continuous modular strategic planning...2 document control document title continuous modular...
TRANSCRIPT
Continuous Modular
Strategic Planning
North of England
Freight Strategic Questions
12 November 2018
2
Document Control
Document Title Continuous Modular Strategic Planning – North of England - Freight
Version and date V1.0 12/11/2018
Author Richard Iggulden
Security Level Unrestricted
3
Contents
Foreword ........................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary .......................................................................... 7
Strategic Questions .............................................................................................. 7
Meeting the growing demand in rail freight ........................................................... 8
Recommendations ............................................................................................... 8
Introduction ....................................................................................... 9
An Investment Strategy to Support Growth .......................................................... 9
The Railways in the North of England ................................................................ 10
Demand and Growth .......................................................................................... 12
The Starting Point............................................................................................... 12
The Funding Environment .................................................................................. 13
New Ways of Attracting Funding and Generating Profit ..................................... 13
Defining a Strategy for Growth ........................................................................... 14
Developing the Study ..................................................................... 18
Process .............................................................................................................. 18
Freight Forecasts ............................................................................................... 19
Planning Approach ............................................................................................. 19
An evolution of the Long Term Planning Process .............................................. 20
Strategic Freight Issues in the North of England ......................... 21
Efficient Freight Routing and Freight Capacity in Major Urban Centres ............. 21
Changes in Freight Market Sectors .................................................................... 24
Areas with potential for Rail-Freight growth ........................................................ 26
Geographical Route Sections ........................................................ 28
F.00 Introduction.................................................................................................. 28
Cumbria .............................................................................................................. 29
Lancashire .......................................................................................................... 31
Merseyside ......................................................................................................... 32
Greater Manchester ........................................................................................... 35
Derbyshire .......................................................................................................... 36
Cheshire ............................................................................................................. 41
Staffordshire ....................................................................................................... 44
4
Northumberland.................................................................................................. 45
Tyne & Wear ...................................................................................................... 46
County Durham .................................................................................................. 46
Tees Valley ........................................................................................................ 47
Yorkshire ............................................................................................................ 48
Nottinghamshire ................................................................................................. 50
North and North East Lincolnshire...................................................................... 51
Core West – East Freight Routes ....................................................................... 52
F.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes ............................................................................... 53
F.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle.......................................................................................... 54
F.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds ................................................................................... 55
F.15.4 Calder Valley Routes ........................................................................................ 56
F.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn ...................... 57
F.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley) ............................................................... 59
F.15.7 Skipton - Colne ................................................................................................. 60
East Coast Main Line (ECML) ............................................................................ 62
West Coast Main Line (WCML) .......................................................................... 64
Conclusion and Recommendations .............................................. 67
Conclusion and Recommendations .................................................................... 67
Future Freight Strategic Questions for the North of England .............................. 68
Consultation and Next Steps ......................................................... 69
How can you contribute ...................................................................................... 69
Privacy Statement .............................................................................................. 70
Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 70
Appendix A: Freight Forecasts by Route Section ..................................... 71
FF.01 Cumbria ............................................................................................................. 71
FF.02 Lancashire ......................................................................................................... 75
FF.03 Merseyside ........................................................................................................ 82
FF.04 Greater Manchester ........................................................................................... 88
FF.05 Derbyshire ....................................................................................................... 101
FF.06 Cheshire .......................................................................................................... 104
FF.07 Staffordshire .................................................................................................... 115
FF.08 Northumberland ............................................................................................... 117
5
FF.09 Tyne & Wear .................................................................................................... 121
FF.10 County Durham ................................................................................................ 126
FF.11 Tees Valley ...................................................................................................... 128
FF.12 Yorkshire .......................................................................................................... 136
FF.13 Nottingham shire .............................................................................................. 163
FF.14 North and North East Lincolnshire ................................................................... 165
FF.15 Core West-East Freight Routes ....................................................................... 169
FF.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes ............................................................................ 169
FF.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle ..................................................................................... 176
FF.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds Corridor ................................................................. 178
FF.15.4 Calder Valley Routes .................................................................................... 181
FF.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn ................. 185
FF.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley)........................................................... 191
FF.16 East Coast Main Line and GN/GE ................................................................... 193
FF.17 West Coast Main Line (WCML) ....................................................................... 202
Appendix B: Summary of Investment Choices ....................................... 206
Appendix C: Abbreviations & Glossary ................................................... 207
Appendix D: Reference Material ............................................................... 210
6
Foreword We’re pleased to present these Freight Strategic Questions and Rail-freight Investment Choices for
the railway in the North of England. The railways of the North of England are an asset that are vital
to the economy of the region and the UK as a whole, and investing in the growth of the railway is the
same as investing in that economy.
From small but effective changes to the current network, to larger-scale new developments, the
improvements to rail infrastructure for the benefit of rail-freight that are set out in this study are all
designed to facilitate both rail-freight and economic growth. We plan for the long term, and you’ll find
investment options in this document that can keep rail-freight growing in the North to the 2040s and
beyond. But in a world where public money is in short supply, we also need to be able to draw on a
range of different funding approaches, and target investment in the near term to set us on the right
path for longer term growth.
That’s why the options we’ve developed here are investment choices. We’ve worked with
colleagues from across the transport industry and also the wider infrastructure planning world – to
shape a range of railway improvements that support the growth of rail-freight that will benefit the
communities and economies of the North of England. These are choices designed to meet the
expected growth in rail-freight and promote economic growth. It’s a virtuous circle where the
ultimate beneficiary is the North of England and the UK as a whole. So we’d encourage all those
who want to see improvements in rail-freight in the North of England to review these choices and
find out more about the improvements that benefit them and the wider region.
7
Executive Summary
Strategic Questions
This report examines the following Strategic Question developed in collaboration with industry
stakeholders:
- What interventions are required in the North of England to meet the freight forecasts through
to 2050?
To assist in answering this question the following key points were studied:
- Efficient Freight Routing and Freight Capacity in Major Urban Centres
- Changes in Freight Market Sectors
- Areas currently potentially underserved by Rail-Freight
This report outlines railway investment choices to address the issues arising from growth in rail-
freight in the North of England and investments that could provide wider strategic network benefits.
This report primarily considers freight capacity within the North of England and the ability of the
existing network to accommodate future freight growth. It is recommended that future freight
strategic questions for the North of England consider in more detail how aspects of freight capability
can be developed over time. Key aspects of freight capability to consider could include:
• Development of the W12 network.
• Freight Train Length
• Freight Journey Times
• Freight Traction
The Study is a key element of the Continuous Modular Strategic Planning, (CMSP) approach
to support the rail industry’s Long Term Planning Process, (LTPP).
It sets out proposals and railway investment choices for the period up to 2050.
8
Meeting the growing demand in rail freight
There is significant freight growth forecast in the North of England, particularly in the Intermodal
Container and Construction sectors. On the vast majority of route sections where growth is forecast
to occur, this growth can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision, without the
need for any additional infrastructure. For the small number of route sections where freight growth
is beyond the current level of freight capacity provision, then infrastructure interventions are
identified that will enable the freight growth to be accommodated. For those route sections where
passenger services are forecast to increase and potentially test the available capacity for both
passenger and freight services, such route sections will be examined in detail by geographic area
strategic questions such as those taking place for Sheffield and Manchester.
Recommendations
The Working Group for the North of England Freight Strategic Question have endorsed the following infrastructure enhancements choices to accommodate rail-freight growth in the North of England, they are categorised as follows:
9
Introduction
Long Term Planning Process develops evidenced answers to questions facing the railway.
How to provide additional services on a network that is already busy?
Assumed that HS2 will release capacity on the WCML and ECML for rail-freight services.
Railway infrastructure in the North of England is going to need to respond to the demands of
growth particularly from the Intermodal Container and Construction Aggregates sectors.
An Investment Strategy to Support Growth
This document provides investment choices for funders for infrastructure that can support the
growth of rail-freight services in the North of England. Its starting point is an understanding that
growth in the provision of railway transport is closely linked to economic growth. Railways move
large volumes of goods safely, quickly and efficiently; enabling businesses to connect and grow.
Together, these activities help form the economic engine that powers the UK economy, and
investing in rail-freight to promote growth forms an opportunity that an increasingly wide range of
businesses and organisations show an interest in taking.
This document is strategic in that it looks at the railway in the North of England as it is now, yet also
considers the capacity challenges and opportunities that are likely to occur in the period up to 2050.
The aim of doing this is to understand how the railway needs to adapt and be improved in the near
future, and to do so in such a way that long term growth is encouraged. The railway is a complex
system with infrastructure that lasts for many decades, and we need to be sure that the changes we
make now will be relevant over the lifetime of the trains, track and technology that support it.
To further these goals, Network Rail has developed a Long Term Planning Process (LTPP),1 which
is faciliated through the Continous Modular Strategic Planning (CMSP) process. This allows us to
consult colleagues in the rail industry and those who would like to promote the benefits of
investment in rail transport, and to develop evidenced answers to some of the questions that will be
asked of the railway over coming years. And now we are seeking wider public feedback on this
strategy: public consultation will be open through to 7th March 2019.2
1 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/
2 Link to consultation landing page. This is a public document designed to be read by a
wide range of people. In producing it, efforts have been made to use plain English, even
when describing technical railway issues.
10
The breadth of this engagement aims to capture the widest range of voices with an interest in
developing rail-freight services in the North of England. In the following pages, you’ll find a summary
of the challenges that the railway infrastructure in the North of England faces now and in the future,
in providing the required capacity for the future growth in rail-freight services.
These will form investment choices: choices offered to a range of funders and investors, choices
that are grounded in an understanding of how the railway works now and in future – and of how the
users of rail-freight want it to support their businesses and economies.
The Railways in the North of England
The geographic scope of the North of England Freight Strategic Question has been developed
working with stakeholders across the industry to form the remit shown in Figure 1 It represents a
network that supports freight end users, and which contributes to a large part of the UK economy.
Where there are ‘boundaries’ – with Scotland or the Midlands – these are conceptual not physical.
In looking at demand and the needs of the freight end users, analysis takes account of the whole
journey that rail-freight services make. In this way, the investment focus remains on services, and
remains fully aligned to analysis in neighbouring areas. This alignment is managed nationally
through the LTPP; rail studies that cover adjacent routes in Scotland and England can be found on
the Network Rail website.3 This includes both the WCML, ECML & Merseyside, which are covered
by their own separate route studies.
3 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/
11
Figure 1 – North of England Route Study Area
An important consideration in understanding the nature of the railway in the North of England is the
diversity of train services that it supports. High speed passenger trains that travel at speed of up to
125mph, share the infrastructure with rail-freight services that carry millions of tonnes of goods and
commodities to and from ports and terminals across the national network; urban and inter-urban
passenger services also use the same network to transport millions of passengers into Liverpool,
Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and Newcastle and the other urban centres across the route.
Direct cross-country trains use the route to link destinations in southern and southwest England and
the midlands with Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland.
In the diversity of services using the infrastructure lie some of the key challenges the railway faces
in terms of growth:
• Line capacity – the number of trains per hour that can fit on a section of route – is ultimately
limited by signalling technology, but gradient and curvature can also be key factors.
• The interaction of trains - faster trains catch up slower ones and can only pass where
additional tracks are available.
• The stopping patterns of some passenger trains mean that the space needed for others to
run can be limited.
• Where the paths of trains cross, space on the network is taken up to make sure that safe
margins are kept at intersections.
12
The result of these limitations is that the choice of changes that customers want to see in rail
transport can be affected: opportunities for new passenger and freight services can be limited, as is
flexibility in specifying new timetables. These are the challenges that have to be addressed when
considering how to provide additional services on a network that is already busy. Where the aim is
to meet demand in existing services by lengthening rail-freight services, the challenge can also be
physical – will longer services fit between signals or in sidings or terminals?
The enhancement choices presented later in the document will be focussed on how existing
infrastructure can best be used, and also ways in which it could be upgraded to accommodate
demand and promote growth.
Demand and Growth
As a whole, the North of England typically accommodates 200 freight trains per day. To understand
what changes may be required of the railway, economic analysis has been carried out as part of the
planning process. This allows demand to be forecast: demand for increased use of existing rail-
freight services; and demand for new rail-freight services that increase opportunities to move goods
between places (better connectivity).
Both types of demand effect economic growth: if there aren’t enough competitive freight paths to
meet demand, the economy will be slowed; equally, providing better rail-freight connectivity will
unlock opportunities to drive further growth. So the two investment themes that are addressed in
this document are firstly to prevent rail travel restricting growth, and also to promote opportunities to
allow rail to facilitate economic growth.
Increases in existing demand present a challenge to the industry that can either be met by providing
more wagons (usually this means longer trains), or by providing an increased frequency of service –
more trains. Promoting growth through better connectivity requires rail-freight services between
new destinations.
The Starting Point
When creating demand forecasts and modelling the proposed changes to railway services and
infrastructure, it is necessary to have a ‘baseline’ against which comparisons can be made. To do
this, assumptions need to be made as to the existing level of freight services on the network of the
North of England.
Some assumptions also have to be made about what the longer term future holds for the railway.
Plans to deliver High Speed 2, (HS2), are already in an advanced state, and in developing this
strategy it is assumed that HS2 will release capacity on the WCML, (south of Wigan), and ECML,
(south of York), for rail-freight and other services. HS2 provides a once in a generation opportunity
to see a step-change in the provision of rail; it’s an opportunity that rail-freight services and
infrastructure will need to respond to in the coming years.
13
The Funding Environment
Historically, railway infrastructure improvements in the UK have been funded centrally, via national
governments and Network Rail raising capital against its asset base. Where external, ‘third party’
investment has occurred, it has typically been for smaller-scale improvements.
Recent rail industry developments have seen a shift in that model in March 2018 the Department for
Transport released the ‘Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline: A New Approach for Rail
Enhancements’ moving away from set 5 yearly Control Periods to a case by case assessment of
enhancment schemes and a staged approach to their progression with a number of decision points
before any final decision to deliver. At the same time, devolution of decisions and spending with the
creation of Combined Authorities and Sub-National Transport Bodes and other organisations with a
wider brief such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) have changed the way the rail industry
operates. These groups are able to define the railway needs in their area, and apply for
government funding – or attract or provide third party investment – to meet those needs.
Overall, this means that improvements in rail infrastructure should not be seen as an automatic
pipeline of upgrades awaiting delivery; rather, they are choices that may or may not be taken
forward depending on whether they deliver the benefits for rail users, provide a value for money
investment, and are affordable. To respond to such a funding environment, this document seeks to
emphasise that rail improvements are choices, and to present a range of strategically-aligned
choices to a broad range of funders and investors.
New Ways of Attracting Funding and Generating Profit
Network Rail and the wider industry have recognised the need to respond to the challenges of
demonstrating affordability and efficiency for railway enhancements. The recent report by Professor
Peter Hansford provides strategic direction in this area.4
Where faster journey times or new rail-freight journey opportunities and the opening of new markets
are made possible, increased profits becomes possible. This will, and always has, aided the
affordability of schemes, as a funder can recover much of the increased revenue. However, in many
cases this will not be sufficient to give a funder an adequate financial return on the full investment.
In these cases, the challenge becomes one of identifying what additional benefits are made possible
by investment, and then finding ways for investors to see a return on their outlay. (Many funders
may not seek a direct financial return as these other benefits may justify their investment.)
These benefits would accrue to a range of organisations:
• existing rail-freight operating companies and their shareholders;
• national governments;
• businesses in towns and cities served by the rail-freight services;
• developers wishing to build and sell property that benefits from rail-freight links;
• planning authorities who will see their regional economies and rates revenue grow.
4 https://thehansfordreview.co.uk/
14
• owners of land and property (individuals and businesses) who see an increase in the value
of their land and property as a result of the rail investment.
Realising a return on rail investment across such a broad range of stakeholders is not
straightforward, and innovative ways of benefits sharing and financing need to be explored.
Network Rail, on behalf of the rail industry, encourages further debate in this area, and to find ways
to make innovative investment models a reality.
Defining a Strategy for Growth
One of the aims of this document is to provide a strategic view of the direction that the provision of
infrastructure for rail-freight in the North of England should take. In identifying the strategy, the rail
industry Long Term Planning Process has been used to consult a wide range of stakeholders. In
this way, the needs of freight end users and their advocates – the rail-freight operating companies –
have come to the fore. These needs have then been looked at in terms of the current and future
freight-transport environment, and operational railway and asset management strategies.
The result shows that the railway infrastructure in the North of England, is going to need to respond
to the demands of growth particularly from the Intermodal Container and Construction Aggregates
sectors. It will do so against a background of rapid developments in transport technology, pressing
environmental concerns, and competing claims for funding resources. This picture contains both
challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed by a strategy that can be used to inform
investment choices that meet and promote demand, and to shape how the two Network Rail routes,
London North East and East Midlands (LNE & EM) & London North Western, (LNW) includes those
aspirations as part of its business model.
Overall, the strategy for the growth of rail-freight in the North of England can be captured in eight
steps:
1. Evaluate demand and define options to meet it
2. Respond to a full range of customer and funder needs
3. Invest in a safe and resilient railway
4. Consider affordability; define improvements in steps
5. Apply digital technologies including train control
6. Remove bottlenecks and the constraints of mixed traffic
7. Enable higher more uniform speeds
8. Broaden funding opportunities
1. Evaluate demand and define options to meet it
A key purpose of the strategy is to define options that respond to short and longer term increases in
demand. Looking ahead to the period up to 2050 and defining how demand for rail-freight services
is likely to grow will enable an understanding of where and when extra capacity is required. Once an
understanding of additional capacity has been formed, ways to meet demand will be identified. Such
longer term forecasting guides a more strategic understanding of how the railway needs to change,
and how near-term changes can be integrated into a longer-term vision.
15
2. Respond to a full range of funder and customer needs
The aim here is to acknowledge that the range of organisations interested in investing in rail
transport schemes has broadened, and will grow further. Commercial organisations may look to rail
to provide direct financial returns, or to unlock the benefits of improved business to business links;
local authorities will want to use rail transport to driver wider economic benefits for whole
communities. That means that rail investment strategies will need to canvas a range of stakeholders
and understand the outputs that they require: To meet such requirements, a range of strategically
viable solutions need to be developed and offered as choices.
3. Invest in a Safe and Resilient Railway
The strategy will seek to put in place safer, more resilient systems: that means designing
infrastructure that poses less risk to those who use it or repair it; it means designing systems better
able to withstand environmental conditions and physical wear, and also managing recovery from
asset failures better with less impact on rail-freight services. Resilience is closely associated with
the performance of the railway: reliability allows punctuality. It is the strategic ‘lever’ best able to
influence day-to-day performance.
Resilience and safety can be difficult ideas to capture in terms of rail enhancements. The railway is
a safe system because it is already designed and operated to strict standards and processes. And
changes to the railway system have to conform to these rules. But, by being explicit about
promoting improved safety when specifying changes and upgrades, it is possible to go beyond
mandatory specifications and drive improvements in what is already a very safe way to travel, where
this is value for money. So, as part of this strategic theme, specifying and designing enhancements
with safety in mind will be promoted.
Resilience and safety are intrinsically linked. Resilience means that the railway system should be
resistant to the things that cause disruption to the service it provides: for example, extreme weather
conditions or trespass onto railway lines. It also encapsulates the ability of the rail system to recover
when things do go wrong. Preventing loss of service and recovering from it better are rail
performance areas that offer enormous opportunities in terms of improving freight end-user
experience and realising financial benefits.
Driving improvements in resilience is expected to drive reductions in safety risk because, the less
remedial activity that has to take place, the safer passengers, rail workers and members of the
public will be. When specifying enhancements to the railway, building-in resilience, and designing-
for resilience will be key considerations.
4. Consider affordability: define enhancements in terms of incremental steps
Affordability is a factor that the study must also address. The railway must compete for scarce
funding and resources. To address these issues, this study seeks to promote an incremental
approach to enhancements.
16
In presenting investment choices, there is a danger that a perception emerges that only long term,
high impact railway enhancements are desirable. The aim of this theme is firstly to show where
lower cost choices exist, and secondly to illustrate how long term service aspirations might be
delivered through a series of individual affordable steps, with each stage contributing incremental
benefits while still contributing to an overall strategic set of outputs that can drive real economic
change.
5. Apply digital technologies including train control
Bringing new digital technology to bear on the issues that limit growth is a pillar that supports this
study. New approaches to train control offer ways to increase line capacity on existing track layouts.
By linking to new approaches to traffic management, this also has the potential to make the
timetable more reliable by providing smart ways to avoid and recover from disruption, and to
improve safety through enhanced train protection. Digital technology should allow us to optimise the
need for conventional civil engineering. Significant opportunities exist to integrate operations with
rail-freight operating companies in order to manage locomotives, wagons and traincrew, and to
improve end freight-user experience – especially through improved information flows; these
opportunities should be pursued alongside train control. There are additional costs for rail-freight in
terms of the fitment of locomotives and driver training.
6. Remove bottlenecks and the constraints of mixed traffic
Where infrastructure improvements are an option, consideration will be given to the root causes of
capacity limitations – for instance how fast and slower services can run on the same route without
getting in each other’s way. Intelligent timetabling, to use existing capacity more cleverly, should
also be employed.
For the railways in the North of England this theme is frequently a key concern when attempting to
manage demand and promote growth. Railway upgrades should seek to address this issue.
7. Enable higher more uniform speeds
One of the main selling points of rail over other modes is speed: journey time improvements are a
key way in which economic benefits can be realised. While rail freight is slower than passenger
services, rail-freight’s maximum speed of 75mph is faster than the maximum speed that lorries can
travel on the road and motorway network. Speeding up rail-freight services can improve overall rail
capacity if it narrows the differential with passenger services, particularly where it enables rail-freight
services to maintain a path amongst stopping or semi-fast passenger services. This should include
fewer looping options for freight services, so that overall velocity can increase.
8. Broaden funding opportunities
17
The ability to deliver enhancements flexibly, in steps, should also be matched by a broader, more
flexible approach to funding and financing railway enhancements.
• More of the beneficiaries of rail improvements should be encouraged to invest: for example rail-freight terminal developers, ports and aggregate companies.
• Opportunities to employ pooled and shared funding models should be sought.
• Rail-freight improvements should be aligned with local planning strategic priorities and funding.
• Innovative ways of financing and leveraging the returns made possible by rail-freight should be explored.
Broadening funding is a strategic theme that goes hand-in-hand with responding to a greater range
of potential investors. Opportunities need to be presented in such a way that potential investors can
understand a clear route to benefits; and more, innovative ways of bringing investment into the
railway need to be considered.
18
Developing the Study
Developed through collaboration between the rail industry, funders and stakeholders.
The report utilises Network Rail’s freight forecasts from the Freight Market Study, (2013), and
Freight Network Study (2017), which identifies rail freight demand for 2023, 2033 and 2043. It
also uses Transport for the North’s, (2017) forecast for 2050.
Process
The process that has been followed in generating the required information for this report is as
follows:
• In early 2017 a group of stakeholders were invited by Network Rail to attend a series of workshops in order to generate strategic questions for consideration as part of the North of England Strategic Questions.
• A number of the strategic questions related to Freight. It was therefore decided that Freight would be considered as part of the first tranche of North of England Strategic Questions work (Phase 1).
• The principal strategic question for Freight is, “How could key freight movements be delivered which accommodates both passenger and freight requirements in a Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review growth scenario over 2026, 2033, 2043 and 2050?”
• Stakeholders were chosen to represent the railway industry, funders and other interested parties. Stakeholders are represented on the North of England Strategic Questions Governance and Steering Groups, have assisted in generating and prioritising strategic questions, and will remain involved in the Freight work by their inclusion in the Working Group.
• The Working Group is composed of the following organisations: - Department for Transport
- Freightliner
- GB Railfreight
- Liverpool City Region
- Network Rail
- Transport for the North
• The first meeting of the Working Group was held in Manchester in April 2017 and subsequent meetings have been held during 2017 and 2018.
19
Freight Forecasts
This report utilises Network Rail’s Central Case freight forecasts from the Freight Market Study,
(2013), and Freight Network Study (2017), which identifies rail freight demand for 2023, 2033 and
2043. Network Rail refreshes these forecast on a regular basis, with the next update to them due in
2019. Further validation of rail-freight demand results from a comparison with Transport for the
North’s demand forecasting for rail freight, that looks ahead through to 2050. It should be noted that
forecasts do have an element of uncertainty as to their future accuracy and the further ahead a
forecast is made, then the greater the uncertainty. Recognising this uncertainty, the results of the
economic analysis of the infrastructure enhancements choices presented in Part F include the
impact on the economic case of a much lower level of benefits.
Planning Approach
The LTPP is designed to facilitate the strategic planning of the rail network.
It takes into account the views of local stakeholders and incorporates their views on how rail
can drive economic growth into the future.
It gives passenger and freight operators the confidence they need to take their own strategic
decisions in future planning of their services.
Is a Network Rail Licence Condition to effectively plan the future of the network.
The purpose of the LTPP is to inform funders as to how the railway can support the UK economy
into the future.
Network Rail, on behalf of the industry, leads the planning of the network over the long term. This
planning informs a number of purposes and customers including to:
• plan for committed and proposed changes to the network / system and the services that operate
on it in a holistic way and identify system impacts of individual decisions with programmes in
some cases (HS2, Crossrail 2) stretching decades into the future;
• inform Network Rail’s asset management plans on the future requirements of the network and to
inform infrastructure renewals investment decisions on assets with very long lives;
• inform decisions on the allocation of current capacity and the use of future capacity across the
network / system;
• inform funders (governments and third parties) and franchising authorities of the choices that
they may wish to make in terms of investment in the network and the services that run on it; and
• enable others, particularly train operators, to plan their business with a reasonable degree of
certainty.
20
An evolution of the Long Term Planning Process
The North of England – Freight Strategic Questions is being developed through the Continuous
Modular Strategic Planning, (CMSP) approach. CMSP is Network Rail’s response to the Shaw
Review (2016) recommendation noting the requirement to better plan the railway based on
customer, passenger and freight needs.
In order to meet the various funder, service specifier and wider stakeholder needs, the CMSP
process is allowing the industry to become more dynamic and its products more easily accessible.
The North of England Route Study – Freight Strategic Questions is one of a number of Studies that
are being developed as part of the CMSP of the national rail network with a view to informing the
planning process for CP6 and beyond.
This Study builds upon the Market Studies completed in the first phase of the LTPP. These covered
the:
• Freight markets.
• Long distance passenger markets; and
• Regional urban passenger markets;
The Market Studies identified strategic goals, built up demand forecasts and developed conditional
outputs for future rail services across the country. These Market Studies can be found on the
following Network Rail website.
Ultimately, the CMSP approach to the LTPP enables Network Rail to plan the future of the network,
in accordance with its Licence Conditions in a way that will deliver:
• A safe railway for passengers and for the people who work on the railway;
• A reliable timetable; and
• Adapting to technology that provides good value for money for current and future users and for
funders.
21
Strategic Freight Issues in
the North of England
Efficient Freight Routing and Freight Capacity in Major Urban
Centres
Efficient Freight Routing is a key issue in the North of England.
Important changes in market sectors such as Coal, Biomass, Intermodal Containers and
Construction.
Are any areas in the North of England currently underserved by rail-freight?
The efficient routing of freight services in the North of England has been brought into sharp focus in
recent years following the introduction of Biomass services between the Port of Liverpool and Drax
Power Station. Paths via the most direct routes are generally unavailable. The most direct route is
via Manchester Piccadilly and Huddersfield, but paths are generally unavailable in daytime hours
due to the need to cross all lines that run in/out of Manchester Piccadilly Station and find paths on
the busy Trans-Pennine route via Huddersfield, where gradients slow the heavier freight trains on
the route. The other direct route is via Manchester Victoria, but the steep gradient at Miles Platting
prevents loaded Biomass services from using this route, which impacts upon the economic viability
of the services.
As a result the majority of loaded Biomass services have to take an elongated route via Northwich,
Stockport and Rochdale, which adds significant mileage and journey time to the services. Such
additional mileage and journey time impacts upon the economic viability of existing and potential
freight services and can be a significant constraint to future freight growth.
The most efficient freight routing occurs when freight services take the most direct route and they
are not held to wait at junctions or in loop lines, for the passage of other passenger or freight trains,
before continuing with their onward path. Segregation of passenger and freight flows is usually the
most effective means of enabling efficient freight routing, however this is not always possible at key
junctions or in major urban centres. The concentration of passenger services at busy city centre
stations is probably the biggest barrier to efficient freight routing. The railways in the North of
England have developed to some degree over time to, in many instances, route freight services
away from, or around, major busy city centre stations, many of which are considered below.
22
Liverpool
Liverpool Lime Street is a terminus station, but Edge Hill is the point where lines and train services
converge on the approach to Liverpool. The main freight route from the Port of Liverpool is to/from
Huyton, which provides a route towards the WCML and trans-pennine routes. However, some
freight paths are needed through Edge Hill towards Runcorn, particularly when the route via Huyton
isn’t available, such as when engineering work is taking place on that route.
Manchester
Manchester did have rail routes that avoided the main city centre stations, but these were closed in
the 1970s and 1980s and the alignment of all routes has subsequently been significantly built upon.
To the north of Manchester, there was a route linking Wigan – Bolton – Bury – Rochdale, that
conveyed Trans-Pennine freight and therefore avoided Manchester. Key sections of this route
closed in 1970.
To the South of Manchester, there were two routes that enabled freight traffic to avoid the city
centre stations in Manchester. One route was from Trafford Park to Guide Bridge and another was
from Warrington to Stockport and then connected, to the east of Manchester, into the Woodhead
Route to South Yorkshire. Both of these routes closed in the 1980s and significant sections have
subsequently been built upon.
There is regular freight traffic through both Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria stations.
Intermodal traffic to/from Trafford Park is routed via Manchester Piccadilly, but the volume of
passenger traffic significantly restricts freight path flexibility. Various bulk freight traffic such as coal
and construction aggregates have been routed via Manchester Victoria over the years and while it
continues to be a key route for freight traffic, the volume of passenger traffic significantly restricts
freight path flexibility. Additionally at Manchester Victoria, eastbound freight is heavily restricted in
terms of tonnage, due to the gradient on Miles Platting bank.
Crewe
Crewe is a key freight centre and has freight avoiding lines that keeps the main freight flows on the
WCML and on the line to/from Manchester, away from Crewe station and the various busy junctions
in the station area. Crewe will be a major Hub Station for HS2, so it will be important in the future
that the freight avoiding lines continue to be an efficient route for handling the ever-growing volumes
of freight traffic on the WCML. The freight avoiding lines are relatively low-speed at present, with
line speeds of 10mph and 15mph. Plans to increase these line speeds are being considered in
parallel with the plans to remodel the railway layout at Crewe to cater for HS2 services.
23
Newcastle
There is only one route through Newcastle and across the River Tyne, so all freight traffic on the
ECML passes through Newcastle Station. There is currently demand for one freight path per hour
in each direction through Newcastle, so integrating passenger and freight services, isn’t as complex
as it could be, however, there are only two lines through the station that are cleared for W10/W12
gauge traffic, which presents a real constraint to timetabling these high-gauge services.. A further
key consideration going forward will be the frequency with which freight services to/from Scotland
via the WCML need to be re-routed via the ECML and Newcastle Station, when the WCML is
unavailable due to engineering works, or other factors.
Middlesbrough
Teesside has for many years been a major centre of rail-freight activity, so while there is only one
route from Redcar via Middlesbrough towards Thornaby, there has always been plenty of capacity
for freight traffic, as there are significant sections of four-track railway, including a two-track freight
only line that bypasses Middlesbrough Station. As both passenger and freight traffic grows in the
future, it is important that freight capacity in the Tees Valley is retained going forward.
York
York Station has a freight avoiding line to the west of the Station. However, a more efficient path
can often be found through York Station, for southbound freight services towards Doncaster, to
avoid the crossing them over the four-track layout on two occasions. As with Newcastle, there are
limited options for routing W10W12 gauge services through York Station.
Hull
Hull is a terminus station. There is only one route from Hull to the west and south and freight traffic
from the Port of Hull joins the route at Hessle Road Junction, (which is 2 miles from Hull station).
There is currently demand for one freight path per hour in each direction to and from the Port of
Hull.
Leeds
Trans-Pennine freight services can avoid Leeds Station by being routed via Healey Mills and
Wakefield Kirkgate, but North/South freight services operating on the Shipley/Woodlesford axis
have to cross all lines that enter/exit Leeds Station at Whitehall Junction, to the West of the Station.
Freight services to/from the freight terminals at Hunslet East have to pass through Leeds Station.
24
Doncaster
Doncaster is a key freight centre and has two freight avoiding lines catering for freight on the North-
East/South-West axis and also on the North-East/South axis. However the majority of freight traffic,
including that running North/South on the ECML has to pass through the station.
Sheffield
A good example of where freight and passenger services are segregated to avoid a city centre
station is Sheffield where North/South freight services are routed via Barrow Hill. This alternative
route has a similar mileage and freight journey times benefit from a reduced number of conflicts with
other train services. However, freight services to/from the Peak District and Yorkshire/the North
East have no alternative routing option and have to be routed via Sheffield Station.
Changes in Freight Market Sectors
Rail-freight is to some degree constantly changing in response to the industries it serves. However,
there have been significant changes over the last 30 years and especially in the last 5 years. Over
the last 30 years there has been a shift from a reliance upon bulk traffics such as Coal and Metals,
as a result of rationalisation of production sites and processes in many traditional heavy industries.
In parallel with this there has been a growth in Intermodal Container traffic, particularly from Deep
Sea Ports such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway to the major conurbations in the
North such as Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester.
Coal
The greatest changes have occurred in relation to the supply of coal to Power Stations. Rail has
always had a very high share of this market and therefore in the 1990s had to react to major
changes within the industry. Over previous decades, Power Stations had been supplied by local
coal mines, with the majority of such rail services being under 30 miles and predominantly on
freight-only and lightly used passenger routes. However, as increasing numbers of coal mines were
closed in areas such as Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and the North East, the Power
Generators needed to replace these volumes of coal, with coal imported through ports such as
Immingham, Hull, Redcar, Tyne, Liverpool and Hunterston, (Scotland). This significantly increased
the distance that coal services travelled on the rail network to reach the Power Stations. It also
increasingly brought coal services onto main line routes and were competing for paths at a time
when there was a renewed growth in passenger services on many main line routes.
Even greater structural change has occurred in the Power Generation industry over the last 5 years.
Carbon taxes were applied to coal used in power generation on 1st April 2015, which resulted in a
significant drop in coal-fired generation, with a corresponding reduction in the amount of coal
conveyed on the rail network. The UK Government also announced in 2015 that coal-fired
generation would cease by 2025, so coal volumes have continued to fall, so that in 2016/17 only
12m tonnes were conveyed on the rail network in comparison to 52m tonnes in 2013/14. The
decline in coal can create opportunities in terms of released capacity for new freight services:
25
Biomass
The decline in coal, has to a small degree been offset by the introduction of Biomass-fired
generation at the UK’s largest power station, Drax. Biomass is a more bulky material and has a
lower calorific content than coal, so more product, (and trains), are required to provide comparable
levels of electricity generation. Drax receives Biomass by rail from the Ports of Immingham, Hull,
Liverpool and Tyne. Lynemouth Power Station has recently been converted to Biomass-fired
generation and is served by rail from the Port of Tyne.
Intermodal Containers
Intermodal Container traffic has grown considerably, over the last 30 years and has received a
further stimulus to growth in the last 10 years. Increasing numbers of routes have been cleared to
W10 and W12 gauges, which has enabled 9 foot 6inch container boxes to be conveyed on standard
height wagons, transforming rail’s competitiveness in relation to road, in this sector. Intermodal
Container traffic is generally long haul, with most flows over 100 miles between origin and
destination. Intermodal Container traffic is also concentrated on main line routes where it competes
with passenger services for train paths. Growth in Intermodal Container traffic is forecast to
continue over the next 30 years and be the fastest growing sector for rail.
Construction
Construction traffic has been another sector of significant growth for rail over the last 10 years. The
supply of construction aggregates has historically been relatively localised, both from a road and rail
perspective. However, as smaller quarries have become exhausted, or economically unviable,
investment has been focussed on larger quarries which have rail connections, which has resulted in
rail increasing its market share and hauling produce over longer distances. The concentration of
larger quarries in the Mendips, (Somerset), Leicestershire and the Peak District are the main
centres of aggregates extraction. The reach of such locations to supply the UK’s construction
aggregates requirements by rail, is best demonstrated by the areas that the Peak District quarries
serve by rail:
• Greater Manchester
• Merseyside
• South Yorkshire
• West Yorkshire
• West Midlands
• London
• East Anglia
• South-East England
There are other rail served quarries in the North of England:
• Rylstone – near Skipton
• Arcow – near Horton-in-Ribblesdale
26
• Hardendale – in Cumbria with a connection to the WCML
• Shap – in Cumbria with a connection to the WCML.
These quarries currently provide constructiion aggregates trains to terminals in West Yorkshire,
East Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.
Construction traffic is due to continue to grow in the next 30 years, particularly as many quarries
have environmental restrictions requiring them to move additional volumes of material by rail. Over
the next 10-15 years there may be significant opportunities for rail-freight to move construction
materials to support the construction of the HS2 route. During HS2 Phase 1 and Phase 2a, this
could be from locations in the North of England to HS2 railheads in the South of England or the
Midlands. In Phase 2b, it could be to the HS2 railheads in the Midlands and the North of England.
The greatest growth in construction traffic in the North of England is forecast from the Peak District
quarries and this presents the main capacity challenge, in terms of integration with services on the
Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley) passenger route. This is described and discussed in further
detail in a subsequent section of this report.
Areas with potential for Rail-Freight growth
Intermodal Containers and Construction are forecast to be the major growth areas in rail freight in
the period up to 2050. Within the context of the North of England, it is important to assess how
each major conurbation has access to Intermodal and Construction Aggregates rail terminals. This
is so they can have an efficient means of transporting various commodities by container, particularly
consumer goods and components to be used by various manufacturers. An aggregates rail terminal
will assist in enabling cost effective access to supplies of aggregates for construction purposes, as
this can assist in keeping down construction costs and avoid fleets of HGVs having to use key trunk
roads to access urban/city centre locations for various construction projects.
Merseyside
Merseyside is very well served in terms of intermodal container terminals with facilities at the Port of
Liverpool and Garston. The Widnes 3MG Intermodal Container terminal in neighbouring Cheshire is
well located for access to/from Merseyside. An Aggregates terminal has also recently been opened
at Garston.
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester has both intermodal container and aggregates terminals within relative close
proximity to the City Centre. Trafford Park is an established intermodal facility and additional
intermodal container terminal capacity is proposed for Port Salford.
With the growth in warehousing facilities to the north of Manchester, in towns such as Oldham and
Rochdale on the M60/M62 corridor and an Intermodal Container facility in this area of Greater
Manchester would be beneficial in relieving HGV traffic on the motorway network.
27
Greater Manchester has a variety of aggregates terminals, including Ashburys, Pendleton, Bredbury
and Hope Street, (Salford).
Tyne & Wear
There is an intermodal container terminal at the Port of Tyne, (with W10 gauge clearance), although
there are no trains serving the terminal at present.
There have previously been proposals for intermodal container terminals at various locations in the
North East, that would serve Tyne and Wear and the wider hinterland. To date none of these have
come to fruition, but there may well be demand at some point in the future, for a third intermodal
terminal in the North East, to supplement the existing terminals at Teesport and Port of Tyne.
Tyne and Wear does not currently have a rail connected aggregates terminal.
Teesside
There are intermodal container terminals at Teesport and A.V. Dawson, (Middlesbrough).
Teesside does not currently have a rail connected aggregates terminal. There may well be demand
for one in the future, to supply construction materials as part of the ongoing re-generation of
Teesside.
West Yorkshire
Many of West Yorkshire’s freight terminals are in Leeds. There is an intermodal container terminal
and aggregates terminal at Stourton. There are also two aggregates terminals and a cement facility
at Hunslet. Whitehall Road Yard has also recently re-opened to handle spoil traffic.
As Leeds City Centre regenerates over the next few years to accommodate additional housing,
employment and High Speed 2, the location of these terminals will need to be reviewed.
There is also a further intermodal container terminal at Wakefield Europort.
East Yorkshire
The Port of Hull has an intermodal container terminal, but at present it is only multimodal within the
context of Sea/Road interchange. The terminal isn’t directly rail connected, but there are numerous
rail sidings within the port estate. Hull has an aggregates terminal at Dairycoates, which is just 2
miles from the city centre.
South Yorkshire
South Yorkshire is well served in terms of intermodal terminals. Doncaster has two, one at
Doncaster Europort and one that has opened in 2018 at the Rossington I-Port development. A new
intermodal container facility opened in Rotherham in 2015. There are aggregates terminals in
Sheffield, at Attercliffe and Tinsley.
28
Geographical Route Sections
F.00 Introduction
The next section of this report has been organised according to geographic sections of the North of
England. Various core West-East freight routes are considered as linear routes, rather than within a
County/Area, as they function as a defined linear freight route and on the Trans-Pennine routes
there can be an interaction between the different routes, with the ability to switch freight traffic
between the various routes. Each section will provide an overview of:
• The Rail-freight services: current services and sectors.
• Growth: medium and long term demand and the service outputs needed to meet it.
All numbers of freight trains refered to in this report relate to the number of trains in
one direction. There is therefore the same number of freight trains in the opposite
direction.
• Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth: description of how
additional freight capacity can be provided, where required and estimated Benefit
Cost Ratios based on central case growth forecasts.
Railway Sections Covered
1. Cumbria
2. Lancashire
3. Merseyside
4. Greater Manchester
5. Derbyshire
6. Cheshire
7. Staffordshire
8. Northumberland
9. Tyne & Wear
10. County Durham
11. Tees Valley
12. Yorkshire
13. Nottinghamshire
14. Lincolnshire
15. Core West-East Freight Routes
16. ECML and Great Northern/Great Eastern (GN/GE)
17. WCML
Please note that some railway lines may straddle two of the railway sections described above, but
have been included in just one for simplicity.
29
Cumbria
The main route is the Cumbrian Coast line that runs from Carlisle to Carnforth, via Workington,
Whitehaven and Barrow-in-Furness. There are also a number of short branch lines, such as the
Windermere branch.
The Rail-Freight Services
The branch lines in Cumbria currently have no rail-freight traffic on them at present, but the
Cumbrian Coast line is a key freight line as it provides a connection to the nuclear facilities in the
Sellafield area. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section
and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 1.
Growth
There is significant growth forecast on the Cumbrian Coast line, particularly in relation to the existing
level of rail-freight traffic. Two major new freight developments are anticipated on the route:
• A new nuclear power station at Moorside (by “NuGen”), to the north of Sellafield.
• A new coal mine at Pow Beck (West Cumbria Mining), with a north facing rail connection
between Whitehaven and St. Bees.
The current infrastructure has single track sections and signalling that significantly limits the number
of trains per hour that can be accommodated.
Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth
A recent capacity analysis study has identified the main constraints on the route that would need to
be eased to accommodate up to 15 additional freight services per day, (and additional passenger
services), that are forecast to operate by 2026:
• Replacement of Electronic Token Block (ETB) between Whitehaven and St Bees - a fully
signalled route is required that uses the principles of Track Circuit Block (TCB), this will enable
the Pow Beck railhead to be accessed without requiring a stop on the mainline and removes the
requirement for a ground frame into the West Cumbrian Mining sidings.
• A reduction in headway between Wigton and Maryport to a minimum of 12 minutes.
• A reduction in headway between Workington and Whitehaven to a minimum of 13 minutes.
• The extension of St Bees Loop to facilitate passing moves.
• The installation of a platform at Maryport in the direction towards Whitehaven. This removes the
conflict caused by the current layout when accessing the platform.
30
• A platform at Whitehaven in the direction towards Sellafield - in order to maximise the capacity
of single line sections, an additional platform is required at Whitehaven to allow more trains to
pass;
• Workington to Whitehaven Signalling - signalling which is capable of allowing the Parton to
Whitehaven section of double track to operate as a dynamic loop with headways of 9 minutes;
• Signalling on the single line between Whitehaven and St Bees – in order to be capable of
delivering 7 minute headways;
• Reduced Headways between Ulverston and Grange-over-Sands – required to reduce the
headway in this section to 10 minutes. This will allow passenger trains to run closer behind
freight along the whole of the Furness line, helping unlock capacity;
• Sellafield Trains Crossing at Drigg – necessary to eradicate current complex shunting moves.
• Infrastructure to allow parallel movements at Sellafield North - required to reduce the occupation
of single line sections.
• Extended signal box opening as shown in the table below.
Section of route 2018 opening hours 2026 opening hours
Dalton Jn. to Park South Jn. (freight) 06:00 - 20:24 05:00 - 21:15
Barrow-in-Furness to Millom 05:20 - 23:50 As 2018
Millom to Bootle 06:00 - 21:10 05:30 - 21:30
Bootle to Sellafield 06:00 - 21:35 05:30 - 21:30
Sellafield to Whitehaven 06:00 - 21:35 04:15 - 23:00
Whitehaven to Workington 05:30 - 00:10 05:15 - 01:00
Workington to Carlisle South Jn. 05:20 - 23:59 04:45 - 00:15
Network Rail are working with the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), DfT, TfN and a
consortium of stakeholders who have an interest in running additional passenger and freight
services on the Cumbrian Coast. Network Rail have developed the costs for the series of
infrastructure intervention choices that are identified above, to allow a strategic outline business
case to be prepared by Cumbria LEP to make the case for progressing the programme of
interventions. It is likely that a combination of public sector and third party investment would be
required to fund the infrastructure interventions.
31
Lancashire
Lancashire has a number of both through routes and branch lines. The through routes include:
• Carnforth – Settle
• Blackburn – Hellifield
• Blackburn – Bolton
There are a variety of branch lines, three of which currently have rail-freight services:
• Morecambe South Jn/Hest Bank Jn – Morecambe – Heysham
• Preston South Jn – Preston Docks
• Wigan Station Jn - Kirkby
The Rail-Freight Services
There is a wide variety of commodities being moved within the area. These include:
• Nuclear waste from Heysham Power Station.
• Petroleum and Bitumen to Preston Docks
• Cement from Clitheroe
• Domestic Waste from Knowsley Potter Group
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 2.
Growth
There is no significant rail-freight growth forecast on the route sections in Lancashire. There is
scope to accommodate rail-freight growth if it does occur in the future.
32
Merseyside
The railway infrastructure can be divided into three groups:
• The Merseyrail Third Rail Network which does not have any rail-freight traffic at present.
• A number of branch lines that do not have any rail-freight traffic at present.
• Routes that serve the Port of Liverpool and Garston Freightliner Terminal that are heavily
used by rail-freight traffic.
The Rail-Freight Services
The Port of Liverpool is a significant generator of rail-freight traffic with Biomass services to Drax
Power Station in Yorkshire and scrap metal services from a variety of locations around the country.
Other freight traffic in the area includes Intermodal Container services to/from Garston Freightliner
Terminal and automotive services from the Jaguar LandRover plant at Halewood.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 3.
Growth
Significant growth is forecast from the Port of Liverpool. The majority of this will be Intermodal
Container traffic as a result of traffic generated by the £200m Liverpool 2 Containter Terminal. This
growth will be accomodated by infrastructure enhancements that will be delivered in 2019 and will
increase rail-freight capacity from the Port of Liverpool from 1tph to 2tph. The infrastructure
enhancements are:
• Double Tracking at the Port of Liverpool/Network Rail boundary.
• Signalling improvements at Earlestown West Jn that will enable freight trains from the Port of
Liverpool that are heading towards the WCML, to pass through the junction more quickly.
There is also significant growth forecast on the route section between Earlestown West and East Jn
to/from Winwick Jn. Freight traffic on the route section is forecast to increase from 6tpd at present,
to 50tpd by 2043. The growth originates from 3 sources:
• The Port of Liverpool
• The proposed Parkside Intermodal Container Terminal
• The proposed Port Salford Intermodal Container Terminal
If there is just the growth from the Port of Liverpool, then the route section will be able to
accommodate all freight traffic. If either, or both, of the proposed terminals are built and begin to
generate rail-freight traffic in the numbers that are forecast, then additional infrastructure will be
required.
Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth
33
Earlestown West and East Jn – Winwick Jn
The main constraint relates to the proposed train movements into the two proposed Intermodal
Container terminals, (with associated rail-served warehousing). Parkside would be located on the
Liverpool – Manchester, “Chat Moss” route, just to the east of Newton-le-Willows Station, on the
south side of the line. The connection for the Port Salford terminal would be located a further 9
miles to the east, again on the south side of the line. The majority of the trains to/from both of these
terminals is forecast to be to/from the Deep Sea Container Ports of Felixstowe, Southampton and
London Gateway. These trains would be routed via the WCML and would leave this route at
Winwick Jn, just to the north of Warrington Bank Quay Station. These trains would then conflict with
the following services as they proceed towards the new Intermodal Container terminals:
• Trains passing through Earlestown South and East Jn. This includes freight services from
the Port of Liverpool, heading south towards the WCML. It also includes passenger services
from Liverpool Lime Street to Warrington Bank Quay.
• Trains heading west on the “Chat Moss” route. This includes trans-pennine freight traffic
heading towards the Port of Liverpool. It also includes various local and long-distance
passenger services from Manchester to Liverpool.
The trains for Parkside and Port Salford will then join the eastbound line of the Chat Moss route
finding a path amongst the trans-pennine freight traffic heading from the Port of Liverpool and the
various local and long-distance passenger services from Liverpool to Manchester. The trains then
have to cross back across the westbound Chat Moss route to enter the terminals. These
movements will consume a lot of capacity, so additional infrastructure will be required to
accommodate them. The additional infrastructure is shown in the diagram below.
34
A new northbound loop could be provided on the WCML, just to the south of Winwick Jn. Winwick
Jn also marks the point where the WCML goes from being a 4-track to 2-track railway. The new
loop would therefore have two purposes:
• A regulating point for freight services awaiting their path towards the terminals at Parkside
and Port Salford.
• A regulating point for freight services heading north over the 2-track section of the WCML
towards Wigan.
New loops in each direction would also be provided on the Chat Moss route, just to the west of the
western connection to Port Salford. The eastbound loop will have the greatest usage for Port
Salford, as freight services for the terminal could be held here awaiting a path across the westbound
line and into the terminal. These new loops, particularly the one in the westbound direction, would
also be used for other freight traffic on the route, as emerging long-term timetable development
work is indicating that a westbound loop may be required in this area.
An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately
£90m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 44 freight services by 2043 on the
route section from Earlestown Jns to Winwick Jn, much of this growth can be accomodated with the
existing railway infrastructure, and the economic modelling of the benefits takes a conservative
approach, so analyses a proportion of the additional traffic forecast to operate from the Parkside
and Port Salford terminals to destinations such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway,
(12 services in total. This produces a very strong business case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR),
of 14.7 and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £309m. This economic case is conservative in its
assumptions as it calculates the benefits from the low scenario of growth for intermodal traffic and
as per Webtag guidance, the growth is capped after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been
conducted if only 25% of the benefits are applied. If this is the case, then the economic case still
remains strong with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 7.7 and a Net Present Value, (NPV), of £215m.
While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective once the terminals
become operational, there would be immediate benefits if the loops were progressively installed at
an earlier stage, in that it would facilitate the development of the terminals and other rail-freight
flows in the North-West. (both on a north-south and east-west axis), It would also assist in terms of
improved freight and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight and
passenger train paths through the North-West, especially freight over the Chat Moss route. Network
Rail will be keen to work with local and regional stakeholders in the North-West of England to
identify funding routes to deliver the new infrastructure choices at an appropriate opportunity, so that
benefits can be realised as soon as possible.
35
Greater Manchester
The railway infrastructure can be divided into three groups:
• Suburban rail routes with no freight or very low levels of freight traffic.
• Routes that serve Trafford Park Container Terminal that are heavily used by rail-freight
traffic.
• Routes to the south and east of Manchester that convey Construction Aggregates and
Biomass traffic.
The Rail-Freight Services
Trafford Park Container Terminal is the busiest location for rail-freight in the area. There are also
numerous aggregate terminals across Greater Manchester at locations such as Bredbury,
Ashburys, Hope Street and Pendleton. Greater Manchester also has domestic waste services that
are loaded onto trains at Pendleton and Bredbury. Collyhurst Street sidings have recently been
reactivated to move spoil to Roxby (Scunthorpe). There are also rail-freight flows that pass through
Greater Manchester, such as Biomass from the Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station and
Construction Aggregates from the Peak District quarries to a variety of destinations.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 4.
Growth
36
There is a small amount of growth on a number of route sections that convey Construction
Aggregates and this small scale growth can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity
that is available.
There is a significant increase in rail-freight traffic on the routes to/from Trafford Park. It is forecast
to increase from 13tpd to 26tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can just about be accommodated
within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph, with additional paths in the overnight hours.
With changes that are proposed in the levels of passenger traffic on these routes, especially the
Crewe – Manchester corridor, it is recommended that the provision of freight and passenger
capacity is subject to further assessment as part of the North of England – Manchester Area
Strategic Question.
Derbyshire
Part of Derbyshire is included within the North of England Route Study. It includes the following
routes:
• A series of routes from Hazel Grove and Chinley that serve the Peak District Quarries that
are clustered around the Buxton area.
• The 4 track section of the Midland Main Line from Tapton Jn to Chesterfield.
The Rail-freight services
Rail-freight services in North Derbyshire are dominated by Construction services from the quarries
at Peak Forest, Tunstead, Dowlow and Hindlow. On the Midland Main Line at Chesterfield there are
also Intermodal Container services between Intermodal Terminals in Yorkshire and the Port of
Southampton. There are also Metals services between Teesside and South Yorkshire to/from the
West Midlands and South Wales and Petroleum flows from Teesside to South Wales.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 5.
Growth
There is sigificant growth forecast from the Peak District quarries towards Chinley, with traffic due to
double in the next 10 years and additional infrastucture between Tunstead and Chinley is likely to
be required to support this growth.
There is also significant growth forecast on the Midland Main Line between Tapton Jn and
Chesterfield, as a result of growth in both Construction traffic and Intermodal Containers. Freight
capacity will need to increase from 1tph at present to 3tph by 2043.
37
Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth
Chinley North/East Jn – Great Rocks Jn
The pinch point on this route section is the junction at Peak Forest South Signal Box. All trains
to/from all the Buxton area quarries pass through this junction and it is also the only access to and
from the Peak Forest quarry. Therefore trains into the quarry may need to stand on the Down
Goods for a period of time, until a train has departed the Peak Forest quarry and is heading towards
Chinley on the Up Goods line. This reduces capacity to/from all of the quarries and can also cause
delay to existing rail-freight services.
Following feedback from the Freight Operating Companies, it is recommended that a new inbound
connection is provided. This is shown on the diagram below. This will be just to the south of the
exit from Doveholes Tunnel and will connect the Down Goods to the No.1 Siding. Inbound traffic to
Peak Forest will use this new connection and outbound traffic will use the existing junction at Peak
Forest South Signal Box. This additional infrastructure will provide the required capacity on the
route section, improve freight train performance and also assist in improving capacity on the
Manchester – Sheffield, (Hope Valley), route as it improves the ability of freight trains to be on-time
to take up their train path as they join that route at Chinley.
An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately
£5m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 22 freight services by 2043, much of
this growth can be accomodated with the existing railway infrastructure, and the economic modelling
of the benefits takes a conservative approach, so analyses the benefit of 3 additional services per
day from any of the local quarries to destinations in Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and the West
Midlands. This produces a very strong economic case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), which is
Financially Positive, (this is a result of net costs to government being negative as a result of the
38
modal shift benefits, e.g. reduced road maintenance costs, being greater than the cost of the
project) and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £16.4m. As per Webtag guidance, the growth in rail-
freight traffic is capped after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been conducted if only 25% of the
benefits are applied. If this is the case, then the economic case still remains strong with a Benefit
Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 22.6 and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £11.5m.
While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective a number of years
from now, there would be immeadiate benefits from the point it was installed in terms of improved
freight and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight train paths
to/from the Buxton area quarries, which may open up further commercial opportunities to serve new
or existing markets/terminals. Network Rail will be keen to work with local and regional
stakeholders and those in the Construction/Aggregates Industry to identify funding routes to deliver
the new infrastructure choices at the earliest opportunity, so that the benefits can be realised as
soon as possible, particularly as opportunities may arise in relation to the supply of materials for the
construction of HS2.
Tapton Jn – Chesterfield
Although the section between Tapton Jn and Chesterfield has 4 tracks, there are a number of
different train movements on this corridor, (it is also 4 tracks for a further 4 miles beyond the North
of England boundary to Clay Cross Jn), that need to be accomodated as they switch between the
following routes to/from the north:
• The Midland Main Line to/from Sheffield via Dore.
• The Barrow Hill lines that are generally a freight only route that provides a route to/from the
rest of Yorkshire, the North East and East Coast ports such as Immingham and Hull.
Towards two routes to the south, that diverge at Clay Cross Jn:
• The Midland Main Line to/from Derby.
• The Erewash Valley route to/from Nottingham and a variety of freight facilities and routes in
the Toton/Trent Jn area, (near Long Eaton).
By 2033, HS2 services via Sheffield will be added to the mix, as there will be a connection from the
Phase 2B Eastern Leg, to the Erewash Valley, approximately 3 miles south of Clay Cross Jn.
The majority of the freight growth on the Tapton Jn – Chesterfield corridor is Intermodal Container
traffic from Yorkshire and the North East to Southampton. This traffic uses the Barrow Hill lines and
then primarily uses the Erewash Valley route as it is gauge cleared to W12 gauge, (whereas the
route via Derby is currently only cleared to W8 gauge).
There is also some growth in Construction traffic from the Debyshire quarries to the Midlands,
London and the South East. It is these services, particularly the loaded trains heading south from
39
Dore on the 7 mile 2-track section of the Midland Main Line, that consumes the greatest amount of
capacity, particularly when having to slow to use the 20mph crossovers to gain access to the Up
Barrow Hill Line. There is only one such crossover, which is also used by northbound services
making a movement through the junction in the opposite direction.
New infrastructure, (as shown in the diagram below), would provide new parallel crossovers, so that
train movements can occur simultanously in each direction. The new crossovers would also be
aligned for a greater speed. From a freight pespective, 60mph would be the minimum speed they
should be designed for, however a higher speed may be beneficial for passenger services.
Speeding up these movements through Tapton Jn will increase the freight capacity for freight
services on all 4 routes that connect into this corridor and especially the growth in Intermodal
Container services that will primarily use the Barrow Hill/Erewash Valley lines.
An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately
£20m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 39 freight services by 2043, much of
this growth can be accomodated with the existing railway infrastructure, (particularly as the route did
accommodate significant volumes of coal and metals traffic until recently), so new infrastructure
becomes essential around 2033 when a 3rd freight path per hour is required. High Speed 2 services
via Chesterfield to Sheffield are also due to commence in 2033 and the HS2 project may also
consider the need for additional infrastructure, (such as a 4th platform at Chesterfield), within this
corridor. The economic modelling of the benefits therefore takes a conservative approach, so
analyses the benefit of 5 additional Intermodal Container services per day from various Intermodal
Container terminals to/from destinations such as Southampton and Daventry. This produces a very
strong economic case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), which is Financially Positive and a Net
Present Value, (NPV) of £261m. This economic case is conservative in its assumptions as it
calculates the benefits from the low scenario of growth for intermodal traffic and as per Webtag
40
guidance, the growth is capped after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been conducted if only
25% of the benefits are applied. If this is the case, then the economic case still remains strong with
a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), that continues to be Financially Positive and a Net Present Value,
(NPV) of £192m. The strength of the economic case suggests that further infrastructure could be
justified, (potentially even grade separation within the Tapton Jn – Clay Cross Jn corridor), to add
greater relisiliance to the performance of passenger and freight services in the Yorkshire/East
Midlands area, particularly in the context of HS2 services using the corridor from 2033. Another
higher cost alternative infrastructure intervention that would reduce the volume of freight traffic on
this corridor, would be the re-opening of the Buxton – Matlock route, which would also reduce freight
traffic on the Hope Valley route and between Dore and Tapton Jn.
Feedback from the Freight Operating Companies suggested that future East Midlands CMSP
studies should consider whether additional freight traffic should be routed via Derby, rather than the
Erewash Valley, to avoid conflicts with the HS2 traffic using the northern section of the Erewash
Valley route. This would require the route via Derby to be cleared to W12 gauge. It was suggested
that a study covering an area bounded by the following locations should consider the optimal routing
strategy for freight services:
• Chesterfield
• Derby
• Burton-Upon-Trent
• Trent Jn (near Long Eaton)
While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective by 2033, there would
be immediate benefits from the point the new crossovers are installed, in terms of improved freight
and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight and passenger train
paths through the corridor which may develop further commercial opportunities to serve new or
existing freight markets/terminals. Similarly the additional flexibility could assist in optimising the
timetable for passenger services. Network Rail will be keen to work with local and regional
stakeholders in the East Midlands and Yorkshire to identify funding routes to deliver new
infrastructure choices at an appropriate opportunity, so that benefits can be realised as soon as
possible.
41
Cheshire
There are numerous route sections in Cheshire that have no, or very low levels, of rail-freight traffic.
Busy route sections for rail-freight include:
• The Liverpool leg of the WCML between Weaver Jn and Ditton Jn, which conveys significant
volumes of Intermodal Container and Automotives traffic.
• The route via Northwich is used by Biomass, Waste and Construction traffic.
• The Manchester leg of the WCML from Crewe to Wilmslow, which is busy with Intermodal
Container traffic to/from Trafford Park.
• Waste traffic from Northenden.
The Rail-freight services
Lots of different commodity groups are represented across Cheshire. They include:
• Nuclear waste traffic from the Ayfa Plant in North Wales to Sellafield.
• Timber products from Scotland to Chirk, pass through the area.
• Automotives traffic from the Halewood Car Plant.
• Intermodal Container traffic from numerous terminals in the North West, including 3MG at
Widnes.
• Biomass from the Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station.
• Construction Agregates (Limestone) from the Peak District Quarries to Northwich.
• Coal traffic to Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, near Widnes, although this traffic is due to cease
in the next 10 years.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 6.
Growth
Growth in traffic is mainly focussed on Intermodal Container Traffic to Trafford Park, Widnes 3MG
and Garston.
There is a significant increase in rail-freight traffic on the route from Crewe to Wilmslow which
conveys Intermodal Container traffic to/from Trafford Park. It is forecast to increase from 15tpd to
42
24tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can just about be accommodated within the existing freight
capacity provision of 1tph, with additional paths in the overnight hours.
There is also significant growth, primarily in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Widnes 3MG and
Garston on the route section between Ditton Jn and Weaver Jn. Rail-freight traffic is forecast to
increase from 20tpd to 34tpd by 2043 and therefore beyond the current provision of rail-freight
capacity. This route section has two tracks, but beyond Ditton Jn there are four tracks. Additional
infrastructure will be required to support the required increase in rail-freight capacity.
Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth
Ditton Jn – Weaver Jn
Freight traffic shares the two-track section with higher speed passenger traffic. As freight traffic
grows from 1tph to 2tph, additional infrastructure will probably be required in the Ditton Jn area. At
present, there is a 20mph set of crossovers where the two tracks becomes four tracks which is used
by freight traffic to/from the slow lines, the Ditton Reception Sidings and the Widnes 3MG
Intermodal terminal. The speed of the crossovers will need to be increased to at least 40mph and
parallel crossovers installed, so that freight trains can move through the junctions in both directions
at the same time, to clear the junction quicker, make the most of the available capacity and the
freight paths in between the passenger services.
Much of the growth in freight services on the route section, is forecast to be to/from the Widnes
3MG Intermodal Container terminal. The new services are likely to be to/from destinations such as
Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway. These services have to reverse, (where the
locomotive switches from one end of the train to another), in Ditton Reception Sidings, to go to/from
the southbound WCML. In order to accommodate such growth, it is recommended that the
following infrastructure is installed to enable a greater throughput of trains at the terminal:
• An additional siding line in Ditton Reception Sidings.
• A new crossover between the Low Level/Slow Lines, adjacent to the entrance to the Widnes
3MG terminal.
• An extention of the headshunt to accommodate trains of up to 775m in length.
The addition of this new infrastructure would enable freight trains to operate in a “figure-of-eight” in
and out of the terminal, which would greatly reduce the number of conflicts within the sidings. It is
likely that the new infrastructure identified in the three bullet points above could enable the number
of freight trains serving the Widnes 3MG terminal to be increased from 4tpd to up to 12tpd. The
proposed infrastructure is shown in the diagram below.
43
An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately
£50m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 14 freight services on the Ditton Jn
– Weaver Jn route section by 2043, much of this growth can be accomodated with the existing
railway infrastructure, and the economic modelling of the benefits takes a conservative approach, so
analyses the benefit of 6 additional services per day from the Widnes 3MG Container Terminal to
destinations in the Midlands and the Deep-Sea Ports in the South of England. This produces a
positive economic case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 2 and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of
£28m. . This economic case is conservative in its assumptions as it calculates the benefits from
the low scenario of growth for intermodal traffic and as per Webtag guidance, the growth is capped
after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been conducted if only 25% of the benefits are applied. If
this is the case, then the economic case has a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 1.4 and a Net Present
Value, (NPV) of £12m.
While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective a number of years
from now, there would be immediate benefits from the point it was installed in terms of improved
freight and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight train paths
to/from the Widnes and Merseyside areas, which may open up further commercial opportunities to
serve new or existing markets/terminals. Consideration would also need to be given to the interface
with Northern Powerhouse Rail, (NPR), options in this area. Network Rail will be keen to work with
local and regional stakeholders and the companies who own rail-freight terminals in the area to
identify funding routes to deliver the new infrastructure choices at the earliest opportunity, so that
the benefits and rail-freight growth can be realised as soon as possible.
44
Staffordshire
One route section in the very North of the County is included within the North of England Route
Study Area:
• Kidsgrove – Stoke-on-Trent
The Rail-freight services
Intermodal Container traffic to/from Trafford Park and Ditton use this route section, along with traffic
to/from the Marcroft Wagon Works.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 7.
Growth
Growth is forecast on this route section as the forecasting model routes Intermodal Container
between Felixstowe and Crewe via Uttoxeter. The route via Uttoxeter would need to be gauge
cleared for this to occur. In reality, these services could be routed via Nuneaton and Crewe instead.
Rail-freight traffic is forecast to increase from 8pd to 18tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can be
accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph.
Cockshute Sidings, north of Stoke-on-Trent station, is also likely to become and active freight
terminal, once again.
45
Northumberland
There is an extensive network of freight railway lines in the Blyth/Ashington area, that historically
have linked various coal mines, Lynemouth Power Station and the Port of Blyth. Rail-freight traffic
has significantly decreased over the last 30 years.
The Rail-freight services
• The Port of Blyth currently imports coal that is transported by rail to Power Stations in
Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, although this traffic is due to cease in the next 10 years.
• The Port of Blyth imports Alumina, (Bauxite), from Ireland, which is then transported to
Scotland by rail.
• Lynemouth Power Station has recently converted to Biomass fuelled power generation and
is supplied by rail from the Port of Tyne.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 8.
Growth
Traffic levels are forecast to generally remain constant over the next 30 years. There is spare
freight capacity if growth were to occur, although the ECML section between Newcastle and Benton
Junction, then crossing to the Blyth & Tyne route, can be a constraint to accommodating freight
growth.
46
Tyne & Wear
The area includes route sections that link Newcastle with Sunderland and Teesside. There are also
branches that provide connections to the Port of Sunderland, Port of Tyne and Jarrow Oil Terminal.
The Rail-freight services
The Port of Tyne is a significant generator of rail-freight traffic. It imports coal that is destined for
Power Stations in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, although this traffic will cease in the next 10
years. It also imports Biomass that is destined for Drax and Lynemouth. The Port also receives
scrap metal from various locations across the country. Jarrow Oil Terminal receives Petroleum from
Lindsey Oil Refinery.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 9.
Growth
There is a small amount of growth on the routes to/from the Port of Tyne, which can be
accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision.
County Durham
County Durham’s main freight route is the Durham Coast route that links Tyneside, Sunderland and
Teesside.
47
The Rail-freight services
The Port of Tyne is a significant generator of rail-freight traffic for this route section. It imports coal
that is destined for Power Stations in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, although this traffic will cease
in the next 10 years. It also imports Biomass that is destined for Drax. The Port also receives scrap
metal from various locations across the country. Cement traffic is also conveyed to Seaham, from
Hope in the Peak District, via this route section.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 10.
Growth
There is a small amount of growth on this route section which can be accommodated within the
existing freight capacity provision.
Tees Valley
The railways of the Tees Valley are very busy in terms of rail freight, particularly the route sections
from Northallerton via Middlesbrough to Teesport. There are also branch lines to Hartlepool
Nuclear Power Station, Seal Sands and Boulby Mine. The area also has important links to the
ECML at Northallerton, Darlington and Tursdale Jn.
48
The Rail-freight services
Lots of different commodity groups are represented across the Tees Valley:
• Intermodal Container services to/from Teesport to both Felistowe and Scotland.
• Intermodal Tar Tanks from South Wales to the AV Dawson Container Terminal at
Middlesbrough.
• Potash, Polyhalite and Rock Salt from Boulby Mine to Teesport and Middlesbrough.
• Imported coal through Redcar to Power Stations in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.
• Coking Coal, Coke Nuts and Granulated Blast Furnace Slag from Redcar to Scunthorpe.
• Iron Ore residues from Redcar to South Wales.
• Unfinished Steel Slab and Blooms from Scunthorpe to Skinningrove and Lackenby.
• Steel Coil from South Wales to the AV Dawson Container Terminal at Middlesbrough.
• Steel traffic from South Wales to Hartlepool 20” Pipe Mill.
• Cement from Hope to Seaham.
• Domestic Waste from Knowsley to Wilton.
• Nuclear waste from Hartlepool Power Station to Sellafield.
• Petroleum from Port Clarence to South Wales.
• Biomass passes through the area from the Port of Tyne to Drax Power Station.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 11.
Growth
There is significant growth from Teesport, (Grangetown Jn) via Middlesbrough to Bowesfield Jn.
Rail-freight traffic is forecast to increase from 11tpd to 41tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can be
accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 2tph, as much of this route section is
4 tracks and has previously accomodated much higher levels of freight traffic, when the route was
very busy with metals and coal traffic.
Yorkshire
Yorkshire has an extensive network of railway lines, many of which are busy freight routes. The
routes include the following categories:
• Rural routes such as the lines to Scarborough, Harrogate, Ilkley and the Yorkshire Coast line
that do not have any freight traffic at present.
49
• Routes that have over the years served the County’s coal mines and power stations.
• Routes near the urban centres of Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford that have low levels of
freight traffic.
• Key long distance routes for freight such as:
- Leeds and Sheffield to the Port of Hull.
- Colton Jn to Tapton Jn via Ferrybridge and Rotherham.
The Rail-freight services
Lots of different commodity groups are represented in Yorkshire:
• Coal traffic to Drax Power Station. Coal traffic also passes through the area on its way from
the Ports of Blyth and Tyne to the Nottinghamshire Power Stations. Coal traffic will cease in
the future as coal-fired power generation is scheduled to end in 2025.
• Biomass to Drax Power Station.
• Metals traffic from South York and Tees Valley to the West Midlands and South Wales.
• Construction Aggregates from Rylstone quarry near Skipton and the Peak District quarries to
various aggregates terminals in Yorkshire and also via the Midland Main Line to London and
the South East.
• Intermodal Container traffic from terminals in Yorkshire to Felixstowe, Southampton and
London Gateway.
• Petroleum traffic passes through the county from the oil refineries at Immingham to various
destinations.
• Sand delivered to glass production plants at Kirk Sandall and Monk Bretton.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 12.
Growth
There is significant rail-freight growth on the following route sections:
• From Colton Jn to Milford Jn, traffic is due to increase from 12tpd to 25tpd by 2043, mainly
as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Teesport.
• From Ferrybridge Jn to Moorthorpe, traffic is due to increase from 4tpd to 13tpd by 2043,
mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Teesport.
• From Moorthorpe to Swinton, traffic is due to increase from 9tpd to 28tpd by 2043, mainly as
a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the Yorkshire Terminals and
Teesport.
• From Swinton to Doncaster, traffic is due to increase from 9tpd to 24tpd by 2043, mainly as
a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the Yorkshire Terminals.
50
• From Swinton to Rotherham Masborough Jn, traffic is due to increase from 15tpd to 44tpd
by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the
Yorkshire Terminals and Teesport.
• From Rotherham Masborough Jn to Tapton Jn, traffic is due to increase from 9tpd to 41tpd
by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the
Yorkshire Terminals and Teesport.
For all of the above routes, there is no requirement for any infrastructure interventions, as there
is sufficient spare freight capacity, as the growth is restoring rail-freight traffic to levels that have
been experienced in the recent past, when there were greater volumes of coal and metals traffic,
although this should be reviewed as part of the North of England – Sheffield Area Strategic
Question, particularly for Swinton to Rotherham Masborough Jn, to assess how the timetable
could be constructed to make it more compliant for accomodating freight growth.
There is also significant growth on the following route sections:
• From Rylstone Quarry to Skipton, traffic is due to increase from 5tpd to 7tpd in the coming
years, so a scheme to install axle counters on the branch to increase capacity will be
delivered in the next couple of years.
• From Dore Station Jn to Nunnery Main Line Jn, traffic is due to increase from 5tpd to 11tpd
by 2043. Similarly, the route section from Dore to Tapton Jn, traffic is due to increase from
8tpd to 17tpd by 2043. These route sections should be subject to further assessment as
part of the North of England – Sheffield Area Strategic Question, as this route will be used by
High Speed 2 passenger services and there will be growth in other passenger services via
Sheffield station.
• From Crofton West Jn to Hare Park Jn, traffic is due to increase from 16tpd to 50tpd by
2043. The growth on this route section can be accommodated within the existing freight
capacity provision of 2tph, plus additional freight paths in the overnight hours.
• From Crofton West Jn to Wakefield Westgate/Turners Lane Jn, traffic is due to increase from
15tpd to 51tpd by 2043. The growth on this route section can be accommodated within the
existing freight capacity provision of 2tph, plus additional freight paths in the overnight hours.
Nottinghamshire
The North of Nottinghamshire is included within the North of England Route Study area, which is the
following two route sections:
• Brancliffe East Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn.
• Clarborough Jn – Cottam Power Station.
51
The Rail-freight services
These route sections include both Cottam and West Burton Power Stations. Both Power Stations
have, until recently, received high volumes of coal by rail. However, both Power Stations, in
common with all of the coal-fired generators in the country, have significantly reduced their levels of
generation in recent years, as other forms of power generation have become more cost effective.
There is therefore only a small number of coal services per day on the route sections at present. In
addition to the coal services, there are a small number of Intermodal Container services to/from
Doncaster Europort that are routed via Retford, Worksop and Brancliffe Jn. This routing enables the
terminal to receive longer trains in comparison to being routed via the ECML or GN/GE.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 13.
Growth
There will be a small amount of growth on the section between Brancliffe East Jn and Gainsborough
Trent Jn, mainly as a result of increases in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Doncaster Europort
and Rossington. If Cottam and/or West Burton Power Station is developed for future rail freight use,
then these route section would see additional rail-freight traffic.
North and North East Lincolnshire
The North of the County is included within the North of England Route Study area. It includes some
key freight routes to/from the Port of Immingham and various branch lines, some of which convey
rail-freight.
The Rail-freight services
52
There is still coal traffic that is imported via the Port of Immingham, which is one of the last deep-
sea ports importing large quantities of coal in the UK. The route from Wrawby Jn and Lincoln is a
busy route for Petroleum traffic from the Humber and Lindsey Oil Refineries to various oil terminals
in the Midlands and beyond.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 14.
Growth
The only route section that is due to see growth in rail-freight traffic is between Wrawby Jn and
Lincoln, where traffic is forecast to increase from 7tpd to 19tpd by 2043. Much of this growth is
based on Intermodal Container growth from Immingham to the Midlands, which may actually be
routed via Scunthorpe. This increase can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity
provision of 1tph, although Level Crossing risk assessments will need to be undertaken, particularly
for those in Lincoln city centre.
Core West – East Freight Routes
These busy freight routes are considered as linear routes, rather than within a County/Area, as they
function as a defined linear freight route and on the Trans-Pennine routes there can be an
interaction between the different routes, with the ability to switch freight traffic between the various
routes.
53
F.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes
The main route from the Port of Immingham is via Barnetby and Scunthorpe towards Doncaster and
also up to Knottingley for Trans-Pennine traffic and to the Yorkshire Power Stations. Sections of the
route are 4 track in places to accommodate all the passenger and freight traffic.
The Rail-freight services
Lots of different commodity groups are represented on this route:
• Coal traffic to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire Power Stations. Coal traffic will cease in
the future as coal-fired power generation is scheduled to end in 2025.
• Biomass to Drax Power Station.
• Metals traffic from the British Steel Plant at Scunthorpe.
• Imported iron ore through the Port of Immingham to the British Steel Plant at Scunthorpe.
• Coking Coal through the Port of Immingham to the British Steel Plant at Scunthorpe.
• Petroleum traffic from the oil refineries at Immingham to various destinations.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.1
Growth
There is significant rail-freight growth on the following route sections by 2043:
• From Doncaster to Stainforth Jn, traffic is due to increase from 12tpd to 18tpd.
• From Stainforth Jn to Thorne Jn, traffic is due to increase from 28tpd to 49tpd.
• From Thorne Jn to Scunthorpe Trent Jn, traffic is due to increase from 20tpd to 47tpd.
• From Scunthorpe Trent Jn to Wrawby Jn, traffic is due to increase from 17tpd to 63tpd.
• From Wrawby Jn to Immingham West Jn, traffic is due to increase from 24tpd to 88tpd.
• From Stainforth Jn to Applehurst Jn, traffic is due to increase from 15tpd to 32tpd.
• From Applehurst Jn to Haywood Jn/Joan Croft Jn, traffic is due to increase from 14tpd to
31tpd.
• From Haywood Jn to Knottingley, traffic is due to increase from 15tpd to 19tpd.
The majority of this growth will come from Intermodal Container services to/from the Port of
Immingham and the Killingholme area. It is likely that the growth on these route sections is over-
stated as the forecasting model appears to over-estimate future growth in Biomass services
between the Port of Immingham and Drax Power Station, as it appears to not take account of
competition from other Ports such as Liverpool and Port of Tyne in supplying Biomass to Drax.
These route sections will be able to accommodate the future growth in traffic, as they were
accommodating such levels of freight traffic in the last 10-20 years when the Port of Immingham
was importing 10 million tonnes of coal per annum for supply to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire
Power Stations.
54
F.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle
The Carlisle – Newcastle route is a key West-East rail corridor across the North of England.
The Rail-freight services
At present there is nuclear waste traffic from Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station to Sellafield and
occasional Anglo-Scottish Coal traffic to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire Power Stations.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.2
55
Growth
Traffic on the route is forecast to increase from 1tpd to 7tpd by 2026. The growth is as a result of a
proposed new coal mine near Whitehaven that will supply Coking Coal for export via Redcar. There
is suitable spare freight capacity available to accommodate this growth, following the decline of
Anglo-Scottish Coal traffic.
F.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds
The Carlisle – Settle – Leeds corridor is a key rail corridor across the North of England for both
West – East and North – South traffic. This corridor also considers the route sections south of
Leeds to Altofts Jn/Whitwell Jn.
The Rail-freight services
There are several, varied freight commodities that use this corridor:
• Anglo-Scottish coal services to the Yorkshire & Nottinghamshire Power Stations. Coal traffic
will cease in the future as coal-fired power generation is scheduled to end in 2025.
• Construction Aggregates services from the quarries at Arcow, (Horton-in-Ribblesdale),
Ribblehead and Rylstone, (near Skipton) to various aggregates terminals in Yorkshire and
Greater Manchester.
56
• Timber traffic from Chirk to Scotland.
• Cement from Ribblesdale Works (Clitheroe) to Mossend.
• Gypsum from Teesport and Port of Hull to Kirkby Thore.
• Intermodal Container traffic from Leeds Stourton Freightliner Terminal and Wakefield
Europort to destinations such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.3
Growth
Freight traffic on the northern sections of the corridor is not forecast to grow. There is some growth
on the route sections in the Leeds area:
• A new connection into Horton-in-Ribblesdale Quarry is likely to come on stream, supplying
more aggregate traffic along the line.
• From Skipton – Stourton Jn, traffic is forecast to increase from 8tpd to 11tpd by 2043, as a
result in an increase in Construction Aggregates services from Rylstone Quarry. There is
scope within the existing capacity provision of 1tph on the route to accommodate this
growth.
• There is significant growth forecast from Stourton Jn to Altofts Jn/Whitwell Jn, increasing
from 14tpd to 47tpd by 2043. This is a result of Intermodal Container traffic to/from Leeds
Stourton Freightliner Terminal and Wakefield Europort.
There is also the possibility that the section from Carlisle – Hellifield could see growth in rail-freight
traffic if it used to relieve pressure on the WCML between Carlisle and Preston.
F.15.4 Calder Valley Routes
The Calder Valley routes includes the route section from Thorpes Bridge Jn in Manchester, via
Rochdale to Heaton Lodge Jn, near Dewsbury, where it joins the main Manchester – Leeds Trans-
Pennine route. It also includes the route section from Farington Jns, (near Preston), to Hall Royd
Jn, (near Todmorden), where it joins the main Calder Valley route.
The Rail-freight services
The following commodities use these route sections:
• The Calder Valley route via Rochdale is the main route for loaded Biomass services from the
Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station.
• Coal services for Fiddlers Ferry Power Station.
• Domestic Waste traffic from Knowsley to Teesside.
57
• Scrap metal traffic to the Port of Liverpool.
• Construction Aggregates traffic from Arcow and Rylstone Quarries to aggregate terminals in
Greater Manchester.
• Petroleum services from Lindsey Oil Refinery to Preston Docks.
• Waste spoil from Manchester Collyhurst Street to Roxby Gullet.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.4
Growth
There is no forecast growth in rail-freight traffic on the Calder Valley route sections. There would be
scope to incorporate additional freight traffic on these route sections within the hourly freight path
that exists, if there is a desire to re-route freight traffic away from other Trans-Pennine corridors.
It may be that, were an upgraded North Trans-Pennine Route hourly freight path only be able to
accommodate the weight of an Intermodal service, then the heavier bulk Trans-Pennine services
would all need to run via the Calder Valley route.
F.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn
This is the main West – East freight route through the Pennines. From the West, it begins at Bootle
Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn and runs via Earlestown and the “Chat Moss” route to Manchester
Victoria. It then continues East via “Miles Platting Bank”, (which has a 1 in 50 gradient that heavily
restricts loaded trains in the eastbound direction), through Stalybridge and Huddersfield to
Wakefield and Milford Jn, where there is a divergence of routes towards either Immingham, Hull or
the North East.
The Rail-freight services
The following commodities use these route sections:
58
• Biomass services from Port of Liverpool to Drax use this route for part of their loaded
journey. The loading restrictions at Miles Platting Bank means that they need to use the
Calder Valley route. Empty services returning from Drax, use these route sections.
• Scrap Metal services to the Port of Liverpool.
• There are some Construction Aggregates services on certain route sections, particularly in
the Manchester area.
• Coal services for Fiddlers Ferry Power Station.
• Domestic Waste traffic from Knowsley to Teesside.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.5.
Growth
There is significant rail-freight growth on the following route sections by 2043:
• From Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn to Earlestown West Jn, freight traffic will increase
from 6tpd to 34tpd by 2043. The majority of this growth is Intermodal Container traffic from
the Port of Liverpool. This growth will be accommodated by an infrastructure enhancement
that will be delivered in 2019 and will increase rail-freight capacity from the Port of Liverpool
from 1tph to 2tph. The enhancement is a signalling improvement at Earlestown West Jn that
will enable freight trains from the Port of Liverpool that are heading towards the WCML, to
pass through the junction more quickly.
• From Ordsall Lane Jn to Phillips Park West Jn, (via Manchester Victoria and Miles Platting
Bank), freight traffic is forecast to increase from 6tpd to 11tpd by 2043. This can be
accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph.
• From Stalybridge to Heaton Lodge Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 3tpd to
24tpd by 2043. This increase will require infrastructure enhancements. Some of Network
Rail’s options for the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade Programme would provide this level of
freight capacity and W12 gauge enhancement, which is key, as much of the growth is
Intermodal Container traffic.
• From Heaton Lodge Jn to Thornhill LNW Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 10tpd
to 24tpd by 2043. This increase will require infrastructure enhancements. There are options
for the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade Programme that would provide this level of freight
capacity and W12 gauge enhancement, which is key, as much of the growth is Intermodal
Container traffic.
• From Thornhill LNW Jn to Turners Lane Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 11tpd
to 24tpd by 2043. This can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision
of 1tph.
• From Turners Lane Jn to Altofts Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 14tpd to 47tpd
by 2043. This section of route conveys not only Trans-Pennine traffic, but also the
Intermodal Container traffic to/from Leeds Stourton and Deep-Sea Ports such as Felixstowe,
Southampton and London Gateway. This route section has for many years been a busy
59
route for Coal and Intermodal Container traffic, so there is an existing freight capacity
provision of 2tph, which will be sufficient to cater for the forecast growth.
• From Altofts Jn to Milford Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 4tpd to 7tpd by 2043.
This can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph. The
forecasts for this route section may be an under-estimate if Trans-Pennine Intermodal
Container traffic to the North-East and Hull becomes established. If this were to be the case,
the freight capacity provision of 1tph will still be sufficient.
Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth
Stalybridge - Heaton Lodge Jn - Thornhill LNW Jn
Freight traffic shares the two-track section with higher speed passenger services. As freight traffic
grows from the current relatively low levels, to 1tph in each direction, there would be a need for the
provision of a standard hourly freight path in each direction. As the majority of the growth is in
Intermodal Containers, it is key that a W12 cleared route is also provided, to faciltate the growth.
Additional infrastructure will be required on this 22 mile corridor two-track corridor, to enable the
higher speed passenger services to overtake the freight services. Grade separation is also likely to
be required between Heaton Lodge Jn and Thornhill LNW Jn, to enable freight services to access
the route towards Wakefield, without having to conflict with other services. The delivery of these
freight outputs are options within the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade and the DfT are due to
determine the exact scope and outputs of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade in winter 2018.
F.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley)
The Manchester – Sheffield route via Chinley and Edale, (which is often referred to as the Hope
Valley route), offers West-East connectivity for freight, but tends not to function in this manner at
present, and is mainly utilised by freight services from the Peak District Quarries, which join the
route at Chinley.
In recent years, the use of the route for longer distance West-East traffic has been considered,
particularly for Biomass traffic, but the need to route trains through Sheffield Station is a major
constraint to pathing any freight services destined for Yorkshire, the North East or Immingham/Hull.
The Rail-freight services
The predominant freight flows on the route are as follows:
60
• Construction services from the Peak District quarries at Peak Forest, Tunstead, Dowlow and
Hindlow join the route at Chinley and go both westbound and eastbound to serve terminals
in Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and numerous other aggregate terminals across the
country.
• The Cement production facility at Hope makes significant use of rail-freight for distributing its
product to numerous locations across the country.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.6.
Growth
There is significant rail-freight growth forecast on both route sections by 2043:
• From New Mills South Jn – Chinley North/East Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from
6tpd to 19tpd by 2043. This growth can be accommodated within the current freight capacity
provision of 1.5tph.
• From Chinley North/East Jn – Dore Station Jn/South Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase
from 10tpd to 29tpd by 2043. This growth can be accommodated within the current freight
capacity provision of 1.5tph.
F.15.7 Skipton - Colne
The line between Skipton and Colne closed in 1970, but the vast majority of the alignment is still
intact. The Department for Transport, working closely with Transport for the North, has recently
commissioned a study to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case for the re-opening of the route.
The study is considering a number of passenger options that could improve connectivity in the
Leeds – Skipton – Colne – Burnley – Preston corridor. It also considers an hourly freight path in
each direction between the Port of Liverpool and Drax/West Yorkshire. These paths could be
utilised by the Biomass services that run between these locations, but it is also envisaged that the
Skipton – Colne route could also be utilised by intermodal container traffic.
The Skipton – Colne route, (and extended corridor to/from the Port of Liverpol and into the wider
Yorkshire area), is not as direct as some other Trans-Pennine routes, but it does have many other
advantages with regards to freight:
• The route has lesser gradients than other Trans-Pennine routes. The steepest gradients
are westbound between Skipton and Elslack, (1 in 141), and Thornton-in-Craven and
Foulridge, (1 in 231). The steepest gradient in the eastbound direction is 1 in 396 between
Colne and Foulridge.
61
• The routes it shares with passenger services are not as intensively used as many others in
the North of England, particularly in comparison to the various Trans-Pennines routes that
pass through Greater Manchester.
• A key part of the route, from Skipton towards Leeds and through towards the Wakefield
area, has a significant element of unused freight capacity, as there has been until recently,
an hourly path for Anglo-Scottish Coal services.
Key challenges in developing the extended corridor as a Trans-Pennine freight route include
accommodating freight on the following route sections:
• On the WCML, in the Wigan area, particularly the 8 mile two-track section North of Wigan.
• At Farington Junction, on the WCML to the South of Preston, where eastbound freight
services would have to cross all 4 lines of the WCML on a flat junction, to head towards
Burnley and Colne.
• The severe gradient from Lostock Hall towards Blackburn, (includes a 3½ mile section of 1 in
101).
• The single-track section between Gannow Jn and Colne.
• The cost and engineering challenges of reinstating the Skipton – Colne link to current railway
standards.
• In pathing the freight services across Whitehall Junction, (on the western approach towards
Leeds Station).
Commercially viable end-to-end journey times over the full route, will also be a key requirement.
The Strategic Outline Business Case is due to be completed in late 2018.
Core West-East Freight Route Key Issues
A key consideration across all of the Core West-East Freight routes is 24/7 availability for freight
services, as many end customers, particularly logistics companies and retailers who themselves
have 24/7 operations, need the same flexibility they get from road haulage, from rail-freight. This
may be achieved through ensuring that if one route is unavailable due to engineering work, then a
parallel route is available that offers the same freight capability.
This is particularly important across the Trans-Pennine routes as decisions are made as to which
route could be gauge cleared to W12. It is important that a diversionary W12 route is also
considered in the North of England, or whether the route via the current W12 route via the East
Midlands, is seen to be the alternative W12 route between the North West and Yorkshire, the North
East and the North’s East Coast Ports.
Multiple W12 routes across the Trans-Pennine routes will be important if the “Landbridge” concept is
to develop in future years. The Landbridge concept would see Deep-Sea ships from the Americas
and potentially the Far East docking at Liverpool and loading containers on to trains to travel to one
of the North’s East Coast Ports. The containers would then be loaded onto ships that could serve
destinations such as Rotterdam, Antwerp or Hamburg, where the containers could then be
62
distributed across numerous countries in mainland Europe. The flow of containers would also move
in the opposite direction.
New rail-freight services that operate as a result of the landbridge concept are not included in the
freight forecasts that have been produced by Network Rail or Transport for the North, that consider
growth through to 2043 and 2050 respectively. However, Freight Operating Companies and Ports
in the North of England have advised that they have received commercial enquiries regarding
potential new intermodal container services operating to the landbridge concept.
A further, developing West - East flow of Container traffic, is from Scotland to the East Coast ports.
At present there are just 2 trains per day, via Berwick-upon-Tweed and the ECML, but this flow
could grow further to both Teesport and other East Coast ports such as Immingham. An additional
W12 route between Scotland and the East Coast ports will be beneficial for when sections of the
ECML are unavailable.
East Coast Main Line (ECML)
Although the ECML, (and the parallel section of the GN/GE line from Lincoln to Doncaster), is not
part of the North of England Route Study, as it has its own recently published Route Study, it is a
key freight arterial route through the North of England, so needs to be considered within this report
to provide the full picture of rail-freight in the North of England.
The Rail-freight services
The main freight flows on the ECML are:
• Intermodal Container services from the Teesport and the Yorkshire terminals to/from
Felixstowe and London Gateway.
• Sand is delivered to glass production plants at Kirk Sandall and Monk Bretton.
• High Speed, (up to 125mph), Royal Mail services use the ECML to move post between
London and Edinburgh.
• Petroleum from the oil refineries at Humber, (Immingham), use sections of the ECML to
serve locations such as Jarrow.
63
• Biomass services from the Port of Tyne to Drax use the ECML from Northallerton, via York
to Colton Jn and those from the Port of Tyne to Lynemouth are on the ECML for a short
section from King Edward Bridge South Jn, (Gateshead) to Benton Jn.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 16.
Growth
Traffic levels on the ECML in the North of England are at a historically low level at present, with the
significant reduction in coal traffic that has occurred in recent years. Growth is due to occur on the
following route sections of the ECML, mainly as a result of forecast increases in Intermodal
Container traffic:
• From Loversall Carr Jn to Doncaster Marshgate Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from
33tpd to 59tpd by 2043. This growth is in Intermodal Container services to the Yorkshire
terminals, particularly those at Doncaster Europort and Rossington that are adjacent to this
route section.
• From Doncaster Marshgate Jn to Joan Croft Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from
13tpd to 23tpd by 2043.
• From Joan Croft Jn to Colton Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 9tpd to 32tpd by
2043.
• From Colton Jn to Northallerton freight traffic is forecast to increase from 24tpd to 51tpd by
2043.
• From Northallerton to King Edward Bridge Jn, (just to the south of Newcastle Station), freight
traffic is forecast to increase from 10tpd to 14tpd by 2043.
• To the North of Newcastle, there are two remaining route sections to the Scottish border
near Berwick-upon-Tweed, (which is also the northern limit of the North of England Route
Study). From King Edward Bridge Jn to Benton Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from
5tpd to 11tpd by 2043 and from Benton Jn to Berwick-upon-Tweed its forecast to increase
from 4tpd to 9tpd by 2043.
The ECML Route Study also includes the GN/GE from Lincoln to Doncaster, (Pyewipe Jn to
Loversall Carr Jn). The GN/GE has been upgraded within the last 5 years to be the primary freight
route between Peterborough and Doncaster. Freight is forecast to increase from 9tpd to 53tpd by
2043, which is in line with the 2tph freight capacity that has been specified for the various
enhancements on the GN/GE.
The ECML Route Study also includes the Doncaster – Leeds branch of the ECML. This is a busy
section of route for rail-freight, particularly Intermodal Container services to/from Leeds Stourton
and Wakefield Europort, but also increasingly busy with construction traffic:
• From Doncaster – South Kirkby Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 15tpd to 26tpd
by 2043.
64
• From South Kirkby Jn – Hare Park Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 20tpd to
52tpd by 2043. This growth exceeds the current freight capacity provision and the ECML
Route Study recommends additional infrastructure on this corridor to cater for the freight,
(and passenger) growth.
The developing strategy on the ECML over the last 20 years has been to seek to segregate freight
traffic from high speed passenger traffic, either through grade separation, such as with the North
Doncaster Chord that segregates freight traffic to/from Immingham/Scunthorpe that is heading for
West Yorkshire and beyond, or by utilising parallel routes such as with the GN/GE. Similar solutions
may be required for other route sections of the ECML in the North of England, as freight and
passenger services grow, particular as HS2 and other high speed passenger services are due to
use the ECML from Colton Jn northwards from 2033 onwards. The reopening of the Leamside line
between Tursdale Jn and Pelaw via Washington has been considered at various times over the last
20 years as a freight diversionary route, to provide additional capacity on the ECML. Re-routing
freight traffic onto a re-opened Leamside line could be the best means of creating additional
passenger capacity to/from Newcastle for both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, (NPR),
services. Reopening of the Leamside line would alter freight flows in the North-East, as freight
services on the ECML would also use the Northallerton – Eaglescliffe – Stockton-on-Tees – Ferryhill
route, as an alternative to the parallel section of the ECML.
West Coast Main Line (WCML)
Although the WCML is not part of the North of England Route Study, it is the country’s main North-
South freight, so needs to be considered within this report to provide the full picture of rail-freight in
the North of England.
The Rail-freight services
The main freight flows on the WCML are:
• Intermodal Container services between various Intermodal terminals in the North-West and
ports in the South East, such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway.
• Intermodal Container services to/from Scotland and various destinations in England.
• Biomass services from the Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station use the WCML for a short
section of the route near Warrington Bank Quay, (Winwick Jn – Hartford CLC Jn).
• High Speed, (up to 125mph), Royal Mail services between London and Scotland.
65
• Anglo-Scottish coal services.
• Construction Aggregates from the Shap and Hardendale Quarries in Cumbria.
• Cement from Clitheroe to Mossend.
A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels
of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 17.
Growth
The WCML is an exceptionally busy route for freight and is forecast to grow further in future years.
High Speed 2 Phase 2b may provide additional capacity for freight services on the WCML. In terms
of the North of England, this would be from Crewe, to just to the south of Wigan. However, HS2 is
also due to run additional services on sections of the WCML in the North of England will mean that
rail capacity may be at a premium for:
• Crewe – Weaver Jn: HS2 services to Liverpool, Preston and Scotland from 2026 to 2033.
• Weaver Jn – Lowton Jn: HS2 services to Preston and Scotland from 2026 to 2033.
• Lowton Jn – Carlisle/Gretna Jn: HS2 services to Preston and Scotland from 2026 onwards.
Growth is due to occur on the following route sections of the WCML, mainly as a result of forecast
increases in Intermodal Container traffic:
• From Crewe to Hartford Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 40tpd to 135tpd by
2043.
• From Hartford CLC Jn to Weaver Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 46tpd to
139tpd by 2043.
• From Weaver Jn to Winwick Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 28tpd to 110tpd by
2043.
• From Winwick Jn to Carlisle, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 19tpd to 67tpd by
2043.
Future work under the Continuous Modular Strategic Planning process will consider how this very
significant growth in rail-freight can be accommodated, particularly in relation to the challenges and
opportunities that will occur in relation to HS2 and whether any sections of parallel routes can
accommodate north-south freight traffic.
Freight Flows through the North of England to/from Scotland
At present there are the following number of daily rail freight services to/from Scotland in each
direction:
• Via Carlisle and the WCML = 28
• Via Berwick-upon-Tweed and the ECML = 4
By 2043 the number of daily rail freight services to/from Scotland in each direction is forecast to
increase to the following:
66
• Via Carlisle and the WCML = 69
• Via Berwick-upon-Tweed and the ECML = 9
The majority of freight services via Carlisle and the WCML are to/from areas beyond the North of
England, such as the Midlands or the Deep-Sea ports in the South of England. The freight services
on the ECML to/from Scotland are more localised and tend to be from the North East or Yorkshire.
Freight growth on the ECML to/from Scotland is still comfortably within an hourly daytime freight
path although the trailing load on certain services can be restricted, so as to fit between the
passenger services. Such spare freight capacity would be important on the occasions when the
WCML is unavailable, such as during engineering work and there is a need to re-route freight
services.
There is significant freight growth forecast on the WCML to/from Scotland, with up to 3 freight paths
per hour in each direction being required by 2043. Further consideration would need to be given in
future years as to whether some Anglo-Scottish freight services could be permanently re-routed via
the ECML, rather than via the WCML, to balance out rail-freight across the two routes. This would
however add significant mileage and cost to freight services. For example, an intermodal container
service between Felixstowe and Coatbridge would incur an additional 50 miles if it was re-routed at
Peterborough and travelled via Berwick-upon-Tweed, in comparison to a journey via Nuneaton,
Carlisle and the WCML. It is questionable therefore whether this would constitute efficient freight
routing and it would depend upon the journey time on each route and how many times the freight
service might be looped awaiting its onward path.
67
Conclusion and Recommendations
Enhancements that provide wider strategic network benefits.
Enhancements facilitating growth for a more specific regional cluster of freight terminals.
Future freight strategic questions for the North of England.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The Working Group for the North of England Freight Strategic Question have endorsed the following infrastructure enhancement choices to faciliate growth in railfreight in the North of England.
A distinction has been drawn between those schemes that provide wider strategic network benefits
and those schemes which facilitate growth for specific freight terminals.
The first category will facilitate freight growth on at least one and sometimes two key main line
freight routes. This will provide freight benefits across the North of England and into other areas,
across the network.
The second category generates benefits for a more specific regional cluster of freight terminals,
which in turn will generate a concentration of benefits for the respective regional economy.
While the schemes aren’t formally ranked, there is a strong consensus that the top priority for freight
within the North of England is for the provision of additional freight capacity on a Trans-Pennine
corridor, (and with the provision in parallel of W12 gauge to stimulate the intermodal container
68
market). The route from Stalybridge via Diggle, Huddersfield and Heaton Lodge Junction to
Thornhill LNW Junction is the most direct route and offers the greatest freight connectivity to a the
widest range of freight terminals. If, however, it is determined that investment on the route via
Huddersfield in the Transpennine Route Upgrade is focussed towards passenger outputs, then
investment in freight outputs would need to take place on a parallel Trans-Pennine route such as
the Calder Valley route via Rochdale and Hebden Bridge, or a re-opened Skipton – Colne route.
Future Freight Strategic Questions for the North of England
This report has primarily considered freight capacity within the North of England and the ability of
the existing network to accommodate future freight growth. It is recommended that future freight
strategic questions for the North of England consider in more detail how aspects of freight capability
can be developed over time. Key aspects of freight capability to consider could include:
• Development of the W12 network.
• Freight Train Length
• Freight Journey Times
• Freight Traction
69
Consultation and Next Steps This section of the document sets out how the North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question – Draft for Consultation has been managed, how stakeholders have been consulted to date, and how interested parties can respond to this Consultation. Network Rail has taken an open, collaborative and consultative approach to the development of the Long Term Planning Process. This process is a way of planning the future of the rail network, and this Route Study is a key part of this. Development of the Route Studies followed the publication of the four Market Studies which set out the direction of travel for demand on the rail network in Great Britain over the next 30 years. The suite of Route Studies is a key next step in the process to develop the case for investment in the future rail network. Close collaborative working by a wide range of stakeholders from within and outside the industry has meant that the work has been subject to comment and guidance to ensure that, as options have been developed, they have been tested and challenged. Further to this, comments are welcomed on this document from any interested party who may wish to respond.
How can you contribute
A wide range of views will help to develop and complete the North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question. If you wish to respond to any of the ideas and interventions set out within this Draft for Consultation document, please email your comments to the following email address:
Or by post to the address below:
North of England Freight Strategic Question (Consultation) Network Rail George Stephenson House Toft Green York YO1 6JT
This report is only being published on the Network Rail website. If you would like a printed copy please contact the address above.
70
Privacy Statement
Respondents should indicate clearly if they wish all or part of their response to be published on the Network Rail website. Otherwise, responses or parts thereof will remain confidential and only a summary of all responses will be published, with this summary being used to inform the final Route Study publication. Where consultation responses are published on the Network Rail website, personal details will be redacted.
The North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question will have a formal consultation period of 90 days, with the final date for receiving responses being 7th March 2019. Earlier responses would be very much appreciated in order to maximise the time available to respond in the final study.
Next Steps
After the conclusion of the formal consultation phase, the North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question Working Group will consider further work that may be required to conclude the study, prior to the publication of the final document.
Further details of the Long Term Planning Process, including an overview of the work, frequently asked questions and contact details for preceding work, including previous Route Studies and information about the CMSP process can be found on the Network Rail website – click here. To comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act, Network Rail holds (where supplied) the name, email address, telephone number, organisation and postal address information of respondents. It will be held for no longer than necessary to produce the finalised Route Study.
71
Appendix A:
Freight Forecasts by Route Section All figures quoted in Appendix A relate to the number of freight trains per day in one direction.
There is therefore the same number of freight trains in the opposite direction.
FF.01 Cumbria
Figure 2 – Cumbria Route Sections
72
1.1 Longtown Branch
Route Section Mossband Jn – Longtown
Freight Traffic Ministry of Defence
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
1.2 Brunthill/Stainton Branch
Route Section Carlisle Kingmoor Yard – Stainton – Harker Kingstown
Freight Traffic None
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
73
1.3 Cumbrian Coast
1.3.1 Carlisle – Sellafield
Route Section Carlisle South Jn – Sellafield
Freight Traffic Petroleum, Nuclear, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 18
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 18
2050 Forecast 18
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, as a
result of a new coal mine near Whitehaven and additional traffic
from the nuclear facilities in the Sellafield area.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required and are described in the main body of
this report.
1.3.2 Sellafield – Carnforth
Route Section Sellafield – Carnforth North Jn
Park Jn – Dalton Jn
Freight Traffic Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 11
2033 Forecast 11
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, as a
result of additional traffic from the nuclear facilities in the Sellafield
area.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required and are described in the main body of
this report.
74
1.4 Oxenholme – Windermere
Route Section Oxenholme Jn – Windermere
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
75
FF.02 Lancashire
Figure 3 – Lancashire Route Sections
76
2.1 Carnforth – Settle Jn
Route Section Carnforth – Settle Jn
Freight Traffic This route is only occasionally used by commercial freight traffic.
It is used by Network Rail Engineering Trains to/from other routes
and by Charter Trains Rolling Stock.
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary This route is only occasionally used by commercial freight traffic
and this is forecast to remain constant into the future.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
2.2 Morecambe/Heysham Branch
Route Section Morecambe South Jn/Hest Bank Jn – Morecambe – Heysham
Freight Traffic Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary Freight to/from Heysham Power Station is forecast to remain
constant. There are no known aspirations for freight traffic to/from
Heysham Port.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
77
2.3 Preston – Blackpool North
Route Section Preston Fylde Jn – Blackpool North
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
2.4 Blackpool South Branch
Route Section Kirkham North Jn – Blackpool South
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
78
2.5 Burn Naze Branch
Route Section Poulton-le-Fylde Jn – Wyre Dock
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
2.6 Preston: Ribble Branch
Route Section Preston South Jn – Preston Docks
Freight Traffic Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
79
2.7 Blackburn – Hellifield
Route Section Daisyfield Jn – Hellifield
Freight Traffic Construction, Timber, Cement
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It does
accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML, (Preston –
Carlisle). As Preston – Carlisle becomes capacity constrained,
there is the likelihood that some non-gauge dependent freight
traffic is routed via this route.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
2.8 Gannow Jn – Colne
Route Section Gannow Jn – Colne
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. It
should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route
between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route
which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal
Container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
80
2.9 Preston – Ormskirk
Route Section Farington Curve Jn – Ormskirk
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
2.10 Wigan – Southport
Route Section Wigan Wallgate Jn – Southport
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
81
2.11 Wigan – Kirkby
Route Section Wigan Station Jn – Kirkby
Freight Traffic Waste
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no defined growth in freight traffic on the route, but the
Potter Group, (terminal at Knowsley), do have aspirations for
further waste traffic and new Intermodal services.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
2.12 Blackburn – Bolton
Route Section Blackburn Bolton Jn – Bolton
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
82
FF.03 Merseyside
Figure 4 – Merseyside Route Sections
83
3.1 MerseyRail Third Rail D.C. Network
Route Section Southport – Liverpool Central – Hunts Cross
Sandhills Jn – Ormskirk
Walton Jn – Kirkby
Liverpool Lime Street (Low Level Loop) – West Kirkby
Bidston East Jn – New Brighton
Canning Street Jn – Chester
Hooton South Jn – Ellesmere Port
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for these route sections.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
3.2 Liverpool Lime Street – Edge Hill
Route Section Liverpool Lime Street – Edge Hill
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
84
3.3 Bootle Branch
Route Section Port of Liverpool – Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 24
2033 Forecast 29
2043 Forecast 38
2050 Forecast 38
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Port of Liverpool.
This is primarily Intermodal traffic and some Biomass traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required beyond those that are already
planned.
3.4 Earlestown West/East Jn – Winwick Jn
Route Section Earlestown West/East Jn – Winwick Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 24
2033 Forecast 34
2043 Forecast 50
2050 Forecast 50
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Port of Liverpool.
This is primarily Intermodal traffic and some Biomass traffic.
There is also growth forecast in relation to the proposed
Intermodal freight terminals at Parkside and Port Salford.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required and are described in the main body of
this report.
85
3.5 Huyton – Wigan
Route Section Huyton Jn – Springs Branch Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. It
should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route
between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route,
(including this route section), which could be used by
Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
3.6 St. Helens (Sutton Oak) Branch
Route Section St. Helens Station Jn – Sutton Oak
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
86
3.7 St. Helens (Cowley Hill) Branch
Route Section Gerards Bridge Jn – Cowley Hill
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
3.8 Edge Hill – Speke Jn
Route Section Edge Hill – Speke Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 5
2026 Forecast 5
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 5
2050 Forecast 5
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Traffic to/from
the Port of Liverpool may be routed this way when the Chat Moss
route is not available.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
87
3.9 Speke Jn – Ditton
Route Section Speke Jn – Ditton West Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Biomass, Intermodal, Automotives
2017 Traffic Level 11
2026 Forecast 11
2033 Forecast 11
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Traffic to/from
the Port of Liverpool may be routed this way when the Chat Moss
route is not available.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
88
FF.04 Greater Manchester
Figure 5 – Greater Manchester Route Sections
89
4.1 Euxton Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn
Route Section Euxton Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn
Freight Traffic Waste
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. It does
however accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML,
(Crewe – Preston), on an occasional basis.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.2 Wigan – Salford Crescent
Route Section Wigan Station Jn – Salford Crescent
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
90
4.3 Crow Nest Jn – Lostock Jn
Route Section Crow Nest Jn – Lostock Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.4 Salford Crescent – Manchester Victoria
Route Section Salford Crescent – Manchester Victoria West Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 5
2050 Forecast 5
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
91
4.5 Ordsall Lane Jn – Castlefield Jn
Route Section Ordsall Lane Jn – Castlefield Jn
Freight Traffic Various
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It does however
accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML, (Crewe –
Preston), on an occasional basis.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.6 Castleton Branch
Route Section Castleton South/East Jn – East Lancashire Railway
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
There are rolling stock movements to/from the East Lancashire
Railway.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
92
4.7 Brewery Jn – Phillips Park West Jn
Route Section Brewery Jn – Phillips Park West Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 8
2033 Forecast 8
2043 Forecast 8
2050 Forecast 8
Freight Forecast Commentary Slight decline due to loss of coal traffic. This is a key freight route
between the Calder Valley route and the route towards Stockport,
and can also be used for freight diversions.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.8 Phillips Park Branch
Route Section Phillips Park West Jn/Baguley Fold Jn – Ashburys West Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 5
2050 Forecast 5
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. This is a
key line between North and South Manchester and can also be
used for freight diversions.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
93
4.9 Ashton Moss North Jn – Denton Jn
Route Section Ashton Moss North Jn – Denton Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 10
2033 Forecast 10
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. This is a
key line between North and South Manchester so could be used
for freight diversions. This is a key line between North and South
Manchester and can also be used for freight diversions.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.10 Trafford Park – Castlefield Jn
Route Section Trafford Park West Jn – Castlefield Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 13
2026 Forecast 17
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 26
2050 Forecast 26
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Trafford Park
Container Terminals. One freight path per hour in daytime hours,
(plus additional paths in the overnight hours), will continue to be
sufficient.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
94
4.11 Castlefield Jn – Slade Lane Jn
Route Section Castlefield Jn – Slade Lane Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 13
2026 Forecast 17
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 27
2050 Forecast 27
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Trafford Park
Container Terminals. One freight path per hour in daytime hours,
(plus additional paths in the overnight hours), will continue to be
sufficient.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.12 Slade Lane Jn – Wilmslow
Route Section Slade Lane Jn – Wilmslow via Heald Green
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 13
2026 Forecast 17
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 27
2050 Forecast 27
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Trafford Park
Container Terminals. One freight path per hour in daytime hours,
(plus additional paths in the overnight hours), will continue to be
sufficient.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
95
4.13 Slade Lane Jn – Heaton Norris Jn
Route Section Slade Lane Jn – Heaton Norris Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 6
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 8
2050 Forecast 8
Freight Forecast Commentary Some Intermodal traffic to/from Trafford Park could be routed this
way.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.14 Heaton Norris Jn – Edgeley Jn
Route Section Heaton Norris Jn – Edgeley Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Construction, Coal, Intermodal, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 11
2026 Forecast 12
2033 Forecast 14
2043 Forecast 15
2050 Forecast 15
Freight Forecast Commentary Some Intermodal traffic to/from Trafford Park could be routed this
way.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
96
4.15 Guide Bridge – Heaton Norris Jn
Route Section Guide Bridge Station Jn – Heaton Norris Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Construction, Coal, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary Coal traffic on the route will stop in the coming years, otherwise
traffic levels are likely to remain stable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.16 Guide Bridge – Hyde Jn – Woodley Jn
Route Section Guide Bridge Station Jn – Hyde Jn – Woodley Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic levels on this route section are forecast to remain stable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
97
4.17 Hyde Jn – Glossop/Hadfield
Route Section Hyde Jn – Glossop/Hadfield
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.18 Woodley Jn – Bredbury Freight Terminals
Route Section Woodley Jn – Bredbury Freight Terminals
Freight Traffic Construction, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic levels on this route section are forecast to remain stable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
98
4.19 Woodley Jn – Romiley
Route Section Woodley Jn – Romiley Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 6
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 8
2050 Forecast 8
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.20 Ashburys – Romiley
Route Section Ashburys East Jn – Romiley Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 8
2050 Forecast 8
Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section. It
could be routed via this route section or via Woodley Jn and Hyde
Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
99
4.21 Stockport – Hazel Grove
Route Section Edgeley Jn – Hazel Grove East Jn/High Level Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
4.22 Ardwick Jn – Guide Bridge
Route Section Ardwick Jn – Guide Bridge Station Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Intermodal, Waste, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. The route
section has occasional Construction traffic to Ashburys and is also
used for some West-East (and vice versa) traffic in the overnight
period when paths are available across the throat at Manchester
Piccadilly, or the route via Manchester Victoria is unavailable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
100
4.23 Heald Green North/South Jn – Manchester Airport
Route Section Heald Green North/South Jn – Manchester Airport
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section,
although the Manchester Airport Branch has previously had
campaigns of construction aggregates in relation to construction
projects, so this could potentially occur in the future.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
101
FF.05 Derbyshire
Figure 6 – Derbyshire Route Sections
102
5.1 Chinley Jns – Great Rocks Jn
Route Section Chinley North/East Jn – Great Rocks Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 15
2026 Forecast 32
2033 Forecast 34
2043 Forecast 37
2050 Forecast 37
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast to/from the Derbyshire
quarries.
Freight Capacity Assessment An intervention is required and is described in the main body of
this report. Chinley South Jn was doubled in 2014 to help cater
for the forecast growth.
5.2 Great Rocks Jn – Buxton – Dowlow
Route Section Great Rocks Jn – Buxton – Dowlow
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 10
2033 Forecast 11
2043 Forecast 12
2050 Forecast 12
Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
103
5.3 Hazel Grove – Buxton
Route Section Hazel Grove – Buxton
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
5.4 Tapton Jn – Chesterfield
Route Section Tapton Jn – Chesterfield
Freight Traffic Construction, Metals, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 24
2026 Forecast 37
2033 Forecast 45
2043 Forecast 63
2050 Forecast 63
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Intermodal and Construction traffic is the driver of the growth.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required post-2033 to cater for 3 freight paths
per hour and are described in the main body of this report.
104
FF.06 Cheshire
Figure 7 – Cheshire Route Sections
105
6.1 Bidston – Dee Marsh
Route Section Bidston Dee Jn – Dee Marsh
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.2 Dee Marsh – Shotton High Level
Route Section Dee Marsh – Shotton High Level
Freight Traffic Metals
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
106
6.3 Shotton Low Level – Saltney Jn
Route Section Shotton Low Level – Saltney Jn
Freight Traffic Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.4 Saltney Jn – Helsby Jn
Route Section Saltney Jn – Helsby Jn
Freight Traffic Timber
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary Hanson (Cement) is actively pushing forward with the re-opening
of Penyffordd Cement Works, which would result in additional
traffic on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
107
6.5 Helsby Jn – Acton Grange Jn
Route Section Helsby Jn – Acton Grange Jn
Freight Traffic Timber, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.6 Ellesmere Port – Helsby Jn
Route Section Ellesmere Port – Helsby Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
108
6.7 Frodsham Branch
Route Section Frodsham Jn – Halton Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.8 Ditton – Weaver Jn
Route Section Ditton West Jn – Weaver Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Biomass, Intermodal, Automotives
2017 Traffic Level 20
2026 Forecast 27
2033 Forecast 28
2043 Forecast 34
2050 Forecast 34
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. A 2nd
hourly freight path in each direction is required post 2033.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required to provide a 2nd hourly freight path and
are described in the main body of this report.
109
6.9 Ditton – Fiddler’s Ferry
Route Section Ditton – Fiddler’s Ferry
Freight Traffic Automotives
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. This route is
also used for Light Engine movements between Ditton and
Warrington. It could also be used for freight diversions.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.10 Fiddler’s Ferry – Warrington Arpley
Route Section Fiddler’s Ferry – Warrington Arpley
Freight Traffic Coal, Automotives
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic will decline with the closure of Fiddlers Ferry Power
Station.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
110
6.11 Allerton Jn – Trafford Park
Route Section Allerton Jn – Trafford Park
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.12 Chester – Crewe
Route Section Chester – Crewe
Freight Traffic Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
111
6.13 Mickle Trafford Jn – Hartford CLC Jn
Route Section Mickle Trafford Jn – Hartford CLC Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.14 Hartford CLC Jn – Northenden Jn
Route Section Hartford CLC Jn – Northenden Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 10
2033 Forecast 10
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
112
6.15 Northenden Jn – Edgeley Jn
Route Section Northenden Jn – Edgeley Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 7
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 8
2043 Forecast 9
2050 Forecast 9
Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.16 Northenden Jn – New Mills South Jn
Route Section Northenden Jn – New Mills South Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
113
6.17 Sandbach – Northwich
Route Section Sandbach North Jn – Northwich/Northwich West Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
6.18 Edgeley Jn – Kidsgrove
Route Section Edgeley Jn – Kidsgrove Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. This route may
take diversions from the Wilmslow route.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
114
6.19 Crewe – Wilmslow
Route Section Crewe North Jn – Wilmslow
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 15
2026 Forecast 16
2033 Forecast 16
2043 Forecast 24
2050 Forecast 24
Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
115
FF.07 Staffordshire
Figure 8 – Staffordshire Route Sections
Note: There are other route sections in Staffordshire, but are not within the geographical scope of
the North of England Route Study.
116
7.1 Kidsgrove – Stoke-on-Trent
Route Section Kidsgrove – Stoke-on-Trent
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 13
2033 Forecast 14
2043 Forecast 18
2050 Forecast 18
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. The
growth is Intermodal traffic between Felixstowe and Crewe. This
traffic may actually be routed via Nuneaton and Crewe.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
117
FF.08 Northumberland
Figure 9 – Northumberland Route Sections
118
8.1 Lynemouth – Ashington Jn
Route Section Lynemouth – Ashington Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Note -
Lynemouth Power Station has now re-opened having been
converted for Biomass generation.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
8.2 Ashington Jn – West Sleekburn Jn
Route Section Ashington Jn – West Sleekburn Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
119
8.3 North Blyth – West Sleekburn Jn/Marchey’s House Jn
Route Section North Blyth – West Sleekburn Jn/Marchey’s House Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic as a result of a decline in coal.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
8.4 West Sleekburn Jn – Bedlington Jn
Route Section West Sleekburn Jn – Bedlington Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 7
2026 Forecast 5
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 5
2050 Forecast 5
Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic as a result of a decline in coal
traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
120
8.5 Bedlington – Morpeth
Route Section Bedlington Jn – Morpeth Jn/Morpeth North Jn
Freight Traffic Metals
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
8.6 Bedlington – Benton Jn
Route Section Bedlington Jn – Benton Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
121
FF.09 Tyne & Wear
Figure 10 – Tyne & Wear Route Sections
122
9.1 Newcastle – High Level Bridge
Route Section Newcastle East Jn – Park Lane Jn/Greensfield Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Commercial freight traffic is generally prohibited over the bridge,
but is occasionally used for diversions.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
9.2 King Edward Bridge Jn – Pelaw
Route Section King Edward Bridge North & South Jn – Pelaw Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Petroleum, Construction, Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 13
2033 Forecast 13
2043 Forecast 13
2050 Forecast 13
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small increase in freight on this route section. There is
also the potential that some Class 6 Bulk Traffic is re-routed via
this route, (Durham Coast), rather than via the ECML between
Northallerton and King Edward Bridge Jn
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
123
9.3 Pelaw – Boldon West Jn
Route Section Pelaw Jn – Boldon West Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Construction, Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 11
2033 Forecast 11
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small increase in freight on this route section. There is
also the potential that some Class 6 Bulk Traffic is re-routed via
this route, (Durham Coast), rather than via the ECML between
Northallerton and King Edward Bridge Jn
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
9.4 Boldon West Jn – Boldon East Jn
Route Section Boldon West Jn – Boldon East Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight on this route section. There is also
the potential that some bulk traffic is re-routed via this route,
(Durham Coast), rather than via the ECML between Northallerton
and King Edward Bridge Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
124
9.5 Pelaw – Jarrow Oil Terminal
Route Section Pelaw Jn – Jarrow Oil Terminal
Freight Traffic Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
9.6 Boldon West/East Jns – Port of Tyne
Route Section Boldon West/East Jns – Port of Tyne
Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 7
2026 Forecast 8
2033 Forecast 8
2043 Forecast 8
2050 Forecast 8
Freight Forecast Commentary There is minor growth forecast on this route section. These
forecasts may not fully represent the future growth from the Port
of Tyne, as there is scope for the future expansion in rail-freight
services to offset the decline in coal traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
125
9.7 Ryhope Grange Jn – Port of Sunderland
Route Section Ryhope Grange Jn – Port of Sunderland
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary These forecasts may not fully represent the future growth from the
Port of Sunderland, as the Port has recently re-instated their rail
connection, so some rail freight traffic is expected in the future.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
126
FF.10 County Durham
Figure 11 – County Durham Route Sections
127
10.1 Boldon East Jn – Norton South Jn
Route Section Boldon East Jn – Norton South Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 11
2026 Forecast 16
2033 Forecast 16
2043 Forecast 16
2050 Forecast 16
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight on this route section. There is
also the potential that some bulk freight traffic is re-routed via this
route rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and
Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
128
FF.11 Tees Valley
Figure 12 – Tees Valley Route Sections
129
11.1 Norton South Jn – Hartburn Jn
Route Section Norton South Jn – Hartburn Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 15
2033 Forecast 15
2043 Forecast 15
2050 Forecast 15
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight on this route section. There is
also the potential that some freight traffic is re-routed via this route
rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and
Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn, particularly if the route was
cleared to W12 gauge, as Teesport – Scotland intermodal
container traffic could also then be routed this way.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
11.2 Hartburn Jn – Stockton Cut Jn
Route Section Hartburn Jn – Stockton Cut Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 5
2050 Forecast 5
Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic as a result of a decline in coal
traffic. There is also the potential that some freight traffic is re-
routed via this route rather than via the ECML between
Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
130
11.3 Stockton Cut Jn - Eaglescliffe
Route Section Stockton Cut Jn – Eaglescliffe
Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Intermodal, Domestic Waste
2017 Traffic Level 12
2026 Forecast 11
2033 Forecast 12
2043 Forecast 20
2050 Forecast 20
Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic in the short-term as a result of a
decline in coal traffic. In the longer term traffic will increase as a
result of growth in Intermodal. There is also the potential that
some freight traffic is re-routed via this route rather than via the
ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge
Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.
11.4 Eaglescliffe – Northallerton
Route Section Eaglescliffe – Northallerton
Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Intermodal, Domestic
Waste, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 11
2026 Forecast 10
2033 Forecast 11
2043 Forecast 18
2050 Forecast 18
Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic in the short-term as a result of a
decline in coal traffic. In the longer term traffic will increase as a
result of growth in Intermodal. There is also the potential that
some freight traffic is re-routed via this route rather than via the
ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge
Jn. Development work is currently ongoing for W12 gauge
enhancement between Eaglescliffe and Northallerton, which
would provide a more direct route to/from Teesport and the South.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
131
11.5 Seaton Snook Jn – Hartlepool Power Station
Route Section Seaton Snook Jn – Hartlepool Power Station
Freight Traffic Nuclear
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
11.6 Billingham Jn – Haverton Hill/Port Clarence/Seal Sands
Route Section Billingham Jn – Haverton Hill/Port Clarence/Seal Sands
Freight Traffic Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
132
11.7 Hartburn Jn – Bowesfield Jn
Route Section Hartburn Jn – Bowesfield Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 8
2033 Forecast 8
2043 Forecast 8
2050 Forecast 8
Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, particularly if the
route, (and those beyond to Ferryhill/Tursdale Jn) are cleared to
W12 gauge, as Teesport – Scotland intermodal container traffic
could also then be routed this way.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
11.8 Bowesfield Jn – Grangetown Jn
Route Section Bowesfield Jn – Grangetown Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Intermodal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 11
2026 Forecast 26
2033 Forecast 31
2043 Forecast 41
2050 Forecast 41
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, primarily
due to growth in Intermodal traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required. Much of this route section is 4
tracked and during the 1990s/2000s the route section carried
even higher levels of freight traffic, but bulk traffic has declined in
recent years.
133
11.9 Grangetown Jn – Boulby Potash
Route Section Grangetown Jn – Boulby Potash
Freight Traffic Construction (Potash, Polyhalite, Rock Salt, Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag), Metals, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 14
2033 Forecast 14
2043 Forecast 14
2050 Forecast 14
Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
11.10 Guisborough Jn – Whitby
Route Section Guisborough Jn – Whitby
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
134
11.11 Tursdale Jn – Norton-on-Tees South/East Jn
Route Section Tursdale Jn – Norton-on-Tees South/East Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Intermodal, Coal, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small amount of growth on this route section. There is
also the potential that some freight traffic is re-routed via this route
rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale,
particularly if the route was cleared to W12 gauge, as Teesport –
Scotland intermodal container traffic could also then be routed this
way.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
11.12 Eaglescliffe – Darlington
Route Section Eaglescliffe – Darlington South Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
135
11.13 Darlington North Jn – Bishop Auckland
Route Section Darlington North Jn – Bishop Auckland
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no firm freight aspirations for this route section,
although there have been aspirations for an Intermodal Terminal
at Heighington.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
136
FF.12 Yorkshire
Figure 13 – Yorkshire Route Sections
137
12.1 York – Scarborough
Route Section York – Scarborough
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.2 Seamer – Hull
Route Section Seamer West Jn – West Parade Jn/Anlaby Road Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
138
12.3 Hessle Road Jn – Hull
Route Section Hessle Road Jn – Hull
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.4 York – Harrogate – Leeds
Route Section Skelton Jn – Armley Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
139
12.5 Rylstone – Skipton Middle Jn
Route Section Rylstone – Skipton Middle Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 5
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a growth in tonnage by rail from Rylstone Quarry.
Freight Capacity Assessment Alterations to the current “One Train Working” on the branch
will be required. This scheme is planned to be delivered in
2019.
12.6 Apperley Jn – Ilkley
Route Section Apperley Jn – Ilkley
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
140
12.7 Bradford Forster Square – Esholt Jn
Route Section Bradford Forster Square – Shipley East/West Jns
Dockfield Jn – Esholt Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.8 Leeds – Neville Hill West Jn
Route Section Whitehall Jn – Neville Hill West Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small amount of growth on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
141
12.9 Neville Hill West Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn
Route Section Neville Hill West Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small amount of growth on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.10 Gascoigne Wood Jn – Selby
Route Section Gascoigne Wood Jn – Selby West Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 8
2033 Forecast 8
2043 Forecast 8
2050 Forecast 8
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Although this
route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the
ECML between Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
142
12.11 Selby – Gilberdyke
Route Section Selby West Jn – Gilberdyke Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 6
2033 Forecast 6
2043 Forecast 6
2050 Forecast 6
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.12 Gilberdyke – Hessle Road Jn
Route Section Gilberdyke – Hessle Road Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass,
2017 Traffic Level 7
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
143
12.13 Hessle Road Jn – Port of Hull
Route Section Hessle Road Jn – Port of Hull
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 6
2033 Forecast 6
2043 Forecast 6
2050 Forecast 6
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.14 Milner Royd Jn – Bradford Interchange – Leeds
Route Section Milner Royd Jn – Bradford Interchange – Leeds
Freight Traffic Metals
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
144
12.15 Thornhill LNW Jn – Leeds
Route Section Thornhill LNW Jn – Copley Hill East Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. It
could potentially be used for diversions when the route via
Healey Mills is unavailable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.16 Huddersfield – Barnsley
Route Section Springwood Jn – Barnsley Station Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
145
12.17 Horbury Jn – Wincobank Jn
Route Section Horbury Jn – Wincobank Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.18 Wakefield Westgate – Wakefield Kirkgate
Route Section Wakefield Westgate South Jn – Wakefield Kirkgate West Jn
Freight Traffic Spoil
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. In addition to
the Spoil train from Leeds Whitehall Road to Roxby (Scunthorpe),
there are also occasional wagon movements associated with
stabling at Wrenthorpe Sidings.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
146
12.19 Oakenshaw Jn/Crofton East Jn – Monk Bretton
Route Section Oakenshaw Jn/Crofton East Jn – Monk Bretton
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.20 Castleford – Pontefract Monkhill
Route Section Castleford West Jn – Pontefract West Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Trains are
routed this way for route knowledge/match Power Station
Slots/diversions. If Ferrybridge Power Station was re-developed
for greater rail-freight usage, then this route section would see
future growth.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
147
12.21 Knottingley – Drax Branch Jn
Route Section Knottingley West – Drax Branch Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 29
2026 Forecast 29
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 18
2050 Forecast 18
Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially a reduction in the longer term if coal-fired
units at Drax Power Station are decommissioned.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.22 Drax Branch Jn – Drax Power Station
Route Section Drax Branch Jn – Drax Power Station
Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 29
2026 Forecast 29
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 18
2050 Forecast 18
Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially a reduction in the longer term if units at Drax
Power Station are decommissioned.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
148
12.23 Drax Branch Jn – Potters Grange Jn
Route Section Drax Branch Jn – Potters Grange Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Services are
routed this way between Hull and Drax to retain route
knowledge.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.24 Micklefield – Church Fenton
Route Section Micklefield – Church Fenton
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
149
12.25 Sherburn Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn
Route Section Sherburn Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn
Freight Traffic Metals
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section, although this
route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the
ECML between Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.26 Colton Jn – Milford Jn
Route Section Colton Jn – Milford Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal, Intermodal, Metals, Waste,
Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 12
2026 Forecast 21
2033 Forecast 21
2043 Forecast 25
2050 Forecast 25
Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, due to a rise in
Intermodal traffic, but it is just restoring freight levels to those
experienced in the recent past. This route section can be used
as part of freight diversions from the ECML between
Doncaster/Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required. Much of this route section is 4
tracked and during the 1990s/2000s the route section carried
even higher levels of freight traffic, but bulk traffic has declined
in recent years.
150
12.27 Milford Jn – Ferrybridge Jn
Route Section Milford Jn – Ferrybridge Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal, Metals, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 20
2026 Forecast 21
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 21
2050 Forecast 21
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Intermodal traffic is behind the growth, but this would be routed
via Doncaster, unless this route is gauge cleared. This route
section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML
between Doncaster and Colton Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.28 Ferrybridge Jn – Moorthorpe
Route Section Ferrybridge Jn – Moorthorpe
Freight Traffic Construction, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 9
2033 Forecast 10
2043 Forecast 13
2050 Forecast 13
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Intermodal container traffic is the driver of this growth, but this
would be routed via Doncaster, unless this route is gauge
cleared.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
151
12.29 Moorthorpe – Swinton
Route Section Moorthorpe – Swinton
Freight Traffic Construction, Coal, Metals, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 14
2033 Forecast 21
2043 Forecast 28
2050 Forecast 28
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.30 Swinton – Rotherham Masborough Jn
Route Section Swinton – Rotherham Masborough Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Coal, Metals, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 15
2026 Forecast 20
2033 Forecast 27
2043 Forecast 44
2050 Forecast 44
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
152
12.31 Rotherham Masborough Jn – Tapton Jn
Route Section Rotherham Masborough Jn – Tapton Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Coal, Metals, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 18
2033 Forecast 26
2043 Forecast 41
2050 Forecast 41
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.32 Aldwarke Jn – Woodburn Jn
Route Section Aldwarke Jn – Woodburn Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required
153
12.33 Dore Station Jn – Nunnery Main Line
Route Section Dore Station Jn – Nunnery Main Line
Freight Traffic Metals, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 5
2026 Forecast 9
2033 Forecast 10
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.34 Nunnery Main Line – Rotherham Masborough Jn/Rotherham Central Jn
Route Section Nunnery Main Line – Rotherham Masborough Jn
Holmes Jn/Rotherham Central Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 5
2026 Forecast 6
2033 Forecast 6
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on these route sections.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required
154
12.35 Broughton Lane Jn/Tinsley South Jn – Tinsley
Route Section Broughton Lane Jn/Tinsley South Jn – Tinsley
Freight Traffic Metals, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required
12.36 Nunnery Main Line – Woodburn Jn
Route Section Nunnery Main Line – Woodburn Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required
155
12.37 Woodburn Jn – Woodhouse Jn/Beighton Jn
Route Section Nunnery Main Line – Woodhouse Jn/Beighton Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. This route
section can be used for diversions when the route via Dronfield
is unavailable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required
12.38 Woodhouse Jn – Brancliffe East Jn
Route Section Woodhouse Jn – Brancliffe East Jn
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
156
12.39 Aldwarke Jn – Mexborough Jn
Route Section Aldwarke Jn – Mexborough Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Aggregates
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.40 Swinton – Doncaster
Route Section Swinton – Doncaster South Yorkshire Jn/Bridge Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Aggregates, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 14
2033 Forecast 17
2043 Forecast 24
2050 Forecast 24
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
157
12.41 Gilberdyke – Thorne Jn
Route Section Gilberdyke – Thorne Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Aggregates, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 4
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.42 Applehurst Jn – Adwick Jn/Carcroft Jn
Route Section Applehurst Jn – Adwick Jn/Carcroft Jn
Freight Traffic Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
158
12.43 Kirk Sandall Jn – St. Catherine’s Jn
Route Section Kirk Sandall Jn – St. Catherine’s Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.44 St. Catherine’s Jn – Brancliffe East Jn
Route Section St. Catherine’s Jn – Brancliffe East Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 5
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 5
2050 Forecast 5
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Growth
in Intermodal traffic will replace coal traffic. Further growth
could occur, if the I-Port at Rossington, generates significant
volumes of rail traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
159
12.45 Dore – Tapton Jn
Route Section Dore Station Jn/Dore West Jn – Tapton Jn
Freight Traffic Construction, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 15
2033 Forecast 16
2043 Forecast 17
2050 Forecast 17
Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, as a result of
increased Construction traffic from the Peak District Quarries.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.46 Ferrybridge Jn – Knottingley West Jn
Route Section Ferrybridge Jn – Knottingley West Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Construction, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 16
2026 Forecast 19
2033 Forecast 13
2043 Forecast 13
2050 Forecast 13
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a long term decline in traffic as a result of a decline in
Coal/Biomass. This route section can be used as part of
freight diversions from the ECML between Doncaster and
Colton Jn
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.
160
12.47 Crofton West Jn – Hare Park Jn
Route Section Crofton West Jn – Hare Park Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 16
2026 Forecast 31
2033 Forecast 37
2043 Forecast 50
2050 Forecast 50
Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially significant growth forecast on this route
section. This is driven by growth in Intermodal traffic from the
Yorkshire Terminals.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.48 Crofton West Jn – Wakefield Westgate/Turners Lane Jn
Route Section Crofton West Jn – Wakefield Westgate/Turners Lane Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Intermodal, Construction, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 15
2026 Forecast 33
2033 Forecast 38
2043 Forecast 51
2050 Forecast 51
Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially significant growth forecast on this route
section. This is driven by growth in Intermodal traffic from the
Yorkshire Terminals.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
161
12.49 Temple Hirst Jn – Selby West Jn
Route Section Temple Hirst Jn – Selby West Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section although it
could be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML
between Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
12.50 Milford Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn
Route Section Milford Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Intermodal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 4
2050 Forecast 4
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
162
12.51 Woodburn Jn – Stocksbridge Steelworks
Route Section Woodburn Jn – Stocksbridge Steelworks
Freight Traffic Metals
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
163
FF.13 Nottingham shire
Figure 14 – Nottinghamshire Route Sections
Note: There are other route sections in Nottinghamshire, but are not within the geographical scope
of the North of England Route Study.
164
13.1 Brancliffe East Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn
Route Section Brancliffe East Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 5
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
13.2 Cottam Branch
Route Section Clarborough Jn – Cottam Power Station
Freight Traffic Coal
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary Freight traffic on the branch will cease once Cottam Power
Station closes. If Cottam Power Station is re-developed for
usage that requires rail-freight, then the branch could be used
in the longer term.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
165
FF.14 North and North East Lincolnshire
Figure 15 – Lincolnshire Route Sections
166
14.1 Gainsborough Trent Jn – Brigg – Wrawby Jn
Route Section Gainsborough Trent Jn – Brigg – Wrawby Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. The future
closure of Cottam/West Burton Power Stations will result in limited
traffic using this route section, except for when it is used for freight
diversions when the route via Scunthorpe is unavailable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
14.2 Wrawby Jn – Lincoln
Route Section Wrawby Jn – Lincoln Pelham Street Jn
Freight Traffic Petroleum, Coal, Intermodal, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 7
2026 Forecast 10
2033 Forecast 16
2043 Forecast 19
2050 Forecast 19
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight, based on growth a
variety of commodities, including Intermodal.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.
167
14.3 Ulceby – Barton-on-Humber
Route Section Ulceby North Jn – Barton-on-Humber
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
14.4 Brocklesby Jn – Cleethorpes
Route Section Brocklesby Jn – Cleethorpes
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. The
route between Marsh West Jn and Brocklesby is occasionally
used for freight diversions when the route via Ulceby is
unavailable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
168
14.5 Marsh West Jn – Immingham East Jn – Immingham Reception SB
Route Section Marsh West Jn – Immingham East Jn – Immingham Reception SB
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 0
2033 Forecast 0
2043 Forecast 0
2050 Forecast 0
Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. There
are light engine movements between Immingham East Jn and
Immingham Reception Signal Box. The full route is occasionally
used for freight diversions when the route via Ulceby is unavailable.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
14.6 Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Roxby Gullet
Route Section Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Roxby Gullet
Freight Traffic None at present
2017 Traffic Level 0
2026 Forecast 2
2033 Forecast 2
2043 Forecast 2
2050 Forecast 2
Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic to Roxby Gullet is likely to resume in the near future.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
169
FF.15 Core West-East Freight Routes
FF.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes
Figure 16 – Port of Immingham Route Sections
170
15.1.1 Doncaster – Stainforth Jn
Route Section Doncaster/Hexthorpe Jn – Stainforth Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 12
2026 Forecast 12
2033 Forecast 14
2043 Forecast 18
2050 Forecast 18
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.1.2 Stainforth Jn – Thorne Jn
Route Section Stainforth Jn – Thorne Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 28
2026 Forecast 35
2033 Forecast 43
2043 Forecast 49
2050 Forecast 49
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high
and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to
Drax from Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
171
15.1.3 Thorne Jn – Scunthorpe Trent Jn
Route Section Thorne Jn – Scunthorpe Trent Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 20
2026 Forecast 30
2033 Forecast 41
2043 Forecast 47
2050 Forecast 47
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high
and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to
Drax from Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.1.4 Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Wrawby Jn
Route Section Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Wrawby Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal,
Coking Coal, Iron Ore
2017 Traffic Level 17
2026 Forecast 35
2033 Forecast 56
2043 Forecast 63
2050 Forecast 63
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on the route section, mainly
from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high
and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to
Drax from Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
172
15.1.5 Wrawby Jn – Brocklesby
Route Section Wrawby Jn – Brocklesby
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal,
Coking Coal, Iron Ore
2017 Traffic Level 24
2026 Forecast 50
2033 Forecast 79
2043 Forecast 88
2050 Forecast 88
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high
and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to
Drax from Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.1.6 Brocklesby – Humber Rd Jn/Immingham West Jn
Route Section Brocklesby – Humber Rd Jn/Immingham West Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal,
Coking Coal, Iron Ore
2017 Traffic Level 24
2026 Forecast 50
2033 Forecast 79
2043 Forecast 88
2050 Forecast 88
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high
and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to
Drax from Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
173
15.1.7 Immingham West Jn – Killingholme
Route Section Immingham West Jn – Killingholme
Freight Traffic Construction, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 2
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.1.8 Stainforth Jn – Applehurst Jn
Route Section Stainforth Jn – Applehurst Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Petroleum, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 15
2026 Forecast 22
2033 Forecast 30
2043 Forecast 32
2050 Forecast 32
Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially significant growth forecast on this route
section. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably
don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from
Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.
174
15.1.9 Applehurst Jn – Joan Croft Jn/Haywood Jn
Route Section Applehurst Jn – Joan Croft Jn/Haywood Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Petroleum, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 14
2026 Forecast 21
2033 Forecast 29
2043 Forecast 31
2050 Forecast 31
Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section. Forecast
levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take
account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.1.10 Shaftholme Jn/Haywood Jn – Knottingley West/East Jn
Route Section Shaftholme Jn/Haywood Jn – Knottingley West/East Jn
Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Petroleum, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 15
2026 Forecast 16
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 19
2050 Forecast 19
Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section. Forecast
levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take
account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. This
route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the
ECML between Doncaster and Colton Jn & Doncaster and Hare
Park Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
175
15.1.11 Knottingley West Jn – Featherstone – Crofton West Jn
Route Section Knottingley West Jn – Featherstone – Crofton West Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 6
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a decline in traffic on this route section as a result of a
long-term decline in Coal/Biomass. This route section can be
used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between
Doncaster and Colton Jn & Doncaster and Hare Park Jn.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
176
FF.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle
Figure 17 – Carlisle – Newcastle Route Sections
177
15.2.1 Carlisle – Newcastle
Route Section Pettrill Bridge Jn – Low Fell Jn/King Edward Bridge South Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Nuclear, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, as a result of a new
coal mine near Whitehaven. Freight may get re-routed this way if
the Settle & Carlisle or ECML/WCML isn’t available.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
178
FF.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds Corridor
Figure 18 – Carlisle – Settle – Leeds Corridor Route Sections
179
15.3.1 Carlisle – Skipton
Route Section Carlisle South JnJn – Skipton Middle Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Timber
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 5
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 5
2050 Forecast 5
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight may
be re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or ECML/WCML isn’t
available. It does accommodate, (as far as Hellifield), diverted
freight from the WCML. As Preston – Carlisle becomes capacity
constrained, there is the likelihood that non-gauge dependent
freight is routed via this route.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.3.2 Skipton – Leeds
Route Section Skipton Middle Jn – Whitehall Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 9
2033 Forecast 10
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight may
get re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or the ECML isn’t
available. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open
the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a
through route which could be used by Construction, Biomass or
even Intermodal Container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
180
15.3.3 Leeds – Stourton Jn
Route Section Whitehall Jn – Stourton Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 8
2026 Forecast 9
2033 Forecast 10
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight may
get re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or the ECML isn’t
available. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open
the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a
through route, (including this route section), which could be used
by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.3.4 Stourton Jn – Altfofts Jn/Whitwell Jn
Route Section Stourton Jn – Altfofts Jn/Whitwell Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 14
2026 Forecast 30
2033 Forecast 34
2043 Forecast 47
2050 Forecast 47
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. The
growth is due to an increase in Intermodal traffic to from Leeds
Stourton Freightliner Terminal and Wakefield Europort. Freight
may get re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or the ECML
isn’t available. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-
open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up
a through route, (including this route section), which could be
used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container
traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
181
FF.15.4 Calder Valley Routes
Figure 19 – Calder Valley Route Sections
182
15.4.1 Thorpes Bridge Jn – Hall Royd Jn
Route Section Thorpes Bridge Jn – Hall Royd Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Waste, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 7
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight traffic
could be re-routed onto this route section when the line via
Huddersfield is not available.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.4.2 Hall Royd Jn – Heaton Lodge Jn
Route Section Hall Royd Jn – Heaton Lodge Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Construction, Biomass, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 7
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight traffic
could be re-routed onto this route section when the line via
Huddersfield is not available.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
183
15.4.3 Farington Jn/Farington Curve Jn – Daisyfield Jn
Route Section Farington Curve Jn – Daisyfield Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 3
2033 Forecast 3
2043 Forecast 3
2050 Forecast 3
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It does however
accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML, (Preston –
Carlisle), so an hourly freight path in each direction is required.
As Preston – Carlisle becomes capacity constrained, there is the
likelihood that some non-gauge dependent freight traffic is routed
via this route. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-
open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up
a through route, (including this route section), which could be
used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container
traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.4.4 Daisyfield Jn – Gannow Jn
Route Section Daisyfield Jn – Gannow Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It should be
noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route between
Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route,
(including this route section), which could be used by
Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
184
15.4.5 Gannow Jn – Hall Royd Jn
Route Section Gannow Jn – Hall Royd Jn
Freight Traffic Coal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
185
FF.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn
Figure 20: Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn Route Sections
186
15.5.1 Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn – Earlestown West Jn
Route Section Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn – Earlestown West Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 19
2033 Forecast 25
2043 Forecast 34
2050 Forecast 34
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, as a
result of Intermodal and Biomass growth from the Port of
Liverpool.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required, beyond the flashing Yellow aspect
signals that are planned for Earlestown West Jn to help create a
2nd hourly path from the Port of Liverpool.
15.5.2 Earlestown West Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn
Route Section Earlestown West Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 6
2050 Forecast 6
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. If an
Intermodal freight terminal is developed at Parkside or Port
Salford, then there will be additional growth on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
187
15.5.3 Ordsall Lane Jn – Phillips Park West Jn
Route Section Ordsall Lane Jn – Phillips Park West Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 7
2033 Forecast 9
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.5.4 Phillips Park West Jn – Stalybridge
Route Section Phillips Park West Jn – Stalybridge
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 5
2026 Forecast 5
2033 Forecast 7
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.
188
15.5.5 Stalybridge – Heaton Lodge Jn
Route Section Stalybridge – Heaton Lodge Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 3
2026 Forecast 6
2033 Forecast 14
2043 Forecast 24
2050 Forecast 24
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required to provide an hourly freight path in each
direction.
15.5.6 Heaton Lodge Jn – Thornhill LNW Jn
Route Section Heaton Lodge Jn – Thornhill LNW Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 13
2033 Forecast 21
2043 Forecast 31
2050 Forecast 31
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required to provide an hourly freight
path in each direction.
189
15.5.7 Thornhill LNW Jn – Turners Lane Jn
Route Section Thornhill LNW Jn – Turners Lane Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 13
2033 Forecast 21
2043 Forecast 31
2050 Forecast 31
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.5.8 Turners Lane Jn – Altofts Jn
Route Section Turners Lane Jn – Altofts Jn
Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Aggregates, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 14
2026 Forecast 30
2033 Forecast 34
2043 Forecast 47
2050 Forecast 47
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly
as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
190
15.5.9 Altofts Jn – Milford Jn
Route Section Altofts Jn – Milford Jn
Freight Traffic Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 5
2043 Forecast 7
2050 Forecast 7
Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
191
FF.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley)
Figure 21: Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley) Route Sections
192
15.6.1 New Mills South Jn – Chinley North/East Jn
Route Section New Mills South Jn – Chinley North/East Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 6
2026 Forecast 17
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 19
2050 Forecast 19
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. This is
for Construction traffic from the Peak District quarries.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
15.6.2 Chinley North/East Jn – Dore
Route Section Chinley North/East Jn – Dore Station Jn/Dore South Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 24
2033 Forecast 27
2043 Forecast 29
2050 Forecast 29
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. This is
for Construction traffic from the Peak District quarries.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
193
FF.16 East Coast Main Line and GN/GE
Figure 22 – East Coast Main Line (ECML) Route Sections
194
16.1 Retford – Loversall Carr Jn
Route Section Retford – Loversall Carr Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail,
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 10
2033 Forecast 6
2043 Forecast 6
2050 Forecast 6
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a forecast for a slight decline in traffic on this route
section as the forecast growth in North – South (and vice versa)
traffic on the ECML corridor will use the parallel section of the
GN/GE.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
16.2 Loversall Carr Jn – Doncaster Marshgate Jn
Route Section Loversall Carr Jn – Doncaster Marshgate Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Metals
2017 Traffic Level 33
2026 Forecast 34
2033 Forecast 44
2043 Forecast 59
2050 Forecast 59
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route
section.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions may be required on this route section. This will be
addressed as part of future ECML Strategic Questions.
195
16.3 Doncaster Marshgate Jn – Joan Croft Jn
Route Section Doncaster Marshgate Jn- Joan Croft Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 13
2026 Forecast 17
2033 Forecast 18
2043 Forecast 23
2050 Forecast 23
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
16.4 Joan Croft Jn – Hambleton South Jn
Route Section Joan Croft Jn – Hambleton South Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 24
2033 Forecast 26
2043 Forecast 32
2050 Forecast 32
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route
section. Traffic can be switched between this route and the route
via Askern.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
196
16.5 Hambleton South Jn – Colton Jn
Route Section Hambleton South Jn – Colton Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 24
2033 Forecast 26
2043 Forecast 32
2050 Forecast 32
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route
section. Traffic can be switched between this route and the route
via Askern or Gascoigne Wood.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
16.6 Colton Jn – Northallerton
Route Section Colton Jn – Northallerton
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 24
2026 Forecast 40
2033 Forecast 41
2043 Forecast 51
2050 Forecast 51
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route
section. This route section is 4 tracked and has catered for this
level of freight traffic during the 1990s/2000s.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
197
16.7 Northallerton – Ferryhill Jn
Route Section Northallerton – Ferryhill Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 12
2033 Forecast 12
2043 Forecast 14
2050 Forecast 14
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
16.8 Ferryhill Jn – King Edward Bridge Jn
Route Section Tursdale Jn – King Edward Bridge Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 10
2026 Forecast 11
2033 Forecast 11
2043 Forecast 14
2050 Forecast 14
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
198
16.9 King Edward Bridge Jn – Benton Jn
Route Section King Edward Bridge Jn – Benton Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 5
2026 Forecast 8
2033 Forecast 8
2043 Forecast 11
2050 Forecast 11
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
16.10 Benton Jn – Berwick-upon-Tweed
Route Section Benton Jn – Berwick-upon-Tweed
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass
2017 Traffic Level 4
2026 Forecast 4
2033 Forecast 6
2043 Forecast 9
2050 Forecast 9
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
199
16.11 Pyewipe Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn
Route Section Pyewipe Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 22
2033 Forecast 37
2043 Forecast 53
2050 Forecast 53
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route
section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
16.12 Gainsborough Trent Jn – Loversall Carr Jn
Route Section Gainsborough Trent Jn – Loversall Carr Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 9
2026 Forecast 22
2033 Forecast 37
2043 Forecast 53
2050 Forecast 53
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route
section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
200
16.13 Doncaster – South Kirkby Jn
Route Section Doncaster – South Kirkby Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction
2017 Traffic Level 15
2026 Forecast 17
2033 Forecast 20
2043 Forecast 26
2050 Forecast 26
Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.
16.14 South Kirkby Jn – Hare Park Jn
Route Section South Kirkby Jn – Hare Park Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Petroleum
2017 Traffic Level 20
2026 Forecast 33
2033 Forecast 39
2043 Forecast 52
2050 Forecast 52
Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route
section, largely driven by Intermodal growth to/from the West
Yorkshire Terminals.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions will be required, either additional running lines or
grade separation. Another option could be re-routing freight traffic
via Knottingley. This will be addressed as part of future ECML
Strategic Questions.
201
16.15 Hare Park Jn – Leeds
Route Section Hare Park Jn – Whitehall Jn
Freight Traffic Construction
2017 Traffic Level 1
2026 Forecast 1
2033 Forecast 1
2043 Forecast 1
2050 Forecast 1
Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.
202
FF.17 West Coast Main Line (WCML)
Figure 23 – West Coast Main Line (WCML) Route Sections
203
17.1 Crewe – Hartford Jn
Route Section Crewe – Hartford Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail
2017 Traffic Level 40
2026 Forecast 77
2033 Forecast 99
2043 Forecast 135
2050 Forecast 135
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as
part of future WCML Strategic Questions.
17.2 Hartford Jn – Weaver Jn
Route Section Hartford Jn – Weaver Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail
2017 Traffic Level 46
2026 Forecast 79
2033 Forecast 101
2043 Forecast 139
2050 Forecast 139
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. .
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as
part of future WCML Strategic Questions.
204
17.3 Weaver Jn – Winwick Jn
Route Section Weaver Jn – Winwick Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail
2017 Traffic Level 28
2026 Forecast 61
2033 Forecast 79
2043 Forecast 110
2050 Forecast 110
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as
part of future WCML Strategic Questions.
17.4 Winwick Jn – Preston
Route Section Winwick Jn – Preston
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail
2017 Traffic Level 19
2026 Forecast 40
2033 Forecast 50
2043 Forecast 67
2050 Forecast 67
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as
part of future WCML Strategic Questions. It should be noted that
there are aspirations to re-open the route between Colne and
Skipton, which could open up a through route, (including this route
section from Springs Branch Jn to Farington Jn), which could be
used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container
traffic.
205
17.5 Preston – Carlisle
Route Section Preston – Carlisle
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail
2017 Traffic Level 19
2026 Forecast 40
2033 Forecast 50
2043 Forecast 67
2050 Forecast 67
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as
part of future WCML Strategic Questions.
17.6 Carlisle – Gretna Jn
Route Section Carlisle – Gretna Jn
Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail
2017 Traffic Level 28
2026 Forecast 45
2033 Forecast 52
2043 Forecast 69
2050 Forecast 69
Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section.
Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as
part of future WCML Strategic Questions.
206
Appendix B: Summary of Investment Choices Intervention Location
Cost - 2017 prices (Includes Contingency)
Benefit Cost Ratio Net Present Value
Cumbrian Coast Package of Enhancements Cumbria To be Confirmed as part of Network Rail’s Cumbria CMSP Workstream
To be Confirmed as part of Network Rail’s Cumbria CMSP Workstream
To be Confirmed as part of Network Rail’s Cumbria CMSP Workstream
Earlestown West & East Jns – Winwick Jn Merseyside £90m 16.5 £325m
Chinley North/East Jn – Great Rocks Jn Derbyshire £5m Financially Positive £17m
Tapton Jn - Chesterfield Derbyshire £20m Financially Positive £302m
Ditton West Jn – Weaver Jn Cheshire £50m 3.9 £73m
Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade (Package of Enhancements to provide Freight Capacity & W12 Gauge)
Core West-East Freight Route
To be Confirmed as part of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade
To be Confirmed as part of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade
To be Confirmed as part of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade
207
Appendix C: Abbreviations &
Glossary Acronym Meaning Definition
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
This is an indicator used in cost-benfit
analysis that attempts to summarise
the overall valus for money of a
project. It is the ratio of the benefits of
a project or proposal, expressed in
monetary terms, relative to its costs,
also expressed in monetary terms.
CMSP Continuous Modular Strategic Planning
Approach Network Rail is adopting to
undertake the Long Term Planning of
the railways, designed to be more
dynamic and customer friendly.
ECML East Coast Main Line
The main intercity railway which runs
from Scotland to London, via
Newcastle, Darlington, York, and
Doncaster.
ETB Electronic Token Block
A type of signalling system which
negates the need for a physical token
for controlling traffic on a route.
GN/GE Great Northern/Great Eastern Joint Railway
The railway line between Peterborough
and Doncaster via Spalding, Sleaford
and Gainsborough.
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
Road based goods vehicles up to 40
tonnes laden weight and up to 18.75m
in length.
HS2 High Speed 2
High Speed 2 is the planned high-
speed railway in the United Kingdom,
directly linking London with,
Birmingham, the East Midlands, Leeds
and Manchester, with connections onto
the ECML to connect to Newcatle and
onto the WCML to connect to Scotland.
Jn Junction
The point at which two railway lines
connect.
208
Acronym Meaning Definition
LEP Local Enterprise Partnerships
These are voluntary partnerships
between local authorities and
businesses to help determine local
economic growth and job creation
within the local area.
LNE & EM London North Eastern and East Midlands
The Network Rail route that runs from
Berwick-upon-Tweed, through the
North East, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, the
East Midlands and via the ECML to
Kings Cross, and via the Midland Main
Line to St. Pancras.
LNW London North Western
The Network Rail route that runs from
Gretna at the Scottish Borders, through
Cumbria, the North West of England,
through the West Midlands and to
London Euston in the South.
LTPP Long Term Planning Process
The industry’s planning process led by
Network Rail to develop strategic
proposals for the rail network through
analysis and consultation with a wide
range of stakeholders.
NPV Net Present Value
This is an indicator of how much value
a project will provide. It is a
measurement of profit calculated by
subtracting the present cost values of a
project from the present values of
benefits over a period of time.
RUS Route Utilisation Strategy
A predecessor to the LTPP, supporting
the strategic development of the
railways.
TCB Track Circuit Block
A signalling system which relies on the
continuous train detection throughout
every block section. This gives visibility
to the signal person without having to
physically observe the train clearing a
particular block section.
TfN Transport for the North Sub-National Transport Body for the
North of England.
tpd Trains per Day
Used to describe the number of freight
trains per day on a route section.
Describes the number of trains in one
direction, (with the assumption that
209
there is also an equal number of freight
trains in the opposite direction.)
tph Trains per Hour
Used to describe the number of freight
trains per hour on a route section.
Describes the number of trains in one
direction, (with the assumption that
there is also an equal number of freight
trains in the opposite direction.)
W8 Network Rail Gauge Classification System
8 ft 6 in (2.60 m) x 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m).
This enables standard height, (8ft 6”)
shipping containers to be carried on
standard wagons
W10 Network Rail Gauge Classification System
9 ft 6 in (2.90 m) x 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m).
This enables Hi-Cube shipping
containers to be carried on standard
wagons
W12 Network Rail Gauge Classification System
9 ft 6 in (2.90 m) x 8 ft 6 in (2.6 m).
This enables Hi-Cube shipping
containers to be carried on standard
wagons. It is slightly wider than W10
to enable refridgerated containers to
be conveyed.
WCML West Coast Main Line
The main intercity railway which runs
from Scotland to London, via Carlisle,
Preston, Wigan, Warrington and
Crewe.
WRCCA Weather Resilience and Climate Change
Adaptation Plan
Network Rail plans designed to
strengthen the resilience of the railway
network.
WTT Working Timetable
The rail industries version of the public
national timetable showing all
movements on the rail network
including freight rains, empty trains and
those coming in and out of depots.
210
Appendix D: Reference Material
• Department for Transport, Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline/Market Led Proposals,
2018:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-network-enhancements-pipeline
• Digital Railway Programme, Digital Railway Strategy, 2018:
http://digitalrailway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Digital-Railway-Programme.pdf
• The Hansford Review, 2017
https://thehansfordreview.co.uk/
• Network Rail, LNW WRCCA:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LNW-Route-WRCCA-Plan.pdf
• Network Rail, LNE & EM WRCCA:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LNE-and-EM-Route-WRCCA-
Plan.pdf
• Network Rail, Long Term Planning Process:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/
• Network Rail, Open for Business 2018:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-commercial-partners/third-party-investors/network-
rail-open-business/
• Network Rail Strategic Business Plan, 2019 - 2024:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/publications-resources/strategicbusinessplan/