Unaccompanied RGV | |
19,937 | 23,644 | 28,267
| 33,848 | 40,562 | 48,656
|
| Total | | 42,276
| 50,538 | 60,414 | 72,220
| 86,334 | 103,205 |
| Rail market share with Gauge enhancement |
| 9.5% | 9.1% |
8.8% | 8.5% | 8.3%
| 8.1% |
| Rail market share without Gauge enhancement |
| 8.5% | 6.9% |
6.2% | 5.5% | 5.1%
| 4.8% |
| Market share with 9ft. 6 in. Gauge (%)
| | | |
| | | |
| Rail: Piggyback | 75% | 0.5%
| 1.5% | 1.8% | 1.9%
| 1.9% | 1.8% |
| Rail: High Cube Units (C46-C63) |
| 0.5% | 0.6% | 0.9%
| 1.1% | 1.4% | 1.5%
|
| Rail: Standard Cube Units (less than C45) |
| 8.5% | 6.9% |
6.2% | 5.5% | 5.1%
| 4.8% |
| LoLo: Container | | 13.4%
| 13.8% | 13.9% | 14.1%
| 14.2% | 14.3% |
| RoRo: Accompanied RGV | |
30.0% | 30.4% | 30.5%
| 30.5% | 30.5% | 30.4%
|
| RoRo: Unaccompanied RGV | |
47.2% | 46.8% | 46.8%
| 46.9% | 47.0% | 47.1%
|
| Intermodal rail breakdown (%) |
| | | |
| | |
| Piggyback | | 5.6%
| 16.7% | 19.9% | 22.1%
| 22.8% | 22.0% |
| High Cube Units (C46-C63) | |
5.2% | 7.1% | 9.9%
| 13.4% | 16.3% | 18.7%
|
| Standard Cube Units (less than C45) |
| 89.2% | 76.2% | 70.1%
| 64.5% | 60.9% | 59.3%
|
| Gauge related terminal volume (000T) |
| | |
| | | |
| Willesden | | 117
| 294 | 428 | 588
| 756 | 923 |
| Daventry | | 103
| 258 | 376 | 516
| 664 | 811 |
| Warrington | | 151
| 379 | 552 | 758
| 974 | 1,190 |
| Mossend | | 63
| 159 | 231 | 317
| 408 | 498 |
| Gauge related trains (total per day both ways)
| | | |
| | | |
| Willesden | 504 | 0.8
| 2.2 | 3.2 | 4.4
| 5.7 | 7.0 |
| Daventry | 504 | 0.7
| 1.9 | 2.8 | 3.9
| 5.0 | 6.1 |
| Warrington | 504 | 1.1
| 2.8 | 4.2 | 5.7
| 7.4 | 9.0 |
| Mossend | 504 | 0.4
| 1.2 | 1.7 | 2.4
| 3.1 | 3.7 |
| Total Gauge Related Trains |
| 3.0 | 8.1 | 11.9
| 16.4 | 21.2 | 25.8
|
| Do Nothing Trains | 504 | 27.3
| 26.6 | 28.3 | 30.2
| 33.2 | 38.0 |
| Total Trains | | 30.3
| 34.7 | 40.2 | 46.6
| 54.4 | 63.8 |
| DOMESTIC TRAFFIC FORECASTS |
| | | |
| | |
| Volume with 9ft. 6in. Gauge (000T) |
| | |
| | | |
| London & SE <> Scotland Unitised |
| | |
| | | |
| Road Haulage | | 1,734
| 1,915 | 2,100 | 2,302
| 2,516 | 2,747 |
| Intermodal | | 399
| 440 | 500 | 569
| 653 | 752 |
| Total | | 2,133
| 2,355 | 2,600 | 2,871
| 3,169 | 3,499 |
| Rail market share (option) |
| 18.7% | 18.7% | 19.2%
| 19.8% | 20.6% | 21.5%
|
| Rail market share (base) | |
16.7% | 14.2% | 13.5%
| 12.8% | 12.5% | 12.7%
|
| Gauge related trains (total per day both ways)
| | | |
| | | |
| Gauge related Trains | 504 |
0.3 | 0.7 | 1.1 |
1.5 | 1.9 | 2.3 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS—9ft. 6in. GAUGE
| | | |
| | | |
| Net motorway miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 18,578 | 26,954
| 36,952 | 47,383 | 57,747
|
| Net urban miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 286 | 416
| 571 | 733 | 895
|
| Net rural miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 87 | 126 |
172 | 221 | 269 |
| Net total miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 18,950 | 27,495
| 37,695 | 48,337 | 58,910
|
| Value of net environmental savings (£000s)
| | 0 | 4,231 |
6,140 | 8,419 | 10,797
| 13,160 |
| Disounted net environmental savings (£000s)
| | 0 | 2,983 |
3,234 | 3,314 | 3,176
| 2,893 |
| Net Present Value of environmental savings (£000s)
| | Intn'l: | 57,915
| Dom'c: | 8,742
| Total: | 66,657
|
Annex B
W11 Option
"LIKELY" DEMAND FORECASTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT FOR "PIGGYBACK" GAUGE
| | 2000
| 2005 | 2010 |
2015 | 2020 | 2025
|
| INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS—PB GAUGE
| | | |
| | | |
| Volume with PB Gauge (000T) |
| | | |
| | |
| Rail: Piggyback | | 301
| 1,017 | 1,411 | 1,810
| 2,180 | 2,464 |
| Rail: High Cube Units (C46-C86) |
| 383 | 602 | 971
| 1,512 | 2,146 | 2,897
|
| Rail: Standard Cube Units (less than C45) |
| 3,583 | 3,489 |
3,720 | 3,962 | 4,361
| 4,982 |
| LoLo: Container | | 5,614
| 6,869 | 8,299 | 10,007
| 12,042 | 14,461 |
| RoRo: Accompanied RGV | |
12,588 | 15,189 | 18,154
| 21,666 | 25,824 | 30,740
|
| RoRo: Unaccompanied RGV | |
19,807 | 23,372 | 27,859
| 33,262 | 39,781 | 47,661
|
| Total | | 42,276
| 50,538 | 60,414 | 72,220
| 86,334 | 103,205 |
| Rail market share with Gauge enhancement |
| 10.1% | 10.1% |
10.1% | 10.1% | 10.1%
| 10.0% |
| Rail market share without Gauge enhancement |
| 8.5% | 6.9% |
6.2% | 5.5% | 5.1%
| 4.8% |
| Market share with PB Gauge (%) |
| | | |
| | |
| Rail: Piggyback | | 0.7%
| 2.0% | 2.3% | 2.5%
| 2.5% | 2.4% |
| Rail: High Cube Units (C46-C86) |
| 0.9% | 1.2% | 1.6%
| 2.1% | 2.5% | 2.8%
|
| Rail: Standard Cube Units (less than C45) |
| 8.5% | 6.9% |
6.2% | 5.5% | 5.1%
| 4.8% |
| LoLo: Container | | 13.3%
| 13.6% | 13.7% | 13.9%
| 13.9% | 14.0% |
| RoRo: Accompanied RGV | |
29.8% | 30.1% | 30.0%
| 30.0% | 29.9% | 29.8%
|
| RoRo: Unaccompanied RGV | |
46.9% | 46.2% | 46.1%
| 46.1% | 46.1% | 46.2%
|
| Intermodal rail breakdown (%) |
| | | |
| | |
| Piggyback | | 7.1%
| 19.9% | 23.1% | 24.8%
| 25.1% | 23.8% |
| High Cube Units (C46-C86) | |
9.0% | 11.8% | 15.9%
| 20.8% | 24.7% | 28.0%
|
| Standard Cube Units (less than C45) |
| 84.0% | 68.3% | 61.0%
| 54.4% | 50.2% | 48.2%
|
| Gauge related terminal volume (000T) |
| | |
| | | |
| Willesden | | 185
| 437 | 643 | 896
| 1,167 | 1,446 |
| Daventry | | 162
| 384 | 564 | 787
| 1,025 | 1,270 |
| Warrington | | 238
| 563 | 829 | 1,156
| 1,505 | 1,865 |
| Mossend | | 100
| 236 | 347 | 483
| 629 | 780 |
| Gauge related trains (total per day both ways)
| | | |
| | | |
| Willesden | 504 | 1.4
| 3.3 | 4.9 | 6.8
| 8.9 | 11.0 |
| Daventry | 504 | 1.2
| 2.9 | 4.3 | 6.0
| 7.8 | 9.6 |
| Warrington | 504 | 1.8
| 4.2 | 6.3 | 8.8
| 11.4 | 14.2 |
| Mossend | 504 | 0.7
| 1.7 | 2.6 | 3.6
| 4.8 | 5.9 |
| Total Gauge Related Trains |
| 5.1 | 12.1 | 18.1
| 25.2 | 32.9 | 40.7
|
| Do Nothing Trains | 504 | 27.3
| 26.6 | 28.3 | 30.2
| 33.2 | 38.0 |
| Total Trains | | 32.4
| 38.7 | 46.4 | 55.4
| 66.1 | 78.7 |
| DOMESTIC TRAFFIC FORECASTS |
| | | |
| | |
| Volume with PB Gauge (000T) |
| | | |
| | |
| London & SE <> Scotland Unitised |
| | |
| | | |
| Road Haulage | | 1,709
| 1,864 | 2,025 | 2,196
| 2,377 | 2,573 |
| Intermodal | | 424
| 491 | 575 | 675
| 792 | 926 |
| Total | | 2,133
| 2,355 | 2,600 | 2,871
| 3,169 | 3,499 |
| Rail market share (option) |
| 19.9% | 20.8% | 22.1%
| 23.5% | 25.0% | 26.5%
|
| Rail market share (base) | |
16.7% | 14.2% | 13.5%
| 12.8% | 12.5% | 12.7%
|
| Gauge related trains (total per day both ways)
| | | |
| | | |
| Gauge Related Trains | 504 |
0.5 | 1.1 | 1.7 |
2.3 | 3 | 3.6 |
| ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS—PB GAUGE |
| | | |
| | |
| Net motorway miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 27,597 | 40,482
| 56,331 | 73,172 | 90,454
|
| Net urban miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 425 | 624
| 870 | 1,132 | 1,401
|
| Net rural miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 129 | 189
| 262 | 341 | 421
|
| Net total miles saved (000s) |
| 0 | 28,150 | 41,295
| 57,463 | 74,645 | 92,277
|
| Value of net environmental savings (£000s)
| | 0 | 6,285 |
9,221 | 12,834 | 16,673
| 20,614 |
| Disounted net environmental savings (£000s)
| | 0 | 4,431 |
4,858 | 5,052 | 4,904
| 4,531 |
| Net Present Value of environmental savings (£000s)
| | Intn'l: | 83,310
| Dom'c: | 13,326
| Total: | 101,636
|
Annex C
Table 12.1
COMPARISON OF COSTS FOR GAUGE ENHANCEMENT SCHEMES
| Spot costs in £000s (Q1 1996 prices)
| Engineering | Disruption
| PM, Design, Supervision | Total
|
| Cost of providing 9ft. 6in. clearance
| | | |
|
| Dollands Moor—Clapham | 11,240
| 1,180 | 2,869 | 15,289
|
| Clapham—Hanslope Junction South | 60
| 0 | 15 | 75
|
| Hanslope—Rugby | 2,554
| 935 | 685 | 4,174
|
| Rugby—Stafford | 1,241
| 196 | 321 | 1,758
|
| Stafford—Coatbridge | 512
| 40 | 131 | 683
|
| Crewe—Trafford Park | 5,909
| 670 | 1,511 | 8,090
|
| Weaver—Seaforth | 866
| 153 | 224 | 1,243
|
| Total | 22,382
| 3,174 | 5,756
| 31,312 |
| Indicative 50% Risk | 24,640
| 3,494 | 6,337 | 34,471
|
| Indicative 80% Risk | 25,916
| 3,675 | 6,665 | 36,256
|
| Cost of providing Piggyback clearance
| | | |
|
| Dollands Moor—Clapham | 37,521
| 5,460 | 9,653 | 52,634
|
| Clapham—Hanslope Junction South | 25,908
| 29,400 | 7,947 | 63,255
|
| Hanslope—Rugby | 10,332
| 6,216 | 2,894 | 19,442
|
| Rugby—Stafford | 9,459
| 11,201 | 2,924 | 23,584
|
| Stafford—Coatbridge | 24,131
| 9,677 | 6,516 | 40,324
|
| Crewe—Trafford Park | 443
| 0 | 111 | 554
|
| Weaver—Seaforth | 4,115
| 2,243 | 1,141 | 7,499
|
| Total | 111,909
| 64,197 | 31,186
| 207,292 |
| Indicative 50% Risk | 123,100
| 70,617 | 34,305 | 228,021
|
| Indicative 80% Risk | 129,814
| 74,469 | 36,176 | 240,459
|
Letter from Lord Tordoff, Chairman of the Committee,
to Lord Whitty, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
Thank you for your letter of 1 December about the cost/benefit
analysis of various routes for both W10 and W11 gauges, which
was considered by Sub-Committee B at its meeting today.
I note that the figures which Railtrack have submitted do
not allow you to answer directly the questions raised in my letter
of 5 November but the annexes covering the calculations by your
consultants do give an illustrative guide to costs and benefits
of the two options.
But, as noted in earlier correspondence, the Sub-Committee
will wish to consider the proposed Council Directive when an authoritative
text and further Explanatory Memoranda are submitted. The scrutiny
reserve is lifted on this document.
12 January 2000
3
Printed in Correspondence with Ministers, 17th Report,
Session 1998-99, HL Paper 94, p 14. Back
|
