Submission Document
East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Development Plan Document
Waste and Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
June 2012
Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 1
Introduction1 1 Introduction
1.1 East Sussex County Council, Brighton and Hove City Council and the South Downs National Park Authority (the Authorities) are currently preparing a joint Waste and Minerals Plan Development Plan Document (WMP), formally known as the Core Strategy. The WMP is being prepared in accordance with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and associated regulations and guidance.
1.2 To inform the WMP, this Minerals and Waste Transport Feasibility Study has been undertaken to assess the feasibility of transporting waste and minerals by rail and water into, out of and within the Plan Area. MDS Transmodal were commissioned by the Authorities in November 2008 to provide advice and inputs into the feasibility study, particularly with respect to rail freight and coastal shipping issues.
1.3 The report is a ’living draft’ which presents the evidence as it stands at this stage and will be periodically updated with any new information that comes to light. This will ensure the Councils’ knowledge and understanding of waste and minerals remains robust and the evidence base for the WMDF is ‘sound’. The report is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 - outlines planning and transport policy from national to local level with respect to transportation and waste and minerals; Chapter 3 - identifies existing wharf facilities, railway terminals and freight siding facilities in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove (both active and inactive). See appendix B for further details of these facilities. Landings of aggregates at ports in the Plan Area, inwards flows of aggregates by rail and road to East Sussex/Brighton and Hove are also covered. Chapter 4 - gives aggregate trends and forecasts data for the South East and East Sussex/Brighton & Hove; Chapter 5 - looks at waste trends and forecasts covering volumes generated in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove and annual volume by waste type and destinations; Chapter 6 - looks at railway issues. Covering equipment used for moving aggregates and waste, loading gauge, train lengths, route availability and network capacity, as well as the potential availability of grants. The rail industry structure and roles/responsibilities are also covered. Freight path capacity on the Brighton mainline and approaching routes is then looked at, as well as providing up to date data with regards to train trailing length and trailing weight limitations on these routes. See appendix A for details of rolling stock used. Chapter 7 - covers rail freight economics for aggregates and waste and circumstances identified under which rail is able to offer a cost competitive transport option. Chapter 8 - covers Coastal/Short Sea Shipping Issues, covering vessels used for moving aggregates and waste by sea, shipping economics for aggregates and 2 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
1Introduction
waste, the industry structure and roles/responsibilities as well as potential grants available; Chapter 9 - identifies new wharf and railway facilities and includes criteria for identifying and assessing sites for handling minerals and waste. A ‘long list’ of potential sites was produced by the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Council's and assessment of that ‘long list’ was undertaken against certain criteria described in this chapter. From this a ‘short list’ of suitable sites was produced into a table of potential sites to be safeguarded. Chapter 10 - identifies key issues from the report on the movement of waste and minerals by rail and wharf in the plan area, which can be taken into account along with the 'short list' of sites, within the Waste & Minerals Development Framework. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 3
Planning & Transport Policy2 2 Planning & Transport Policy
National Policy Statement - Ports (January 2012)
2.1 The NPS provides the framework for decisions on proposals for new port development. It sets out the Government’s conclusions on the need for new port infrastructure, considering the current place of ports in the national economy, the available evidence on future demand and the options for meeting future needs. It explains to planning decision-makers the approach they should take to proposals, including the main issues which, in the Government’s view, will need to be addressed to ensure that future development is fully sustainable, as well as the weight to be given to the need for new port infrastructure and to the positive and negative impacts it may bring.
Port Masterplans
2.2 The Department for Transport requires masterplans to be produced for ports in order to:
Clarify the port’s own strategic planning for the medium and long term; Assist regional and local planning bodies, and transport network providers, in preparing and revising their own development strategies; and Inform port users, employees and local communities as to how they can expect to see the port develop over the coming years.
2.3 Within the Plan area, masterplans have so far been produced for Shoreham and Newhaven ports.
Railway - Route Utilisation Strategies (RUS)
2.4 Route Utilisation Stratgies are produced by Network Rail and seek to balance supply and demand and set out the longer term vision for improvements across the rail network.
Freight RUS (March 2007)
2.5 The Freight RUS considers current freight usage and estimates future demand on the network, in train numbers and tonnage. Options to bridge potential gaps are outlined in the consultation process on the RUS, with recommendations and proposals and how to implement them. At the time the Freight RUS was consulted on no freight paths within East Sussex and Brighton & Hove came forward therefore none appear in this document. 4 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
2Planning & Transport Policy
Sussex RUS (January 2010)
2.6 This RUS concentrates primarily on passenger services between the Brighton Main Line, the Redhill corridor, East Croydon and London, although there are some reference to freigh traffic.
2.7 I tnotes that the South East has long been the largest market in the UK for aggregates for the building trade and over time the attractiveness of rail as the mode of choice has increased as local sources of aggregate have expired or become subject to planning restrictions – driving the need for longer hauls. Movement of aggregates by rail is likely to continue to grow in the medium to long term but with demand closely linked to the level of house building and other major construction projects within the RUS area. It is expected that this growth can be accommodated using the current network capacity.
2.8 Rail is particularly suited to the transport of aggregates for both economic and environmental reasons. Aggregates products tend to have a relatively low unit value, as a result of which transport costs comprise a large proportion of the end price. With a typical payload of at least 1,000 tonnes per train, rail can carry large volumes reliably and economically.
National Planning Policy
White Paper: Delivering a Sustainable Railway
2.9 The white paper ‘Delivering a sustainable railway’, published on 24 July 2007, fulfils the remit the then Government set itself in 2005 to provide strategic direction for the rail industry. The white paper looks at the potential future challenges for the railway over a 30-year horizon. It identifies three long-term agendas for Government and the rail industry working in partnership: increasing the capacity of the railway, delivering a quality service for passengers, and fulfilling rail’s environmental potential. The Paper also confirmed the Government’s support for rail freight growth and the measures necessary to achieve it.
The National Planning Policy Framework
2.10 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and replaces previous national planning policy contained with Planning Policy Guidance and Planning Policy Statement documents.
2.11 The NPPF supports the use of sustainable transport and states that local authorities should work with neighbouring authorities and transport providers to develop strategies for the provision of viable large-scale infrastructure such as rail freight interchanges. Transport investment necessary to support strategies for the growth of ports, airports or other major generators of travel demand in their areas should also be provided. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 5
Planning & Transport Policy2
Regional Planning Policy
The South East Plan
2.12 The South East Plan is the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) for the South East and was published in May 2009 to cover the period to 2026, although the Coalition Government has stated its intention to revoke RSSs through the provisions of the Localism Act 2011.
2.13 It sets out strategies for improving life in the region over that timescale by:
highlighting priorities for improving transport; reviewing the number of new houses needed in the region each year; setting targets for recycling waste to reduce the need for landfill; recommending ways to improve health and the environment.
Ports
2.14 The importance of the region’s ports is acknowledged in the Plan as playing a vital role in supporting the UK economy. However it is clear that they are dependent on the quality of the landside infrastructure. The location of port infrastructure is seen as providing the opportunity to encourage short-sea shipping as a real alternative to land transport. Policy T10 expressly states that encouragement should be given to investment in landside infrastructure that supports short-sea shipping connections linking the region into the wider European network via the region’s ports.
2.15 Short-sea and coastal shipping is defined as the movement of passengers and goods between ports situated in geographical Europe or between those ports and ports situated in the enclosed seas bordering Europe
Freight
2.16 It is recognised that the majority of freight movements are made by road and this will continue to be the case. However rail freight is seen as having an important role to play in a number of markets and there is seen to be a need to protect routes on the rail network that benefit freight movements and to address bottlenecks on the network that adversely affect rail freight.
2.17 The following Policies from the Plan are particularly relevant: 6 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
2Planning & Transport Policy
Policy T11
Rail Freight
The railway system should be developed to carry an increasing share of freight movements. Priority should be given in other relevant regional strategies, Local Development Documents, and Local Transport Plans, providing enhanced capacity for the movement of freight by rail on the following corridors
Southampton to West Midlands Dover/Channel Tunnel to and through/around London Great Western Main Line Portsmouth to Southampton/West Midlands
Policy T12
Freight & Site Safeguarding
Relevant regional strategies, Local Development Documents and Local Transport Plans should include policies and proposals that:
Safeguard wharves, depots and other sites that are, or could be, critical in developing the capability of the transport system to move freight, particularly by rail or water Safeguard and promote sites adjacent to railways, ports and rivers for developments, particularly new intermodal facilities and rail related industry and warehousing, that are likely to maximise freight movement by rail or water Encourage development with a high generation of freight and/or commercial movements to be located close to intermodal facilities, rail freight facilities, or ports and wharves.
Aggregates
2.18 Section D6 of the Plan addresses the issue of minerals. The Plan notes that The South East is the most populous English region and subject to significant growth pressures. The maintenance of a healthy regional economy will require an adequate supply of aggregates to support a major housing programme, deliver key infrastructure projects and provide the everyday products that we all use. However, planning policy also has to balance the essential requirements of the regional economy for aggregates with the environmental impact arising from their extraction, processing and transport. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 7
Planning & Transport Policy2
2.19 The Plan states that minerals and planning policy guidance provide the context within which regional minerals policy should be prepared. In particular, regional minerals policies are guided by sustainable development as a key principle. This means that while delivering the minerals that the region needs, extraction and processing should:
Safeguard the region’s naturally occurring minerals and encourage the use of suitable alternative construction materials where appropriate; Protect the environment and local amenity; Minimise the adverse impacts of the transport of minerals and construction materials.
2.20 The following policy extracts are particularly relevant:
Policy M3
Primary Aggregates
The supply of construction aggregates in the South East should be met from a significant increase in supplies of secondary and recycled materials, a reduced contribution from primary land-won resources and an increase in imports of marine-dredged aggregates.
Policy M5
Safeguarding of Mineral Reserves, Wharves and Rail Depots
Mineral planning authorities should assess the need for wharf and rail facilities for the handling and distribution of imported minerals and processed materials, and identify strategic sites for safeguarding in their minerals development frameworks. These strategic facilities should be safeguarded from other inappropriate development in local development documents. Existing mineral sites, and proposed sites and ‘areas of search’, should be identified in mineral development documents for the extraction and processing of aggregates, clay, chalk, silica sand and gypsum. These should then be safeguarded in Local Development Documents.
Local Planning and Transport Policy
2.21 Local planning policy is contained in the saved Minerals Local Plan (1999) and Waste Local Plan (2006). The Waste and Minerals Plan is currently being prepared and will replace most of the existing policies. 8 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
2Planning & Transport Policy
Minerals Local Plan (MLP)
2.22 Policies in the MLP support the retention of the existing facilities at the ports of Newhaven, Rye and Shoreham for receiving and processing sea-borne imported aggregates as well as further development of facilities at North Quay, Newhaven. The use of rail and retaining railways sidings at North Quay with direct access to them is also encouraged..
2.23 The MLP supports development of rail depots to receive, process and distribute construction aggregates (subject to environmental impacts being acceptable). Policy 28 supports the retention of the rail link at the Robertsbridge Works and fullest use for all appropriate importing and exporting operations associated with mining and production activities.
Waste Local Plan (WLP)
2.24 A number of Waste Local Plan policies encourage the use of sustainable transport of waste:
Policy WLP2 - requires use of non-road modes of transport to be considered; Policy WLP4 - supports the development of proposals which will enable waste to be carried on the rail network or by water; Policy WLP7 - allocates a site at Sackville Goods Yard, Hove, for road to rail transfer facilities.
Waste & Minerals Plan (Proposed Submission, 2012)
2.25 The Waste & Minerals Plan also contains policies that will support the sustainable transport of waste and minerals:
Policy WMP14 safeguards existing railhead and minerals wharf facilities; Policy WMP17 requires waste and minerals development to prefer non-road modes of transport and seeks to maximise the use of existing railheads and rail links.
East Sussex County Council Local Transport Plan 3 (2011–2026)
2.26 The East Sussex Local Transport Plan set out the vision and objectives for the development of the transport infrastructure in the County in the period to 2026.
2.27 With regard to freight, the approach is to:
develop Freight Quality Partnerships with industry and communities to address local freight issues, support the transfer of freight by rail, encourage more sustainably accessible locations for new business premises, Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 9
Planning & Transport Policy2
encourage safer, more efficient deliveries and raise awareness of freight and distribution, and ensure the freight traffic generated by potential new goods distribution facilities does not have a significant impact on the Ashdown Forest SAC/SPA.
2.28 Potential rail improvements that could assist in transporting waste and minerals are:
The Willingdon Chord (junction improvement at Eastbourne that would mean trains could run past the station rather than having to pull in and out to continue east). Ashford to Hastings Rail Capacity Improvements (dual tracking and electrification). Lewes to Uckfield reinstatement of the line
2.29 Network Rail carried out a feasibility Study in 2008(1), into the reinstatement of the Lewes-Uckfield line and concluded that there is currently no economic case for rebuilding the rail line and no further work is proposed unless there are significant changes in government policy.
Freight Strategy
2.30 ESCC’s Freight Strategy (2004) recognises the strategic role of freight distribution in the local and regional economy to support local growth and regeneration. It takes account of the dominant role of road freight and considers the potential for a shift to rail. The strategy identifies a number of policies and components which form an implementation and action plan, promotes the concept of Freight Quality Partnerships, and partnership working between the County Council, freight industry and Ordinance Survey.
1 Available at: www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/roads/roadschemes/rail/default.htm 10 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 3Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities within East Sussex and Brighton & Hove 3 Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities within East Sussex and Brighton & Hove
3.1 Summaries of all existing wharf and rail terminals in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove can be found in Appendix B.
Shoreham
3.2 There are three wharves currently safeguarded within the Brighton & Hove City Council area of Shoreham Harbour, namely:
Hall's Aggregate Wharf Britannia Wharf Hall's Ferry Wharf
3.3 Only one of these wharves is currently operational, Halls Aggregate Wharf and this along with Ferry Wharf is owned by Cemex. Britannia Wharf is owned by Tarmac and is currently redundant and sublet to Cemex for asphalt storage.
3.4 West Sussex County Councils Wharves and Railheads Study (2008) states that "minerals imported into West Sussex meet its own needs as well as meeting some of the needs of neighbouring authorities including, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex and Surrey County Councils. Further information about the movement of minerals and waste between neighbouring authorities is needed to gain a better understanding of the role wharves and railheads in West Sussex play on a sub-regional scale" (p9).
3.5 A small coal discharge rail terminal was located immediately to the west of Hove station and adjacent to the existing carriage stabling sidings (served by road from Sackville Road). However the terminal is no longer rail linked, having been disconnected from the mainline and the tracks lifted. Part of the terminal is still in use as a general haulage yard and appears to be handling some bulk commodities (possibly coal), though part of the land is also currently used as a car park.
Newhaven
3.6 Located at North Quay Newhaven are five wharves, two are active in importing aggregates and crushed rock, Berth 1 & 2. Berth 3 is currently inactive and the berth and wharf are in need of repair. Berth 4 exports scrap metal to Europe by ship once a day. Berth 5 is the largest and most recently refurbished berth at North Quay and is located on the northern tip of the Quay, this is currently inactive but can be used to import scrap metal and aggregates. Access to the wharf runs alongside and separately to the recent permission given on this site to an ERF. East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City Council hold an underlease (to the Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 11 Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities within East Sussex and Brighton & Hove3 year 2997) with BNP Paribas Securities Services to access Berth 5 from North Quay road via the access alongside the ERF facility and to Berth 5 (BNP are holders of a long leasehold from Newhaven Port & Properties the freehold land owner of North Quay).
Rye
3.7 Rye Port has two wharves, Rye Wharf and Rastrums Wharf. Only Rye Wharf is active and currently imports crushed rock and secondary materials by the Brett Group.
3.8 The Port is not rail connected and it is not financially or operationally feasible to provide a rail connection to the wharves. There are a number of environmental designations that exist at Rye Port and Harbour and any increased transportation to these sites could potentially impact on the local area.
Rail Terminals
3.9 Rail terminals are located at the following locations within the Plan Area (see Appendix B for full details):
1. Newhaven Town Yard (North Quay), Newhaven 2. East Quay Railway Sidings, Newhaven (inactive) 3. British Gypsum, Mountfield
3.10 Planning permission was granted in 2011 for a proposal to bring the siding at North Quay back into use to allow removal of bottom ash from the Newhaven Energy Recovery Facility by rail to a reprocessing facility in Brentford.
3.11 Other rail served aggregates and waste handling terminals in the South East and London are listed below (active sites only, excludes mothballed/redundant sites and Network Rail ballast sidings).
Theale Stone Terminal (site divided between three operators – Foster Yeoman, Lafarge and Hanson), Theale; Colnbrook Foster Yeoman, Colnbrook; Bletchley Stone Terminal, Bletchley Yard, Bletchley; Thorney Mill Stone Terminal, Colnbrook; Eastleigh Aggregate Sidings, Eastleigh; Botley Stone Terminal, Botley; Fareham Stone Terminal, Fareham; Banbury Reservoir Stone Terminal, Banbury; Appleford Stone and Waste Terminal, Appleford; Day Aggregates Stone Terminal, Working Down Yard, Woking; Salfords Stone Terminal, Salfords; Sevington Aggregate Sidings, Ashford; Hothfield Aggregate Sidings, Ashford; Allington Aggregate Sidings, Maidstone; 12 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 3Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities within East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Crawley Aggregate Sidings (site divided between three operators – CEMEX, Foster Yeoman and Days); Ardingly Aggregate Sidings , Ardingly; Chichester Aggregate Sidings, Chichester; Cricklewood waste terminal, London Northolt waste terminal, London; and Brentford waste terminal, London. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 13
Aggregate Trends & Forecasts4 4 Aggregate Trends & Forecasts
4.1 Table 1 below details figures from south east regional reporting for landings of marine dredged sand and gravel, showing a sharp decrease in aggregates landings into ports in East Sussex.
4.2 The Councils understand that the decline may partly be due to some companies investing in larger vessels that cannot land at North Quay Newhaven, coupled with old processing equipment at the wharves. This has led to the use of alternative wharves outside the Plan area in Shoreham (West Sussex), Kent and London. This matter is being considered as part of the background paper on Aggregates Resource.
4.3 The expectation is that future imports of aggregate materials and marine dredged material will continue to be the major source for construction use in East Sussex and Brighton & Hove. Therefore the decline in aggregate landings is a major issue the Councils must take into consideration and investigate further when developing the Waste and Minerals Development Framework.
Table 1 Aggregate Imports and Marine Dredged Material Landed at East Sussex Ports 2002-2010
000 tonnes 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Sand & 350 323 302 229 202 217 205 174 155 Gravel Crushed 176 176 176 93 93 181 145 145 129 Rock Total 526 499 478 322 295 398 350 319 284
4.4 There are three wharves located at Shoreham Harbour that fall within Brighton & Hove. Historically, Shoreham Harbour data, as a whole, has been collected by West Sussex County Council, as the majority of the Port lies within West Sussex. The Authorities are unable to publish landings figures just for the Brighton & Hove wharves due to the commercial sensitivity of releasing figures for one active wharf (2). See Aggregates Resource Study for more details on wharf landings.
4.5 With regards to marine dredged aggregates, for the South Coast region as a whole (including the Eastern Channel and Isle of Wight regions), there is currently a maximum permitted off take of over 20Mt a year from marine aggregate production licence areas – 11.6Mt off the IoW and 8.86 in the East Channel (including Hastings Shingle Bank). Of that 20Mt permitted off take, in 2007 total production amounted to a.7.5Mt – 5.551Mt off IOW and 1.961Mt from the East Channel. These figures are perhaps a little misleading, as a substantial tonnage of the undredged capacity lies in the deeper water of the East English Channel and therefore would
2 Source: East Sussex County Council Authority Monitoring Report 2010/11 14 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
4Aggregate Trends & Forecasts
never be used to supply the tidally constrained ports at Shoreham and Newhaven as it requires larger dredgers. That being said, there is certainly sufficient undredged permitted capacity in licence areas off the South coast to allow increased production, subject to market demand along the South coast.(3)
Inward flow of aggregates by road and rail to East Sussex and Brighton & Hove
4.6 Sources of crushed rock aggregates have an uneven distribution in Great Britain, with southern and eastern England being largely devoid of any major land-won resources. Consequently, regional demand in the South East has to be met from land-won resources in other regions e.g. quarries in the Mendips and East Midlands and from Britain’s only ‘super quarry’ at Glensanda on the west coast of Scotland. Supply from these sources is subsequently transported into the South East Region by rail (excluding East Sussex/Brighton & Hove) or sea. This is also supplemented by marine dredged material and modest quantities of crushed rock imported from Europe. Consequently, all the major aggregate suppliers make use of rail freight and short sea shipping for their bulk/trunk movements of primary aggregates.
4.7 The tables below, extracted from the SEERA study on rail and wharf movements in the South East (originally sourced from the MDS Transmodal GB Freight Model), shows the volume of aggregates imported into the South East Region and London by rail in 2006 (from land-won resources in other regions). There are currently no inward flows of aggregates by rail into East Sussex.
Table 2 Inward supply of aggregates into the South East Region and London by Rail Freight 2006
000s Tonnes Lifted To: Total South East Region 3,434 To: Greater London (4) 3,429 Total Greater South East (i.e. SE + London) 6,863
4.8 The South East Region Aggregates Monitoring Report 2009 states that around 2.3mt of crushed rock and 0.3mt of land-won sand and gravel was sold from rail depots in the South East in 2009.
3 Source: BMAPA 4 A further 1.2 million tonnes is imported via wharves in London and re-distributed by rail. These volumes have not been included in this table to avoid double counting Table 3 Inward Supply of Aggregates by Rail Freight 2006, by Origin Region and Destination County
000s Tonnes Total Bucks South
Greater Aggregate East Berks (inc M Hants Oxon Surrey Kent W Sussex London South Key) Region East Origin Region East Midlands 218 484 70 35 807 1,291 2,098 East of England 90 90 68 158 South West 1,037 49 581 30 112 433 227 2,469 1,787 4,256 T
Wales 13 23 7 8 51 116 167 rends W aste West Midlands 16 16 112 128 & Yorkshire & Humber 0 55 55 Miner als Total 1,358 556 581 100 112 491 235 3,433 3,429 6,862 & Sustainable Forecasts Table sources (both tables): SEERA Aggregates Study and MDS Transmodal GBFM T r ansport F easibility Study 4 15 16 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
4Aggregate Trends & Forecasts
4.9 Aggregates brought into the South East Region by sea (sourced from land-won resources in other regions and mainland Europe and from marine resources) amounted to some 6.3 million tonnes in 2009 (5). The majority of this total is made up of off-shore or sea-dredged aggregates, amounting to around 4.8 million tonnes in total. This contrasts with the assumption in the SE Plan of 7.6 mtpa for 2005-2020. The following table gives total inward movements to the ports of the South East Region.
Table 4 Inward Supply of Aggregates to South East Region by Sea 2009
000s Tonnes(1)
Mineral Planning Authority Sand/Gravel Crushed Rock Total
East Sussex 114 26 140
Hampshire 1,046 c 1,848
Isle of Wight 59 c 148
Kent 1409 1344 4169 Medway 1416
West Sussex 755 c c
Total South East Region 4,800 1,500 (2) 6,305 (3)
1. Source: South East AM2009 2. figure rounded to protect confidential figures 3. figure rounded to protect confidential figures
4.10 The annual Aggregates Monitoring Reports 2009 for the South East Region suggests some 7.3 million tonnes is sourced from land-won resources in the South East region, as follows:
Sand and Gravel – 6 million tonnes; and Crushed Rock – 1.3 million tonnes;
5 The South East Region Aggregates Monitoring Report 2009 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 17
Aggregate Trends & Forecasts4
Table 5 Transportation modes into the South East region
Source Transport mode Total (million)
Paragraph 4.8 Rail 2.6
Table 4 Sea 6.3
Paragraph 4.10 Land-won 7.3
TOTAL 16.2
Current Economic Climate
4.11 Currently East Sussex/Brighton & Hove wharves handle around 3.5% of total sea-borne inward flows of aggregates into the South East region. On the basis of this market share continuing, this suggests that East Sussex/Brighton & Hove wharves could handle between 340,000 and 473,000 tonnes by 2016. However, local demand will depend on a number of factors including demand from construction projects. Current demand is below this level, due to the major downturn in the economy. It is expected that an increase in demand similar to that for the Polegate Bypass in 2004 will be seen when the construction of the Bexhill Hastings Link Road begins in 2013. 18 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
4Aggregate Trends & Forecasts
MDS Transmodal produced a series of 'high level' rail freight forecasts on behalf of the Freight Transport Association (FTA) and the Rail Freight Group (RFG). These forecasts were included in the freight industry's submission to the DfT for the purposes of informing the development of the HLOS and Sustainable Railways White Paper (see Section 2.1). The table below, derived from these forecasts and also included in the aforementioned SEERA study, shows future estimated volumes of aggregate flows by rail freight into the South East and London in 2016 (i.e. aggregates sourced from land-won resources in other region and transported to the South East by rail).
Table 6 Forecast Inward Supply of Aggregates into South East Region and London by Rail Freight 2016
(1) 000s Tonnes Lifted
To:
Total South East Region 3,718
To:
Greater London (2) 3,744
Total Greater South East (i.e. SE + London) 7,462
1. Source of forecasts: MDS Transmodal GBFM 2. Not including 3.5 million tonnes of aggregates imported via SE Wharves and re-distributed by rail
The forecasts estimated that by 2016, around 3.7 million tonnes of aggregates will be imported into the South East Region by rail freight (3.4 million tonnes in 2006). Including Greater London, imports into the Greater South East by rail freight are expected to be in the order of 7.5 million tonnes. This represents a growth of just under 9% compared with 2006 volumes. These figures do not include aggregates imported via a wharf in the Greater South East which are subsequently re-distributed by rail freight within the South East.
The aforementioned SEERA study also forecast that wharves in the South East Region will need sufficient capacity so that they can receive and re-distribute between 10.2 and 14.2 million tonnes of aggregates by 2016 (8.4 million tonnes in 2006). Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 19
Waste Trends & Forecasts5 5 Waste Trends & Forecasts
Municipal Solid Waste
5.1 Municipal waste arisings and management for Brighton & Hove and East Sussex for the years 2006/07 to 2010/11 are shown in Figure 1 below. The downward trend in arisings noticeable in previous years has eased in 2010/11, with arisings broadly similar to the previous year.
Figure 1 Municipal Waste Arisings and Management for the Plan Area 2006/07 - 2010/11
Commercial & Industrial Waste
5.2 Accurate records of total C&I arisings are still not available, however 475,000 tonnes per annum is considered to be a best estimate.
5.3 These figures are considered to be best estimates as there is currently no comprehensive dataset covering the management routes followed by C&I waste within the Plan Area. The current position has been quantified by using information from the Environment Agency's Waste Data Interrogator data on landfill quantities and the latest results from the recent Defra C&I survey. 20 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
5Waste Trends & Forecasts
Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste
5.4 The amount of CDEW arising can fluctuate considerably due to economic and social factors, and usually increases during periods of high development and construction. 906,000 tonnes is considered to be the most robust estimate of arisings in 2008/09.
Forecasts
5.5 The amount of waste that will need to be managed over the Plan period is shown in Table 7 below.
Table 7 Estimated Quantity of Waste to be Managed in the Plan Area (tonnes)
2015/16 2020/21 2025/26 Min Max Min Max Min Max MSW 361,000 392,000 356,000 414,000 352,000 437,000 C&I 429,000 478,000 420,000 481,000 412,000 483,000 CDEW 853,000 879,000 832,000 924,000 811,000 971,000 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 21
Railway Issues6 6 Railway Issues
Background
6.1 Rail freight services and operations can essentially be divided into two types:
6.2 Conventional Services: Conventional services provide for shipments from one private siding/rail connected facility to another without any use of road transport. The loading and unloading of the cargo is normally the responsibility of the shipper/receiver, with the rail freight operator normally providing the traction and sometimes supplying the wagons (many shippers of conventional cargo lease their own wagons). Conventional rail freight operations are normally associated with 'bulk' commodities e.g. primary aggregates.
6.3 Conventional services have two main disadvantages. Firstly, they are operationally inflexible as they require dedicated rail connected facilities at both shipper and receiver premises. Secondly, wagons used in conventional rail services are generally specially designed for a particular commodity e.g. aggregates. Consequently operators cannot seek backloads and the wagons have to be repositioned empty (wagon utilisation is therefore very poor). The shipper therefore has to pay for a round trip, even though the return leg of the journey is empty. However, conventional rail services can be very cost competitive at transporting large quantities of cargo from one rail-linked site to another, such as moving aggregates from a quarry to a local storage/distribution depot (see economics section below).
6.4 Intermodal Services: An intermodal unit is some form of unit load 'box', such as a maritime container, swap body or waste container, within which goods can be loaded and then secured for transport. The design of the unit is such that it can be moved by rail and other modes of transport e.g. road transport, shipping (lifted between modes using some form of crane or lifting gear). An intermodal rail service is therefore the transport of unit loads by rail, but where the initial collection from the shipper and final delivery to the receiver can be undertaken by other modes of transport if required. Transfer to/from rail is undertaken at an intermodal terminal located close to the shipper/receiver. A typical transport chain could consist of:
Delivery of intermodal unit by road to an intermodal terminal; Unit lifted from road vehicle and onto train; Trunk haul by rail to intermodal terminal close to receiver; Unit unloaded from train and lifted onto a road vehicle; and Delivery of unit by road to receiver.
6.5 The disadvantages of conventional rail services are overcome with intermodal rail freight. It allows non-rail-connected shippers to utilise rail freight as a transport mode; initial collection and/or final delivery can be undertaken by road transport. Also, as intermodal units are designed for general cargo, the transport operator 22 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
normally has the ability to re-position the empty intermodal unit after delivery and seek a return load (though not the case with household waste containers). Consequently the shipper only has to pay 'one-way' and utilisation is significantly increased. Most intermodal rail services in Britain are associated with the movement of deep-sea maritime containers from ports to inland-terminals. Recently, though, a number of the major retailers have begun to use intermodal rail services to move goods from storage warehouses in the Midlands to their Scottish distribution centres. Also, household waste is moved in containers (from London, Manchester and Avon) and gypsum is also transported by rail in containers e.g. the British Gypsum factory at Mountfield (East Sussex) receives gypsum in containers by rail.
6.6 In Great Britain, rail freight services of both types can effectively be divided into four 'components', namely:
The railway track infrastructure over which freight train services operate; The operation and management of freight services by freight train operators; Rolling stock, including locomotives and wagons; and Rail terminal facilities, such as intermodal terminals and other sidings where trains can be loaded/discharged.
6.7 Privatisation of the railways in the mid-1990s separated the ownership/operation of the track infrastructure from the provision of train services. Each train operator would be entitled to open access to the track infrastructure on equal terms, thereby generating 'on-rail' competition between freight operators and (to a more limited extent) passenger operators. It was hoped that competition would reduce costs and improve the quality and range of train services provided. While many of the original ‘features’ of the privatisation structure have since been modified significantly (e.g. Network Rail replacing Railtrack and tighter Government control of the passenger franchises), the freight operators have essentially been allowed to compete with minimal control or support from Government.
Railway Track Infrastructure
6.8 Network Rail owns all the tracks, signals, cuttings, embankments, bridges, stations and connections to the mainlines from private sidings. Network Rail is responsible for the safe day-to-day operation of the network (e.g. operation of signals and turnouts) together with the on-going maintenance, renewal and enhancement of the infrastructure. Network Rail is responsible for devising the 'Working Timetable' (WTT) – the provision of sufficient 'train paths' for passenger and freight train services. Network Rail also operates the 'TOPS' wagon/traction tracking system. TOPS is a computerised tracking system that allows Network Rail and freight operators to track the location of their wagons and locomotives.
6.9 Network Rail is a 'company limited by guarantee', essentially a private sector company but without any shareholders. Network Rail should, in theory, cover its operating and maintenance costs by charging train operators 'track access charges' in return for access to the railway network. Any profits (surplus) are retained for future investment, however in practice the Government currently funds a significant Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 23
Railway Issues6 part of its maintenance/renewal budget together with contributing to the funding of network enhancements. In reality, Network Rail emerged from the Railtrack era as a state controlled and funded organisation.
6.10 Network Rail is a monopoly provider, meaning that they could, potentially, dictate access terms to train operators which would be considered unfair and anti-competitive. Consequently, Network Rail is subject to independent regulation by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR). The ORR's responsibilities can be divided into five areas, namely:
Limiting the level of track access charges which Network Rail can impose on train operators; Ensuring that all rail operators (passenger and freight) have access to track infrastructure on equal and non-discriminatory terms; Ensuring that train operators do not act in an anti-competitive manner; Awarding operating licences to passenger and freight train operators; and Setting and monitoring compliance with safety standards.
Freight Train Operators
6.11 Currently, there are six competing rail freight operators in Great Britain, namely:
Freightliner; DB-Schenker; DRS; GB Rail Freight (GBRf)' Colas Rail; and Mendip Rail
6.12 Freightliner was a former British Rail freight company which specialised in the movement of maritime containers between deep sea container ports and inland terminals. It was transferred to the private sector by means of a management buyout supported by venture capitalists. Most of the remaining British Rail freight businesses (essentially those providing conventional services) were sold to one buyer and subsequently merged to form English, Welsh and Scottish Railway (EWS). The rail operation concerned with the movement of spent nuclear fuel was transferred to the ownership of the former BNFL in 1995. BNFL subsequently set up its own in-house train operator, Direct Rail Services (DRS), to manage the operation. DRS was transferred to the ownership of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) in 2005.
6.13 Since privatisation, Freightliner, EWS and DRS have invested heavily in new traction and rolling stock equipment and expanded into new markets. Freightliner has entered the market for moving bulk commodities, including primary aggregates (Freightliner Heavy Haul) while EWS have launched a number of intermodal services. DRS has also expanded outside its core nuclear fuel operation, in particular hauling maritime containers for MSC and joining forces with two road haulage operators 24 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
(WH Malcolm and Eddie Stobart) to provide just-in-time intermodal services between the Midlands and Scotland. In 2007, EWS was purchased by Deutsche Bahn (DB), the state owned national railway operator of Germany, and will be rebranded as DB-Schenker during 2009. The remaining four operators are all new entrants to the rail freight market.
6.14 Overall, the sale of the British Rail freight businesses and the subsequent new-entrants has resulted on the original aims of the privatisation process being met, in that there now exists an open competitive market for freight train service provision. Since 1997, efficiency has improved, investment in new traction/rolling stock has occurred and the competitiveness of the sector on both cost and quality grounds has increased greatly. The doubling of the amount of cargo lifted by the rail freight sector since 1997 and its increased overall market share is partly a reflection of the success of the privatisation process.
6.15 Contractually, train services offered by the seven operators generally fall into one of two categories, namely:
1. Contract trains. This is where a shipper contracts full-length trains from a freight train operator for a particular flow of goods or for multiple flows. Consequently, the 'risk' falls with the shipper to 'fill' the train on each occasion (the operator would normally charge a fixed rate per train regardless of how much cargo the train moves on each trip). Contract trains may run on every day of the week, on certain days (e.g. Monday and Friday) or only when there is sufficient demand (so called 'Q' trains). 2. Mixed User Trains. These are scheduled train services (run to a fixed timetable) on which shippers can purchase individual 'slots' or 'wagons'. Consequently, the 'risk' falls with the train operator to 'fill' the train on each occasion.
6.16 Most conventional services are operated on a contract basis. Intermodal train operations are a mixture of contract and mixed user. Mixed user intermodal services are concentrated on port-inland terminal flows, allowing shipping lines to purchase slots on individual trains. Some port services are also contracted by particular shipping lines e.g. OOCL train from Southampton to Trafford Park operated by Freightliner, MSC from Felixstowe to Hams Hall operated by GBRf. Domestic intermodal flows are organised on a contract basis e.g. DRS' intermodal train services for WH Malcolm and Stobart are contracted by the hauliers. The containerised gypsum flows and movements of household waste in containers by rail are also operated on a contract basis.
6.17 In order to gain access to Network Rail’s tracks, the seven freight train operators (and any other new entrants) need to:
Hold an operator's licence; Enter into a track access contract with Network Rail; and Pay Network Rail track access charges Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 25
Railway Issues6
6.18 Operator's licences are awarded by the ORR under the Railway (Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations. All train operators require a licence before they can operate freight or passenger services. The licence effectively sets out the operator's responsibilities and obligations relating to the safe operation of traction and rolling stock on railway networks
6.19 Train operators also need to enter into a track access contract with Network Rail. This is effectively the legal contract between a freight train operator and Network Rail which permits access to the railway network and establishes the rights and obligations of both parties. A track access contract will include details of the operator's access rights and access options (the 'train paths' the operator is entitled to use – see Capacity sub-section below). All track access contracts need to be formally approved by the ORR. If necessary, the ORR can issue directions under Sections 17 and 22A of the Railways Act 1993 obliging Network Rail to enter into or amend a contract.
6.20 A track access contract will also detail the level of the track access charges payable by the train operator. The level and type of track access charges which Network Rail can charge operators for access to the national infrastructure are 'fixed' for five year periods by the ORR (known as 'Control Periods'). With regards to freight, the current control period specifies that track access charges paid by freight operators must be calculated on a 'long run marginal cost' basis i.e. only those costs incurred by Network Rail which are directly related to freight train operations.
6.21 In most cases, track access charges paid by the freight operators reflect the 'wear and tear' imposed on the network by freight trains additional to that generated by passenger train services. However, different wagons cause different levels of track damage, as a consequence of both different suspension systems and different absolute axle loadings. The current track charging regime accounts for this and attaches different rates to different wagons and traffics. As a general 'rule of thumb' the heavier the freight train the higher the levels of track access charges but with lower rates for wagons fitted with modern 'track friendly' bogies (empty wagons also pay lower rates). The ORR’s review of Network Rail's finances suggests a similar structure will apply to the next control period (2009-2014), and that the charges paid by freight operators are likely to fall by around 35% (reflecting efficiencies in maintenance/renewal).
Freight Train Operators – East Sussex Waste and Aggregates Context
6.22 Considering the above, it is worth noting that it is the freight train operators, and not the shipper, receiver or commissioner of train services, who have the direct relationship with the track infrastructure operator (Network Rail). It is the train operators who hold the operator’s licence, negotiate access rights and access options with Network Rail and pay the track access charges. 26 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
6.23 In theory, all freight train operators would be available to tender for contracts to haul aggregates and waste traffic. In practice, however, the movement of primary aggregates is currently dominated by DB Schenker and Freightliner Heavy Haul. GBRf is also currently responsible for the movement of Gypsum from power stations and ports to plaster/plasterboard factories. The small number of municipal waste flows by rail are operated by Freightliner and EWS.
6.24 Train services hauling primary aggregates from quarries are normally provided on a contract basis. Within the aggregates industry, it is normally the aggregates producer who is responsible for arranging/paying for the transport of aggregates from quarries to local storage/distribution centre (rather than the final receivers). Consequently, it is aggregates producers who contract train services from the freight operators. In some cases, the aggregates producer will own a fleet of wagons and will purely be contracting the ‘locomotive and driver’ to move the wagons from origin to destination. In other cases, the freight train operator will also lease a fleet of wagons to the aggregates producer.
6.25 As shall be demonstrated further below, rail services are very cost competitive (compared with road haulage) at transporting aggregates from quarries to rail-linked local storage/distribution facilities. On this basis, the aggregates producers will, generally, seek to use rail freight ahead of road transport for most of their trunk hauls inland, even over relatively short distances. The developing competitive market for rail freight services has enabled further efficiency gains.
6.26 In the case of household waste, it has generally been the case that local authorities have been responsible for arranging/paying for the transport of waste to landfill sites or other disposal locations. Consequently, it has been the local authorities concerned (or their contracted waste disposal operators) who have contracted the train services. Given that there are no mixed user intermodal train services from East Sussex, any waste train would have to be organised on a contract basis, possibly by the relevant waste disposal operators.
6.27 However, British Gypsum buys its gypsum on a ‘goods only’ basis and is therefore responsible for arranging/paying for the transport of the product form source (port or power station) to its factories. The containerised gypsum trains destined for Mountfield are therefore contracted by British Gypsum. In the future, it may be the case that the waste receivers (e.g. glass recycling factory or waste-energy plant) will want to ‘buy’ the waste on a ‘goods only’ basis, and contract directly for train services.
6.28 The Inspectors Report into the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan with regards to Policy WLP2: Transport, the Inspector noted that while the use of rail to transport waste should be encouraged, a number of issues (distance, off-loading and transfer, site size and increase in transport costs) led him to doubt that it would be a practical solution. As a result, the Inspector recommended that the Policy should be amended to require development proposals to demonstrate that "...access and use by modes of transport other than road have been considered and, if not proposed, why it would not be practicable". Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 27
Railway Issues6
Operational Issues
6.29 In terms of gaining access to particular routes, and thereby operate freight train services, four main issues are of relevance and will impact on the ability to operate such services; namely:
The loading gauge of a particular section of railway line will affect the type of wagons which can be utilised; The route availability of a particular section of the national network will affect the type of wagons which can be utilised and the type of traffic/commodity which can be move Available freight path capacity; and Train length and trailing weight.
Loading Gauge
6.30 The physical definition of the maximum height and width in cross section of a railway line is called its loading gauge. The size of the loading gauge of a particular section of track will determine the size of rail freight wagon (or combination of intermodal platform wagon plus intermodal unit) that can be conveyed on that section of line. The size of the loading gauge is determined by lineside features such as overbridges, tunnels, overhead power lines, signal gantries and platform edges. There are now seven different loading gauge profiles on the British railway network. These are listed below (from smallest to most generous) together with the dimensions of each loading gauge profile in terms of above rail height at the top left and right corners and width at station platform level.
6.31 W6 gauge (technically called ‘W6A’, but is commonly referred to as ‘W6’) – height above rail 3.40m, width at station platform level 2.50m. This is the standard loading gauge on the British network, and it can accommodate most passenger rolling stock, freight locomotives together with all conventional freight wagons such as the aggregates bogie hopper wagons described above.
6.32 The W7 gauge – height above rail 3.47m, width at station platform level 2.50m. The W7 gauge was originally designed to accommodate 2.43m/8' tall containers on wagons with a deck height of 1.036m or below. Apart from the containers used to transport household waste and gypsum, these containers are now obsolete.
6.33 The W8 gauge – height above rail 3.62m, width at station platform level 2.50m. A W8 gauge network was developed by British Rail during the 1960s and was designed to convey the then newly introduced standard maritime container (2.59m/8'6" tall) on a standard platform wagon (deck height 1.036m or below). As a consequence a network of routes to all the major container ports are gauge cleared to at least W8. 28 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
6.34 The W9 gauge – height above rail 3.72m, width at station platform level 2.60m. The W9 gauge was developed in the early 1990s to accommodate the expected introduction of intermodal services through the Channel Tunnel to/from mainland Europe. The gauge profile permits the movement of European type intermodal units up to 2.90m tall and 2.6m wide on standard European intermodal wagons (deck height of 0.825m i.e. Megafret). As a consequence a number of key routes through Kent to London, and onwards to the north of England and Scotland along the West Coast Mainline (WCML) and East Coast Mainline (ECML) are gauge cleared to at least W9 loading gauge.
6.35 The W10 gauge – height above rail 3.90m, width at station platform level 2.50m. The deep sea container shipping lines introduced the so called 'high cube' maritime container during the 1990s (2.90m/9'6" tall). Containers of this size are now expected to dominate deep-sea markets over the coming years. Consequently, the W10 gauge was developed to accommodate their introduction, as they will not fit through W8 on standard wagons. The only routes gauge cleared to W10 at present are the WCML, the Great Eastern Mainline from Felixstowe to the WCML in London and a number of branches from the WCML to intermodal terminals.
6.36 The W12 gauge – height above rail 3.90m, width at station platform level 2.60m. No route is currently cleared to W12 gauge, however it is obviously more generous and flexible than W10 gauge as it will allow the movement of standard maritime containers, high cube containers and Channel Tunnel Swap Bodies on most types of wagon.
6.37 UIC B+ gauge – height above rail 4.32m, width at station platform level 2.60m. This is a 'mainland European' gauge which permits the movement of standard HGV trailers on rail (so called 'piggyback' rail). The only routes currently gauge cleared to this gauge in Britain are the Channel Tunnel and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
6.38 Effectively, the loading gauge profile of a particular section of line will dictate the type of wagon or intermodal unit/platform wagon combination which can be operated on that section of track. In order to 'fit through' a particular loading gauge profile (or 'kinematic envelope'), the physical dimensions of a rail freight wagon must be within the dimensions of the profile to ensure that it will not collide with any of these lineside features. Obviously the higher the bridges and tunnels etc. the larger the freight wagon that can be conveyed. Consequently, a wagon may have obtained general vehicle acceptance to operate on Network Rail infrastructure, but due to its dimensions it may only be accepted for operation over routes cleared to particular loading gauges.
6.39 As locomotives and freight wagons have a 20-30 year operating life, it is important that they are flexible enough to operate over a wide range of routes, as traffics and markets will change over the long term. As a result, most freight locomotives and conventional railway wagons which operate on the British network have been designed to 'fit through' the smallest of the loading gauge profiles i.e. the W6 loading gauge. Consequently, such rolling stock can be viewed as 'go Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 29
Railway Issues6 anywhere' in terms of loading gauge. However, for intermodal rail freight the overall dimensions of the intermodal unit/platform wagon combination will depend on:
The height and width of the intermodal unit; and The deck height of the platform wagon being used to convey the intermodal unit
6.40 Consequently, an intermodal platform wagon could 'fit through' the profile on a section of the network conveying one type of unit, but will may not have clearance on the same section of line with a taller intermodal unit. The table below shows various wagon/intermodal unit combinations, their individual and combined heights together with the minimum loading gauge profile required.
Table 8 Various wagon/intermodal unit combinations
Wagon Deck Intermodal Intermodal Height of Minimum type height unit load unit combination (m) height (m) (m) gauge profile
FSA, FTA 0.980 Maritime container 2.590 3.57 W8 and FEA Maritime container 2.890 3.87 W10
Waste container 2.430 3.41 W7
Gypsum container 2.430 3.41 W7
Multifret 0.945 Maritime container 2.590 3.54 W8
IFA Maritime container 2.890 3.84 W10 Waste container 2.430 3.38 W6
Gypsum container 2.430 3.38 W6
Multifret 0.825 Maritime container 2.590 3.42 W7
IFA Maritime container 2.890 3.72 W9 Waste container 2.430 3.26 W6
Gypsum container 2.430 3.26 W6 30 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
Loading Gauge – East Sussex/Brighton & Hove Waste and Aggregates Context
6.41 The Brighton Mainline from Redhill to Newhaven via Lewes is cleared to the W8 loading gauge profile (and Redhill to the ECML, WCML and GWML is cleared to least W9). The Brighton Mainline from Keymer Junction (Burgess Hill) to Brighton and Hove is cleared to the W7 loading gauge profile. The mainlines from Tonbridge to Hastings, Oxted to Uckfield and Lewes to Ashford via Hastings are officially cleared to the W6 loading gauge profile. (6)
6.42 Aggregates bogie hoppers are designed to fit through the smallest loading gauge profile (W6). Gypsum containers are currently moved by rail to/from the Mountfield facility. The table above shows that, given the use of appropriate intermodal platform wagons, waste containers of similar design to those used by London, Manchester and Avon should be able to operate throughout East Sussex and beyond. In practice, it is for freight train traction providers, in conjunction with Network Rail, to ascertain that the wagons and traction they propose to operate will 'fit through' the loading gauge profiles of the routes which will be utilised.
Route Availability
6.43 Route Availability refers to the maximum weight and axle weight of a wagon or intermodal unit/platform wagon combination. Similar to weight restrictions on sections of the road network (e.g. weak bridges), parts of the national railway infrastructure cannot accommodate the heaviest railway wagons. Weight restrictions on parts of the network are due to, among other factors:
The strength of bridges and viaducts; Poor or deteriorating quality of the rail, sleeper or rail/sleeper combination; and Subsidence problems on the permanent way.
There are currently 10 Route Availability (RA) categories on the national network. These are shown in the table below.
6 It may be the case that the loading gauge from Tonbridge to Mountfield may be larger than the official W6 classification. GFRf appear to be operating standard 60ft platform wagons with the gypsum containers, suggesting a loading gauge of at least W7 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 31
Railway Issues6
Table 9 Route Availability (RA) categories on the national network
(1) RA Group Single axle weight Gross laden weight of vehicle (Tonnes)
(Tonnes) 2-axle wagon 4-axle wagon
RA1 13.97 27.94 55.87 RA2 15.24 30.48 60.95 RA3 16.51 33.02 66.03 RA4 17.78 35.56 71.11 RA5 19.05 38.10 76.19 RA6 20.32 40.63 81.27 RA7 21.59 43.17 86.35 RA8 22.86 45.71 91.43 RA9 24.13 48.25 96.51 RA10 25.40 50.79 101.59
1. Source: Network Rail Route Directory
6.44 Clearly, the maximum weight of an individual wagon or intermodal unit/platform wagon combination which can operate on the British network is 101.59 tonnes (RA10). The recommended ‘planning’ axle load is 22.5 tonnes i.e. RA8. Modern aggregates bogie hopper wagons are designed to operate up to 22.5 tonnes per axle i.e. RA8. Intermodal rail generally operates at much lighter loadings (up to 18-20 tonnes per axle i.e. RA6).
Route Availability – East Sussex/Brighton & Hove Waste and Aggregates Context
6.45 All lines in East Sussex have a route availability of RA10, with the exception of Brighton-Lewes (RA8) and Oxted-Uckfield (RA6). The Route Availability of the railway lines in East Sussex should therefore not impose any restrictions on aggregates or waste train operations. However, in practice it is for freight train traction providers, in conjunction with Network Rail, to ascertain that the wagons and traction they propose to operate will be able to operate over the routes utilised.
Capacity
Freight Capacity
6.46 In order to operate freight train services, there needs to be sufficient train 'path' capacity available along the length of a route between traffic origin and destination. This includes available capacity on the main trunk rail routes and the final access from the mainline into the terminal (and vice versa). On busy routes, 32 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
train paths are more likely to be more available during off-peak periods, particularly at night. The demand for paths can be reduced by running full trainloads rather than a greater number of short trains.
6.47 Track capacity of a particular section of railway line will normally be determined by a combination of the following factors, including:
The number of tracks on a particular section of line. In general the greater the number of lines the more train paths that will be available. Long sections of single track line will generally offer the lowest level of path provision. Four track railways, where faster passenger trains can be segregated from slower freight trains, offer the highest level of path capacity; The signalling system in operation and therefore the headway allowed between trains. Modern multiple-aspect signalling on a main line double-track railway can accommodate 3-4 minute headways, whereas with older manual block signalling systems the path availability will be much lower. Also, the length of the signal section will impact on a line's capacity. Consequently, if a slow train is travelling through a long block section the following train cannot proceed into that section; The speed, acceleration and braking characteristics of trains which use a particular section of line. In general, mixing different types of trains with varying operating speeds, acceleration/braking characteristics and stopping patterns reduces the available capacity. Pathing Class 7 freight trains in between Class 1 passenger trains would reduce the level of paths available (see below for Class details); The availability and length of passing loops. Passing loops allow slower moving trains, such as freight trains, to take 'refuge' off the mainline while faster passenger trains can pass; and The design and layout of junctions between lines. In general, junctions where trains have to cross two or more tracks 'at grade' (i.e. on the flat, not grade separated) to reach another line results in fewer train paths availability. Single line chords (i.e. a single line connection between two lines) between lines at junctions also results in fewer train paths being available.
6.48 The table below shows the different ‘classes’ for trains operating on the national network.
Table 10 Different 'classes' for trains operating on the national network
Train Class Speed
Class 1 (Inter-city passenger) 140-200km/h (90-125mph)
Class 2 (stopping passenger) 100-140km/h (60-90mph) Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 33
Railway Issues6
Class 3 (freight) 140km/h (90 mph)
Class 4 (freight) 120 km/h (75mph)
Class 6 (freight) 100 km/h (60mph)
Class 7 (freight) 70 km/h (45 mph)
Class 8 (freight) 60 km/h (35 mph)
6.49 For new train services, in simple terms the contracted freight train operator will approach Network Rail and request the 'train paths' at times of the day which suit the operation in question. These are known as access rights and access options (as noted earlier, the relationship is between the traction provider and Network Rail, and not the shipper or commissioner of train services). Should suitable 'train paths' be available in the WTT, Network Rail is obliged to release them to the operator in return for the payment of track access charges. The granting of these rights and options would then be approved by the ORR, either under Section 18 of the Railways Act 1993 (new track access contracts) or Section 22 of the Act (amendments to existing track access contracts). Similar paths must also be allocated to other operators for the same level of track access charge.
6.50 However, Network Rail can refuse to allocate access rights or options, or it could offer alternative access options/rights to those requested, but only for justifiable operational reasons e.g. lack of path capacity or where they would conflict with existing operators. Where the operator and Network Rail cannot agree access options/rights, the train operator can ‘appeal’ to the ORR against Network Rail’s decision. In such circumstances, the ORR can issue directions under Sections 17 and 22A of the Railways Act obliging Network Rail to provide the requested paths. The ORR is the final 'arbiter' on such matters, and all parties must abide by its determinations. Where disputes exist between Network Rail and an operator, the ORR can hold ‘hearings’ where all interested parties can present their case (orally, in writing or mixture). The ORR will then make a decision based on a number of factors, including the wider public benefits generated. The ORR would normally commission its own independent advice to inform its decisions.
6.51 'Train paths' over Network Rail's infrastructure are allocated on a 'use it or lose it' basis. Consequently, an operator is obliged to release paths back to Network Rail for use by competitor operators where their need for particular 'train paths' no longer exists. However, the operator could hold onto the paths for anti-competitive reasons. Again the ORR can order that 'train paths' be removed from operators (and regulate to prevent/halt other such anti-competitive practices).
Capacity – East Sussex Waste and Aggregates Context
6.52 It is often perceived that there is a lack of spare path supply across the national network i.e. it is operating at maximum capacity. This may be the case on certain busy sections of the network and at particular times of the day at other 34 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
locations. However, spare path capacity is available on many parts of the network, and this may be the case in East Sussex. Current demand for freight paths in Sussex is very light, with only 2-3 freight trains per day regularly timetabled for the Brighton Mainline, with no scheduled services south of Haywards Heath
6.53 Freight train path supply and demand data are not generally published, meaning it is not readily available for inclusion in documents such as this report. However, the Brighton Mainline RUS did publish the following table with respect to freight demand and path supply on the Brighton Mainline.
Table 11 Current & projected demand for freight on routes in the South East
Route Section Current (2005) freight Current demand Projected paths paths in timetable (trains/day/direction) required 2014 (trains/day/direction) (trains/day/direction) Purley-Redhill 20 6 20 Redhill-Crawley 11 3 10 Crawley-Three 4 2 4 Bridges Three 2 1 2 Bridges-Haywards Heath
6.54 Secondly, an analysis of current off-peak passenger services through East Sussex suggests that at least one Class 4 or Class 6 freight train per hour per direction could be timetabled on the Brighton Mainline south of Redhill. The current (May 2009) off-peak service pattern is shown in the table below. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 35
Railway Issues6
Table 12 Off peak service pattern through East Sussex - May 2009
Northbound and Southbound
Section of Line Number of Trains Details Tracks per hour (tph) off-peak
Redhill-Three 4 19tph 4 x Brigton-London/Bedford Bridges (Thameslink)
3 x Brighton-London (Southern)
4 x Gatwick-London (Gat Exp)
2 x Hove/Lewes-London (Southern)
4 x Horsham-London (Southern)
2 x Littlehampton-London (Southern)
Three 4 to Balcombe 11tph 4 x Brighton-London/Bedford Bridges-Haywards Tunnel (Thameslink) Heath junction 3 x Brighton-London (Southern) 2 from Balcombe 2 x Hove/Lewes-London Tunnel (Southern) junction and across Ouse 2 x Littlehampton-London Viaduct to (Southern) Haywards Heath
Haywards 2 11tph 4 x Brighton-London/Bedford Heath-Brighton (Thameslink)
3 x Brighton-London (Southern)
2 x Hove-London (Southern)
2 x Littlehampton-London (Southern) 36 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
Keymer 2 2tph 2 x London-Eastbourne Junction-Lewes
Lewes-Newhaven 2 2tph 2 x Seaford-Brighton
6.55 North of Balcombe Tunnel Junction, the Brighton Mainline is a four-track railway. This should provide the required track capacity for an hourly freight path. The four tracks allows faster moving passenger services to be segregated from stopping passenger trains and freight services. There is also a freight yard at Three Bridges which allows freight trains to take ‘refuge’ to allow passenger trains to pass.
6.56 The minimum headway between trains on the Brighton Mainline is four minutes, with a two minute allowance at junctions (Source: Network Rail Rules of the Plan). A high-level analysis of off-peak passenger train timings south of Balcombe Tunnel Junction (May 2009 timetable) also suggests that an hourly freight path in both directions could be accommodated within the minimum headway requirements. Running northbound, there appears to be a path from Keymer Junction at around xx.46 (which can be utilised from Brighton or Newhaven). Southbound, there appears to be a path arriving Keymer Junction at around xx.27 (which again could be utilised towards Brighton or Newhaven). This analysis, however, is no substitute for a detailed pathing exercise (due to lack of time and funding could not be completed as part of this project). It does not account for possible ‘crossing movements’ at junctions (junctions are ‘at grade’ meaning possible conflicts if trains need to cross) and other factors. However, it does suggest that at least one hourly freight path is likely to be available on the Brighton Mainline and onwards towards Newhaven.
6.57 Finally, discussions with Network Rail suggest that accommodating a viable number of new waste and aggregates train services to and from East Sussex/Brighton & Hove will not be a major capacity issue.
6.58 The County Council, through the Route Utilisation Strategy process, is seeking reinstatement of the Willingdon Chord, citing the benefits this scheme would have for freight on rail.
6.59 Within the Sussex RUS process, no consideration was given to the benefits that would arise should freight be transported on the line between Brighton and the western side of the County, the reinstatement of the chord would be fundamental to achieve this. With consent having recently been granted for an Energy Recovery Facility in Newhaven, the benefits of transporting waste on the rail from the western side of the County to Newhaven could be significant and would be compliant with Government policy. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 37
Railway Issues6
Train Length
6.60 From a rail economics perspective, the longer the train the better (see economics section below). This is because a significant proportion of rail freight costs are fixed. Consequently, as train length increases (by attaching additional wagons to the train) the per unit cost falls. However, the maximum length of a particular train service will be limited by a number of factors, including:
The length of sidings available at the origin or destination terminals. This will include the length of any reception/exchange sidings or the length of the cargo handling sidings. The availability of reception/exchange sidings at/close to a terminal enables trains to be split when the cargo handling sidings are too short to accept a full length train in one move; The length of 'signal blocks' on the mainline. Generally, this is the length of track between successive signals. A train must be able to stand at one red signal without the rear of the train 'overhanging' the following signal or being foul of a junction/turnout; and The length of passing loops available on the mainline. Freight trains are timetabled into passing loops to allow faster passenger trains to pass. Passing loops are not of a standard length, meaning that train length limitations will be specific to particular lines and routes, depending on the length of the loop.
The table below shows various wagon formations, the trailing lengths and consequent cargo capacities for the aggregates bogie hopper wagon and the three most common intermodal wagons described above.
Table 13 Various wagon formations, trailing lengths and cargo capacities for aggregates & waste wagons
Wagon Type Number Wagons Trailing Length (m) Tonnes Aggregates at max capacity JGA 15 240 1,013 20 320 1,350 25 400 1,688 30 480 2,025 35 560 2,363 40 640 2,700 Wagon Type Number of Trailing Length (m) No Waste/Gypsum (1) Wagons containers (max)
FSA 15 308 45 18 369 54 38 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
20 410 60 22 451 66 24 492 72 30 615 90
IKA/IFA (Pairs) 10 373 40 11 410 44 12 448 48 14 522 56 16 597 64 18 671 72
1. length: 6.1m (20ft)
Train Length – East Sussex Waste and Aggregates Context
6.61 As a general rule of thumb, on the main trunk railway lines (such as the WCML), the current maximum trailing length is around 510m (i.e. length of the train’s wagons behind the locomotive). The current long term aspiration for main trunk railway lines is a maximum trailing length of 615m. However, branch lines will often have much shorter train length restrictions.
6.62 In Sussex, it is possible that freight trains might need to use platforms at stations for the following functions:
To take ‘refuge’ to allow faster passenger trains to pass; and To reverse/change direction by means of a locomotive run-round e.g. moving from Hastings towards Lewes along the Sussex coast line.
6.63 In such circumstances, the train will be limited by the length of the platforms. Station platforms in Sussex are designed to accommodate up to 12-car trains (multiple unit trains). This would limit freight trailing length to around 276m (i.e. 12 x 23m). This suggests the following train formations:
17 x JGA boggie hopper aggregates wagons (approx 1,100 tonnes of cargo per train); and 7 x IKA Megafret ‘twins’ (28 x intermodal waste containers per train).
6.64 However, longer freight loops are located on the network (e.g. Haywards Heath and Three Bridges) and by avoiding the need to reverse longer trains can be operated. The above limitation should therefore be seen as the ‘worst case’. It may be that trailing weight limitations are the main factor restricting train length. In any case, these are broad guidelines and it will be for freight train traction Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 39
Railway Issues6 providers, in conjunction with Network Rail, to ascertain that suggested train formations will be able to operate over a route when a new service is proposed/commissioned.
Trailing Weight
6.65 The trailing weight of a train is defined as the total weight of the wagons and cargo behind the locomotive. The maximum trailing weight is determined by the route over which the service is run, and the power of the locomotive. Generally, flat routes operated with powerful locomotives (electric traction or a new Class 66) offer high trailing weights. However, routes which have sections with steep gradients permit lower trailing weights. The steepest parts of the national network have gradients of around 1.3% (1-in-75) e.g. the climbs on the WCML to Shap summit from Tebay (from the South) and to Beatock summit in the Scottish Southern Uplands are both 1-in-75. On such sections of the network, trailing weight restrictions are around 1,200 tonnes i.e. around 14 JGA bogie hoppers loaded to their maximum weight. However, flatter sections of the network could permit trailing weights of 2,800-3,000 tonnes (30 JGA wagons).
Trailing Weight – East Sussex Waste and Aggregates Context
6.66 The Brighton Mainline, the route to Newhaven from Keymer Junction via Lewes and other ‘flat’ sections of the Sussex network will permit around 1,700 tonnes trailing weight when hauled by a Class 66 locomotive (Class 66 is the standard diesel traction operated by most freight operations, effectively a ‘go anywhere’ locomotive which is flexible enough to change between routes and markets). This suggests the following train formations:
19 x JGA boggie hopper aggregates wagons (approx 1,280 tonnes of cargo per train); and 14 x IKA Megafret ‘twins’ (56 x intermodal waste containers per train, assuming each container loaded to maximum 20 tonnes).
6.67 However, steeper sections of the network will be limited to 1,200 tonnes trailing weight. This could include Lewes-Brighton (climb to Falmer Tunnel) and route through Hastings and Ore. In any case, these are broad guidelines and it will be for freight train traction providers, in conjunction with Network Rail, to ascertain that suggested train formations will be able to operate over a route when a new service is proposed/commissioned.
Grant Schemes
Rail Freight
6.68 Two grant schemes are currently operated by the Department for Transport to support the movement of goods by rail which would otherwise be conveyed by road transport. They are: 40 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG); and Rail Environmental Benefit Scheme (REPS).
6.69 Both schemes are designed to facilitate the purchase of ‘environmental and social benefits’ that result from using rail freight instead of road transport.
Freight Facilities Grants
6.70 A Freight Facilities Grant (FFG) is a contribution towards the capital costs of railway terminal facilities. Most facilities needed to load, discharge or store goods moved by rail freight are eligible for funding. Capital expenditure must be involved. Examples of facilities likely to be eligible for FFG funding include:
Rail sidings, signalling, and infrastructure earthworks; Lifting/discharging installations, hoppers, fork-lift trucks, conveyors and cranes; Warehousing, silos, tanks, loading bays, storage yards and administrative buildings; Installation of power, lighting, water, drainage and fuel storage; Access roads, hard standing and security fencing; Dust and noise prevention equipment; and Design and project Fees.
6.71 Clearly, capital costs associated with the development of new rail-linked aggregates terminals or waste handling facilities would be eligible for funding. The actual amount of grant funding per application is determined by three factors, namely:
The value of the environmental benefits produced as a result of developing the terminal and the traffic switching to rail; The ‘gap’ between the cost of moving the goods by rail freight compared with road transport, demonstrated by a financial appraisal i.e. assumes the rail freight based supply chain is more expensive; and In England, the DfT will normally fund up to 50% of the eligible costs.
6.72 The lower of the above three figures represents the maximum grant. It is normally the company/organisation funding the terminal who would actually apply for and receive the grant funding. Essentially, the payment of the grant to the terminal developer lowers the total capital costs, which in turn permits lower handling/storage costs resulting in the rail freight supply chain being cost competitive compared with road transport.
6.73 The environmental benefits are calculated by estimating the number of HGV trips which will be removed from the road as a result of developing the terminal. Standard rates, known as Sensitive Lorry Miles (SLM), are used to quantify in money terms the resulting environmental benefits. There are seven different SLM rates, which take into account the different type and level of impacts of lorries on different locations, different roads and under different conditions. The current SLM rates are shown below. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 41
Railway Issues6
Table 14 Current SLM rates
£/km (£/mile)
Motorways
High congestion £0.43 (£0.69)
Medium congestion £0.17 (£0.27)
Low congestion £0.02 (£0.04)
Conurbation (1)
Trunk/principal route £0.86 (£1.38)
Other routes £1.08 (£1.74)
Urban and rural
Trunk/principal route £0.33 (£0.53)
Other routes £0.28 (£0.45)
1. conurbation refers to London and the main metropolitan counties
6.74 In calculating the annual environmental benefits, the applicant would therefore need to know:
The main destinations of traffic; Assuming the cargo was to be moved by road, the number of HGV trips to/from each destination; and The likely route each HGV trip would use (hence distance covered on each type of road).
6.75 The current SLM values are to be replaced from 1st April 2010 by new set of environmental benefits values called Mode Shift Benefits (MSBs). Essentially, MSBs are a simplified set of values, covering four road types rather than the seven under the current SLMs. The new MSBs are:
Motorway – high value: £0.86/mile; Motorway – standard value: £0.07/mile; A roads: £0.74; and B, C and unclassified roads: £1.43. 42 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
6.76 Only committed or expected traffic flows can be included in the environmental benefit calculation. The benefits are calculated annually and then discounted (at 3.5% discount rate) either over the life of the scheme or until the committed traffics end (e.g. 5 year contract).
6.77 The financial appraisal is calculated by comparing the total costs of the rail freight based supply chain with the total costs which would be incurred if the traffic were moved by road haulage. FFG can only be given where the overall rail freight costs, including terminal charges, are higher than the total road haulage costs. Essentially, the FFG ‘fills the gap’ between the road and rail freight solutions.
6.78 FFG will not be paid when:
The freight facility can be justified commercially or would proceed in any case without FFG; Contracts for construction work have already been let or construction work has started; The environmental benefits to be gained are insufficient to justify grant; and Road transport is not possible e.g. where a planning condition or other legal restriction prevents or restricts the use of road.
6.79 Any offer of grant remains at the discretion of the Department. The DfT normally operates a ‘bid round’ process, with each round being allocated a fixed budget. The department issues ‘calls for bids’ a number of times each year, and applications will be compared with the other applications submitted in the same bid round. Given the fixed budget, those schemes which deliver the greatest environmental benefit for the grant provided are most likely to attract funding.
Rail Environmental Benefit Procurement Scheme (REPS)
6.80 REPS is a revenue support grant paid to the train operator or to the organisation contracting train services (the shipper). It assists companies with the operating costs associated with rail freight. Similar to FFG, the scheme is based on:
‘Procuring’ environmental benefits as a result of traffic switching to rail; and Filling the ‘gap’ between the cost of moving the goods by rail freight compared with road transport.
6.81 Two types of REPS grant are available, namely:
REPS (Intermodal) – movement of intermodal units by rail; and REPS (Bulk) – bulk traffics such as aggregates.
6.82 The DfT administers and funds REPS where the flow is entirely within England or when the majority of the environmental benefits fall in England. The REPS scheme has EU ‘state aid approval’ until 31st March 2010. REPS grants can therefore only be paid up to this date. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 43
Railway Issues6
REPS Intermodal
6.83 REPS (Intermodal) is available to most traffics carried in standard intermodal units (containers, swapbodies or piggyback trailers) on Network Rail infrastructure. In brief, REPS (Intermodal) pays a fixed grant per intermodal unit moved to either the train operator or the shipper (depending on who applied for the grant). The scheme has divided Britain into 18 zones. Each zone-zone flow has been allocated specific grants per unit moved, whether empty or full. The REPS (Intermodal) rates are the same for all intermodal units which are 6.1m (20ft) or more in size. There are two sets of rates for each zone-zone flow, namely:
Port – where units are loaded straight to rail at a port, trunk hauled by rail, and then delivered by road to the final customer; and Domestic - where units are delivered by road to a rail terminal, trunk hauled by rail, and then delivered by road to the final customer.
6.84 Flows between two rail-linked sites should always be cheaper by rail, meaning no requirement for the grant. In addition, the longer distance zone-zone flows also attract no grant funding (again should always be cheaper by rail). The highest rates per unit moved are for short to medium distance zone-zone flows e.g. South East to Midlands. It is over such distances that rail is generally uncompetitive (compared with road haulage) yet the environmental benefits are potentially large. Some example rates are shown below.
Port: Felixstowe (Zone 2) to West Midlands (Zone 14) – £37 per unit; Domestic: Sussex (Zone 18) to East Midlands (Zone 3) – £22 per unit.
6.85 Similar to FFG, payment of REPS is not ‘automatic’, with operators and shippers needing to apply for REPS funding. Any offer of grant remains at the discretion of the Department. The DfT normally operates a ‘bid round’ process, with each round being allocated a fixed budget. Applications for REPS grants will be compared with the other applications submitted in the same bid round. Given the fixed budget, those applications which deliver the greatest environmental benefit for the grant provided are most likely to attract funding.
6.86 It is a requirement for REPS (Intermodal) that the revenue support is paid to whoever the contracting parties propose as taking the full financial risk of running the service. In some cases this is the rail freight operating company, although it could be any party in the supply chain who is taking the full demand risk for the service (see Section 2.3.3 above).
6.87 While most intermodal flows are eligible for funding, cargoes which are normally moved ‘bulk’ but the shipper has chosen to use intermodal units will not attract grant funding. This includes household waste and aggregates (including gypsum). 44 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
6Railway Issues
REPS (Bulk)
6.88 All other commodity flows by rail freight would apply for REPS (Bulk) grant funding e.g. waste, aggregates and gypsum. All REPS (Bulk) funding applications are assessed individually, and unlike REPS (Intermodal) there are no standard rates. Instead, similar to the FFG scheme, the amount of REPS (Bulk) grant per traffic flow is determined by two factors, namely:
The value of the environmental benefits produced as a result of the traffic switching to rail; and The ‘gap’ between the cost of moving the goods by rail freight compared with road transport, demonstrated by a financial appraisal i.e. assumes the rail freight based supply chain is more expensive;
6.89 The environmental benefits are calculated in broadly the same way as the FFG scheme i.e. using the SLM rates. In calculating the annual environmental benefits, the applicant would therefore need to know:
The origin and destinations of the traffic; Assuming the cargo was to be moved by road, the number of HGV trips to/from each destination; and The likely route each HGV trip would use (hence distance covered on each type of road).
6.90 Only committed or expected traffic flows can be included in the environmental benefit calculation. The benefits are calculated annually and then discounted (at 3.5% discount rate) over the life of the committed traffics (e.g. 5 year contract).
6.91 The financial appraisal is calculated by comparing the total costs of the rail freight based supply chain with the total costs which would be incurred if the traffic were moved by road haulage. REPS (Bulk) can only be given where the overall rail freight costs, including terminal charges, are higher than the total road haulage costs. Essentially, the grant funding ‘fills the gap’ between the road and rail freight solutions.
6.92 The lower of the above two figures represents the maximum amount of REPS (Bulk) funding allowed.
6.93 REPS (Bulk) will not be paid when:
The traffic flow by rail can be justified commercially or would proceed in any case without grant funding i.e. rail freight costs are lower than road transport costs; Contracts have already been let or the flow has started; The environmental benefits to be gained are insufficient to justify grant; and Road transport is not possible e.g. where a planning condition or other legal restriction prevents or restricts the use of road. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 45
Railway Issues6
6.94 Any offer of grant remains at the discretion of the Department. Again, the DfT normally operates a ‘bid round’ process, with each round being allocated a fixed budget. Given the fixed budget, those schemes which deliver the greatest environmental benefit for the grant provided are most likely to attract funding. Although any company in the supply chain can apply for funding, REPS (Bulk) is paid to the train operator.
Rail Freight Grants Budget
6.95 Rail freight grants are financed from the Sustainable Distribution Fund (SDF). In addition to the FFG and REPS schemes, the SDF also finances other schemes aimed at reducing emissions and road traffic (including coastal shipping grants – see Section 5). The total SDF budget is outlined below for the financial year recently completed and next two financial years, and also indicated is the allocated FFG ‘share’ of the total SDF budget (Source: DfT).
2008-9: £23.3 million (FFG = £4 million); 2009-10: £23.4 million (FFG = £7 million); and 2010-11: £24 million (FFG = £10 million) 46 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics 7 Rail Freight Economics
Rail Freight Economics
7.1 Rail freight rates are not published, meaning it can be difficult to compare the costs of moving goods by rail and road transport (hauliers will generally quote ‘spot rates’ when requested). However, a number of spreadsheet based cost models have been developed by MDS Transmodal which represent the capital and operating costs for different types of road goods vehicles and rail freight equipment. These models form an integral element of the GB Freight Model (7). Using these models, it is possible to compare the costs of moving cargo by rail freight with road haulage. The costs included in the models are based on January 2009 money values and mean levels of productivity and train speed.
7.2 Rail freight costs can be divided into four categories, namely:
Locomotive traction costs; Track access charges payable to Network Rail; Wagon costs; and Terminal costs
7.3 The spreadsheet models account for all four elements.
7.4 Road haulage costs display a simpler structure, and can be divided into two categories, namely:
HGV fixed operating costs (essentially all costs associated with purchasing a vehicle, preparing it so that it is ‘road legal’ and employing drivers); and HGV running costs (fuel, oil and tyres).
7.5 Again, the spreadsheet models account for both elements.
Aggregates (Bulk)
7.6 The table below shows the broad operating costs for a bulk aggregates train comprising JGA bogie hopper wagons (described in Section 2.3.4). For a train of 25 wagons, hauled by a Class 66 diesel locomotive and operating at a mean speed of 50km/h, this equates to an operating cost of around £800 per train per hour.
Table 15 Estimated Operating Costs for Aggregates Trains
Traction - Class 66 Fixed Cost £173 per hour
7 The GB Freight Model, developed by MDS Transmodal, is a comprehensive tool for analysing and forecasting freight flows within Great Britain (domestic and international) by mode, origin/destination and commodity. It has been audited by the DfT and its outputs form the freight elements of the national transport model (NTM) Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 47
Rail Freight Economics7
Running cost £1.54 per km
Wagons - JGA Fixed Cost £64 per day per wagon
Track Access Charges Wagons £1.93 per 1,000 gross tonne-km(1) Locomotive £2.66 per 1,000 gross tonne-km (2)
1. 1,000 gross tonnes (cargo and rolling stock) moved 1km would pay the charge indicated. These cost are implemented ‘pro-rata’ e.g. a Class 66 has a gross weight of 126 tonnes, meaning it pays 126/1,000 x £2.66 per km in track access charges. Similarly, a rake of wagons with a gross weight of 2,000 tonnes would pay 2,000/1,000 x £1.93 per km in track access charges 2. 1,000 gross tonnes (cargo and rolling stock) moved 1km would pay the charge indicated. These cost are implemented ‘pro-rata’ e.g. a Class 66 has a gross weight of 126 tonnes, meaning it pays 126/1,000 x £2.66 per km in track access charges. Similarly, a rake of wagons with a gross weight of 2,000 tonnes would pay 2,000/1,000 x £1.93 per km in track access charges
7.7 On this basis, the table below shows the estimated cost per tonne of moving aggregates by rail over a range of distances for two scenarios, namely:
From quarry to local rail-linked aggregates terminal; and From quarry to local non rail-linked aggregates terminal (i.e. local road hauls required to deliver cargo from a rail siding to destination terminal)
7.8 The estimated Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions per tonne delivered are also shown (based on 2.65km of CO2 per litre of diesel consumed).
Table 16 Estimated Cost of Delivering Aggregates by Rail Freight
Round Trip distance Quarry to rail-linked terminal (km) Cost per tonne delivered CO2 /tonne (kg) 100 £1.06 0.6 200 £1.61 1.1 300 £2.16 1.7 400 £2.72 2.2 500 £3.27 2.8 600 £3.82 3.4 700 £4.38 3.9 48 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
Round Trip distance Quarry to rail-linked terminal (km) Cost per tonne delivered CO2 /tonne (kg) 800 £4.93 4.5
Table 17
Round Trip distance Quarry to non rail-linked terminal (1) (km) Cost per tonne delivered CO2 /tonne (kg) 100 £6.51 0.6 200 £7.07 1.1 300 £7.62 1.7 400 £8.17 2.2 500 £8.73 2.8 600 £9.28 3.4 700 £9.83 3.9 800 £10.39 4.5
1. Includes local road haul at £5.46 per tonne
7.9 The main assumptions include:
25 x JJA Hopper wagons per train; Capacity per wagon - 67.8 tonnes; Mean train speed 50km/h; Train loading time - 4 hours; Train discharge time - 1 hour bottom discharge; Round-trip - empty return leg; and Local road haul at £5.46 per tonne (100km trip - see below).
7.10 The comparative operating costs for two types of goods vehicle commonly used to transport aggregates are shown in the table below. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 49
Rail Freight Economics7
Table 18 Estimated Road Haulage Operating Costs
Fixed Running Cargo Capacity
Costs (per hour) Costs (per km) (tonnes)
4 axle rigid tipper £28 £0.35 20
6x2 tractor & tri-axle semi-trailer tipper £35 £0.36 30
7.11 On this basis, the table below shows the estimated cost per tonne of moving aggregates by road haulage over a variety of distances.
Table 19 Estimated Cost of Delivering Aggregates by Road Haulage
4 axle rigid tipper (32 tonnes gross vehicle weight) Cargo capacity - 20 tonnes
Round Trip HGV Cost/tonne delivered Co2/tonne (kg) cost/round-trip Distance (km)
100 £138 £6.91 5
200 £220 £11.00 9
300 £302 £15.09 14
400 £384 £19.18 19
500 £465 £23.27 23
600 £547 £27.36 28
700 £629 £31.44 33
800 £711 £35.53 37
Table 20
6x2 tri-axle semi-trailer tipper (44 tonnes gross vehicle weight) Cargo capacity - 30 tonnes
Round Trip HGV Cost/tonne delivered Co2/tonne (kg) cost/round-trip Distance (km) 50 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
6x2 tri-axle semi-trailer tipper (44 tonnes gross vehicle weight) Cargo capacity - 30 tonnes
100 £164 £5.46 5
200 £258 £8.60 10
300 £352 £11.74 16
400 £446 £14.88 21
500 £541 £18.02 26
600 £635 £21.16 31
700 £729 £24.30 36
800 £823 £27.44 42
7.12 The graph below compares the rail freight costs with the road haulage costs over the same distances.
Picture 1
Conclusions - East Sussex context
7.13 The conclusions which can be drawn from this analysis are:
Assuming a flow from a rail-linked quarry to a rail-linked terminal, a 500km round trip by rail (e.g. Mendips or East Midlands to East Sussex) equates to a
cost per tonne delivered of around £3.27. The CO2 emissions are approximately Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 51
Rail Freight Economics7
2.8kg per tonne delivered. The equivalent road haulage cost is approximately
£18 per tonne (26kg of CO2). For a full length train (e.g. approx 20 wagons or greater), rail freight should always be cost competitive over any distance for aggregates flows between rail-linked facilities (e.g. rail-linked quarry to rail-linked aggregates terminal); and For flows up to around 150km, road haulage should offer a more cost competitive solution where one end of the trip is not rail-linked (e.g. rail-linked quarry to non rail-linked aggregates terminal). Above this distance, rail freight should offer a cheaper option given the ability to operate a full length train.
7.14 A sustainable transport strategy for aggregates should therefore be based around the provision of rail-linked local distribution depots capable of handling full length trains. This analysis also suggests that local flows within East Sussex/Brighton (e.g. from Newhaven North Quay) will be more cost competitive by road, unless full-length trains can be assembled between two rail-linked sites.
7.15 The above exercise was re-run, but using a part-length train of 10 wagons (i.e. all other assumptions and costs being the same). The results of the analysis are shown below.
Table 21 Estimated Cost of Delivering Aggregates by Rail Freight (part-length train)
Round trip distance Quarry to rail-linked terminal (km)
Cost per tonne delivered Co2/tonne (kg) 100 £1.99 1.4
200 £3.01 2.8
300 £4.04 4.2
400 £5.06 5.6
500 £6.09 7.0
600 £7.12 8.4
700 £8.14 9.8
800 £9.17 11.2
Table 22
Round trip distance Quarry to non rail-linked terminal (1) (km)
Cost per tonne delivered Co2/tonne (kg) 100 £7.44 0.6 52 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
Round trip distance Quarry to non rail-linked terminal (1) (km)
Cost per tonne delivered Co2/tonne (kg) 200 £8.47 1.1
300 £9.49 1.7
400 £10.52 2.2
500 £11.55 2.8
600 £12.57 3.4
700 £13.60 3.9
800 £14.62 4.5
1. Includes local road haul at £5.46 per tonne
Picture 2 Source: MDS Transmodal Ltd
Conclusions - East Sussex context
7.16 The conclusions which can be drawn from this analysis are:
For a flow from a rail-linked quarry to a rail-linked terminal, the same 500km round trip by rail equates to a cost per tonne delivered of around £6.09. The
CO2 emissions are approximately 7kg per tonne delivered. Again, for aggregates flows between rail-linked facilities, rail freight should always be cost competitive over any distance. However, the cost per tonne Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 53
Rail Freight Economics7
delivered has almost doubled and the CO2 emissions per tonne delivered have also consequently increased; and Where one end of the trip is not rail-linked, the break-even distance has increased to around 200km.
7.17 The above analysis explains why the aggregates industry makes great use of rail freight for its long distance trunk hauls, particularly into the South East where land-won resources are unavailable. Large quantities of product can be moved relatively cheaply in one move. It demonstrates that a sustainable transport strategy for aggregates should be based around the provision of rail-linked local distribution depots capable of handling full length trains. Again, local flows within East Sussex/Brighton (e.g. from Newhaven North Quay) will be more cost competitive by road, unless full-length trains can be assembled between two rail-linked sites.
Intermodal (including Waste and Gypsum)
7.18 The above exercise was repeated for intermodal rail freight (including waste containers and gypsum boxes). The table below shows the broad operating costs for an intermodal train comprising FSA/FTA intermodal platform wagons (described above). Again, the analysis assumes that the cost of loading and discharging product to/from rail and road vehicles is broadly similar. Consequently, these handling costs have not been included. In order to estimate the actual door-to-door transport cost these costs would need to be accounted for. For a train of 24 wagons, hauled by a Class 66 diesel locomotive and operating at a mean speed of 50km/h, this equates to an operating cost of around £500 per train per hour.
Table 23 Estimated Operating Costs for Intermodal Trains
Traction Class 66 Fixed Cost £173 per hour Running Cost £1.54 per km
Wagons - JGA FSA/FTA intermodal flats £33 per day
TAC Wagons £1.93 per 1,000 gross tkm Locomotive £3.07 per 1,000 gross tkm
7.19 On this basis, the table below shows the estimated cost per unit of moving waste containers by rail over a range of distances for three scenarios, namely: 54 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
Between rail-linked sites e.g. from a rail-linked waste reception site to a rail-linked disposal/recycling facility (i.e. no road hauls required); Where one end of the trip is not rail-linked e.g. from a non rail-linked waste reception site to a rail-linked disposal/recycling facility (i.e. local road haul required to deliver waste to rail siding from reception site); and Where neither end of the trip is rail-linked (i.e. road hauls required at both ends of the rail trip)
7.20 The estimated Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions per tonne delivered are also shown (based on 2.65km of CO2 per litre of diesel consumed).
Table 24 Estimated Cost of Delivering Intermodal Units by Rail Freight
Round trip distance Both ends rail-linked (1) (km)
Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 100 £74 16
200 £87 31
300 £100 47
400 £112 62
500 £125 78
600 £137 94
700 £150 109
800 £163 125
1. includes lift/shunt charges of £50 per round trip
Table 25
Round trip distance One end rail-linked (1) (km) Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 100 £184 46 200 £197 61 300 £210 77 400 £222 92 500 £235 108 600 £247 124 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 55
Rail Freight Economics7
Round trip distance One end rail-linked (1) (km) Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 700 £260 139 800 £273 155
1. includes lift/shunt charges of £50 per round trip and £110 for local road haul
Table 26
Round trip distance Neither end rail-linked (1) (km) Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 100 £294 76 200 £307 91 300 £320 107 400 £332 122 500 £345 138 600 £357 154 700 £370 169 800 £383 185
1. Includes lift/shunt charges of £50 per round trip and £220 for local road hauls
7.21 The main assumptions include:
24 x FSA/FTA wagons per train Capacity per wagon - 3 x intermodal waste containers Mean load factor 85% (61 x intermodal waste containers) Mean train speed 50km/h Train turnaround time 3 hours (6 hours per round trip) Round-trip - empty return leg
7.22 The comparative operating costs for two types of goods vehicle commonly used to transport containers are shown in the table below. 56 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
Table 27 Estimated Road Haulage Operating Costs
Fixed Costs Running Costs Cargo Capacity
(per hour) (per km) (waste boxes)
6x2 tractor & tri-axle £35 £0.36 2 semi-trailer 4x2 tractor & twin-axle £30 £0.06 1 semi-trailer
7.23 On this basis, the table below shows the estimated cost per unit of moving intermodal units by road haulage over a variety of distances.
Table 28 Estimated Cost of Delivering Intermodal Units by Road Haulage
Round trip 6x2 & tri-axle semi-trailer - 2 x waste containers distance (km) HGV cost/round-trip Cost/container CO2/Container (kg) 100 £164 £82 52 200 £258 £129 104 300 £352 £176 156 400 £446 £223 208 500 £541 £270 260 600 £635 £317 312 700 £729 £365 364 800 £823 £412 416
Table 29
Round trip 4x2 & twin-axle semi-trailer - 1 x waste containers distance (km) HGV cost/round-trip Cost/container CO2/Container (kg) 100 £140 £140 83 200 £219 £219 167 300 £299 £299 250 400 £379 £379 333 500 £459 £459 417 600 £538 £538 500 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 57
Rail Freight Economics7
Round trip 4x2 & twin-axle semi-trailer - 1 x waste containers distance (km) HGV cost/round-trip Cost/container CO2/Container (kg) 700 £618 £618 583 800 £698 £698 667
7.24 The graph below compares the rail freight costs with the road haulage costs over the same distances.
Picture 3 Source: MDS Transmodal Ltd
7.25 The conclusions which can be drawn from this analysis are:
Assuming a flow between rail-linked sites, a 500km round trip by rail equates
to a cost per unit delivered of around £125. The CO2 emissions are approximately 78kg per unit delivered. The equivalent road haulage cost is
approximately £270 per unit (260kg of CO2). For a full length train (e.g. at least 20 wagons), rail freight should always be cost competitive over any distance (except for very short distance movements) for flows between rail-linked facilities e.g. from a rail-linked waste reception site to a rail-linked disposal/recycling facility; and Where only one end of the trip is rail-linked e.g. from a non rail-linked waste reception site to a rail-linked disposal/recycling facility, rail freight should be cost competitive at distances over 250km (500km round trip); Where neither end of the trip is rail-linked, rail freight should be cost competitive at distances over 4500km (900km round trip). 58 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
7.26 Clearly, rail-freight’s competitiveness is dictated by its ability to operate between rail-linked facilities. This implies the need for rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton and rail-linked receivers of waste both inside and outside the county (e.g. recycling facilities, waste to energy plants etc..)
7.27 Again, the analysis was re-run for a part length train of 10 FSA/FTA intermodal wagons (i.e. all other assumptions and costs being the same). The results of the analysis are shown below. The results are shown in the tables and graphs below.
Table 30 Estimated Cost of Delivering Intermodal Units by Rail Freight (part length train)
Round trip distance Both end rail-linked (1) (km) Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 100 £99 269 200 £125 337 300 £150 406 400 £176 474 500 £201 543 600 £226 611 700 £252 680 800 £277 748
1. Includes lift/shunt charges of £50 per round trip
Table 31
Round trip distance (km) One end rail-linked (1)
Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 100 £209 299 200 £235 367 300 £260 436 400 £286 504 500 £311 573 600 £336 641 700 £362 710 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 59
Rail Freight Economics7
Round trip distance (km) One end rail-linked (1)
Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 800 £387 778
1. Includes lift/shunt charges of £50 per round trip and £110 for local road haulage
Table 32
Round trip distance (km) Neither end rail-linked (1)
Cost per container (£) CO2/Container (kg) 100 £319 329 200 £345 397 300 £370 466 400 £396 534 500 £421 603 600 £446 671 700 £472 740 800 £497 808
1. Includes lift/shunt charges of £50 per round trip and £220 for local road hauls
Picture 4
7.28 The conclusions which can be drawn from this analysis are: 60 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
Assuming a flow between rail-linked sites, a 500km round trip by rail equates to a cost per unit delivered of around £201 (£125 for full length train). The CO2 emissions are approximately 543kg per unit delivered. Clearly, the impact on train competitiveness is strongly influenced by train length. For a part length train (in this case 10 wagons), rail freight is unlikely to become cost competitive until distances of around 150km (nearly 300km round trip), even for flows between rail-linked facilities; and Where only one end of the trip is rail-linked, the break-even distances increases to around 400km (nearly 800km round trip); Where neither end of the trip is rail-linked, road haulage should always be cost competitive except for extremely long distances.
7.29 Clearly, rail-freight’s competitiveness is dictated by its ability to operate full length trains. This is because a significant proportion of rail’s costs are fixed, meaning that per unit costs decrease as train length increases.
7.30 The above analysis explains why rail freight has a large market share on flows from the deep sea container ports to the north of England and Scotland, where as road haulage dominates flows to South East destinations. A sustainable transport strategy for waste (using intermodal waste containers) should therefore be based around:
The ability to operate between rail-linked facilities which are capable of handling full length trains, implying the need for rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton and rail-linked receivers of waste outside the county (e.g. recycling facilities, waste to energy plants etc..); and The ability to assemble full length trains on a regular basis between the rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton and the receivers of waste outside the county (volume critical).
7.31 Both factors will need to be met in order to generate train services which can be justified commercially. Such a strategy also implies the need for a small number of large rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton, rather than a large number of small facilities. A large facility will have a greater opportunity to generate the requisite volume of cargo compared with small facilities. It may be that one ‘mega site’ for East Sussex/Brighton needs to be considered.
7.32 It has been suggested that waste could be moved from a potential waste collection site at Bulverhythe (assuming it is a suitable site) to the planned energy recovery plant at Newhaven. This analysis suggests that both the Bulverhythe site and the Newhaven energy recovery plant will need to be rail-linked, be able to handle full length trains and a sufficient volume of waste will need to be collected to generate a full length train. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 61
Rail Freight Economics7
7.33 With regards to East Sussex/Brighton’s ability to assemble full length trains on a regular basis, the amount of waste required to generate such trains has been estimated. This is shown in the table below.
Table 33 Intermodal waste trains
Volume of waste per container 30.50 cubic metres Average waste density 0.4 tonnes per cub m Average payload per waste container 12 tonnes
Number FSA/FTA wagons/train 20 wagons Max intermodal waste containers/train 60 boxes Intermodal waste containers at 75% load factor 45 boxes Volume waste/train at 75% load factor 549 tonnes 62 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
7Rail Freight Economics
Table 34 Number of trains and tonnage of waste required
Trains per Trains per Tonnes waste per Tonnes waste per day week week annum 1 3 1,647 85,644 1 5 2,745 142,740 2 10 5,490 285,480 3 15 8,235 428,220 4 20 10,980 570,960
7.34 Assuming an average payload of 12 tonnes per intermodal waste container, 1 train per day operated every working day will remove around 142,000 tonnes of waste from East Sussex/Brighton per annum. Similarly, 1 train per day operated three days per week will remove around 85,000 tonnes of waste per annum.
7.35 The other factor to consider is the destination(s) of the waste, more specifically the type of waste disposal/recycling facility the waste is being delivered to. If the ultimate destination is one single waste disposal/recycling facility and it is able to receive the full range of waste products (i.e. recyclables and non-recyclable waste), the ability to generate a full length train is greatly enhanced. In this situation, one train can convey mixed loads of waste product. However, if there are a number of destinations and each waste disposal/recycling facility is handling a different waste product (e.g. glass, paper/card, plastics, metals, non-recyclable waste etc) then the ability to generate a full length train is diminished. Under this scenario, it is likely that each site will need to be served by individual trains conveying one waste product type. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 63
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8 8 Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
8.1 Short-sea and coastal shipping are movements of freight (as well as passengers) by sea between ports situated in geographical Europe, including along the coasts of the UK, to islands and along rivers and lakes.
8.2 Currently, water accounts for only 9% of the UKs goods moved (excluding North Sea oil and sea-dredged aggregates). If this figure were to be significantly increased, the UK would reap a number of economic, environmental and social benefits. Water-freight transportation can potentially:
Reduces congestion on UK roads; Reduces demand to widen existing motorways or to build new trunk roads; Provides a cost-savings for business supply chains; Uses less fossil fuel than other transport modes; Reduces the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by approximately 80%; Reduces the amount of nitrogen oxide released into the atmosphere by approximately 35%.
8.3 Short-sea and coastal shipping are based on the concept of carrying freight door-to-door, or factory to factory, much like in road transport. This is accomplished through the use of fast, modern ships and intermodal transport in collection and delivery. Short-sea shipping transit time is generally only slightly longer than road transport. Moreover, the costs can be considerably lower. In some instances, there can be a cost-saving of up to 25 percent.
8.4 Short-sea and coastal shipping advantages include:
a cost-saving when compared to road transport; reliable transit times; environmental benefits(8).
8.5 In the last five years greater emphasis on the development of water transport has been made by British Waterways on the transportation of fright on the canal system in the UK, for example on the Thames in London. Waste and recyclables are transported via canal for processing or sand and gravel direct to a concrete works. Further work would be required to discover if this was needed or possible in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove. For an example of design and management of a canal freight scheme see the case studies at www.freightbywater.co.uk
8 Source: www.freightbywater.org 64 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
Industry Structure
Ports
8.6 The ports sector in Great Britain is essentially based on free market principals and open access. Ports compete for traffic in a free market and each port is free to set its own commercial strategies and investment decisions. Open access means that shippers are free to chose which ports to use, subject to capacity being available and payment of reasonable tariffs (dues). Ports have been developed on the principal that users pay for the facilities. Port operations and infrastructure is therefore commercially funded. Except in a number of limited circumstances, ports survive in the free market by attracting cargo, charging shippers for use of facilities and operate without Government subsidies.
8.7 All ports in Britain are owned and operated by local statutory authorities created through Acts of Parliament. These are called Port or Harbour Authorities (sometimes referred to as a competent harbour authority). Port Authorities have granted to then, via the Act of Parliament which created them, certain powers and responsibilities with regard to the management of their port areas and surrounding river, estuary and sea. These powers and responsibilities vary between each Port Authority.
8.8 Port Authorities’ responsibilities and activities generally fall under two areas, conservancy and commercial. The conservancy responsibility involves maintaining safe access to the port. This includes dredging channels to maintain a sufficient depth of water, providing navigational aids such as channel marker buoys, managing the safe movement of ships into and out of the port area, preventing pollution from ships and nature conservation/coastal management. Ships are usually charged a small fee when entering a port, normally based on ship tonnage, to cover the costs of these roles. Ports are not allowed to make large profits from conservancy and charges should cover only current expenditure and committed investment e.g. a future dredging programme. Conservancy should be managed as a separate ‘account’ from any commercial activities (see below).
8.9 A port’s commercial activities generally revolves around attracting shipping traffic to the port together with the loading, discharging, storage and onward distribution of cargo. Some ports also handle passenger traffic. There are a number of ways in which port authorities gain revenue from commercial traffic. These include:
Providing a full range of port ‘services’. In this case, the port authority will own and maintain the quays, berths and jetties, and provide all stevedoring, quayside storage and transfer operations (i.e. transfer to other modes). Revenue is gained by charging cargo dues, for stevedoring (per tonne, per container, per vehicle etc..) and for the related storage and transfer services; Leasing quays to third parties (so called ‘landlord port’). The port authority will lease quays or berths it owns to third party companies. The third parties subsequently operate the quays/berths and undertake any quayside storage Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 65
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
and transfer operations. Revenue is gained from the lease fees and by charging cargo dues; Joint ventures. The port authority and a third party can enter joint ventures to develop and operate facilities, sharing revenue from cargo dues, stevedoring etc.. at an agreed split; and Mixture of above. For example, a port authority may berth ships and undertake the stevedoring but the cargo is stored on land leased from the port by a third party.
8.10 In addition to berthing ships, therefore, ports can also provide other logistics services. Many ports contain storage facilities, which range from bulk tanks/silos for liquid/dry bulk products, container/trailer parks and transit sheds where products can be consolidated for onward distribution. These may be owned and operated by the port authority, operated by third party companies on land leased from the port authority or joint ventures. In some cases, ports also generate revenue from non-port activities. This has included developing office, residential and leisure facilities on port land.
8.11 While most Port Authorities are responsible for some form of conservancy role, not all ports undertake commercial activities. Some ports have responsibility for the 'water', say a river estuary, but the commercial quays/jetties and adjacent cargo-handling land are owned and operated by third parties (which could include another Port Authority). For example, the Harwich Haven Port Authority is responsible for conservancy in the Harwich Haven, but the ports facilities (Felixstowe, Harwich and Ipswich) are owned and operated by commercial port operators.
8.12 In terms of ownership, Port Authorities in Britain generally fall into one of three categories, namely:
Privately owned; Trust Ports; and Municipal Ports.
8.13 In addition, a small number of harbours are managed by government agencies e.g. Environment Agency.
8.14 Privately Owned Ports. Most of the largest ports in Britain are now in the private sector. In fact many private ports are now grouped together under the ownership of a small number of large port operating companies e.g. Associated British Ports, Peel Ports. As private companies, they are subject to the full freedoms and disciplines of the free market. They are expected to produce a profit so as to provide dividends to shareholders and maximise shareholder value. They are free to compete for traffic in the market, making a return on assets and investments by charging shippers for access to the port and use of the port’s infrastructure. 66 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
8.15 Trust Ports. Trust Ports are independent statutory bodies and are managed by a board of trustees. The trustees have a duty to act in the interests of the port's stakeholders. The stakeholders include the users of the port and the wider local community. Where trust ports undertake commercial activities, all profits are retained by the Port Authority and are used to fund improvements to port facilities. Trust ports undertaking commercial activities are required to operate as private companies in the market place, competing for traffic on a commercial basis and make a reasonable financial return on assets and investments.
8.16 Many of the larger trust ports were forced to privatise between 1992 and 1997. These included Ipswich, Teesport and Sheerness. Most trust ports are now small scale concerns, however Milford Haven along with Dover and Tyne maintain healthy traffic volumes.
8.17 Municipal Ports. A Municipal Port is a commercial port operation where the sole shareholder is the local authority. However, Municipal Ports are required to act a like a privately owned port and compete for traffic in the market place. Future port developments should be funded on a commercial basis. Some local authorities have been known to subsidise their ports, and in other cases all profits have been retained by the local authority. These practices are discouraged by the government, though as sole shareholder a local authority is entitled to a reasonable dividend but a substantial percentage of the profits must be retained by the port itself. Portsmouth is an example of a successful municipal port.
8.18 Newhaven Port is owned by Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd, a private company. Newhaven Port and Properties Ltd is the competent harbour authority with responsibility for conservancy. However, the port’s commercial activities are essentially related to the leasing of land to third parties (landlord port). The RoRo terminal is leased to and operated by Newhaven Ferry Port (a subsidiary of Transmanche Ferries). The North Quay land is leased to BRB Ltd from Frame investments. The berths at the North Quay are currently leased to Rigden Group (through Tarmac), Tarmac and European Metal Recycling (EMR). Ships must access North Quay via a swing bridge. Any vessel can request a Bridge opening, with a reasonable period of notice given (basic right of freedom of navigation). During the summer months the bridge may open every high water. During the winter it may be 2 per week.
Table 35 Number of Swing Bridge Openings at Newhaven
Year Amount 2007 622 2008 516 2009 (as @ July 2009) 144 (part year figure) Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 67
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
8.19 Shoreham Port is a Trust Port. Shoreham Port is the competent harbour authority with responsibility for conservancy. The port also owns and operates commercially a number of berths, cargo handling facilities and storage warehousing. Other berths and facilities in the port are operated by third parties.
8.20 Rye Harbour (essentially the river estuary) is owned and managed by the Environment Agency. Rye Harbour is solely concerned with conservancy within the estuary and has no commercial role. Rye Wharf is owned and operated by Rastrums Ltd.
Shipping Lines and Agents (Forwarders and Brokers)
8.21 As with the ports industry, shipping in Great Britain is based on free market principals and open access. Any ship, regardless of country of registration or ownership, can undertake sea borne trade to and from British ports, subject to complying with the relevant safety and environmental standards. Most shipping companies are in the private sector.
8.22 Shipping operations in Great Britain are commercial in nature, in that they are expected to compete for traffic, and to operate at a profit in order to provide shareholders dividends and funds for re-investment. Except in a limited number of circumstances, shipping is not subsidised by Government.
8.23 Shipping services generally fall into two categories: Liner services and charter services.
8.24 Liner Services. Liner shipping services are essentially scheduled shipping services, operated to a timetable, where shippers (or organisations acting on their behalf) can book space on them for their cargo. Most liner services operating to and from the UK are for unit load traffic i.e. accompanied goods vehicles and unaccompanied trailers on roll-on roll-off ferry services (RoRo) and maritime containers on lift-on lift-off (LoLo) services.
8.25 RoRo ferry operators sell space on their services direct to road transport operators. International RoRo ferry operations out of the UK are run purely on a commercial basis. The shipping lines operating RoRo services either utilise purpose built tonnage for a particular route (own/lease) or chartered in tonnage from ship owning companies.
8.26 LoLo container services sell their space either directly to a shipper or via forwarders acting on behalf of shippers. Shippers can approach a shipping line direct, who will then provide a container, undertake its collection from the shippers location, ship the box to a port close to the receiver and arrange final delivery to the customer (door to door LoLo). Shippers also utilise the services of forwarders who will arrange all transport legs in the journey (via agents outside the UK), including booking space on a LoLo service, presenting the shipper an invoice containing charges for all transport used plus a fee for using the forwarder. 68 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
8.27 Charter Services. Charter services are similar to train load traffic, in that a shipper will be moving enough cargo to fill a whole ship. The shipper will therefore charter a ship from a shipping line. The shipping line will then move the cargo between ports on behalf of the shipper. Charter services normally move liquid and dry bulk materials such as grains, aggregates, coal and petrochemicals.
8.28 Shippers can book charter services via a shipping broker. The broker will then organise the chartering of a vessel from a shipping line, billing the shipper for the charter and a fee for using the broker. Shippers with regular large volumes of cargo to move, e.g. the oil refining companies, tend to deal directly with shipping lines.
Regulators
8.29 Port regulation is the responsibility of the British Government, exercised via the Department for Transport, a number of regulatory bodies and executive agencies. As described above, the port industry in Britain is economically is a deregulated industry and normal free market mechanisms apply. Consequently, normal fair trading and EU single market rules apply that prevent companies price fixing, abusing dominant positions and forming cartels. The European Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission potentially have roles in this area to investigate and prevent unfair practices.
8.30 There is a limited level of economic regulation that applies to ports. Port users are charged fees for the use of ports, to cover the conservancy responsibilities of a port authority and for use of the cargo facilities. If port users feel these costs are unreasonably high, they can apply to the Government for a review of these fees. Where the levels are found to be unjustified, the Government has powers to set lower fees.
8.31 Ports are regulated in terms of how they operate safely, how they expand or develop and protect the environment. Environmental and health and safety issues within ports are regulated by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency's role includes:
Monitoring how a port authority manages the safe navigation of vessels into, out of and within the waters it controls; Assisting a port authority in the prevention of pollution spills from ships in their waters Co-ordinating emergency responses to pollution spills from ships; Training port authority staff in pollution prevention and emergency response skills; Investigating pollution spills and if required prosecuting a port authority following a pollution spill; and Investigating ship collisions and if required prosecuting a port authority following a ship collision Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 69
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
8.32 All port authorities have to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act. Accidents, injuries and deaths are fully investigated by the Health and Safety Executive.
8.33 The development and expansion of ports is regulated via a number of planning systems. Developments concerning maritime access to a port are regulated through the 'Harbour Revision Orders' process. This includes the following types of development:
Dredging new or existing navigation channels; and Constructing new or re-building existing quays/jetties.
8.34 Harbour Revision Orders are issued by the Secretary of State for Transport following an application for the port authority. Such applications have to include an environmental impact assessment. The Secretary of State can order a public inquiry (chaired by a planning inspector) to advise on the issuing of a Harbour Revision Orders.
8.35 All Port Authorities in the UK have granted to them, through the Acts of Parliament that created them, so called 'Permitted Development Rights'. This allows a port authority to undertake certain developments within their port estates without needing to make a planning application under the Town and Country planning system. In general, a port authority can undertake traffic related developments, such as the construction of new transit sheds within their existing estates without the need to make a planning application as long as the development does not have an impact on the local environment.
8.36 Other port developments and expansion are dealt with under the Town and Country planning system. The includes the following types of development:
If there would be a significant increases in goods vehicle traffic levels into and out of the port; Developments that would produce noise or air pollution (e.g. smoke or dust particles; If new access roads needed constructing; If there would be a significant visual impact; There is to be a change of land use e.g. constructing housing developments on land previously used for handling cargo; and If the port authority wanted to expand onto new land not currently used for port activity e.g. the port may purchase land adjacent to the current port estate for expansion
8.37 Shipping regulation is the responsibility of the British Government, exercised via the Department for Transport, a number of regulatory bodies and executive agencies. As described above, the shipping industry in Britain is economically is a deregulated industry and normal free market mechanisms apply. Consequently, normal fair trading and EU single market rules apply that prevent companies price 70 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
fixing, abusing dominant positions and forming cartels. The European Commission, the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission potentially have roles in this area to investigate and prevent unfair practices.
8.38 As with other forms of transport, shipping is regulated in terms of environmental and health and safety issues. All British flagged vessels have to comply with the Health and Safety at Work Act. Accidents, injuries and deaths are fully investigated by the Health and Safety Executive.
8.39 The Government also ensures that all ships entering British ports comply with UK and international safety rules. These are usually in line with the internationally recognised standards set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Ship safety and general sea worthiness is enforced by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. In terms of shipping, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has a number of roles, which are:
To ensure that British registered vessels comply with the various safety rules, laws and regulations set by the UK government. Vessels which are not seaworthy can be detained in port until repaired; To ensure that foreign registered vessels visiting UK ports comply with IMO safety standards. This is so called 'Port State Control' where, under international law, the UK is entitled to check the safety standards of foreign ships calling at UK ports. Vessels not complying can be detained until repaired; Investigating pollution spills from ships and if required prosecuting the ship owner; and; Investigating ship collisions and if required prosecuting the ship owner
Vessels used for moving aggregates by sea
8.40 The British Marine Aggregate Producers Association (BMAPA) is the trade association representing the largest marine aggregate companies in the UK. The following information is taken from BMAPA either directly or through their website - http://www.bmapa.org
8.41 The UK’s marine aggregate needs are met by a fleet of 28 purpose-built marine aggregate dredging vessels, operating around the clock, 365 days-a-year. The ships are predominantly registered in the UK and have a replacement cost of between £25 and £40 million each, a total replacement value of £1 billion.
8.42 There are two types of dredging techniques employed:
Static dredging which involves a vessel anchoring over a deposit and is effective in working thick localised reserves; and Trailer dredging which requires the dredger to trail its pipe along the seabed at speeds of up to 1.5 knots, and is ideal for working more evenly distributed deposits. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 71
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
8.43 In some cases, the vessel will retain all the sediment dredged as an “as dredged” cargo. On other occasions, vessels may process the dredged sediment using a technique termed ‘screening’ in order to alter the ratio of sand to gravel retained onboard. When seeking cargoes with a higher gravel content, dredged material passes over a mesh screen before entering the cargo hopper. A proportion of the water and finer sediment falls through the screens and is returned to sea, while the coarser sediment is retained. This process can also be reversed to load sand-only cargoes.
8.44 At the heart of the dredging process are powerful electric pumps which, on large vessels, are capable of drawing up to 2,600 tonnes of sand and gravel an hour from water depths of up to 50m.
8.45 Using survey data as a guide, dredging is undertaken to a high degree of accuracy. Dredger tracks are displayed with geological information on the ship's navigation computer to ensure that only the best quality resources are dredged (http://www.tarmac.co.uk/aggregates/UMADredging.aspx).
8.46 While the environmental implications have to be carefully considered, screening allows more marginal resources to be worked efficiently, which extends their lifetime, thereby reducing the need for new dredging sites. Screening also enables the industry to deliver cargoes to the specification required by the construction industry.
8.47 Once the aggregate dredgers reach the wharf, they are able to self-discharge a dry cargo using a variety of techniques including bucket wheels, scrapers, wire-hoisted grabs and pumps.
8.48 Ships used in the shores surrounding East Sussex and Brighton & Hove area are both large and smaller depending on the location of the sea borne deposit. The introduction of the East Channel Region (ECR) off shore licences has reduced the pressure from existing near shore licences (IOW, Hastings, etc) and their working life has been extended. The ECR was established to serve the London market and take pressure away from south coast reserves. The ECR licences therefore were not intended to supply the south coast market.
8.49 Due to the location of the ECR off shore licences, deep water and sea conditions, larger vessels are required (100 meter long dredge pipe). These ships cannot supply local wharves due to their size and the wharf capacity, although there has been large ships part loaded in the ECR and then dredged off the IOW on the way and landed in Southampton.
8.50 A longer pipe and overboard pump would be required on smaller vessels to be able to dredge ECR – which has cost implications. However, BMAPA think this would only be required if near shore licences were in such a state that other permitted licence area were required. There is also the issue with smaller ships providing smaller loads and exposure to larger sea conditions and stability makes it unrealistic. 72 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
8.51 Vessels such as the Arco Dee and City of Chichester operate in-shore dredging licences around the south coast. The table below shows details of these two aggregate dredgers sourced from the Harbour Master at Newhaven and http://www.shipais.com:
Table 36 Details of aggregate dredgers used in the South Coast region
Ship Dimensions Tonnes of Aggregate
(length x width x height)
Arco Dee 68m x 13m x 4m 1,500 - 3,500
City of Chichester 72m x 14m x 3.6m 1,500 - 3,500
8.52 The real constraint is that the current dredging fleet has very limited additional capacity – all operators dredging fleets in the UK are out working. Older vessels that were used to help with extra capacity have now gone and vessels used in other locations have to help if extra capacity is needed in another area.
8.53 New vessels cost £25 million upwards of investment by a company and it takes 2/3 years to commission. These ships have a 25 year minimum working life and regulation/policy plus material has to be there to dredge and make the investment worthwhile. On the South Coast the last new vessel built was in 1997. The average age of the fleet is 20 years old and vessels in the current fleet are about 37 years old. They are expensive to maintain and BMAPA suggested that the choice between not having a vessel and spending money on a new ship, at the moment, operators are likely to keep current vessels going. BMAPA are not aware of any of their members investing in new ships and believes it would be at least a year (end of 2010) before any of the companies would be likely to invest in a new vessel.
8.54 The bigger operators (Hanson, Cemex, Tarmac) make up 80% of the dredging fleet, they operate 20 out of the 25 vessels owned by BMAPA members.
8.55 BMAPA confirmed that local licences are as important if not more important than the London market and doesn't believe there is likely to be cuts in the local market.
8.56 A critical constraint is the ability to set a specific amount of material to a wharf itself and that’s down to vessel capacity. East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City Council can’t influence vessel capacity but wider policy development by Marine Policy Statement (government priority use in UK waters) will be extremely important to BMAPA members as it will be a clear steer for them. BMAPA believe that this will give operators far more confidence in where they ‘sit’. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 73
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
8.57 Rye Port is not easily accessible and dredging of the channel is required to get to the wharves. This requirement makes it disproportionately expensive to land at these wharves and also the demand is not there to re-invest in this site. BMAPA suggests that basic economics makes this port inaccessible to many aggregate operators.
8.58 BMAPA does not think its members would choose to use larger vessels and then transfer to smaller vessels or use barges to be able to land and transport around south coast wharves due to the double handling.
8.59 The key issue or constraint apart from market demand for aggregate arises from the production capacity of the industry’s dredging fleet. Each vessel represents a significant capital investment (£20-30M each at modern prices), and therefore to repay that investment each has to be worked extremely hard, hence the use of them 24/7, 360 days a year. In the last 10 years or so, a number of vessels have been decommissioned on account of their age, and to date many of these vessels have not been replaced. Therefore the overall capacity of the dredging fleet has actually been reduced. This means that the ability of the industry to respond to step changes in the market demand – particularly when supplying small, tidally constrained ports – is fairly limited. All the vessels (particularly the small ones used to supply the likes of Shoreham and Newhaven) are pretty much working at or very near to capacity. Subtle changes in market demand could be accounted for, but it is highly unlikely that twice the volume could be delivered to Newhaven for example (400,000t) without supplies elsewhere being constrained – such a step change would require a single vessel delivering a cargo every day throughout the year, instead of the present cargo every 2 days or so in between which it supplies other South coast wharves.
8.60 In the case of landings at both Shoreham and Newhaven, the tonnages delivered reflect the current market demand – albeit constrained by the capacity of the marine operators to supply. BMAPA believes it is unlikely marine aggregate suppliers can manufacture demand. The wharves at all East Sussex/Brighton & Hove sites are relatively constrained, therefore there is very limited potential for stockpiling. The wharves therefore rely upon a regular supply of newly dredged marine sand and gravel to meet the ongoing market demand. If the demand was there, BMAPA confirmed that the marine operators would be doing their very best to meet it, subject to the constraints of the capacity of the dredger fleet.
8.61 Capita Symonds Transport Assessment for the ERF facility at Newhaven detailed some information on Newhaven Harbour as follows:
"The River Ouse would have sufficient depth and headroom to cater for the type of bulk vessel that would be required for the movement of the residual bottom ash - one similar to those used to transport aggregate to and from the North Quay jetty. The available headroom at the swing bridge in Newhaven should be suitable for the type of vessels to be used without the need to operate the bridge. However, the opening of the bridge would remain an option if required. To avoid double handling of the bottom ash, the most 74 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
viable solution for any potential transport by water would be to take the ash to a coastal facility for onward transfer by road. The final destination for the material would be dependent on demand and would determine the most appropriate port to be used". (page 35).
8.62 The report goes on to discuss costs of water borne transportation and provides an indication of cost to a destination in the Kent area, as follows:
"A typical coastal tug and barge(s) combination could move 1,175 tonnes of bottom ash per week split into two trips, thereby carrying the total requirement of 61,150 tonnes per year. Based on this scenario, the approximate running costs including leasing, wages and fuel to transport the residual bottom ash per year would be in the region of £500,000 to £750,000 per annum i.e. between £9.50 and £14.30 per tonne" (page 36).
Vessels used for moving waste by sea
8.63 Waste can be transported by coastal and short sea shipping by two types of vessels, namely:
Dry-bulk carriers; Containerised waste on lift-on lift-off container ships.
8.64 Similar to moving aggregates, a dry-bulk carrier can be used to transport waste in bulk. The waste can either by unsorted (i.e. mixture of recyclable and non-recyclable waste) or individual waste types e.g. crushed glass. Loading can be by means of grab-cranes from quayside stockpiles or direct from road/rail vehicles, or by conveyor-belt systems. Similarly, discharge can be by means of quayside grab-cranes or self-discharge conveyor belts (larger vessels). A typical small dry-bulk carrier which be suitable for moving waste by coastal and short sea shipping would probably have the following characteristics:
2-4,000 deadweight tonnes (dwt); Length overall of 50-100m and a draft of around 3m Payload volume of 1,500-2,300 cubic metres, meaning the vessel can convey 1,200-2,800 tonnes of waste at a mean density of 0.8 tonnes per cubic metre; Sailing speed of 10knots (approx 18km/h)
8.65 Dry-bulk carriers can be extremely flexible in that they can convey different cargoes on different trips (subject to cleaning and other hygiene regulations). Thus operators are able to backload product e.g. aggregates could be delivered to East Sussex, with the vessel then used to backload waste. The main benefit of using a dry-bulk carrier is that vessels can be chartered relatively easily, cheaply and to shipper requirements. The main disadvantage is that waste either has to be shipped unsorted or only one waste type moved in a shipment. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 75
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
8.66 Containerised waste can also be moved using lift-on lift-off (LoLo) container ships. LoLo ships are where transport containers (waste containers or standard maritime containers) are lifted from the quayside onto the vessel (either by means of quayside gantry cranes or by lifting equipment attached to the ship). LoLo ships vary in size, from the very largest operating on inter-continental routes (generally 5,000 TEU or greater (9)), through to smaller vessels used on intra-European feeder services (180-2,000 TEU). The use of LoLo ships means that waste can be shipped sorted and in mixed loads. The main disadvantage of containerised shipping for waste flows is that most LoLo ships are leased/chartered long-term to shipping lines, who deploy them on scheduled liner services. They are difficult to charter for one-off or irregular shipments.
Coastal shipping economics
8.67 Similar to the rail freight economics analysis (Section 4), the costs of transporting aggregates and waste by coastal shipping can be estimated using a cost model approach.
Aggregates to East Sussex and Brighton & Hove
8.68 This scenario has modelled the cost of moving aggregates using a small dry-bulk carrier from an origin port to Shoreham Port. The following broad assumptions have been applied to assessing the cost of moving aggregates to East Sussex by coastal shipping:
Aggregates conveyed on a 4,000 deadweight tonnes (dwt) dry-bulk carrier; Payload volume of 2,300 cubic metres, meaning the vessel can convey 3,700 tonnes of aggregates at a mean density of 1.6 tonnes per cubic metre; Sailing speed of 10knots (approx 18km/h); Loading and discharge time of 12 hours each; Use of a third party berth at Shoreham Port; Payment of vessel dues, cargo dues and pilotage at Shoreham Port at current published rates; Harbour dues at origin port are broadly the same as at Shoreham Port; and For comparative purposes, it is assumed that the cost of loading and discharging product to/from the dry-bulk vessel is broadly similar to that for rail freight and road vehicles. Consequently, these handling costs have not been included. In order to estimate the actual door-to-door transport cost these costs would need to be accounted for.
8.69 Also, it is assumed that distribution to the ‘end-user’ in the local market will be direct from Shoreham Port by road transport i.e. similar arrangement to a rail-linked aggregates depot.
8.70 Coastal shipping costs can be divided into three broad categories, namely:
9 TEU – Twenty-foot Equivalent Units 76 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
Vessel charter costs; Bunkers; and Port charges.
8.71 Charter Costs. Vessel charter costs are set by ‘the market’ rather than being based on the costs of purchasing, maintaining and operating the ship. Consequently, on a strong market ship operators can make large margins as daily rates significantly exceed operating costs. Conversely, when market rates fall ship operators can be in danger of running at a loss if they do not operate efficiently. In such situation, the ability to ‘turn around’ ships quickly and seek ‘backhauls’ becomes important. For East Sussex, this could mean discharging aggregates and then loading household waste as a backhaul. A 4,000dwt bulk coastal shipping vessel would cost around £2,500 per day on a time-charter basis.
8.72 Bunkers. At a standard operating speed of 10 knots (approx 18km/h), such a vessel would consume around 5.0 tonnes of marine gas-oil per 24 hours sailing. The current Rotterdam market rate for marine gas-oil is US$485 per tonne (May 22nd and £1=US$1.58).
8.73 Port Charges. Port dues are paid to the relevant port conservancy authority as a contribution towards the harbour’s dredging costs, navigational aids etc. Port Shoreham’s published charges for handling aggregates vessels are as follows:
Vessel dues: £0.55 per vessel registered gross tonne (gt); Cargo dues: £0.21 per tonne of cargo; and Pilotage: £0.16 per gt
8.74 On this basis, the following tables show the costs of moving aggregates (10) by a coastal dry-bulk carrier over 200km, 400km, 600km and 800km.
Table 37 Cost of moving aggregates by sea (over 200km)
Approx 2000km quay to quay Loading time - origin 12 hours Sailing time to Shoreham 12 hours Discharge time Shoreham 12 hours Charter time 2 days Payload capacity 3,700 tonnes
Charter £5,000 Bunkers £767
10 based on costs obtained from Shoreham Port Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 77
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,554 Pilotage £544 Shipping cost (quay to quay) £9,735 Shipping per tonne delivered £2.63
Table 38 Cost of moving aggregates by sea (over 400km)
Approx 400km quay to quay Loading time - origin 12 hours Sailing time to Shoreham 24 hours Discharge time Shoreham 12 hours Charter time 2 days Payload capacity 3,700 tonnes
Charter £5,000 Bunkers £1,535 Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,554 Pilotage £544 Shipping cost (quay to quay) £10,503 Shipping per tonne delivered £2.84
Table 39 Cost of moving aggregates by sea (over 600km)
Approx 600km quay to quay Loading time - origin 12 hours Sailing time to Shoreham 36 hours Discharge time Shoreham 12 hours Charter time 3 days Payload capacity 3,700 tonnes
Charter £7,500 78 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
Bunkers £2,302 Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,554 Pilotage £544 Shipping cost (quay to quay) £13,770 Shipping per tonne delivered £3.72
Table 40 Cost of moving aggregates by sea (over 800km)
Approx 800km quay to quay Loading time - origin 12 hours Sailing time to Shoreham 48 hours Discharge time Shoreham 12 hours Charter time 3.0 days Payload capacity 3,700 tonnes
Charter £7,500 Bunkers £3,070 Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,554 Pilotage £544 Shipping cost (quay to quay) £14,538 Shipping per tonne delivered £3.93
8.75 Except over very short distances, quay to quay is always cheaper than road given sufficient volume. For Shoreham to Newhaven, all the costs quoted in the tables above will be the same (2 day charter) except the bunkers. Assuming £100 for bunkers this suggests a cost per tonne of £2.45 this is still cheaper than road (c£4.00-£4.50 per tonne).
8.76 Even over a fairly long distance of 800km, coastal shipping is able to provide a quay-to-quay transport cost of just under £4.00 per tonne.
8.77 The costs outlined above are on a quay-to-quay basis. However, quarries are generally not located immediately adjacent to a port, Glensanda in Scotland and Penmaen Rhos in north Wales being examples of the exception. To utilise coastal shipping, product needs to be moved in the first instance to the port by Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 79
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8 some form of land transport (preferably full-length train). The table below, therefore, shows a true comparative cost with rail freight over distances of 200km and 400km taking into account the need to initially transport product from the quarry to the origin port (where as rail-freight can move direct from a quarry). This assumes a total of cost £2.00 per tonne for a short rail freight haul (say under 50km by a full length train of at least 25 wagons) and an efficient loading operation to ship at the origin port.
Table 41 Comparative Costs Coastal Shipping and Rail Freight
£ per tonne Distance Quay to Quay Shipping and
One-way (km) Shipping Cost delivery to port Rail 200 £2.63 £4.63 £2.72 400 £2.84 £4.84 £4.93
Conclusion – East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Context
8.78 Taking into account the need to initially transport product from the quarry to the origin port, rail freight appears to offer a more cost competitive option at the shorter distance of 200km. However, at a distance of 400km the coastal shipping and rail freight options are broadly comparable. From this analysis, we can therefore conclude that:
Where a rail-linked quarry is located close to a port, rail freight is likely to offer a more cost competitive transport option for an end-to end-flow of under 400km; and Where a rail-linked quarry is located close to a port, coastal shipping is likely to offer a more cost competitive transport option for and end-to end-flow over 400km.
8.79 However, the above is likely to be dependent on the quarry being within approximately 50km of a port, the ability to operate full-length trains between the quarry and the port and an efficient loading operation to ship (i.e. conveyor loading rather than grab-cranes). Where distances are greater than this, rail freight will offer a more cost competitive option for all but the longest distance flows.
8.80 In relation to the supply of aggregates to East Sussex/Brighton and Hove, flows of hard rock from the Mendips or East Midlands quarries will be more cost competitive and practical by rail freight given that these product origins are located a significant distance away from the coast. However, flows from sources near the coast in north Wales, northern England, Scotland and from mainland Europe will be cheaper by coastal shipping. 80 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
Waste from East Sussex and Brighton & Hove
8.81 As described above, flows of waste from East Sussex/Brighton can be conveyed by coastal shipping as follows:
In loose/bulk form using a dry-bulk carrier (see tables 41-44); Compacted into maritime containers (similar to rail freight), which are subsequently shipped using a small LoLo vessel (see tables 45 and 46).
8.82 Both options have been assessed in tables 41 to 46 below.
Bulk Waste
8.83 This scenario has modelled the cost of moving waste using a small dry-bulk carrier from Shoreham Port (as an example) to a destination port. The following broad assumptions have been applied:
Waste conveyed on a 4,000 deadweight tonnes (dwt) dry-bulk carrier; Payload volume of 2,300 cubic metres, meaning the vessel can convey 2,875 tonnes of waste at a mean density of 0.8 tonnes per cubic metre; Sailing speed of 10knots (approx 18km/h); Loading and discharge time of 12 hours each; Use of a third party berth at Shoreham Port; Payment of vessel dues, cargo dues and pilotage at Shoreham Port at current published rates; Harbour dues at origin port are broadly the same as at Shoreham Port; and Shoreham Port is the waste reception site. For comparative purposes, it is assumed that the cost of collecting and delivering the waste to Shoreham Port will be broadly similar to the costs incurred at a rail-linked waste reception site. Also, it is assumed that the cost of loading and discharging to/from the dry-bulk vessel is broadly similar to that for rail freight. Consequently, these collection, delivery and handling costs have not been included.
8.84 Effectively, the same dry-bulk vessel used to convey aggregates can also be used to move waste in bulk form. Consequently the charter rates and bunkers costs are the same.
8.85 Port Charges. Shoreham Port’s published charges for handling waste are as follows:
Vessel dues: £0.55 per vessel registered gross tonne (gt); Cargo dues: £0.29 per tonne of cargo; and Pilotage: £0.16 per gt
8.86 On this basis, the following tables show the costs of moving waste by a coastal dry-bulk carrier over 200km, 400km, 600km and 800km. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 81
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
Table 42 Cost of moving waste by sea (over 200km)
Approx 200km quay to quay Loading time - Shoreham 12 hours Sailing time to Destination 12 hours Discharge time - Destination 12 hours Charter time 2 days Payload capacity 2,875 tonnes
Charter £5,000 Bunkers £767 Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,668 Pilotage £544 Shipping cost (quay to quay) £9,849 Shipping per tonne delivered £3.43
Table 43 Cost of moving waste by sea (over 400km)
Approx 400km quay to quay Loading time - Shoreham 12 hours Sailing time to Destination 24 hours Discharge time - Destination 12 hours Charter time 2 days Payload capacity 2,875 tonnes
Charter £5,000 Bunkers £1,535 Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,668 Pilotage £544 Shipping cost (quay to quay) £10,616 82 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
Shipping per tonne delivered £3.69
Table 44 Cost of moving waste by sea (over 600km)
Approx 600km quay to quay Loading time - Shoreham 12 hours Sailing time to Destination 36 hours Discharge time - Destination 12 hours Charter time 3 days Payload capacity 2,875 tonnes
Charter £7,500 Bunkers £2,302 Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,668 Pilotage £544 Shipping cost (quay to quay) £13,884 Shipping per tonne delivered £4.83
Table 45 Cost of moving waste by sea (over 800km)
Approx 800km quay to quay Loading time - Shoreham 12 hours Sailing time to Destination 48 hours Discharge time - Destination 12 hours Charter time 3 days Payload capacity 2,875 tonnes
Charter £7,500 Bunkers £3,070 Vessel dues £1,870 Cargo dues £1,668 Pilotage £544 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 83
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
Shipping cost (quay to quay) £14,651 Shipping per tonne delivered £5.10
8.87 Even over a fairly long distance of 800km, coastal shipping is able to provide a quay-to-quay transport cost of just over £5.00 per tonne.
8.88 The costs outlined above are on a quay-to-quay basis. They would therefore be representative costs should the end disposal/recycling facility be located within the destination port estate. However, this may not necessarily be the case, and a local road haul may be required to move the waste to the ultimate disposal/recycling facility. The table below, therefore, shows a true comparative cost with rail freight over distances of 200km and 400km taking into account the need (in some circumstances) to use a local road haul to move the waste to the ultimate disposal/recycling facility. This assumes a cost of £7.00 per tonne (based on £82 per waste container for a 100km round-trip and approximately 12 tonnes of waste per container).
Table 46 Comparative Bulk Shipping and Rail Freight Costs for Waste
Quay to Quay Distance Shipping Shipping and road* Rail freight cost** One-way (km) Cost per tonne haul - cost per tonne per tonne
200 £3.43 £10.43 £7.25 400 £3.69 £10.69 £9.36 600 £4.83 £11.83 £11.46 800 £5.10 £12.10 £13.56 * Local road haul at £7.00 per tonne ** Flow from rail-linked waste reception site to rail-linked receiver. Also assumes
12 tonnes per intermodal waste unit
Conclusion – East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Context
8.89 The analysis shows that quay-to-quay shipping costs are always more cost competitive compared with rail freight (based on flows from rail-linked waste reception site to rail-linked receiver). Consequently, given the waste reception site being located within a port (e.g. Shoreham) and the ultimate disposal/recycling facility also being located within the destination port, coastal shipping should always offer the lowest cost transport option on the basis that a full ship load of waste can be conveyed on one move. 84 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
8.90 Should a local road haul be required to move the waste to the ultimate disposal/recycling facility, rail freight should offer a lower cost option except for the longer distance flows over 700-800km, given that the waste reception site and the disposal facility are both rail-linked. However, even this is dependent on the waste reception facility being located within the port at Shoreham. Adding a second road transport leg into the supply chain i.e. road haul to Shoreham Port and from the destination port will render this option uncompetitive (in cost terms) compared with a rail based solution.
Unitised Waste
8.91 The above exercise was re-run, but shipping waste in maritime containers on-board a small short-sea LoLo vessel. The following broad assumptions have been applied:
Waste conveyed in maritime containers on a 180TEU short-sea LoLo vessel; Loading and discharge time of 12 hours each; Use of a third party berth at Shoreham Port; Payment of vessel dues, cargo dues and pilotage at Shoreham Port at current published rates; Harbour dues at origin port are broadly the same as at Shoreham Port; and For comparative purposes, it is assumed that the cost of loading and discharging product to/from the vessel is broadly similar to that for rail freight and road vehicles. Consequently, these handling costs have not been included. In order to estimate the actual door-to-door transport cost these costs would need to be accounted for.
8.92 Charter Costs. LoLo vessel charter costs are also set by ‘the market’ rather than being based on the costs of purchasing, maintaining and operating the ship. A 180TEU short-sea LoLo vessel would cost around £4,000 per day on a time-charter basis.
8.93 Bunkers. A 180TEU short-sea LoLo vessel would consume around 18 tonnes of marine gas-oil per 24 hours sailing.
8.94 Port Charges. Port dues are paid to the relevant port conservancy authority as a contribution towards the harbour’s dredging costs, navigational aids etc. Shoreham Port’s published charges for handling aggregates vessels are as follows:
Vessel dues: £0.55 per vessel registered gross tonne (gt); Cargo dues: £6.44 per laden container; and Pilotage: £0.16 per gt
8.95 On this basis, the following tables show the costs of moving waste in containers by a short-sea LoLo vessel over 200km, 400km, 600km and 800km. The costs is also compared with the bulk shipping option and rail freight (flows from rail-linked waste reception site to rail-linked receiver). Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 85
Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues8
Table 47 Waste by LoLo Ship, Bulk and Rail Freight
Cost per tonne Distance LoLo LoLo and (11) Bulk Bulk and Rail freight (12) One-way Quay to local road quay to local road (km) quay haul quay haul
200 £6.26 £13.26 £3.43 £10.43 £7.25 400 £7.29 £14.29 £3.69 £10.69 £9.36 600 £9.79 £16.79 £4.83 £11.83 £11.46 800 £10.82 £17.82 £5.10 £12.10 £13.56
8.96 Clearly, moving waste by LoLo vessel is more costly compared with bulk shipping and rail freight.
Grants Schemes – Coastal Shipping
8.97 Two grant schemes are currently operated by the Department for Transport to support the movement of goods by coastal shipping and inland waterways which would otherwise be conveyed by road transport. They are:
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG); and Waterborne Freight Grant (WFG)
8.98 Both schemes are designed to facilitate the purchase of ‘environmental and social benefits’ that result from using rail freight instead of road transport.
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG)
8.99 The FFG scheme described in Section 4 also provides contributions towards the capital costs of port and wharf facilities. Most facilities needed to load, discharge or store goods moved by coastal shipping and inland waterways are eligible for funding. Capital expenditure must be involved. Examples of facilities likely to be eligible for FFG funding include:
Wharves, jetties and quays; Lifting and discharge equipment, hoppers and conveyors; Silos, tanks and storage yards; Light, heat and power; Administrative buildings;
12 Rail-linked waste reception site to rail-linked receiver and approximately 12 tonnes of waste per intermodal waste unit 11 Local road haul at £5.50 per tonne, based on £82 per waste container for a 100km round-trip and approximately 15 tonnes of waste per maritime container 86 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
8Coastal/short Sea Shipping Issues
Access roads, hard standing and security fencing; Dust and noise prevention equipment; and Design and project Fees.
8.100 Section 4 describes how the actual amount of grant funding per application is determined, including the calculation of any environmental benefits.
Waterborne Freight Grant (WFG)
8.101 Any company wishing to move freight by water using UK ports, harbours or inland waterways and which results in the removal of freight from British roads may apply for a WFG. Routes wholly within UK waters as well as short sea shipping routes to the rest of Europe will be eligible. The WFG essentially assists companies with the operating costs (i.e. it is a revenue support grant and not a contribution towards capital costs), for up to three years, associated with running water freight transport instead of road (where water is more expensive than road). Provided there is evidence to indicate that the proposed waterborne freight operation will be economically viable within three years of any award of grant, proposed waterborne freight operations will be considered for WFG where it is clear that in the absence of the waterborne alternative, the freight would be moved by road.
8.102 The level of any individual grant application, in all cases, be the lowest of the following:
The value of the environmental benefits generated by transferring the relevant freight from road to water; or The need for grant support as determined by a financial appraisal of the proposal which compares the costs of transporting freight by water with the costs of the road alternative; or 30% of the total operating costs of the water movement of the relevant freight; or €2,000,000.
8.103 Also, WFG will be split into three annual tranches equal to 1/2 , 1/3 and 1/6 of the total award. Grant will be paid at a fixed rate per tonne calculated separately for each year of the project. The annual grant per tonne figure will be calculated by dividing the potential maximum WFG payable for each year by the number of tonnes which is projected to be carried during that year. The environmental benefits and the financial appraisal are calculated in the same manner as a FFG application (see Section 4).
8.104 However, it is important to note that the Government will look closely at any negative competition effects arising from awarding a grant (such as diversion of business from neighbouring ports or other services) and may at its discretion decline to offer grant. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 87 Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove9 9 Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
Potential Non-Land Disposal Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
9.1 A non-land disposal site is defined as a 'built' waste recovery or recycling facility, i.e. not a landfill site.
9.2 Considering the conclusions reached in the previous sections, to enable sustainable modes to be both cost and logistically efficient, large non-land disposal facilities would need to be located at the following types of sites:
Within a port; At a rail-linked site; or At a site within a port which is also rail-linked. A port location which was also rail-linked would offer further opportunities to move waste by non-road modes.
Potential Sites at Ports
9.3 A number of port facilities already exist in East Sussex/Brighton and Hove which could potentially accommodate non-land disposal facilities, and they are described in detail in Section 8.
9.4 At Newhaven, North Quay Berth 3 and the back-up land are currently vacant. However, this would probably require some quay reconstruction and dredging to render it operational again. In addition, the back-up land is only 1.5ha in size, potentially too small to accommodate the full range of non land disposal facilities. The Ferry Port East Quay and the back-up land are also vacant. There is also potentially more back-up land available for the non land disposal facilities. Both sites also benefit from a redundant rail connection (although there are costs implications involved in reconnection), and a location at the North Quay Berth 3 could be linked to the planned energy recovery plant. Alternatively, the existing operations could be re-located within the port allowing one of the current active berths (with more back-up land) to handle waste.
9.5 At Shoreham, Britannia Wharf and Ferry Wharf are currently inactive, though the back-up land is used for storage of aggregates and other operations. In addition, both sites are probably too small to accommodate most types of non land disposal facilities. At Rye, vacant land exists adjacent to the active Rye Wharf (operated by Rastrums). This land is approximately 5.0ha in size, however the site lacks an available rail connection, but could be used for short sea shipping to Newhaven/Shoreham. 88 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 9Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
Potential Rail-Linked Sites
9.6 When considering potential sites for non-land disposal it is necessary to consider the conclusions reached in Section 6 & 7 concerning the conditions required for cost competitive rail services:
The ability to operate directly between rail-linked facilities which are capable of handling full length trains, implying the need for non-land disposal facilities and receivers of waste (where flows are less than 300km) to be located on rail-linked sites; and The ability to assemble full length trains on a regular basis between the rail-linked non-land disposal site(s) and the receivers of waste (volume critical).
9.7 Both factors will need to be met in order to generate train services which can be justified commercially, implying the need for a small number of large rail-linked non-land disposal sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove, rather than a large number of small facilities. It is likely that one ‘mega site’ for East Sussex/Brighton & Hove would need to be considered in order to generate the requisite volume of cargo for viable rail freight services.
Identifying Rail-linked Non-land Disposal Sites – Criteria Based Approach
9.8 A number of rail-linked locations which could potentially act as non-land disposal sites for East Sussex/Brighton & Hove have been identified. This has been undertaken using a criteria based approach. A set of criteria have been developed, with maps/aerial photographs being examined to identify sites which meet the criteria.
9.9 The existing rail-linked waste handling sites in Greater London, Bristol and Greater Manchester are essentially concerned with the lifting of pre-loaded waste containers to and returning empty containers from intermodal rail wagons together with some box storage and some ancillary facilities. They do not accommodate the full range of sorting, ‘packaging’ and disposal operations which a modern non-land disposal facility would be expected to accommodate. The criteria have therefore been devised on ‘first principles’ rather than a ‘case study’ approach.
9.10 Considering the conclusions reached concerning the conditions required for cost competitive rail services, a rail-linked non-land disposal site will need to be able to handle trains at least 400m trailing length. Consequently, a site will need to accommodate two cargo handling sidings at least 430m in length (i.e. wagons plus traction) together with a headshunt and run-round loop i.e. three sidings in total(13).
13 An efficient rail operation would be based around a mainline locomotive arriving at site with an empty rake of waste wagons before collecting a loaded train and departing site. This implies a need or two cargo handling sidings (one siding to accommodate the arriving train and a second siding to accommodate the train recently loaded) plus a run-round loop Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 89 Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove9
9.11 Including the headshunt, such a facility would occupy a broadly rectangular strip of land measuring 480m x 12m (i.e. total area of 5,760m2).
9.12 Along side the railway sidings, a ‘hardstanding’ area would be required to undertake the following functions:
Storage of empty intermodal waste containers e.g. empty units returning from waste receivers Storage of loaded waste containers prior to lifting onto a departing train; and The lifting of waste containers to/from trains and to/from HGVs (probably using reachstacker type lifting equipment).
9.13 A large non-land disposal site would probably require a hardstanding area measuring at least 400m (i.e. the length of the train) x 40m (i.e. total area of 16,000m2). This would provide sufficient space for an efficient container storage and train loading/discharge operation together with associated reachstacker and HGV movements. The railway sidings and hardstanding area combined would therefore occupy around 2.5ha. Further space would also be required for:
Sorting waste into recyclable and non-recyclable commodities; Compacting waste into intermodal waste containers; Road-road transfer facilities (on the basis that not all waste would depart by rail); HGV and staff car parking; and Ancillary offices
9.14 On this basis, a suitable rail-linked non-land disposal site will need to be around 5ha in size, with a configuration capable of accommodating the required railway sidings, hardstanding areas, associated waste transfer/handling facilities and ancillary offices .
9.15 A suitable rail-linked non-land disposal site will also need to be located alongside or adjacent to an operational railway line (or redundant track bed which connects a reasonable distance away with an operational railway line). However, such a location does not necessarily mean that a site can be physically connected to the mainline network and accommodate the required siding facilities. Two broad issues will ultimately determine site suitability, namely:
From a ‘civil engineering’ perspective, can the required turnout from the mainline and connecting tracks (including track-bed formation) into a site be constructed at a reasonable cost? And; Is a site, taking into account size, configuration, geographic relief and other spatial characteristics, able to accommodate the required sidings, hardstanding area and other facilities?
9.16 A number of factors will determine whether the required turnout and connecting tracks can be constructed at a reasonable cost. However, the most important factor is the height differential between the railway line and the site 90 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 9Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
in question. Connecting tracks ideally will be flat, and where necessary can only rise or fall on very gentle gradients. In general, only sites which are broadly at the same ‘level’ as the mainline can be considered appropriate. Alternatively, the following types of sites cannot be considered appropriate:
Where a significant height difference exists between the railway line and the site in question (e.g. the railway is in a deep cutting or on an embankment, or where there is a steep incline between the railway and site) thereby rendering a connection impossible (or it would require an expensive engineering solution, thereby rendering the site unviable); and Where a major physical ‘barrier’ is located between the railway and the site in question e.g. road, building(s).
9.17 With regards to the second factor, the following types of sites cannot be considered appropriate:
Sites with less than 5ha of developable land (described above); Where a significant height difference exists over the length/width of the site (railway sidings and terminal facilities need to be ‘flat’); and Where major ‘water courses’ occupy significant areas of the site.
9.18 Taking into account the above and other important factors (considered throughout the report), a site suitable for accommodating rail-linked non-land disposal facilities must meet the following criteria:
At least 5ha in size and with a configuration capable of accommodating the required railway sidings, hardstanding areas, associated waste transfer/handling facilities and ancillary offices Can be connected to an operational railway line (or redundant track bed which connects a short distance away with an operational railway line); Offers good railway access, which is defined in terms of:
'Route Availability' of RA8 or greater; Ability to operate trains at least 400m trailing length; Available freight capacity; Loading gauge of W8 or greater (if handling waste in standard maritime containers).
Has good access to the road network, which is defined in terms of being located adjacent/close to a dual carriageway, ‘A’ road or other road capable of handling significant flows of HGVs and ‘waste’ vehicles; and The site is located away from incompatible neighbours (e.g. residential areas), thereby allowing 24 hour operations. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 91 Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove9
Example Case Study: Calvert landfill site in Buckinghamshire
INSTALLATION OF A SECOND RAIL SIDING (14)
A planning application was submitted to Buckinghamshire County Council by Shanks Waste Services Ltd in 2002 proposing the installation of a second rail siding in increase annual rail-borne waste capacity at the Calvert Landfill Site. The original planning application covered an area of 2.808 ha, a length of 780 metres and a width of 35 metres but was then amended to reduce it by approximately 0.28 ha and 78 metres.
The application was to install a second pair of railway sidings to enable the operator to receive more waste deliveries by rail than the operational capacity of the existing siding allowed. The sidings therefore provided two tracks for the delivery and offloading of waste and incorporate overhead gantry cranes, an access road and offloading area. Access would be from the existing sidings to the north. Inert waste could be unloaded into road vehicles via an excavator grab operation using an access road adjacent to the sidings. The excavator grab totals up to 3 metres in height with a reach of 15 metres. Other waste could be offloaded using a gantry crane which lift the containers from the train onto road vehicles or onto the ground. The gantry cranes are in the order of 8 metres in height and 15 metres wide to traverse the sidings and access road. The road vehicles then transport the waste to the landfill site.
It was envisaged that initially the siding would serve a contract for the importation of around 500,000m3 of inert clay and 90,000m3 of contaminated soil from the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Phase 2 works. This was anticipated to generate a maximum of two trains per day Mondays to Fridays and one train on Saturdays but the new sidings could service a maximum of six trains per day and, in combination with the existing sidings, the site could cater for ten trains per day. The maximum length of trains was not expected to exceed 22 wagons, each about 20 metres long, giving an overall length with the engine of 450 metres.
The application was approved subject to planting of trees and woodland management and a revised restoration scheme.
Sites in East Sussex/Brighton and Hove
9.19 The geographic scope covers East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove unitary authority (as per map supplied by East Sussex County Council)
14 Source: Buckinghamshire County Councils Development Control Committee Report, 16 July 2002. Application No: 02/0635/AWD 92 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 9Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
9.20 The work was carried out using the ‘Explorer’ series of Ordnance Survey Maps (1:25,000 scale) and supplemented by aerial photographs (e.g. Google Earth). The maps and photographs were examined and sites identified by meeting all of the above criteria.
9.21 A 'blank piece of paper' approach has been adopted, with sites identified irrespective of their current planning allocation status and ownership. An identified site may therefore be under the ownership/control of one person/organisation or multiple persons/organisations. A site may also be land which currently does not have planning consent for waste facilities or has not been allocated in a local plan/LDF for such uses. Sites which are currently not ‘developed’ (i.e. built-on) were considered, though land with known derelict buildings and existing industrial sites were also included in the assessment (on the basis that they could be redeveloped for waste facilities over the long term as buildings become life expired). Also farm land (with farm buildings) have been considered.
9.22 In terms of assessing whether a site can be connected to the mainline railway network, the general ‘working assumption’ adopted was that a physical connection would be feasible. Effectively, only where it was clearly obvious that a railway connection is not feasible (i.e. substantial height differential) has a site not been considered.
9.23 The locations identified are purely intended to be a list of sites which, at first appearances, could potentially act as a location for the non-land disposal facilities proposed, taking into account transport connectivity and other spatial factors. Inclusion on the list should not be taken to mean that a site is actually suitable or would ultimately provide ‘the best’ location for the type of development proposed. Further detailed assessments would be required to ultimately determine suitability, particularly from the civil engineering and environmental impact perspectives. Only after these further assessments would it be realistic to propose. The table below lists the identified sites in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove which meet the criteria.
9.24 Assessment described in paragraph 9.22 above was undertaken and then compared with a ‘long list’ of potential sites supplied by the Councils. The rail-linked sites identified by the study which were also proposed by the Councils are underlined. P Table 48 Potential Rail-linked Non-Disposal Sites in East Sussex and Brighton otential
Site Description Grid Reference Approx Railway line Road Connections Size
Land to west of Blackbrook Wood, TQ337178 15ha Burgess Hill-Lewes B2113 and B2112 near Burgess Hill
Land to west of Clearview Farm, near TQ335174 12ha Burgess Hill-Lewes B2113 and B2112 Sites Burgess Hill
Land to north east of Hamsey, Lewes TQ415130 12ha Site located alongside disused 1km to A275 via
Lewes-Uckfield trackbed. Hamsey Lane– in Connection to Burgess Hill-Lewes probably require
line, but in Lewes direction only upgrading to East accommodate
HGVs W aste & Disused Southerham Grey Pit, Lewes TQ428089 10ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 Sussex/Brighton Miner
Beddingham Cement Works, TQ438067 10ha Lewes-Newhaven A26 als
Beddingham Sustainable
NewhavenFerryPort East Quay (Mill TQ455003 7ha Lewes-Newhaven – could potentially A26
Creek) utilise existing redundant sidings & T r within port ansport Hove NewhavenHarbour – land to east of TQ460005 15ha+ Lewes-Newhaven – could potentially A259 F Industrial Estate utilise existing redundant sidings easibility within port Study Balcombe Chalk Pit, Glynde Bridge TQ462086 12ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 9 93 94 W Sussex/Brighton 9 Site Description Grid Reference Approx Railway line Road Connections aste P
Size & otential Miner Land to north west of Newhouse TQ475087 20ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 als
Farm, near Firle Sustainable
Land to west of Bushy Lodge Farm, TQ483087 20ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 near Firle T r ansport
Land to east of Ripe Crossing, near TQ493085 15ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 Sites Firle F easibility Land to east of Newbarn Farm, near TQ555050 15ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 Polegate Study in & Land to east of disused Sewage TQ597045 15ha Site located alongside disused A27 Hove Works, Dittons Corner, Polegate Willingdon Chord East
Industrial land to south east of TQ610018 12ha Eastbourne branch line A22 Hampden Park Station
Land south of railway at Mountney TQ628040 10ha Eastbourne-Hastings (trains need to A27 via B2191 Level, Langney, Eastbourne reverse to access Lewes-Eastbourne line)
Land north of railway at Uplands TQ628044 10ha Eastbourne-Hastings (trains need to A27 via Stone Farm, Westham, Eastbourne reverse to access Lewes-Eastbourne Cross line)
British Gypsum, Mountfield TQ725197 3ha Tonbridge-Hastings (utilise existing A2100 sidings within British Gypsum plant) Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 95 Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove9
Potential Minerals Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
9.25 Given that a number of port facilities already exist which handle minerals imports (see Section 3) and that there is potentially vacant/spare capacity available, this section concentrates on identifying potential sites for importing and storing minerals by rail freight in East Sussex/Brighton and Hove. As noted earlier, there are currently no active minerals rail depots in the area, and inward flows consequently have to be undertaken by road from terminals in other counties.
9.26 A rail-served minerals site could potentially accommodate a number of functions and activities. These could range from a straight forward rail-storage-road transfer operation to a facility incorporating bagging, asphalt production and concrete batching plants. The assessment below assumes a simple rail-storage-road transfer operation. The greater number of functions/activities the larger the site requirement. Discharge of product from train is based on ‘bottom discharge’ railway wagons (see Section 6), with distribution to open storage via a basic hopper and conveyor belt system.
Identifying Rail-linked Sites for Minerals Storage/Distribution – Criteria Based Approach
9.27 The identification of rail served sites for minerals storage and re-distribution has been undertaken using a broadly similar approach to that used for identifying non-land disposal sites i.e. a criteria based approach.
9.28 A rail-linked minerals site will need to be able to handle trains at least 400m trailing length (i.e. 25 x JGA aggregates hopper wagons). In the first instance, arriving trains will need to be depart the mainline speedily (so as not to block following trains) and enter some form of reception siding (15). Such a siding will need to be at least 430m in length (i.e. wagons plus traction) together with a headshunt and run-round loop i.e. two sidings in total. Including the headshunt, such a facility would occupy a broadly rectangular strip of land measuring 480m x 8m (i.e. total area of 3,440m2).
9.29 Ideally, rail-linked minerals site will have a cargo handling siding (with hopper) of broadly the same length (i.e. to accommodate a 400m train), allowing the train to be discharged without the need to split it into two shorter formations. An efficient rail operation would be based on bottom discharge into a hopper located at the start of the siding. As the train moves over the hopper at walking pace, each wagon would discharge its product into the hopper. Such an operation could be undertaken by a shunting locomotive or by the mainline locomotive. A cargo handling siding (with hopper) would occupy a broadly rectangular strip of land measuring 430m x 4m (i.e. total area of 1,720m2).
15 A reception siding allows an arriving train to ‘park’ before cargo discharge without blocking the mainline. Similarly, empty trains can wait off the mainline while awaiting an onward freight path. Should the need arise, trains can also be split (sectioned) into shorter formation prior to discharge and then reformed before departure. 96 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 9Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
9.30 Elsewhere on the site, a ‘hard standing’ area would be required to undertake the open storage of aggregates/minerals. Each train of 25 JGA wagons is able to deliver 1,688 tonnes of product. Assuming a need to hold a buffer stock equivalent to 25% of each train-load (i.e. around 400 tonnes), this implies a requirement to store up to 2,000 tonnes of each mineral type at anyone time. It is also assumed that each site will need to hold three mineral/aggregates types at anyone time (e.g. sand, gravel and crushed rock), thereby implying a requirement to store up to 6,000 tonnes of product at anyone time. On the basis of a mean density of 1.6 tonnes per cubic metre, 6,000 tonnes of product would require an open storage area of 9,600 cubic metres. This equates to an area of 3,200m2 assuming product can be stock-piled up to 3m in height.
9.31 The rail sidings and open storage area combined will therefore occupy at least 0.8-0.9ha. Further space would also be required for:
Storage to HGV transfer; HGV and staff car parking; Ancillary offices and driver/operative facilities; and Security gate and weigh-bridge.
9.32 On this basis, a suitable rail-linked minerals site will need to be around 1.5-2.0ha in size, with a configuration capable of accommodating the required railway sidings, hard standing areas, associated transfer/handling facilities and ancillary offices.
9.33 A suitable rail-served minerals site will also need to be located alongside or adjacent to an operational railway line (or redundant track bed which connects a reasonable distance away with an operational railway line). However, such a location does not necessarily mean that a site can be physically connected to the mainline network and accommodate the required siding facilities. Two broad issues will ultimately determine site suitability, namely:
From a ‘civil engineering’ perspective, can the required turnout from the mainline and connecting tracks (including track-bed formation) into a site be constructed at a reasonable cost? And; Is a site, taking into account size, configuration, geographic relief and other spatial characteristics, able to accommodate the required sidings, hard standing area and other facilities?
9.34 A number of factors will determine whether the required turnout and connecting tracks can be constructed at a reasonable cost. However, the most important factor is the height differential between the railway line and the site in question. Connecting tracks ideally will be flat, and where necessary can only rise or fall on very gentle gradients. In general, only sites which are broadly at the same ‘level’ as the mainline can be considered appropriate. Alternatively, the following types of sites cannot be considered appropriate: Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 97 Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove9
Where a significant height difference exists between the railway line and the site in question; and Where a major physical ‘barrier’ is located between the railway and the site in question e.g. road, building(s). Taking into account the above and other important factors (considered throughout the report), a site suitable for accommodating rail-linked minerals terminal must meet the following criteria: At least 1.5-2.0ha in size and with a configuration capable of accommodating the required railway sidings, hard standing areas, associated transfer/handling facilities and ancillary offices Can be connected to an operational railway line (or redundant track bed which connects a short distance away with an operational railway line); Offers good railway access, which is defined in terms of:
'Route Availability' of RA8 or greater; Ability to operate trains at least 400m trailing length; and Available freight capacity;
Has good access to the road network, which is defined in terms of being located adjacent/close to a dual carriageway, ‘A’ road or other road capable of handling significant flows of Hives; and The site is located away from incompatible neighbours (e.g. residential areas), thereby allowing 24 hour operations.
Sites in East Sussex/Brighton and Hove
9.35 A similar approach was adopted to the non-land disposal sites, as follows:
The geographic scope covers East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove unitary authority; The work was carried out using the ‘Explorer’ series of Ordnance Survey Maps (1:25,000 scale) and supplemented by aerial photographs (e.g. Goggle Earth). The maps and photographs were examined and sites identified by meeting all of the above criteria; and A 'blank piece of paper' approach has been adopted, with sites identified irrespective of their current planning allocation status and ownership. Sites which are currently not ‘developed’ (i.e. built-on) have been considered, though land with known derelict buildings and existing industrial sites were also included in the assessment (on the basis that they could be redeveloped for minerals over the long term as buildings become life expired). Also farm land (with farm buildings) have been considered.
9.36 In terms of assessing whether a site can be connected to the mainline railway network, the general ‘working assumption’ adopted was that a physical connection would be feasible.
9.37 Effectively, only where it was clearly obvious that a railway connection is not feasible (i.e. substantial height differential) has a site not been considered. 98 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 9Potential Sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove
9.38 The locations identified are purely intended to be a list of sites which, at first appearances, could potentially act a minerals site, taking into transport connectivity and other spatial factors. Inclusion on the list should not be taken to mean that a site is actually suitable or would ultimately provide a ‘the best’ location. Further detailed assessments would be required to ultimately determine suitability, particularly from the planning policy, civil engineering and environmental impact perspectives. The table below lists the identified sites in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove which meet the criteria. As the criteria are broadly similar to the non-land disposal site criteria, many of the sites on the minerals site list are also contained in the waste sites table. P Table 49 Potential Rail-linked Mineral Sites in East Sussex and Brighton otential
Site Description Grid Reference Approx Railway line Road Connections Size
Land to west of Blackbrook Wood, TQ337178 15ha Burgess Hill-Lewes B2113 and B2112 near Burgess Hill
Land to west of Clearview Farm, near TQ335174 12ha Burgess Hill-Lewes B2113 and B2112 Sites Burgess Hill
Land to north east of Hamsey, Lewes TQ415130 12ha Site located alongside disused 1km to A275 via
Lewes-Uckfield trackbed. Connection Hamsey Lane – in to Burgess Hill-Lewes line, but in probably require
Lewes direction only upgrading to East accommodate
HGVs W aste & Disused Southerham Grey Pit, Lewes TQ428089 10ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 Sussex/Brighton Miner
Beddingham Cement Works, TQ438067 10ha Lewes-Newhaven A26 als
Beddingham Sustainable
NewhavenTown Yard TQ447020 2.5ha Lewes-Newhaven – could re-instate A26
former sidings adjacent to North & T r Quay ansport Hove NewhavenFerryPort East Quay (Mill TQ455003 7ha Lewes-Newhaven – could potentially A26 F Creek) utilise existing redundant sidings easibility within port Study 9 99 100 W Sussex/Brighton 9 Site Description Grid Reference Approx Railway line Road Connections aste P
Size & otential Miner NewhavenHarbour – land to east of TQ460005 15ha+ Lewes-Newhaven – could potentially A259 als
Industrial Estate utilise existing redundant sidings Sustainable within port
Balcombe Chalk Pit, Glynde Bridge TQ462086 12ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 T r ansport
Land to north west of Newhouse TQ475087 20ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 Sites Farm, near Firle F easibility Land to west of Bushy Lodge Farm, TQ483087 20ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 near Firle Study in & Land to east of Ripe Crossing, near TQ493085 15ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 Hove Firle East
Land to east of Newbarn Farm, near TQ555050 15ha Lewes-Eastbourne A27 Polegate
Land to east of disused Sewage TQ597045 15ha Site located alongside disused A27 Works, Dittons Corner, Polegate Willingdon Chord
Industrial land to south east of TQ610018 12ha Eastbourne branch line A22 Hampden Park Station
Land at Mountney Level, Langney, TQ628040 10ha Eastbourne-Hastings (trains need to A27 via B2191 Eastbourne reverse to access Lewes-Eastbourne line) P
Site Description Grid Reference Approx Railway line Road Connections otential Size
Land north of railway at Uplands TQ628044 10ha Eastbourne-Hastings (trains need to A27 via Stone Farm, Westham, Eastbourne reverse to access Lewes-Eastbourne Cross line)
British Gypsum, Mountfield TQ725197 3ha Tonbridge-Hastings (utilise existing A2100 Sites sidings within British Gypsum plant) in East W aste & Sussex/Brighton Miner als Sustainable & T r ansport Hove F easibility Study 9 101 102 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
10Conclusions 10 Conclusions
Existing National and Regional Transport Policy
10.1 Transport and planning policy at the national and regional level both encourages and promotes the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of aggregates and waste. In particular, planning policy supports:
The development of port land for port uses; The safeguarding of routes and sites next to railway lines which could be used for the movement of freight by rail; The safeguarding of wharves which could be used to handle cargoes by short sea shipping; and Encouraging the development of new facilities which generate significant freight movements to sites which are rail-linked, located within a port or both.
10.2 Other transport policies include:
The promotion of an open, competitive market for the provision of transport services (rail freight or port facilities). Competition for traffic improves service quality and efficiency; Support for the development of rail and water linked facilities where commercially justified; and The enhancement of the railway network, principally through the development of a Strategic Freight Network capable of accommodating more and longer freight trains, with selective ability to handle wagons with higher axle loads and greater loading gauge’.
Key Finding
There is clear existing national and regional policy support for the movement of waste and aggregates by rail and short sea shipping together with the safeguarding and development of appropriate terminal facilities which are rail-linked or located within a port.
Movement of Aggregates and Waste by Rail
10.3 Despite there being no rail served aggregates terminals in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove, the aggregates industry does make significant use of rail freight to transport primary aggregates into the South East region and London (6.9 million tonnes in 2006). This position is explained by the economics analysis, which shows that given the ability to operate full length trains, rail freight provides significant cost savings (compared with road transport) even over relatively short distances. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 103
Conclusions10
10.4 The planning system at the regional and local level would therefore appear to have an important role to play in helping to maintain current volumes and facilitating further growth in the movement of aggregates by rail.
10.5 There are currently no active rail-linked aggregate terminals in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove. Apart from the berth facilities at Newhaven, Shoreham and Rye, inward flows of aggregates consequently have to be undertaken by road from terminals in other counties.
10.6 A small coal discharge rail terminal was located immediately to the west of Hove station and adjacent to the existing carriage stabling sidings (served by road from Sackville Road). However, the site has been disconnected from the mainline and the tracks lifted.
Key Finding
Further use of rail freight is not being ‘held back’ due to economic factors. Given this position, the main obstacle to further use of rail freight could be a combination of the following factors:
The ability to develop rail-linked terminals in suitable locations; and The ability of the rail network to handle additional trains (capacity)
No rail linked aggregates or waste site currently in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove (apart from British Gypsum site at Mountfield)
Competitiveness of Rail Transport
10.7 The privatisation process and the subsequent new-entrants into the rail freight market has resulted in an open competitive market for freight train service provision. Efficiency has improved, investment in new traction/rolling stock has occurred (including aggregates wagons and waste containers) and the competitiveness of the sector on both cost and quality grounds has increased greatly. The doubling of the amount of cargo lifted by the rail freight sector since 1997 and its increased overall market share is partly a reflection of the success of the privatisation process.
Key Finding
Shippers of waste and minerals in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove have a choice of operators from which train services can be contracted.
Capacity of the Rail Network 104 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
10Conclusions
10.8 A large fleet of aggregates bogie hoppers are in operation with the aggregates producers. Such wagons are loaded from above by means of grab-cranes or conveyor systems, but they discharge from underneath the wagon either into hoppers (while the train is moving slowly) or directly onto the trackside. Waste is normally transported in waste containers, and a number of waste disposal authorities currently use such containers to move waste by rail.
10.9 Aggregates bogie hoppers are designed to fit through the smallest loading gauge profile (W6). Gypsum containers are currently moved by rail to/from the Mountfield facility in East Sussex. Given the use of appropriate intermodal platform wagons (i.e. Megafrets), waste containers of similar design to those used by London, Manchester and Avon should be able to operate throughout East Sussex/Brighton & Hove and beyond. The slightly taller maritime container will be restricted to routes which are cleared to W7 or greater, and then when conveyed by Megafret wagons (i.e. Brighton mainline and routes to Newhaven and Mountfield). The loading gauge of the network in East Sussex should therefore not impose any restrictions on use of rail for the transport of waste and minerals.
10.10 All lines in East Sussex have a route availability of RA10, with the exception of Brighton-Lewes (RA8) and Oxted-Uckfield (RA6). The Route Availability of the railway lines in East Sussex should therefore not impose any restrictions on aggregates or waste train operations.
10.11 It is often perceived that there is a lack of spare path supply across the national network i.e. it is operating at maximum capacity. This may be the case on certain busy sections of the network and at particular times of the day at other locations. However, spare path capacity is available on many parts of the network, and this is likely to be the case in East Sussex. A high-level analysis of off-peak passenger train timings south of Balcombe Tunnel Junction (May 2009 timetable) also suggests that an hourly freight path in both directions could be accommodated within the minimum headway requirements.
10.12 Trailing weight and trailing length restrictions suggests that the following train formations could be operated in Sussex:
19 x JGA bogie hopper aggregates wagons (approx 1,280 tonnes of cargo per train); and 14 x IKA Megafret ‘twins’ (56 x intermodal waste containers per train, assuming each container loaded to maximum 20 tonnes).
10.13 However, the use of station platforms to undertake ‘run-round’ operations is likely to limit trailing lengths to 276m. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 105
Conclusions10
Key Findings
The railway infrastructure in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove should not impose any significant operational limitations on freight train services which would otherwise affect the competitiveness of those services. In particular:
• The loading gauge of the network permits the operation of intermodal waste containers and gypsum containers on standard platform wagons and bogie hopper aggregates wagons;
• Axle weight limitations do not restrict the operation of fully laden bogie hopper aggregates wagons;
• At least one freight path per off-peak hour is likely to be available; and
• Full length trains can be operated, thereby reducing per unit costs.
Key Factors Affecting Transport of Waste by Rail
10.14 For intermodal rail freight (i.e. waste containers), the economics analysis shows that:
For a full length train, rail freight should always be cost competitive over any distance (except for very short distance movements) for flows between rail-linked facilities e.g. from a rail-linked waste reception site to a rail-linked disposal/recycling facility; and Where only one end of the trip is rail-linked e.g. from a non rail-linked waste reception site to a rail-linked disposal/recycling facility, rail freight should be cost competitive at distances over 250km (500km round trip); Where neither end of the trip is rail-linked, rail freight should be cost competitive at distances over 450km (900km round trip).and Operating part length trains has a significant impact on rail’s competitive position.
10.15 For example, it has been suggested that waste could be moved from a potential waste collection site at Bulverhythe (assuming it is a suitable site) to the planned energy recovery plant at Newhaven (see section 6 paragraph 6.63). This analysis suggests that both the Bulverhythe site and the Newhaven energy recovery plant will need to be rail-linked, be able to handle full length trains and a sufficient volume of waste will need to be collected to generate a full length train.
10.16 A sustainable strategy for transport of waste by rail (using intermodal waste containers) should therefore be based around:
The ability to operate between rail-linked facilities which are capable of handling full length trains, implying the need for rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove and rail-linked receivers 106 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
10Conclusions
of waste both inside and outside the county (e.g. recycling facilities, waste to energy plants etc..); and The ability to assemble full length trains on a regular basis between the rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove and the receivers of waste both inside outside the county (i.e. the strategy is also volume critical).
10.17 Both factors will need to be met in order to generate train services which can be justified commercially. Such a strategy also implies the need for a small number of large rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove, rather than a large number of small facilities. A large facility will have a greater opportunity to generate the requisite volume of cargo compared with small facilities. It may be that one ‘mega site’ for East Sussex/Brighton & Hove would therefore need to be considered.
Key Findings
A sustainable transport strategy for waste based around rail freight is likely to be viable economically, provided the following conditions are met, namely:
• For trips within East Sussex/Brighton & Hove (except for very short distance movements), both ends of the journey will need to be rail-linked and enough waste will need to be generated in order to assemble full length trains on a regular basis;
• For trips to destinations outside East Sussex/Brighton & Hove, both ends of the journey will need to be rail-linked for trips under 250km (one-way) and enough waste will need to be generated in order to assemble full length trains on a regular basis; and
• For trips to destinations outside East Sussex/Brighton & Hove, one end of the journey will need to be rail-linked for trips between 250km and 500km (one-way) and enough waste will need to be generated in order to assemble full length trains on a regular basis.
However this will need to be based around a small number of large rail-linked waste handling/transfer sites in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove. For this to be viable it is likely that one ‘mega site’ for East Sussex/Brighton & Hove would need to be developed. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 107
Conclusions10
Suitability of Existing Wharves
10.18 A number of suitable wharf facilities already exist in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, namely:
Shoreham; Newhaven; and Rye.
Key Finding
There are existing port and wharf facilities in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove which are capable of handling inward flows of minerals by short sea shipping.
All existing port/wharf facilities in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove are capable of handling ‘bulk’ cargo e.g. aggregates, while Newhaven also provides RoRo and general cargo berths which permits the transport of waste and aggregates in unit loads.
Comparison of Rail & Water
10.19 When shipping aggregates, analysis shows that quay-to-quay shipping costs are always more cost competitive compared with rail freight. However, taking into account the need to initially transport product from the quarry to the origin port, rail freight appears to offer a more cost competitive option at the shorter distance of 200km. However, at a distance of 400km the coastal shipping and rail freight options are broadly comparable. From this analysis, we can therefore conclude that:
Where a rail-linked quarry is located close to a port, rail freight is likely to offer a more cost competitive transport option for an end-to end-trip of under 400km; and Where a rail-linked quarry is located close to a port, coastal shipping is likely to offer a more cost competitive transport option for and end-to end-trip over 400km.
10.20 Similarly, when shipping waste by dry-bulk carrier analysis shows that quay-to-quay shipping costs are always more cost competitive compared with rail freight (based on trips from rail-linked waste reception site to rail-linked receiver). Consequently, if the waste reception site is located within a port (e.g. Shoreham) and the ultimate disposal/recycling facility is also located within the destination port, coastal shipping should always offer the lowest cost transport option. This assumes that a full ship load of waste can be conveyed on one trip. 108 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
10Conclusions
10.21 Should a local road haul be required to move the waste to the ultimate disposal/recycling facility, rail freight should offer a lower cost option except for the longer distance trips over 700-800km, assuming that the waste reception site and the disposal facility are both rail-linked. However, even this is dependent on the waste reception facility being located within a port. Adding a second road transport leg into the supply chain e.g. road haul to Shoreham Port and from the destination port will render this option uncompetitive (in cost terms) compared with a rail based solution.
Key Findings
Except for very short distance movements, a sustainable transport strategy for waste based around short sea shipping is therefore likely to be viable economically, provided the following conditions are met, namely:
• The non-land disposal facility is located within a port (e.g. Shoreham) and the ultimate disposal/recycling facility also being located within the destination port; or
• Where a local road haul is required e.g. to move waste from a non-land disposal facility to a port (e.g. Shoreham) or from a port to the ultimate disposal/recycling facility, shipping is likely to offer the lowest cost solution at distances over 700-800km.
10.22 The key finding suggests that trips from a non-land disposal facility located within the port of Shoreham to the Newhaven energy recovery plant should be cost competitive by coastal shipping.
Grant Schemes
10.23 Two grant schemes are currently operated by the Department for Transport to support the movement of goods by coastal shipping and inland waterways which would otherwise be conveyed by road transport. They are:
Freight Facilities Grant (FFG); and Waterborne Freight Grant (WFG)
10.24 Some rail freight grants may be available to support new terminal infrastructure (FFG) and rail services (REPS).
Rail-linked Waste Site - Key Characteristics
10.25 A site suitable for accommodating a rail-linked waste facility must meet the following criteria: Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study 109
Conclusions10
At least 5ha in size and with a configuration capable of accommodating the required railway sidings, hardstanding areas, associated waste transfer/handling facilities and ancillary offices Can be connected to an operational railway line (or redundant track bed which connects a short distance away with an operational railway line); Offers good railway access, which is defined in terms of:
'Route Availability' of RA8 or greater; Ability to operate trains at least 400m trailing length; Available freight capacity; Loading gauge of W8 or greater (if handling waste in standard maritime containers).
Has good access to the road network, which is defined in terms of being located adjacent/close to a dual carriageway, ‘A’ road or other road capable of handling significant flows of HGVs and ‘waste’ vehicles; and The site is located away from incompatible neighbours (e.g. residential areas), thereby allowing 24 hour operations.
Key Finding
Potential rail-linked waste sites have been identified in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove (see table 47 section 9) which may be suitable for accommodating rail-linked waste facilities. N.B. this conclusion is the result of a map based exercise and further 'on the ground' assessments will need to be undertaken to fully ascertain suitability.
Rail-linked Minerals Site - Key Characteristics
10.26 A site suitable for accommodating rail-linked minerals terminal must meet the following criteria:
At least 1.5-2.0ha in size and with a configuration capable of accommodating the required railway sidings, hardstanding areas, associated transfer/handling facilities and ancillary offices Can be connected to an operational railway line (or redundant track bed which connects a short distance away with an operational railway line); Offers good railway access, which is defined in terms of:
'Route Availability' of RA8 or greater; Ability to operate trains at least 400m trailing length; and Available freight capacity; 110 Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
10Conclusions
Has good access to the road network, which is defined in terms of being located adjacent/close to a dual carriageway, ‘A’ road or other road capable of handling significant flows of HGVs; and The site is located away from incompatible neighbours (e.g. residential areas), thereby allowing 24 hour operations.
Key Findings
Potential rail linked minerals terminal sites have been identified in East Sussex/Brighton & Hove (see table 48 section 9) which meet the criteria and may therefore be suitable for accommodating rail-linked terminals handling inward flows of minerals by rail. N.B. this conclusion is the result of a map based exercise and further 'on the ground' assessments will need to be undertaken to fully ascertain suitability Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study a Rolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste TrafficA Appendix A Rolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste Traffic
Aggregates: Crushed Rock & Sand
A.1 Most modern railway wagons used to transport primary aggregates (crushed rock and sand) are of the ‘top loading-bottom discharge’ type. Such wagons are loaded from above by means of grab-cranes or conveyor systems, but they discharge from underneath the wagon either into hoppers (while the train is moving slowly) or directly onto the trackside. Essentially, a door or hatch at the base of the wagon opens allowing the cargo to be discharged by gravity. However, some older type wagons are still discharged from above using grab-cranes.
A.2 Picture 4 shows one of the most common types of ‘top loading-bottom discharge’ aggregates wagons currently in operation (bogie hopper wagon, TOPS code: JGA). This wagon design (and similar designs) is operated by all the major aggregates producers. The table below the picture provides some details regarding the wagon’s operating characteristics.
A.3 A full length train would normally consist of between 20 and 30 wagons (i.e. 1,350 to 2,025 tonnes of cargo per train). The main factors limiting the number of wagons per train will be:
Trailing weight and trailing length restrictions of the route utilised (see relevant section below); Length of passing loops on the route utilised (see relevant section below); and Length of sidings are the origin quarry/port and the destination storage/distribution centre.
Gypsum
A.4 British Gypsum utilises rail freight to transport gypsum from ports and power stations (the by-product of the limestone based flue-gas desulphurisation process) to a number of its plaster/plasterboard factories (including Mountfield). British Gypsum operates a ‘fleet’ of specially designed intermodal containers for this process (see picture 5), which can be transported both by rail and road where required. On this basis, two types of equipment needs to be considered, namely:
The intermodal container itself; and The railway wagon onto which the container is transported.
Household Waste
A.5 Household waste is normally transported by rail in some form of intermodal container (see picture 6) specially designed to store and discharge compacted municipal waste. Again, two types of equipment needs to be considered, namely: b Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study ARolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste Traffic
The intermodal container; and The railway wagon onto which the container is transported.
Containers for Household Waste
A.6 The flows of waste by rail from London, Manchester and Avon all utilise ‘fleets’ of bespoke intermodal waste containers which can be transported both by road and rail. Picture 6 illustrates the type of containers used to transfer waste from London to landfill at Calvert in Buckinghamshire by rail freight, while the table following details the dimensions and operating limitations. The Greater Manchester and Avon containers are broadly similar in design, though each fleet is a bespoke build and therefore varies slightly.
Intermodal Railway Wagons
A.7 Intermodal containers (including gypsum, waste and maritime containers) are transported by rail on ‘intermodal platform wagons’. These are essentially flat-bed wagons onto which the intermodal units are lifted and then secured for transit. There are a number of designs currently in use with the major rail freight operators, each with varying deck-heights (height of the loading deck above rail) and capacities. The main types are shown in the table below. The deck heights of the wagons are important as they dictate the type and size of intermodal unit which can be conveyed via the varying loading gauge profiles on the national railway network (see loading gauge information in section 6).
Table 50 Intermodal containers information
Wagon Type Deck Length Approx deck Additional Information Height over length and (m) buffers capacity (m)
Standard 0.980 20.5 18.3m (60ft) Standard design British 60ft intermodal platform that can intermodal 1x40ft + operate on the British network flat 1x20ft or only. 3x20ft (TOPS Code: containers In widespread use with FSA, FTA Freightliner and GBRf and FEA)
Multifret 0.945 37.3 15m Standard European intermodal (fixed platform that can operate in (IFA) pair) 1 x 40ft or 2 x Britain and mainland Europe. 20ft containers Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study c Rolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste TrafficA
Normally operate in permanently coupled pair formations i.e. 2 x 15m deck wagons
Megafret 0.825 37.3 15m Standard European intermodal (fixed platform that can operate in (IKA) pair) 1 x 40ft or 2 x Britain and mainland Europe. 20ft containers Normally operate in permanently coupled pair formations i.e. 2 x 15m deck wagons
Lowliner 0.720 14.0 12.2m Low deck height wagon. Can operate on the British network (FLA) 1x40ft only.
Small wheels to lower deck height
'Well' Wagon 0.712 18.0 12.2m Low deck height wagon. Can operate on the British network (FAA) 1x40ft only.
Container conveyed between bogies.
A.8 The standard 60ft platform wagon is the most common type in use, with both Freightliner and GBRf operating large fleets of such wagons. Both Megafret and Multifret wagons, a standard European wagon design, are also in general use with a number of rail freight operators, particularly EWS and GBRf. Each of these wagons is able to convey Gypsum containers in standard operating formations without any modifications. They are also readily available to lease.
A.9 The Lowliner and 'Well' wagons are specially designed with a lower deck height so that they can convey ‘high cube’ maritime containers on lines with restricted loading gauge clearances. However, they are available in fewer numbers compared to the other wagons (difficult to lease) and they also have a reduced cargo capacity, resulting in higher per unit operating costs. Given that the standard gypsum containers can ‘fit through’ the smallest loading gauge profile on both Multifret and Megafret wagons (see loading gauge information in section 6), there is no consequent need to use them for gypsum traffic. d Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study ARolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste Traffic
A.10 The standard 60ft intermodal platform, Multifret and Megafret wagons described above are all able to convey waste containers in standard operating formations without any modifications. Also, waste containers can ‘fit through’ the smallest loading gauge profile on both Multifret and Megafret wagons (see loading gauge information in section 6).
A.11 Pictures 1, 2 & 3 below illustrate some of the platform wagons in use.
Picture 1 FEA Wagons and Gypsum Containers Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study e Rolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste TrafficA
Picture 2 FSA Wagons and Maritime Containers f Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study ARolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste Traffic
Picture 3 IFA 'Multifret' Wagon and Gypsum Containers Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study g Rolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste TrafficA
A.1 Aggregates
Picture 4 Top loading-bottom discharge aggregate wagon
Table 51
Wagon type Bogie hopper wagon
TOPS Code JGA
Number of bogies 2 (4 axles over wagon)
Length (over buffers) 16.0m
Tare weight 22.5 tonnes
Maximum operating weight 90 tonnes (22.5 tonnes per axle)
Maximum cargo capacity 67.5 tonnes h Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study ARolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste Traffic
A.2 Gypsum
A.12 The picture below illustrates the containers used by British Gypsum, while the table following details the dimensions and operating limitations. The containers are ‘top-loaded’ but with an end door for discharge (box is ‘tilted’ allowing the cargo to be discharged by gravity).
Picture 5 British Gypsum Container
Table 52
Length 6.1m (20ft)
Height 2.44m (8ft)
Tare weight 4.25 tonnes
Maximum operating weight 30 tonnes
Maximum cargo capacity 25.75 tonnes Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study i Rolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste TrafficA
A.3 Household Waste
Picture 6 Wagon used to transfer waste
Table 53
Length 6.1m (20ft)
Height 2.44m (8ft)
Tare weight 3 tonnes
Maximum operating weight 20 tonnes
Maximum cargo capacity 17
A.13 Waste cargo is also transported in standard ISO deep-sea maritime containers. In particular, waste paper, card, scrap metals and other recyclable materials are exported to the Far East in maritime containers for recycling. The table below presents the average dimensions and operating limitations of standard ISO containers (the dimensions are standard but the weight limitations will vary by container depending on the construction material and construction process).
Table 54
Length 12.2m (40ft) 12.2m (40ft) 6.1m (20ft)
Height 2.59m (8ft 6’) 2.89m (9ft 6’) 2.44m (8ft)
Approx tare weight 3.6 tonnes 3.8 tonnes 2.2 tonnes j Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study ARolling Stock for Aggregate & Household Waste Traffic
Approx maximum 30.5 tonnes 30.5 tonnes 30.5 tonnes operating weight
Approx maximum 27 tonnes 26.5 tonnes 28 tonnes cargo capacity Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study k Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB Appendix B Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Existing Wharf and Rail Terminal Facilities
B.1 The following data relating to the existing wharf and rail terminal facilities in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove has been extracted from a study completed for SEERA by MDS Transmodal in 2008 (Aggregates Wharves and Rail Depots). This study examined the provision of rail aggregate terminals and wharf facilities in South East England. Some data has been removed from the tables to protect commercial confidentiality.
Existing Wharves
Rye
Table 55
Name Rye Wharf Location – terminal Atlas Industrial Park, Rye Harbour Road, Rye, East address Sussex TN31 7TE OS Grid Reference TQ939192 Highway serving terminal A259 Rail linked No Terminal operator Rastrum’s Ltd (Aggregates operator – Bretts) Site area 16.1ha Maximum vessel draft 4.7m Jetty/Berth length 220m Operational status Active Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Rother District Council
Cargo handled Type 1 crushed limestone l Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study BExisting Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Table 56
Name Rye Marine Wharf
(Also known as ARC Wharf or Rastrum’s Wharf)
Location – terminal Harbour Road, Rye, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ447016 Highway serving terminal A259 Rail linked No Terminal operator Rastrum’s Ltd (potentially) Site area 0.5ha Maximum vessel draft 4.7m Jetty/Berth length 36m Operational status Inactive Last handled 1997 Reason for closure Berth is silted up Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Rother District Council
Cargo handled None currently
Discussions are in progress to bring the wharf back into use for products such as woodchips but not aggregates Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study m Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB
Newhaven
Table 57
Name North Quay Berth 1
(Also known as Vapogro Wharf or Rigden Group Site)
Location – terminal North Quay, Newhaven, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ447015 Highway serving terminal A26 Rail linked Redundant rail connection (see rail terminals below) Terminal operator Rigden Group and Tarmac Site area 1.5ha Maximum vessel draft 4.5m Jetty/Berth length 95m (handles ships up to 91m) Operational status Active Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Lewes District Council
Cargo handled Primary aggregates
Rigden act as stevedores and handle material for Tarmac/CEMEX and for their own account. n Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study BExisting Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Table 58
Name North Quay Berth 2
(former UMA/Solent Aggregates site)
Location – terminal North Quay, Newhaven, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ446016 Highway serving terminal A26 Rail linked Redundant rail connection (see rail terminals below) Terminal operator Solent Aggregates (A joint venture between Hanson 50%, United Marine Aggregates 25% and Tarmac 25%). Tarmac now owns UMA. Site area 1.5ha Maximum vessel draft 4.5m Jetty/Berth length 90 metres (handles ships up to 80m) Operational status Active Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Lewes District Council
Cargo handled Primary aggregates Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study o Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB
Table 59
Name North Quay Berth 3 (Former RMC site) Location – terminal North Quay, Newhaven, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ446017 Highway serving terminal A26 Rail linked Redundant rail connection (see rail terminals below) Terminal operator CEMEX (previously RMC) Site area 1.5ha Maximum vessel draft Berth silted up Jetty/Berth length 80m (handles ships up to 80m) Operational status Inactive Last handled 2005 Reason for closure Berth silted up and engineering problems with the quayside Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Lewes District Council
Cargo handled None currently p Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study BExisting Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Table 60
Name North Quay Berth 4 Location – terminal North Quay Newhaven, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ445018 Highway serving terminal A26 Rail linked Redundant rail connection (see rail terminals below) Terminal operator European Metal Recycling (EMR) Site area 1.8ha Maximum vessel draft 4.5m Jetty/Berth length 80m Operational status Active Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Lewes District Council
Cargo handled Scrap metal exports Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study q Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB
Table 61
Name North Quay Berth 5 Location – terminal North Quay, Newhaven, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ444020 Highway serving terminal A26 Rail linked Redundant rail connection (see rail terminals below) Terminal operator Unknown Site area 1.0ha Maximum vessel draft 4.5m Jetty/Berth length 95m (handles ships up to 85m) Operational status Inactive Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Lewes District Council
Cargo handled Scrap metal exports / aggregates r Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study BExisting Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Table 62
Name RoRo Berths Newhaven Ferry Port Location – terminal Railway Approach, Newhaven, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ449008 Highway serving terminal A26 Rail linked Redundant rail connection (see rail terminals below) Terminal operator Newhaven Ferry Port Site area Unknown Maximum vessel draft 6.5m Jetty/Berth length 2 x RoRo link-spans Operational status Active Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority (if Lewes District Council two-tier local Government) Cargo handled RoRo freight and passengers Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study s Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB
Table 63
Name East Quay Newhaven Ferry Port Location – terminal Beach Road, Newhaven, East Sussex address OS Grid Reference TQ450004 Highway serving terminal A26 Rail linked Redundant rail connection (see rail terminals below) Terminal operator Unknown Site area Unknown Maximum vessel draft 6.5m Jetty/Berth length 200m Operational status Unknown Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Local Planning Authority (if Lewes District Council two-tier local Government) Cargo handled Unknown t Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study BExisting Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Shoreham
Table 64
Name Hall’s Aggregate Wharf, Shoreham (Also known as RMC/Cemex Wharf) Location – terminal Hall’s Aggregate Wharf, Wellington Road, Shoreham address OS Grid Reference TV258049 Highway serving terminal A259 Rail linked No Terminal operator CEMEX Site area 1.4ha, approx 0.7 ha in each district Maximum vessel draft 8.0m Jetty/Berth length 2 X 100m berths Operational status Active Last handled N/A Reason for closure N/A Mineral Planning Brighton & Hove City Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Cargo handled Served by a track mounted hydraulic grab crane. Around 250,000 tonnes per year of sea-dredged sand and gravel is handled from south coast sources in addition to around 40,000 tonnes per year of crushed rock from North Wales. Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study u Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB
Table 65
Name Britannia Wharf, Shoreham Location – terminal Britannia Wharf, Wellington Road Shoreham address OS Grid Reference TV260048 Highway serving terminal A259 Rail linked No Terminal operator Tarmac Site area 0.7ha Maximum vessel draft 5.0m Jetty/Berth length 110m Operational status Inactive. Last handled 1997 Reason for closure Unknown Mineral Planning Brighton & Hove City Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Cargo handled Used for aggregates storage only at present
One third of site is leased to Transco. Used for the storage of heavy vehicles v Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study BExisting Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Table 66
Name Ferry Wharf, Shoreham
(Also known as Hall's Ferry Wharf)
Location – terminal Basin North Road, Shoreham address OS Grid Reference TV263048 Highway serving terminal A259 Rail linked No Terminal operator CEMEX Site area 0.3ha Maximum vessel draft 6.0m Jetty/Berth length 45m Operational status Inactive Last handled 1992 Reason for closure Unknown Mineral Planning Brighton & Hove City Council Authority & Local Planning Authority Cargo handled Used for the storage of road planings only.
Previously served by a rail mounted crane now dismantled Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study w Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB
Existing Rail Terminals
Table 67
Location – terminal Newhaven Town Yard (North Quay) address OS Grid Reference TQ447019 Railway line serving Newhaven Branch Line (terminal to the north of terminal Newhaven Town station) Highway serving terminal North Quay Road and A26 Terminal Operator N/A Active or Redundant (siding owned by English Welsh & Scottish redundant/mothballed Railway Ltd) Number of sidings/tracks Railway sidings have been disconnected from the mainline and the tracks lifted. Length of sidings/tracks NA (m) Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Lewes District Council Local Planning
Quality of rail links Loading gauge: W8
Route Availability: RA10
Cargo Handled None currently Any other relevant Terminal is adjacent to the Port of Newhaven North information Quay complex (see above). x Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study BExisting Wharf & Rail Terminal Facilities
Table 68
Location – terminal East Quay Railway Sidings address OS Grid Reference TQ451007 Railway line serving Newhaven Branch Line (terminal to the south of terminal Newhaven Harbour station and alongside former Newhaven Marine station) Highway serving terminal Beach Road and A26 Terminal Operator N/A Active or Redundant redundant/mothballed Number of sidings/tracks 1 siding plus headshunt and run-round loop. Length of sidings/tracks 200m (m) Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Lewes District Council Local Planning
Quality of rail links Loading gauge: W8
Route Availability: RA10
Cargo Handled None currently Any other relevant Terminal is adjacent to the East Quay Newhaven Ferry information Port (see above) Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study y Existing Wharf & Rail Terminal FacilitiesB
Table 69
Location – terminal British Gypsum, Mountfield address OS Grid Reference TQ726197 Railway line serving Hastings Mainline terminal Highway serving terminal A2100 and A21 Terminal Operator British Gypsum Active or Active redundant/mothballed Number of sidings/tracks 1 cargo handling siding
3 x reception sidings and headshunt
Length of sidings/tracks Cargo handling siding – 500m (reception siding length (m) limits trains to c360m trailing length) Mineral Planning East Sussex County Council Authority & Rother District Council Local Planning Authority
Quality of rail links Loading gauge: W6
Route Availability: RA10
Cargo Handled Containerised gypsum z Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study
CList of Abbreviations Appendix C List of Abbreviations
C.1 DfT Department for Transport
C.2 DRS Direct Rail Services
C.3 ECM East Coast Mainline
C.4 EWS English, Welsh & Scottish Railway
C.5 FFG Freight Facilities Grant
C.6 FTA Freight Transport Association
C.7 HLOS High Level Output Specification
C.8 IPC Infrastructure Planning Commission
C.9 LoLo Load on Load off
C.10 LTP Local Transport Plan
C.11 MMO Marine Management Organisation
C.12 NPS National Planning Statements
C.13 ORR Office of Rail Regulation
C.14 PPG Planning Policy Guidance
C.15 PPS Planning Policy Statements
C.16 REPS Rail Environmental Benefits Procurement Scheme
C.17 RFG Rail Freight Group
C.18 RPG Regional Planning Guidance
C.19 RoRo Roll on Roll off
C.20 RUS Route Utilisation Strategy
C.21 SFN Strategic Freight Network
C.22 SLM Sensitive Lorry Miles
C.23 TIF Transport Innovation Fund
C.24 WCML West Coast Mainline Waste & Minerals Sustainable Transport Feasibility Study aa
List of AbbreviationsC
C.25 WMDF Waste & Minerals Development Framework Waste and Minerals Policy Team Planning Service - Transport & Environment East Sussex County Council WasteCounty and Hall Minerals Policy Team PlanningSt Anne’s Service Crescent – Economy, Transport and Environment EastLewes Sussex County Council CountyEast Sussex Hall StBN7 Anne’s 1UE Crescent Lewes East01273 Sussex 481846 BN7 1UE 01273Planning 481846 Strategy & Projects Brighton & Hove City Council PlanningHove Town Strategy Hall & Projects BrightonNorton Road& Hove City Council HoveHove Town Hall NortonEast Sussex Road HoveBN3 3BQ East Sussex BN301273 3BQ 292505 01273 292505 2561 design by www.graphicdesignteam.org.uk
[email protected] http://consult.eastsussex.gov.uk
2561 Waste and Mineral strategy cover -final.indd 2 2/7/09 11:01:24