|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Network Rail Evaluating The Potential For Container Freight Route Via Melksham (Read 3463 times)
|
|
Lee
|
From the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan Update (Page 24 of the link below) : http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2008/Route%2013%20-%20Great%20Western%20Main%20Line.pdfTo meet the challenge of increased growth in freight from the Southampton ports to the Midlands, the north of England and Scotland, we shall be re-evaluating elements of the former SRA Southampton – West Coast freight upgrade – capacity study, which included W10 gauge provision and revised layout options for Reading West Junction, including grade separation, upgrading and linking existing freight loops and providing additional loops at or between Didcot and Oxford. We are also evaluating the potential for an alternative route via Salisbury and Melksham to accommodate forecast growth. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
From the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan Update (Page 24 of the link below) : http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2008/Route%2013%20-%20Great%20Western%20Main%20Line.pdfTo meet the challenge of increased growth in freight from the Southampton ports to the Midlands, the north of England and Scotland, we shall be re-evaluating elements of the former SRA Southampton – West Coast freight upgrade – capacity study, which included W10 gauge provision and revised layout options for Reading West Junction, including grade separation, upgrading and linking existing freight loops and providing additional loops at or between Didcot and Oxford. We are also evaluating the potential for an alternative route via Salisbury and Melksham to accommodate forecast growth. OK to a point / the network future needs to be evaluated, and routes / capacity used. And there's plenty of development scope alongside the singled section of the TransWilts for dual directio laybys / passing loops which could help provide a much more robust operation on both main lines that freight trains would be on, and allow for something approaching an appropriate TransWilts service too. My fear is of another "mad" report such as the SRA's SLC specification for the FGW TransWilts frachise which cut the practical and growing trauin service between the five largest towns in the county. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
Further quote from the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan Update (Page 11 of the link below.) http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2008/Route%204%20-%20Wessex%20Routes.pdfThe W10 gauge enhancement scheme on Route 3 between Southampton and the West Coast Main Line has now been granted Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) funding. This is likely to encourage growth in container traffic from Southampton, but if a suitable diversionary route is not provided then such growth could well be choked off given the increasing usage of 9’ 6” containers. Providing a W10 route via Laverstock (and thence via Andover or via Melksham) is therefore seen as crucial, not only to cater for freight growth, but also to ensure robust performance for all operators in the event that the main W10 route on Route 3 is blocked for any reason. Clearing the route via Melksham would avoid the need for trains to travel via Reading. In other words, even with the W10 gauge enhancement scheme in place on the main route between Southampton and the West Coast Main Line, Network Rail do not think that this will be enough to accomodate the forecast growth in container traffic from Southampton. They therefore propose to route some of this extra traffic over an alternative route, which would also act as a diversionary route for the main W10 cleared route. The route via Melksham is the front-runner, because clearing it would avoid the need for trains to travel via Reading. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Industry Insider
|
This could well work out in you campaigns favour, gentlemen. The W10 guage enhancement scheme is quite a 'biggie' so signalling and track enhancements will be considered on a much grander scale and could have far reaching impact upon the route through Melksham.
During the early stages of the WCML modernisation for example, the route between Banbury and Leamington Spa was totally re-signalled purely because, for a short time only, it acted as a strategic diversionary route for WCML passengers as Chiltern needed to step up their services.
The removal of the long Absolute Block sections between Banbury-Fenny Compton-Leamington boxes and their replacement with 4-aspect colour light signals has quartered headway's between trains, but would probably never had been funded on an 'individual scheme' basis.
Perhaps such improvements as part of this wider W10 scheme will lead to local improvements that would further enchance the prospects of developing the TransWilts service?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee
|
One would hope so. Alternatively, the slashing of passenger services on the Melksham line could be linked to a desire to turn it into a key freight route, as defined by the Future Of Transport White Paper : "Because of the high up-front investment costs for rail freight, businesses using these services need to be sure about their access to the network. But this has to be balanced with the fact that freight users only pay for the cost of operating their services and not for the costs of the underlying infrastructure. Freight operators will be given greater certainty about their rights on the national network, and a group of key routes will be identified on which freight will enjoy and pay for more assured rights of access."
We know that FGW and Network Rail have had discussions about potential lack of paths for passenger trains should the number of freight trains using the Melksham line increase. Similar discussions have taken place regarding the Melksham line becoming a key freight route. Of course, implementing an appropriate TransWilts passenger service from December 2008 would be a great way of allaying such fears (link below.) http://www.savethetrain.org.uk/pledge.htmlWhereas a gradual (or indeed not so gradual) increase in the number of well-wagon container trains using the Melksham line over the coming years, in preparation for possible full freight-only status, would have the opposite effect...... |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 06, 2008, 01:10:21 PM by Lee »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Industry Insider
|
Indeed, Lee - that is also a possibility. I think the next two or three years could be absolutely vital for the routes prospects - even if a more frequent service is introduced this December, it will need sustained impetus. Pull it off and it could well be Graham and yourself popping along to the Palace to pick up a little something for 'Services to Transport' - dare I suggest you'd be rather more deserving recipients than a certain Network Rail boss!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Ellis
|
Indeed, Lee - that is also a possibility.
I think the next two or three years could be absolutely vital for the routes prospects - even if a more frequent service is introduced this December, it will need sustained impetus.
Agreed - the target is regain AND RETAIN and that means keeping up the profile. I am *not* a campaigner by background or nature, so I have learned a lot as I go. But sometimes there's a case of opposites attract; in this case, on one side you learn to take the knocks and the setbacks (which have come almost exclusively from people who don't live in the area, or in a very few cases wouldn't be seen dead on a train) and on the other there's the overwhelming support from people talked to up and down the line, including some of the most unexpected sources. I for one won't be going away after the appropriate service is back, but I'll be far more geared to supporting it, and I suspect that in the expensive-fuel, greener world other will treasure it just as much in the aftershock of being without for 2 years! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
 |
