Continuous Modular Strategic Planning North of England Freight Strategic Questions

12 November 2018

Document Control Document Title Continuous Modular Strategic Planning – North of England - Freight Version and date V1.0 12/11/2018 Author Richard Iggulden Security Level Unrestricted

Contents

Foreword ...... 6

Executive Summary ...... 7 Strategic Questions ...... 7 Meeting the growing demand in rail freight ...... 8 Recommendations ...... 8

Introduction ...... 9 An Investment Strategy to Support Growth ...... 9 The Railways in the North of England ...... 10 Demand and Growth ...... 12 The Starting Point...... 12 The Funding Environment ...... 13 New Ways of Attracting Funding and Generating Profit ...... 13 Defining a Strategy for Growth ...... 14

Developing the Study ...... 18 Process ...... 18 Freight Forecasts ...... 19 Planning Approach ...... 19 An evolution of the Long Term Planning Process ...... 20

Strategic Freight Issues in the North of England ...... 21 Efficient Freight Routing and Freight Capacity in Major Urban Centres ...... 21 Changes in Freight Market Sectors ...... 24 Areas with potential for Rail-Freight growth ...... 26

Geographical Route Sections ...... 28 F.00 Introduction...... 28 Cumbria ...... 29 Lancashire ...... 31 Merseyside ...... 32 Greater Manchester ...... 35 Derbyshire ...... 36 Cheshire ...... 41 Staffordshire ...... 44

Northumberland...... 45 Tyne & Wear ...... 46 County Durham ...... 46 Tees Valley ...... 47 Yorkshire ...... 48 Nottinghamshire ...... 50 North and North East Lincolnshire...... 51 Core West – East Freight Routes ...... 52 F.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes ...... 53 F.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle...... 54 F.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds ...... 55 F.15.4 Calder Valley Routes ...... 56 F.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn ...... 57 F.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley) ...... 59 F.15.7 Skipton - Colne ...... 60 East Coast Main Line (ECML) ...... 62 West Coast Main Line (WCML) ...... 64

Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 67 Conclusion and Recommendations ...... 67 Future Freight Strategic Questions for the North of England ...... 68

Consultation and Next Steps ...... 69 How can you contribute ...... 69 Privacy Statement ...... 70 Next Steps ...... 70

Appendix A: Freight Forecasts by Route Section ...... 71 FF.01 Cumbria ...... 71 FF.02 Lancashire ...... 75 FF.03 Merseyside ...... 82 FF.04 Greater Manchester ...... 88 FF.05 Derbyshire ...... 101 FF.06 Cheshire ...... 104 FF.07 Staffordshire ...... 115 FF.08 Northumberland ...... 117

FF.09 Tyne & Wear ...... 121 FF.10 County Durham ...... 126 FF.11 Tees Valley ...... 128 FF.12 Yorkshire ...... 136 FF.13 Nottingham shire ...... 163 FF.14 North and North East Lincolnshire ...... 165 FF.15 Core West-East Freight Routes ...... 169 FF.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes ...... 169 FF.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle ...... 176 FF.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds Corridor ...... 178 FF.15.4 Calder Valley Routes ...... 181 FF.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn ...... 185 FF.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley)...... 191 FF.16 East Coast Main Line and GN/GE ...... 193 FF.17 West Coast Main Line (WCML) ...... 202

Appendix B: Summary of Investment Choices ...... 206

Appendix C: Abbreviations & Glossary ...... 207

Appendix D: Reference Material ...... 210

Foreword We’re pleased to present these Freight Strategic Questions and Rail-freight Investment Choices for the railway in the North of England. The railways of the North of England are an asset that are vital to the economy of the region and the UK as a whole, and investing in the growth of the railway is the same as investing in that economy. From small but effective changes to the current network, to larger-scale new developments, the improvements to rail infrastructure for the benefit of rail-freight that are set out in this study are all designed to facilitate both rail-freight and economic growth. We plan for the long term, and you’ll find investment options in this document that can keep rail-freight growing in the North to the 2040s and beyond. But in a world where public money is in short supply, we also need to be able to draw on a range of different funding approaches, and target investment in the near term to set us on the right path for longer term growth.

That’s why the options we’ve developed here are investment choices. We’ve worked with colleagues from across the transport industry and also the wider infrastructure planning world – to shape a range of railway improvements that support the growth of rail-freight that will benefit the communities and economies of the North of England. These are choices designed to meet the expected growth in rail-freight and promote economic growth. It’s a virtuous circle where the ultimate beneficiary is the North of England and the UK as a whole. So we’d encourage all those who want to see improvements in rail-freight in the North of England to review these choices and find out more about the improvements that benefit them and the wider region.

Executive Summary

The Study is a key element of the Continuous Modular Strategic Planning, (CMSP) approach to support the rail industry’s Long Term Planning Process, (LTPP).

It sets out proposals and railway investment choices for the period up to 2050.

Strategic Questions

This report examines the following Strategic Question developed in collaboration with industry stakeholders:

- What interventions are required in the North of England to meet the freight forecasts through to 2050?

To assist in answering this question the following key points were studied:

- Efficient Freight Routing and Freight Capacity in Major Urban Centres

- Changes in Freight Market Sectors

- Areas currently potentially underserved by Rail-Freight

This report outlines railway investment choices to address the issues arising from growth in rail- freight in the North of England and investments that could provide wider strategic network benefits. This report primarily considers freight capacity within the North of England and the ability of the existing network to accommodate future freight growth. It is recommended that future freight strategic questions for the North of England consider in more detail how aspects of freight capability can be developed over time. Key aspects of freight capability to consider could include:

• Development of the W12 network. • Freight Train Length • Freight Journey Times • Freight Traction

Meeting the growing demand in rail freight

There is significant freight growth forecast in the North of England, particularly in the Intermodal Container and Construction sectors. On the vast majority of route sections where growth is forecast to occur, this growth can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision, without the need for any additional infrastructure. For the small number of route sections where freight growth is beyond the current level of freight capacity provision, then infrastructure interventions are identified that will enable the freight growth to be accommodated. For those route sections where passenger services are forecast to increase and potentially test the available capacity for both passenger and freight services, such route sections will be examined in detail by geographic area strategic questions such as those taking place for Sheffield and Manchester.

Recommendations The Working Group for the North of England Freight Strategic Question have endorsed the following infrastructure enhancements choices to accommodate rail-freight growth in the North of England, they are categorised as follows:

Introduction

Long Term Planning Process develops evidenced answers to questions facing the railway.

How to provide additional services on a network that is already busy?

Assumed that HS2 will release capacity on the WCML and ECML for rail-freight services.

Railway infrastructure in the North of England is going to need to respond to the demands of growth particularly from the Intermodal Container and Construction Aggregates sectors.

An Investment Strategy to Support Growth This document provides investment choices for funders for infrastructure that can support the growth of rail-freight services in the North of England. Its starting point is an understanding that growth in the provision of railway transport is closely linked to economic growth. Railways move large volumes of goods safely, quickly and efficiently; enabling businesses to connect and grow. Together, these activities help form the economic engine that powers the UK economy, and investing in rail-freight to promote growth forms an opportunity that an increasingly wide range of businesses and organisations show an interest in taking. This document is strategic in that it looks at the railway in the North of England as it is now, yet also considers the capacity challenges and opportunities that are likely to occur in the period up to 2050. The aim of doing this is to understand how the railway needs to adapt and be improved in the near future, and to do so in such a way that long term growth is encouraged. The railway is a complex system with infrastructure that lasts for many decades, and we need to be sure that the changes we make now will be relevant over the lifetime of the trains, track and technology that support it. To further these goals, Network Rail has developed a Long Term Planning Process (LTPP),1 which is faciliated through the Continous Modular Strategic Planning (CMSP) process. This allows us to consult colleagues in the rail industry and those who would like to promote the benefits of investment in rail transport, and to develop evidenced answers to some of the questions that will be asked of the railway over coming years. And now we are seeking wider public feedback on this strategy: public consultation will be open through to 7th March 2019.2

1 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/ 2 Link to consultation landing page. This is a public document designed to be read by a wide range of people. In producing it, efforts have been made to use plain English, even when describing technical railway issues.

The breadth of this engagement aims to capture the widest range of voices with an interest in developing rail-freight services in the North of England. In the following pages, you’ll find a summary of the challenges that the railway infrastructure in the North of England faces now and in the future, in providing the required capacity for the future growth in rail-freight services. These will form investment choices: choices offered to a range of funders and investors, choices that are grounded in an understanding of how the railway works now and in future – and of how the users of rail-freight want it to support their businesses and economies.

The Railways in the North of England The geographic scope of the North of England Freight Strategic Question has been developed working with stakeholders across the industry to form the remit shown in Figure 1 It represents a network that supports freight end users, and which contributes to a large part of the UK economy. Where there are ‘boundaries’ – with Scotland or the Midlands – these are conceptual not physical. In looking at demand and the needs of the freight end users, analysis takes account of the whole journey that rail-freight services make. In this way, the investment focus remains on services, and remains fully aligned to analysis in neighbouring areas. This alignment is managed nationally through the LTPP; rail studies that cover adjacent routes in Scotland and England can be found on the Network Rail website.3 This includes both the WCML, ECML & Merseyside, which are covered by their own separate route studies.

3 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/

Figure 1 – North of England Route Study Area An important consideration in understanding the nature of the railway in the North of England is the diversity of train services that it supports. High speed passenger trains that travel at speed of up to 125mph, share the infrastructure with rail-freight services that carry millions of tonnes of goods and commodities to and from ports and terminals across the national network; urban and inter-urban passenger services also use the same network to transport millions of passengers into Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull and Newcastle and the other urban centres across the route. Direct cross-country trains use the route to link destinations in southern and southwest England and the midlands with Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland. In the diversity of services using the infrastructure lie some of the key challenges the railway faces in terms of growth: • Line capacity – the number of trains per hour that can fit on a section of route – is ultimately limited by signalling technology, but gradient and curvature can also be key factors. • The interaction of trains - faster trains catch up slower ones and can only pass where additional tracks are available. • The stopping patterns of some passenger trains mean that the space needed for others to run can be limited. • Where the paths of trains cross, space on the network is taken up to make sure that safe margins are kept at intersections.

The result of these limitations is that the choice of changes that customers want to see in rail transport can be affected: opportunities for new passenger and freight services can be limited, as is flexibility in specifying new timetables. These are the challenges that have to be addressed when considering how to provide additional services on a network that is already busy. Where the aim is to meet demand in existing services by lengthening rail-freight services, the challenge can also be physical – will longer services fit between signals or in sidings or terminals?

The enhancement choices presented later in the document will be focussed on how existing infrastructure can best be used, and also ways in which it could be upgraded to accommodate demand and promote growth.

Demand and Growth As a whole, the North of England typically accommodates 200 freight trains per day. To understand what changes may be required of the railway, economic analysis has been carried out as part of the planning process. This allows demand to be forecast: demand for increased use of existing rail- freight services; and demand for new rail-freight services that increase opportunities to move goods between places (better connectivity). Both types of demand effect economic growth: if there aren’t enough competitive freight paths to meet demand, the economy will be slowed; equally, providing better rail-freight connectivity will unlock opportunities to drive further growth. So the two investment themes that are addressed in this document are firstly to prevent rail travel restricting growth, and also to promote opportunities to allow rail to facilitate economic growth. Increases in existing demand present a challenge to the industry that can either be met by providing more wagons (usually this means longer trains), or by providing an increased frequency of service – more trains. Promoting growth through better connectivity requires rail-freight services between new destinations.

The Starting Point When creating demand forecasts and modelling the proposed changes to railway services and infrastructure, it is necessary to have a ‘baseline’ against which comparisons can be made. To do this, assumptions need to be made as to the existing level of freight services on the network of the North of England. Some assumptions also have to be made about what the longer term future holds for the railway. Plans to deliver High Speed 2, (HS2), are already in an advanced state, and in developing this strategy it is assumed that HS2 will release capacity on the WCML, (south of Wigan), and ECML, (south of York), for rail-freight and other services. HS2 provides a once in a generation opportunity to see a step-change in the provision of rail; it’s an opportunity that rail-freight services and infrastructure will need to respond to in the coming years.

The Funding Environment Historically, railway infrastructure improvements in the UK have been funded centrally, via national governments and Network Rail raising capital against its asset base. Where external, ‘third party’ investment has occurred, it has typically been for smaller-scale improvements. Recent rail industry developments have seen a shift in that model in March 2018 the Department for Transport released the ‘Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline: A New Approach for Rail Enhancements’ moving away from set 5 yearly Control Periods to a case by case assessment of enhancment schemes and a staged approach to their progression with a number of decision points before any final decision to deliver. At the same time, devolution of decisions and spending with the creation of Combined Authorities and Sub-National Transport Bodes and other organisations with a wider brief such as Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) have changed the way the rail industry operates. These groups are able to define the railway needs in their area, and apply for government funding – or attract or provide third party investment – to meet those needs. Overall, this means that improvements in rail infrastructure should not be seen as an automatic pipeline of upgrades awaiting delivery; rather, they are choices that may or may not be taken forward depending on whether they deliver the benefits for rail users, provide a value for money investment, and are affordable. To respond to such a funding environment, this document seeks to emphasise that rail improvements are choices, and to present a range of strategically-aligned choices to a broad range of funders and investors.

New Ways of Attracting Funding and Generating Profit Network Rail and the wider industry have recognised the need to respond to the challenges of demonstrating affordability and efficiency for railway enhancements. The recent report by Professor Peter Hansford provides strategic direction in this area.4 Where faster journey times or new rail-freight journey opportunities and the opening of new markets are made possible, increased profits becomes possible. This will, and always has, aided the affordability of schemes, as a funder can recover much of the increased revenue. However, in many cases this will not be sufficient to give a funder an adequate financial return on the full investment. In these cases, the challenge becomes one of identifying what additional benefits are made possible by investment, and then finding ways for investors to see a return on their outlay. (Many funders may not seek a direct financial return as these other benefits may justify their investment.) These benefits would accrue to a range of organisations: • existing rail-freight operating companies and their shareholders; • national governments; • businesses in towns and cities served by the rail-freight services; • developers wishing to build and sell property that benefits from rail-freight links; • planning authorities who will see their regional economies and rates revenue grow.

4 https://thehansfordreview.co.uk/

• owners of land and property (individuals and businesses) who see an increase in the value of their land and property as a result of the rail investment. Realising a return on rail investment across such a broad range of stakeholders is not straightforward, and innovative ways of benefits sharing and financing need to be explored. Network Rail, on behalf of the rail industry, encourages further debate in this area, and to find ways to make innovative investment models a reality.

Defining a Strategy for Growth One of the aims of this document is to provide a strategic view of the direction that the provision of infrastructure for rail-freight in the North of England should take. In identifying the strategy, the rail industry Long Term Planning Process has been used to consult a wide range of stakeholders. In this way, the needs of freight end users and their advocates – the rail-freight operating companies – have come to the fore. These needs have then been looked at in terms of the current and future freight-transport environment, and operational railway and asset management strategies. The result shows that the railway infrastructure in the North of England, is going to need to respond to the demands of growth particularly from the Intermodal Container and Construction Aggregates sectors. It will do so against a background of rapid developments in transport technology, pressing environmental concerns, and competing claims for funding resources. This picture contains both challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed by a strategy that can be used to inform investment choices that meet and promote demand, and to shape how the two Network Rail routes, London North East and East Midlands (LNE & EM) & London North Western, (LNW) includes those aspirations as part of its business model. Overall, the strategy for the growth of rail-freight in the North of England can be captured in eight steps:

1. Evaluate demand and define options to meet it 2. Respond to a full range of customer and funder needs 3. Invest in a safe and resilient railway 4. Consider affordability; define improvements in steps 5. Apply digital technologies including train control 6. Remove bottlenecks and the constraints of mixed traffic 7. Enable higher more uniform speeds 8. Broaden funding opportunities

1. Evaluate demand and define options to meet it A key purpose of the strategy is to define options that respond to short and longer term increases in demand. Looking ahead to the period up to 2050 and defining how demand for rail-freight services is likely to grow will enable an understanding of where and when extra capacity is required. Once an understanding of additional capacity has been formed, ways to meet demand will be identified. Such longer term forecasting guides a more strategic understanding of how the railway needs to change, and how near-term changes can be integrated into a longer-term vision.

2. Respond to a full range of funder and customer needs The aim here is to acknowledge that the range of organisations interested in investing in rail transport schemes has broadened, and will grow further. Commercial organisations may look to rail to provide direct financial returns, or to unlock the benefits of improved business to business links; local authorities will want to use rail transport to driver wider economic benefits for whole communities. That means that rail investment strategies will need to canvas a range of stakeholders and understand the outputs that they require: To meet such requirements, a range of strategically viable solutions need to be developed and offered as choices.

3. Invest in a Safe and Resilient Railway The strategy will seek to put in place safer, more resilient systems: that means designing infrastructure that poses less risk to those who use it or repair it; it means designing systems better able to withstand environmental conditions and physical wear, and also managing recovery from asset failures better with less impact on rail-freight services. Resilience is closely associated with the performance of the railway: reliability allows punctuality. It is the strategic ‘lever’ best able to influence day-to-day performance. Resilience and safety can be difficult ideas to capture in terms of rail enhancements. The railway is a safe system because it is already designed and operated to strict standards and processes. And changes to the railway system have to conform to these rules. But, by being explicit about promoting improved safety when specifying changes and upgrades, it is possible to go beyond mandatory specifications and drive improvements in what is already a very safe way to travel, where this is value for money. So, as part of this strategic theme, specifying and designing enhancements with safety in mind will be promoted. Resilience and safety are intrinsically linked. Resilience means that the railway system should be resistant to the things that cause disruption to the service it provides: for example, extreme weather conditions or trespass onto railway lines. It also encapsulates the ability of the rail system to recover when things do go wrong. Preventing loss of service and recovering from it better are rail performance areas that offer enormous opportunities in terms of improving freight end-user experience and realising financial benefits. Driving improvements in resilience is expected to drive reductions in safety risk because, the less remedial activity that has to take place, the safer passengers, rail workers and members of the public will be. When specifying enhancements to the railway, building-in resilience, and designing- for resilience will be key considerations.

4. Consider affordability: define enhancements in terms of incremental steps Affordability is a factor that the study must also address. The railway must compete for scarce funding and resources. To address these issues, this study seeks to promote an incremental approach to enhancements.

In presenting investment choices, there is a danger that a perception emerges that only long term, high impact railway enhancements are desirable. The aim of this theme is firstly to show where lower cost choices exist, and secondly to illustrate how long term service aspirations might be delivered through a series of individual affordable steps, with each stage contributing incremental benefits while still contributing to an overall strategic set of outputs that can drive real economic change.

5. Apply digital technologies including train control Bringing new digital technology to bear on the issues that limit growth is a pillar that supports this study. New approaches to train control offer ways to increase line capacity on existing track layouts. By linking to new approaches to traffic management, this also has the potential to make the timetable more reliable by providing smart ways to avoid and recover from disruption, and to improve safety through enhanced train protection. Digital technology should allow us to optimise the need for conventional civil engineering. Significant opportunities exist to integrate operations with rail-freight operating companies in order to manage locomotives, wagons and traincrew, and to improve end freight-user experience – especially through improved information flows; these opportunities should be pursued alongside train control. There are additional costs for rail-freight in terms of the fitment of locomotives and driver training.

6. Remove bottlenecks and the constraints of mixed traffic Where infrastructure improvements are an option, consideration will be given to the root causes of capacity limitations – for instance how fast and slower services can run on the same route without getting in each other’s way. Intelligent timetabling, to use existing capacity more cleverly, should also be employed. For the railways in the North of England this theme is frequently a key concern when attempting to manage demand and promote growth. Railway upgrades should seek to address this issue.

7. Enable higher more uniform speeds One of the main selling points of rail over other modes is speed: journey time improvements are a key way in which economic benefits can be realised. While rail freight is slower than passenger services, rail-freight’s maximum speed of 75mph is faster than the maximum speed that lorries can travel on the road and motorway network. Speeding up rail-freight services can improve overall rail capacity if it narrows the differential with passenger services, particularly where it enables rail-freight services to maintain a path amongst stopping or semi-fast passenger services. This should include fewer looping options for freight services, so that overall velocity can increase.

8. Broaden funding opportunities

The ability to deliver enhancements flexibly, in steps, should also be matched by a broader, more flexible approach to funding and financing railway enhancements. • More of the beneficiaries of rail improvements should be encouraged to invest: for example rail-freight terminal developers, ports and aggregate companies. • Opportunities to employ pooled and shared funding models should be sought. • Rail-freight improvements should be aligned with local planning strategic priorities and funding. • Innovative ways of financing and leveraging the returns made possible by rail-freight should be explored.

Broadening funding is a strategic theme that goes hand-in-hand with responding to a greater range of potential investors. Opportunities need to be presented in such a way that potential investors can understand a clear route to benefits; and more, innovative ways of bringing investment into the railway need to be considered.

Developing the Study

Developed through collaboration between the rail industry, funders and stakeholders.

The report utilises Network Rail’s freight forecasts from the Freight Market Study, (2013), and Freight Network Study (2017), which identifies rail freight demand for 2023, 2033 and 2043. It also uses Transport for the North’s, (2017) forecast for 2050.

Process The process that has been followed in generating the required information for this report is as follows: • In early 2017 a group of stakeholders were invited by Network Rail to attend a series of workshops in order to generate strategic questions for consideration as part of the North of England Strategic Questions.

• A number of the strategic questions related to Freight. It was therefore decided that Freight would be considered as part of the first tranche of North of England Strategic Questions work (Phase 1).

• The principal strategic question for Freight is, “How could key freight movements be delivered which accommodates both passenger and freight requirements in a Northern Powerhouse Independent Economic Review growth scenario over 2026, 2033, 2043 and 2050?”

• Stakeholders were chosen to represent the railway industry, funders and other interested parties. Stakeholders are represented on the North of England Strategic Questions Governance and Steering Groups, have assisted in generating and prioritising strategic questions, and will remain involved in the Freight work by their inclusion in the Working Group.

• The Working Group is composed of the following organisations: - Department for Transport - Freightliner - GB Railfreight - Liverpool City Region - Network Rail - Transport for the North

• The first meeting of the Working Group was held in Manchester in April 2017 and subsequent meetings have been held during 2017 and 2018.

Freight Forecasts This report utilises Network Rail’s Central Case freight forecasts from the Freight Market Study, (2013), and Freight Network Study (2017), which identifies rail freight demand for 2023, 2033 and 2043. Network Rail refreshes these forecast on a regular basis, with the next update to them due in 2019. Further validation of rail-freight demand results from a comparison with Transport for the North’s demand forecasting for rail freight, that looks ahead through to 2050. It should be noted that forecasts do have an element of uncertainty as to their future accuracy and the further ahead a forecast is made, then the greater the uncertainty. Recognising this uncertainty, the results of the economic analysis of the infrastructure enhancements choices presented in Part F include the impact on the economic case of a much lower level of benefits.

Planning Approach

The LTPP is designed to facilitate the strategic planning of the rail network.

It takes into account the views of local stakeholders and incorporates their views on how rail can drive economic growth into the future.

It gives passenger and freight operators the confidence they need to take their own strategic decisions in future planning of their services.

Is a Network Rail Licence Condition to effectively plan the future of the network.

The purpose of the LTPP is to inform funders as to how the railway can support the UK economy into the future.

Network Rail, on behalf of the industry, leads the planning of the network over the long term. This planning informs a number of purposes and customers including to:

• plan for committed and proposed changes to the network / system and the services that operate on it in a holistic way and identify system impacts of individual decisions with programmes in some cases (HS2, Crossrail 2) stretching decades into the future;

• inform Network Rail’s asset management plans on the future requirements of the network and to inform infrastructure renewals investment decisions on assets with very long lives;

• inform decisions on the allocation of current capacity and the use of future capacity across the network / system;

• inform funders (governments and third parties) and franchising authorities of the choices that they may wish to make in terms of investment in the network and the services that run on it; and

• enable others, particularly train operators, to plan their business with a reasonable degree of certainty.

An evolution of the Long Term Planning Process

The North of England – Freight Strategic Questions is being developed through the Continuous Modular Strategic Planning, (CMSP) approach. CMSP is Network Rail’s response to the Shaw Review (2016) recommendation noting the requirement to better plan the railway based on customer, passenger and freight needs.

In order to meet the various funder, service specifier and wider stakeholder needs, the CMSP process is allowing the industry to become more dynamic and its products more easily accessible.

The North of England Route Study – Freight Strategic Questions is one of a number of Studies that are being developed as part of the CMSP of the national rail network with a view to informing the planning process for CP6 and beyond.

This Study builds upon the Market Studies completed in the first phase of the LTPP. These covered the:

• Freight markets.

• Long distance passenger markets; and

• Regional urban passenger markets;

The Market Studies identified strategic goals, built up demand forecasts and developed conditional outputs for future rail services across the country. These Market Studies can be found on the following Network Rail website.

Ultimately, the CMSP approach to the LTPP enables Network Rail to plan the future of the network, in accordance with its Licence Conditions in a way that will deliver:

• A safe railway for passengers and for the people who work on the railway;

• A reliable timetable; and

• Adapting to technology that provides good value for money for current and future users and for funders.

Strategic Freight Issues in the North of England

Efficient Freight Routing and Freight Capacity in Major Urban Centres

Efficient Freight Routing is a key issue in the North of England.

Important changes in market sectors such as Coal, Biomass, Intermodal Containers and Construction.

Are any areas in the North of England currently underserved by rail-freight?

The efficient routing of freight services in the North of England has been brought into sharp focus in recent years following the introduction of Biomass services between the Port of Liverpool and Drax Power Station. Paths via the most direct routes are generally unavailable. The most direct route is via Manchester Piccadilly and Huddersfield, but paths are generally unavailable in daytime hours due to the need to cross all lines that run in/out of Manchester Piccadilly Station and find paths on the busy Trans-Pennine route via Huddersfield, where gradients slow the heavier freight trains on the route. The other direct route is via Manchester Victoria, but the steep gradient at Miles Platting prevents loaded Biomass services from using this route, which impacts upon the economic viability of the services. As a result the majority of loaded Biomass services have to take an elongated route via Northwich, Stockport and Rochdale, which adds significant mileage and journey time to the services. Such additional mileage and journey time impacts upon the economic viability of existing and potential freight services and can be a significant constraint to future freight growth. The most efficient freight routing occurs when freight services take the most direct route and they are not held to wait at junctions or in loop lines, for the passage of other passenger or freight trains, before continuing with their onward path. Segregation of passenger and freight flows is usually the most effective means of enabling efficient freight routing, however this is not always possible at key junctions or in major urban centres. The concentration of passenger services at busy city centre stations is probably the biggest barrier to efficient freight routing. The railways in the North of England have developed to some degree over time to, in many instances, route freight services away from, or around, major busy city centre stations, many of which are considered below.

Liverpool Liverpool Lime Street is a terminus station, but Edge Hill is the point where lines and train services converge on the approach to Liverpool. The main freight route from the Port of Liverpool is to/from Huyton, which provides a route towards the WCML and trans-pennine routes. However, some freight paths are needed through Edge Hill towards Runcorn, particularly when the route via Huyton isn’t available, such as when engineering work is taking place on that route.

Manchester Manchester did have rail routes that avoided the main city centre stations, but these were closed in the 1970s and 1980s and the alignment of all routes has subsequently been significantly built upon. To the north of Manchester, there was a route linking Wigan – Bolton – Bury – Rochdale, that conveyed Trans-Pennine freight and therefore avoided Manchester. Key sections of this route closed in 1970. To the South of Manchester, there were two routes that enabled freight traffic to avoid the city centre stations in Manchester. One route was from Trafford Park to Guide Bridge and another was from Warrington to Stockport and then connected, to the east of Manchester, into the Woodhead Route to South Yorkshire. Both of these routes closed in the 1980s and significant sections have subsequently been built upon. There is regular freight traffic through both Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria stations. Intermodal traffic to/from Trafford Park is routed via Manchester Piccadilly, but the volume of passenger traffic significantly restricts freight path flexibility. Various bulk freight traffic such as coal and construction aggregates have been routed via Manchester Victoria over the years and while it continues to be a key route for freight traffic, the volume of passenger traffic significantly restricts freight path flexibility. Additionally at Manchester Victoria, eastbound freight is heavily restricted in terms of tonnage, due to the gradient on Miles Platting bank.

Crewe Crewe is a key freight centre and has freight avoiding lines that keeps the main freight flows on the WCML and on the line to/from Manchester, away from Crewe station and the various busy junctions in the station area. Crewe will be a major Hub Station for HS2, so it will be important in the future that the freight avoiding lines continue to be an efficient route for handling the ever-growing volumes of freight traffic on the WCML. The freight avoiding lines are relatively low-speed at present, with line speeds of 10mph and 15mph. Plans to increase these line speeds are being considered in parallel with the plans to remodel the railway layout at Crewe to cater for HS2 services.

Newcastle There is only one route through Newcastle and across the River Tyne, so all freight traffic on the ECML passes through Newcastle Station. There is currently demand for one freight path per hour in each direction through Newcastle, so integrating passenger and freight services, isn’t as complex as it could be, however, there are only two lines through the station that are cleared for W10/W12 gauge traffic, which presents a real constraint to timetabling these high-gauge services.. A further key consideration going forward will be the frequency with which freight services to/from Scotland via the WCML need to be re-routed via the ECML and Newcastle Station, when the WCML is unavailable due to engineering works, or other factors.

Middlesbrough Teesside has for many years been a major centre of rail-freight activity, so while there is only one route from Redcar via Middlesbrough towards Thornaby, there has always been plenty of capacity for freight traffic, as there are significant sections of four-track railway, including a two-track freight only line that bypasses Middlesbrough Station. As both passenger and freight traffic grows in the future, it is important that freight capacity in the Tees Valley is retained going forward.

York York Station has a freight avoiding line to the west of the Station. However, a more efficient path can often be found through York Station, for southbound freight services towards Doncaster, to avoid the crossing them over the four-track layout on two occasions. As with Newcastle, there are limited options for routing W10W12 gauge services through York Station.

Hull Hull is a terminus station. There is only one route from Hull to the west and south and freight traffic from the Port of Hull joins the route at Hessle Road Junction, (which is 2 miles from Hull station). There is currently demand for one freight path per hour in each direction to and from the Port of Hull.

Leeds Trans-Pennine freight services can avoid Leeds Station by being routed via Healey Mills and Wakefield Kirkgate, but North/South freight services operating on the Shipley/Woodlesford axis have to cross all lines that enter/exit Leeds Station at Whitehall Junction, to the West of the Station. Freight services to/from the freight terminals at Hunslet East have to pass through Leeds Station.

Doncaster Doncaster is a key freight centre and has two freight avoiding lines catering for freight on the North- East/South-West axis and also on the North-East/South axis. However the majority of freight traffic, including that running North/South on the ECML has to pass through the station.

Sheffield A good example of where freight and passenger services are segregated to avoid a city centre station is Sheffield where North/South freight services are routed via Barrow Hill. This alternative route has a similar mileage and freight journey times benefit from a reduced number of conflicts with other train services. However, freight services to/from the Peak District and Yorkshire/the North East have no alternative routing option and have to be routed via Sheffield Station.

Changes in Freight Market Sectors Rail-freight is to some degree constantly changing in response to the industries it serves. However, there have been significant changes over the last 30 years and especially in the last 5 years. Over the last 30 years there has been a shift from a reliance upon bulk traffics such as Coal and Metals, as a result of rationalisation of production sites and processes in many traditional heavy industries. In parallel with this there has been a growth in Intermodal Container traffic, particularly from Deep Sea Ports such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway to the major conurbations in the North such as Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester.

Coal The greatest changes have occurred in relation to the supply of coal to Power Stations. Rail has always had a very high share of this market and therefore in the 1990s had to react to major changes within the industry. Over previous decades, Power Stations had been supplied by local coal mines, with the majority of such rail services being under 30 miles and predominantly on freight-only and lightly used passenger routes. However, as increasing numbers of coal mines were closed in areas such as Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Lancashire and the North East, the Power Generators needed to replace these volumes of coal, with coal imported through ports such as Immingham, Hull, Redcar, Tyne, Liverpool and Hunterston, (Scotland). This significantly increased the distance that coal services travelled on the rail network to reach the Power Stations. It also increasingly brought coal services onto main line routes and were competing for paths at a time when there was a renewed growth in passenger services on many main line routes. Even greater structural change has occurred in the Power Generation industry over the last 5 years. Carbon taxes were applied to coal used in power generation on 1st April 2015, which resulted in a significant drop in coal-fired generation, with a corresponding reduction in the amount of coal conveyed on the rail network. The UK Government also announced in 2015 that coal-fired generation would cease by 2025, so coal volumes have continued to fall, so that in 2016/17 only 12m tonnes were conveyed on the rail network in comparison to 52m tonnes in 2013/14. The decline in coal can create opportunities in terms of released capacity for new freight services:

Biomass The decline in coal, has to a small degree been offset by the introduction of Biomass-fired generation at the UK’s largest power station, Drax. Biomass is a more bulky material and has a lower calorific content than coal, so more product, (and trains), are required to provide comparable levels of electricity generation. Drax receives Biomass by rail from the Ports of Immingham, Hull, Liverpool and Tyne. Lynemouth Power Station has recently been converted to Biomass-fired generation and is served by rail from the Port of Tyne.

Intermodal Containers Intermodal Container traffic has grown considerably, over the last 30 years and has received a further stimulus to growth in the last 10 years. Increasing numbers of routes have been cleared to W10 and W12 gauges, which has enabled 9 foot 6inch container boxes to be conveyed on standard height wagons, transforming rail’s competitiveness in relation to road, in this sector. Intermodal Container traffic is generally long haul, with most flows over 100 miles between origin and destination. Intermodal Container traffic is also concentrated on main line routes where it competes with passenger services for train paths. Growth in Intermodal Container traffic is forecast to continue over the next 30 years and be the fastest growing sector for rail.

Construction Construction traffic has been another sector of significant growth for rail over the last 10 years. The supply of construction aggregates has historically been relatively localised, both from a road and rail perspective. However, as smaller quarries have become exhausted, or economically unviable, investment has been focussed on larger quarries which have rail connections, which has resulted in rail increasing its market share and hauling produce over longer distances. The concentration of larger quarries in the Mendips, (Somerset), Leicestershire and the Peak District are the main centres of aggregates extraction. The reach of such locations to supply the UK’s construction aggregates requirements by rail, is best demonstrated by the areas that the Peak District quarries serve by rail: • Greater Manchester • Merseyside • South Yorkshire • West Yorkshire • West Midlands • London • East Anglia • South-East England

There are other rail served quarries in the North of England: • Rylstone – near Skipton • Arcow – near Horton-in-Ribblesdale

• Hardendale – in Cumbria with a connection to the WCML • Shap – in Cumbria with a connection to the WCML.

These quarries currently provide constructiion aggregates trains to terminals in West Yorkshire, East Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. Construction traffic is due to continue to grow in the next 30 years, particularly as many quarries have environmental restrictions requiring them to move additional volumes of material by rail. Over the next 10-15 years there may be significant opportunities for rail-freight to move construction materials to support the construction of the HS2 route. During HS2 Phase 1 and Phase 2a, this could be from locations in the North of England to HS2 railheads in the South of England or the Midlands. In Phase 2b, it could be to the HS2 railheads in the Midlands and the North of England. The greatest growth in construction traffic in the North of England is forecast from the Peak District quarries and this presents the main capacity challenge, in terms of integration with services on the Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley) passenger route. This is described and discussed in further detail in a subsequent section of this report.

Areas with potential for Rail-Freight growth Intermodal Containers and Construction are forecast to be the major growth areas in rail freight in the period up to 2050. Within the context of the North of England, it is important to assess how each major conurbation has access to Intermodal and Construction Aggregates rail terminals. This is so they can have an efficient means of transporting various commodities by container, particularly consumer goods and components to be used by various manufacturers. An aggregates rail terminal will assist in enabling cost effective access to supplies of aggregates for construction purposes, as this can assist in keeping down construction costs and avoid fleets of HGVs having to use key trunk roads to access urban/city centre locations for various construction projects.

Merseyside Merseyside is very well served in terms of intermodal container terminals with facilities at the Port of Liverpool and Garston. The Widnes 3MG Intermodal Container terminal in neighbouring Cheshire is well located for access to/from Merseyside. An Aggregates terminal has also recently been opened at Garston.

Greater Manchester Greater Manchester has both intermodal container and aggregates terminals within relative close proximity to the City Centre. Trafford Park is an established intermodal facility and additional intermodal container terminal capacity is proposed for Port Salford. With the growth in warehousing facilities to the north of Manchester, in towns such as Oldham and Rochdale on the M60/M62 corridor and an Intermodal Container facility in this area of Greater Manchester would be beneficial in relieving HGV traffic on the motorway network.

Greater Manchester has a variety of aggregates terminals, including Ashburys, Pendleton, Bredbury and Hope Street, (Salford). Tyne & Wear There is an intermodal container terminal at the Port of Tyne, (with W10 gauge clearance), although there are no trains serving the terminal at present. There have previously been proposals for intermodal container terminals at various locations in the North East, that would serve Tyne and Wear and the wider hinterland. To date none of these have come to fruition, but there may well be demand at some point in the future, for a third intermodal terminal in the North East, to supplement the existing terminals at Teesport and Port of Tyne. Tyne and Wear does not currently have a rail connected aggregates terminal.

Teesside There are intermodal container terminals at Teesport and A.V. Dawson, (Middlesbrough). Teesside does not currently have a rail connected aggregates terminal. There may well be demand for one in the future, to supply construction materials as part of the ongoing re-generation of Teesside.

West Yorkshire Many of West Yorkshire’s freight terminals are in Leeds. There is an intermodal container terminal and aggregates terminal at Stourton. There are also two aggregates terminals and a cement facility at Hunslet. Whitehall Road Yard has also recently re-opened to handle spoil traffic. As Leeds City Centre regenerates over the next few years to accommodate additional housing, employment and High Speed 2, the location of these terminals will need to be reviewed. There is also a further intermodal container terminal at Wakefield Europort.

East Yorkshire The Port of Hull has an intermodal container terminal, but at present it is only multimodal within the context of Sea/Road interchange. The terminal isn’t directly rail connected, but there are numerous rail sidings within the port estate. Hull has an aggregates terminal at Dairycoates, which is just 2 miles from the city centre.

South Yorkshire South Yorkshire is well served in terms of intermodal terminals. Doncaster has two, one at Doncaster Europort and one that has opened in 2018 at the Rossington I-Port development. A new intermodal container facility opened in Rotherham in 2015. There are aggregates terminals in Sheffield, at Attercliffe and Tinsley.

Geographical Route Sections

F.00 Introduction The next section of this report has been organised according to geographic sections of the North of England. Various core West-East freight routes are considered as linear routes, rather than within a County/Area, as they function as a defined linear freight route and on the Trans-Pennine routes there can be an interaction between the different routes, with the ability to switch freight traffic between the various routes. Each section will provide an overview of: • The Rail-freight services: current services and sectors. • Growth: medium and long term demand and the service outputs needed to meet it. All numbers of freight trains refered to in this report relate to the number of trains in one direction. There is therefore the same number of freight trains in the opposite direction. • Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth: description of how additional freight capacity can be provided, where required and estimated Benefit Cost Ratios based on central case growth forecasts.

Railway Sections Covered 1. Cumbria 2. Lancashire 3. Merseyside 4. Greater Manchester 5. Derbyshire 6. Cheshire 7. Staffordshire 8. Northumberland 9. Tyne & Wear 10. County Durham 11. Tees Valley 12. Yorkshire 13. Nottinghamshire 14. Lincolnshire 15. Core West-East Freight Routes 16. ECML and Great Northern/Great Eastern (GN/GE) 17. WCML

Please note that some railway lines may straddle two of the railway sections described above, but have been included in just one for simplicity.

Cumbria The main route is the Cumbrian Coast line that runs from Carlisle to Carnforth, via Workington, Whitehaven and Barrow-in-Furness. There are also a number of short branch lines, such as the Windermere branch.

The Rail-Freight Services The branch lines in Cumbria currently have no rail-freight traffic on them at present, but the Cumbrian Coast line is a key freight line as it provides a connection to the nuclear facilities in the Sellafield area. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 1.

Growth There is significant growth forecast on the Cumbrian Coast line, particularly in relation to the existing level of rail-freight traffic. Two major new freight developments are anticipated on the route: • A new nuclear power station at Moorside (by “NuGen”), to the north of Sellafield. • A new coal mine at Pow Beck (West Cumbria Mining), with a north facing rail connection between Whitehaven and St. Bees.

The current infrastructure has single track sections and signalling that significantly limits the number of trains per hour that can be accommodated.

Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth A recent capacity analysis study has identified the main constraints on the route that would need to be eased to accommodate up to 15 additional freight services per day, (and additional passenger services), that are forecast to operate by 2026:

• Replacement of Electronic Token Block (ETB) between Whitehaven and St Bees - a fully signalled route is required that uses the principles of Track Circuit Block (TCB), this will enable the Pow Beck railhead to be accessed without requiring a stop on the mainline and removes the requirement for a ground frame into the West Cumbrian Mining sidings.

• A reduction in headway between Wigton and Maryport to a minimum of 12 minutes.

• A reduction in headway between Workington and Whitehaven to a minimum of 13 minutes.

• The extension of St Bees Loop to facilitate passing moves.

• The installation of a platform at Maryport in the direction towards Whitehaven. This removes the conflict caused by the current layout when accessing the platform.

• A platform at Whitehaven in the direction towards Sellafield - in order to maximise the capacity of single line sections, an additional platform is required at Whitehaven to allow more trains to pass;

• Workington to Whitehaven Signalling - signalling which is capable of allowing the Parton to Whitehaven section of double track to operate as a dynamic loop with headways of 9 minutes;

• Signalling on the single line between Whitehaven and St Bees – in order to be capable of delivering 7 minute headways;

• Reduced Headways between Ulverston and Grange-over-Sands – required to reduce the headway in this section to 10 minutes. This will allow passenger trains to run closer behind freight along the whole of the Furness line, helping unlock capacity;

• Sellafield Trains Crossing at Drigg – necessary to eradicate current complex shunting moves.

• Infrastructure to allow parallel movements at Sellafield North - required to reduce the occupation of single line sections.

• Extended signal box opening as shown in the table below.

Section of route 2018 opening hours 2026 opening hours

Dalton Jn. to Park South Jn. (freight) 06:00 - 20:24 05:00 - 21:15

Barrow-in-Furness to Millom 05:20 - 23:50 As 2018

Millom to Bootle 06:00 - 21:10 05:30 - 21:30

Bootle to Sellafield 06:00 - 21:35 05:30 - 21:30

Sellafield to Whitehaven 06:00 - 21:35 04:15 - 23:00

Whitehaven to Workington 05:30 - 00:10 05:15 - 01:00

Workington to Carlisle South Jn. 05:20 - 23:59 04:45 - 00:15

Network Rail are working with the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), DfT, TfN and a consortium of stakeholders who have an interest in running additional passenger and freight services on the Cumbrian Coast. Network Rail have developed the costs for the series of infrastructure intervention choices that are identified above, to allow a strategic outline business case to be prepared by Cumbria LEP to make the case for progressing the programme of interventions. It is likely that a combination of public sector and third party investment would be required to fund the infrastructure interventions.

Lancashire Lancashire has a number of both through routes and branch lines. The through routes include: • Carnforth – Settle • Blackburn – Hellifield • Blackburn – Bolton

There are a variety of branch lines, three of which currently have rail-freight services: • Morecambe South Jn/Hest Bank Jn – Morecambe – Heysham • Preston South Jn – Preston Docks • Wigan Station Jn - Kirkby

The Rail-Freight Services There is a wide variety of commodities being moved within the area. These include: • Nuclear waste from Heysham Power Station. • Petroleum and Bitumen to Preston Docks • Cement from Clitheroe • Domestic Waste from Knowsley Potter Group

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 2.

Growth There is no significant rail-freight growth forecast on the route sections in Lancashire. There is scope to accommodate rail-freight growth if it does occur in the future.

Merseyside The railway infrastructure can be divided into three groups: • The Merseyrail Third Rail Network which does not have any rail-freight traffic at present. • A number of branch lines that do not have any rail-freight traffic at present. • Routes that serve the Port of Liverpool and Garston Freightliner Terminal that are heavily used by rail-freight traffic.

The Rail-Freight Services The Port of Liverpool is a significant generator of rail-freight traffic with Biomass services to Drax Power Station in Yorkshire and scrap metal services from a variety of locations around the country. Other freight traffic in the area includes Intermodal Container services to/from Garston Freightliner Terminal and automotive services from the Jaguar LandRover plant at Halewood. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 3.

Growth Significant growth is forecast from the Port of Liverpool. The majority of this will be Intermodal Container traffic as a result of traffic generated by the £200m Liverpool 2 Containter Terminal. This growth will be accomodated by infrastructure enhancements that will be delivered in 2019 and will increase rail-freight capacity from the Port of Liverpool from 1tph to 2tph. The infrastructure enhancements are: • Double Tracking at the Port of Liverpool/Network Rail boundary. • Signalling improvements at Earlestown West Jn that will enable freight trains from the Port of Liverpool that are heading towards the WCML, to pass through the junction more quickly. There is also significant growth forecast on the route section between Earlestown West and East Jn to/from Winwick Jn. Freight traffic on the route section is forecast to increase from 6tpd at present, to 50tpd by 2043. The growth originates from 3 sources:

• The Port of Liverpool

• The proposed Parkside Intermodal Container Terminal

• The proposed Port Salford Intermodal Container Terminal

If there is just the growth from the Port of Liverpool, then the route section will be able to accommodate all freight traffic. If either, or both, of the proposed terminals are built and begin to generate rail-freight traffic in the numbers that are forecast, then additional infrastructure will be required. Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth

Earlestown West and East Jn – Winwick Jn The main constraint relates to the proposed train movements into the two proposed Intermodal Container terminals, (with associated rail-served warehousing). Parkside would be located on the Liverpool – Manchester, “Chat Moss” route, just to the east of Newton-le-Willows Station, on the south side of the line. The connection for the Port Salford terminal would be located a further 9 miles to the east, again on the south side of the line. The majority of the trains to/from both of these terminals is forecast to be to/from the Deep Sea Container Ports of Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway. These trains would be routed via the WCML and would leave this route at Winwick Jn, just to the north of Warrington Bank Quay Station. These trains would then conflict with the following services as they proceed towards the new Intermodal Container terminals: • Trains passing through Earlestown South and East Jn. This includes freight services from the Port of Liverpool, heading south towards the WCML. It also includes passenger services from Liverpool Lime Street to Warrington Bank Quay. • Trains heading west on the “Chat Moss” route. This includes trans-pennine freight traffic heading towards the Port of Liverpool. It also includes various local and long-distance passenger services from Manchester to Liverpool. The trains for Parkside and Port Salford will then join the eastbound line of the Chat Moss route finding a path amongst the trans-pennine freight traffic heading from the Port of Liverpool and the various local and long-distance passenger services from Liverpool to Manchester. The trains then have to cross back across the westbound Chat Moss route to enter the terminals. These movements will consume a lot of capacity, so additional infrastructure will be required to accommodate them. The additional infrastructure is shown in the diagram below.

A new northbound loop could be provided on the WCML, just to the south of Winwick Jn. Winwick Jn also marks the point where the WCML goes from being a 4-track to 2-track railway. The new loop would therefore have two purposes: • A regulating point for freight services awaiting their path towards the terminals at Parkside and Port Salford. • A regulating point for freight services heading north over the 2-track section of the WCML towards Wigan.

New loops in each direction would also be provided on the Chat Moss route, just to the west of the western connection to Port Salford. The eastbound loop will have the greatest usage for Port Salford, as freight services for the terminal could be held here awaiting a path across the westbound line and into the terminal. These new loops, particularly the one in the westbound direction, would also be used for other freight traffic on the route, as emerging long-term timetable development work is indicating that a westbound loop may be required in this area. An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately £90m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 44 freight services by 2043 on the route section from Earlestown Jns to Winwick Jn, much of this growth can be accomodated with the existing railway infrastructure, and the economic modelling of the benefits takes a conservative approach, so analyses a proportion of the additional traffic forecast to operate from the Parkside and Port Salford terminals to destinations such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway, (12 services in total. This produces a very strong business case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 14.7 and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £309m. This economic case is conservative in its assumptions as it calculates the benefits from the low scenario of growth for intermodal traffic and as per Webtag guidance, the growth is capped after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been conducted if only 25% of the benefits are applied. If this is the case, then the economic case still remains strong with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 7.7 and a Net Present Value, (NPV), of £215m. While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective once the terminals become operational, there would be immediate benefits if the loops were progressively installed at an earlier stage, in that it would facilitate the development of the terminals and other rail-freight flows in the North-West. (both on a north-south and east-west axis), It would also assist in terms of improved freight and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight and passenger train paths through the North-West, especially freight over the Chat Moss route. Network Rail will be keen to work with local and regional stakeholders in the North-West of England to identify funding routes to deliver the new infrastructure choices at an appropriate opportunity, so that benefits can be realised as soon as possible.

Greater Manchester The railway infrastructure can be divided into three groups: • Suburban rail routes with no freight or very low levels of freight traffic. • Routes that serve Trafford Park Container Terminal that are heavily used by rail-freight traffic. • Routes to the south and east of Manchester that convey Construction Aggregates and Biomass traffic.

The Rail-Freight Services Trafford Park Container Terminal is the busiest location for rail-freight in the area. There are also numerous aggregate terminals across Greater Manchester at locations such as Bredbury, Ashburys, Hope Street and Pendleton. Greater Manchester also has domestic waste services that are loaded onto trains at Pendleton and Bredbury. Collyhurst Street sidings have recently been reactivated to move spoil to Roxby (Scunthorpe). There are also rail-freight flows that pass through Greater Manchester, such as Biomass from the Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station and Construction Aggregates from the Peak District quarries to a variety of destinations. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 4.

Growth

There is a small amount of growth on a number of route sections that convey Construction Aggregates and this small scale growth can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity that is available. There is a significant increase in rail-freight traffic on the routes to/from Trafford Park. It is forecast to increase from 13tpd to 26tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can just about be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph, with additional paths in the overnight hours. With changes that are proposed in the levels of passenger traffic on these routes, especially the Crewe – Manchester corridor, it is recommended that the provision of freight and passenger capacity is subject to further assessment as part of the North of England – Manchester Area Strategic Question.

Derbyshire Part of Derbyshire is included within the North of England Route Study. It includes the following routes:

• A series of routes from Hazel Grove and Chinley that serve the Peak District Quarries that are clustered around the Buxton area.

• The 4 track section of the Midland Main Line from Tapton Jn to Chesterfield.

The Rail-freight services Rail-freight services in North Derbyshire are dominated by Construction services from the quarries at Peak Forest, Tunstead, Dowlow and Hindlow. On the Midland Main Line at Chesterfield there are also Intermodal Container services between Intermodal Terminals in Yorkshire and the Port of Southampton. There are also Metals services between Teesside and South Yorkshire to/from the West Midlands and South Wales and Petroleum flows from Teesside to South Wales. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 5.

Growth There is sigificant growth forecast from the Peak District quarries towards Chinley, with traffic due to double in the next 10 years and additional infrastucture between Tunstead and Chinley is likely to be required to support this growth.

There is also significant growth forecast on the Midland Main Line between Tapton Jn and Chesterfield, as a result of growth in both Construction traffic and Intermodal Containers. Freight capacity will need to increase from 1tph at present to 3tph by 2043.

Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth Chinley North/East Jn – Great Rocks Jn The pinch point on this route section is the junction at Peak Forest South Signal Box. All trains to/from all the Buxton area quarries pass through this junction and it is also the only access to and from the Peak Forest quarry. Therefore trains into the quarry may need to stand on the Down Goods for a period of time, until a train has departed the Peak Forest quarry and is heading towards Chinley on the Up Goods line. This reduces capacity to/from all of the quarries and can also cause delay to existing rail-freight services. Following feedback from the Freight Operating Companies, it is recommended that a new inbound connection is provided. This is shown on the diagram below. This will be just to the south of the exit from Doveholes Tunnel and will connect the Down Goods to the No.1 Siding. Inbound traffic to Peak Forest will use this new connection and outbound traffic will use the existing junction at Peak Forest South Signal Box. This additional infrastructure will provide the required capacity on the route section, improve freight train performance and also assist in improving capacity on the Manchester – Sheffield, (Hope Valley), route as it improves the ability of freight trains to be on-time to take up their train path as they join that route at Chinley.

An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately £5m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 22 freight services by 2043, much of this growth can be accomodated with the existing railway infrastructure, and the economic modelling of the benefits takes a conservative approach, so analyses the benefit of 3 additional services per day from any of the local quarries to destinations in Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and the West Midlands. This produces a very strong economic case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), which is Financially Positive, (this is a result of net costs to government being negative as a result of the

modal shift benefits, e.g. reduced road maintenance costs, being greater than the cost of the project) and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £16.4m. As per Webtag guidance, the growth in rail- freight traffic is capped after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been conducted if only 25% of the benefits are applied. If this is the case, then the economic case still remains strong with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 22.6 and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £11.5m.

While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective a number of years from now, there would be immeadiate benefits from the point it was installed in terms of improved freight and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight train paths to/from the Buxton area quarries, which may open up further commercial opportunities to serve new or existing markets/terminals. Network Rail will be keen to work with local and regional stakeholders and those in the Construction/Aggregates Industry to identify funding routes to deliver the new infrastructure choices at the earliest opportunity, so that the benefits can be realised as soon as possible, particularly as opportunities may arise in relation to the supply of materials for the construction of HS2.

Tapton Jn – Chesterfield Although the section between Tapton Jn and Chesterfield has 4 tracks, there are a number of different train movements on this corridor, (it is also 4 tracks for a further 4 miles beyond the North of England boundary to Clay Cross Jn), that need to be accomodated as they switch between the following routes to/from the north: • The Midland Main Line to/from Sheffield via Dore. • The Barrow Hill lines that are generally a freight only route that provides a route to/from the rest of Yorkshire, the North East and East Coast ports such as Immingham and Hull.

Towards two routes to the south, that diverge at Clay Cross Jn:

• The Midland Main Line to/from Derby. • The Erewash Valley route to/from Nottingham and a variety of freight facilities and routes in the Toton/Trent Jn area, (near Long Eaton).

By 2033, HS2 services via Sheffield will be added to the mix, as there will be a connection from the Phase 2B Eastern Leg, to the Erewash Valley, approximately 3 miles south of Clay Cross Jn.

The majority of the freight growth on the Tapton Jn – Chesterfield corridor is Intermodal Container traffic from Yorkshire and the North East to Southampton. This traffic uses the Barrow Hill lines and then primarily uses the Erewash Valley route as it is gauge cleared to W12 gauge, (whereas the route via Derby is currently only cleared to W8 gauge).

There is also some growth in Construction traffic from the Debyshire quarries to the Midlands, London and the South East. It is these services, particularly the loaded trains heading south from

Dore on the 7 mile 2-track section of the Midland Main Line, that consumes the greatest amount of capacity, particularly when having to slow to use the 20mph crossovers to gain access to the Up Barrow Hill Line. There is only one such crossover, which is also used by northbound services making a movement through the junction in the opposite direction.

New infrastructure, (as shown in the diagram below), would provide new parallel crossovers, so that train movements can occur simultanously in each direction. The new crossovers would also be aligned for a greater speed. From a freight pespective, 60mph would be the minimum speed they should be designed for, however a higher speed may be beneficial for passenger services. Speeding up these movements through Tapton Jn will increase the freight capacity for freight services on all 4 routes that connect into this corridor and especially the growth in Intermodal Container services that will primarily use the Barrow Hill/Erewash Valley lines.

An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately £20m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 39 freight services by 2043, much of this growth can be accomodated with the existing railway infrastructure, (particularly as the route did accommodate significant volumes of coal and metals traffic until recently), so new infrastructure becomes essential around 2033 when a 3rd freight path per hour is required. High Speed 2 services via Chesterfield to Sheffield are also due to commence in 2033 and the HS2 project may also consider the need for additional infrastructure, (such as a 4th platform at Chesterfield), within this corridor. The economic modelling of the benefits therefore takes a conservative approach, so analyses the benefit of 5 additional Intermodal Container services per day from various Intermodal Container terminals to/from destinations such as Southampton and Daventry. This produces a very strong economic case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), which is Financially Positive and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £261m. This economic case is conservative in its assumptions as it calculates the benefits from the low scenario of growth for intermodal traffic and as per Webtag

guidance, the growth is capped after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been conducted if only 25% of the benefits are applied. If this is the case, then the economic case still remains strong with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), that continues to be Financially Positive and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £192m. The strength of the economic case suggests that further infrastructure could be justified, (potentially even grade separation within the Tapton Jn – Clay Cross Jn corridor), to add greater relisiliance to the performance of passenger and freight services in the Yorkshire/East Midlands area, particularly in the context of HS2 services using the corridor from 2033. Another higher cost alternative infrastructure intervention that would reduce the volume of freight traffic on this corridor, would be the re-opening of the Buxton – Matlock route, which would also reduce freight traffic on the Hope Valley route and between Dore and Tapton Jn. Feedback from the Freight Operating Companies suggested that future East Midlands CMSP studies should consider whether additional freight traffic should be routed via Derby, rather than the Erewash Valley, to avoid conflicts with the HS2 traffic using the northern section of the Erewash Valley route. This would require the route via Derby to be cleared to W12 gauge. It was suggested that a study covering an area bounded by the following locations should consider the optimal routing strategy for freight services: • Chesterfield • Derby • Burton-Upon-Trent • Trent Jn (near Long Eaton)

While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective by 2033, there would be immediate benefits from the point the new crossovers are installed, in terms of improved freight and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight and passenger train paths through the corridor which may develop further commercial opportunities to serve new or existing freight markets/terminals. Similarly the additional flexibility could assist in optimising the timetable for passenger services. Network Rail will be keen to work with local and regional stakeholders in the East Midlands and Yorkshire to identify funding routes to deliver new infrastructure choices at an appropriate opportunity, so that benefits can be realised as soon as possible.

Cheshire There are numerous route sections in Cheshire that have no, or very low levels, of rail-freight traffic. Busy route sections for rail-freight include:

• The Liverpool leg of the WCML between Weaver Jn and Ditton Jn, which conveys significant volumes of Intermodal Container and Automotives traffic.

• The route via Northwich is used by Biomass, Waste and Construction traffic.

• The Manchester leg of the WCML from Crewe to Wilmslow, which is busy with Intermodal Container traffic to/from Trafford Park.

• Waste traffic from Northenden.

The Rail-freight services Lots of different commodity groups are represented across Cheshire. They include: • Nuclear waste traffic from the Ayfa Plant in North Wales to Sellafield. • Timber products from Scotland to Chirk, pass through the area. • Automotives traffic from the Halewood Car Plant. • Intermodal Container traffic from numerous terminals in the North West, including 3MG at Widnes. • Biomass from the Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station. • Construction Agregates (Limestone) from the Peak District Quarries to Northwich. • Coal traffic to Fiddlers Ferry Power Station, near Widnes, although this traffic is due to cease in the next 10 years. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 6.

Growth Growth in traffic is mainly focussed on Intermodal Container Traffic to Trafford Park, Widnes 3MG and Garston. There is a significant increase in rail-freight traffic on the route from Crewe to Wilmslow which conveys Intermodal Container traffic to/from Trafford Park. It is forecast to increase from 15tpd to

24tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can just about be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph, with additional paths in the overnight hours. There is also significant growth, primarily in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Widnes 3MG and Garston on the route section between Ditton Jn and Weaver Jn. Rail-freight traffic is forecast to increase from 20tpd to 34tpd by 2043 and therefore beyond the current provision of rail-freight capacity. This route section has two tracks, but beyond Ditton Jn there are four tracks. Additional infrastructure will be required to support the required increase in rail-freight capacity.

Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth Ditton Jn – Weaver Jn Freight traffic shares the two-track section with higher speed passenger traffic. As freight traffic grows from 1tph to 2tph, additional infrastructure will probably be required in the Ditton Jn area. At present, there is a 20mph set of crossovers where the two tracks becomes four tracks which is used by freight traffic to/from the slow lines, the Ditton Reception Sidings and the Widnes 3MG Intermodal terminal. The speed of the crossovers will need to be increased to at least 40mph and parallel crossovers installed, so that freight trains can move through the junctions in both directions at the same time, to clear the junction quicker, make the most of the available capacity and the freight paths in between the passenger services. Much of the growth in freight services on the route section, is forecast to be to/from the Widnes 3MG Intermodal Container terminal. The new services are likely to be to/from destinations such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway. These services have to reverse, (where the locomotive switches from one end of the train to another), in Ditton Reception Sidings, to go to/from the southbound WCML. In order to accommodate such growth, it is recommended that the following infrastructure is installed to enable a greater throughput of trains at the terminal: • An additional siding line in Ditton Reception Sidings. • A new crossover between the Low Level/Slow Lines, adjacent to the entrance to the Widnes 3MG terminal. • An extention of the headshunt to accommodate trains of up to 775m in length. The addition of this new infrastructure would enable freight trains to operate in a “figure-of-eight” in and out of the terminal, which would greatly reduce the number of conflicts within the sidings. It is likely that the new infrastructure identified in the three bullet points above could enable the number of freight trains serving the Widnes 3MG terminal to be increased from 4tpd to up to 12tpd. The proposed infrastructure is shown in the diagram below.

An early stage cost estimate of the proposed new infrastructure indicates a cost of approximately £50m. While the freight growth forecasts indicate an additional 14 freight services on the Ditton Jn – Weaver Jn route section by 2043, much of this growth can be accomodated with the existing railway infrastructure, and the economic modelling of the benefits takes a conservative approach, so analyses the benefit of 6 additional services per day from the Widnes 3MG Container Terminal to destinations in the Midlands and the Deep-Sea Ports in the South of England. This produces a positive economic case, with a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 2 and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £28m. . This economic case is conservative in its assumptions as it calculates the benefits from the low scenario of growth for intermodal traffic and as per Webtag guidance, the growth is capped after 20 years. Sensitivity tests have also been conducted if only 25% of the benefits are applied. If this is the case, then the economic case has a Benefit Cost Ratio, (BCR), of 1.4 and a Net Present Value, (NPV) of £12m. While the new infrastructure may only be essential from a capacity perspective a number of years from now, there would be immediate benefits from the point it was installed in terms of improved freight and passenger train performance and additional flexibility in planning freight train paths to/from the Widnes and Merseyside areas, which may open up further commercial opportunities to serve new or existing markets/terminals. Consideration would also need to be given to the interface with Northern Powerhouse Rail, (NPR), options in this area. Network Rail will be keen to work with local and regional stakeholders and the companies who own rail-freight terminals in the area to identify funding routes to deliver the new infrastructure choices at the earliest opportunity, so that the benefits and rail-freight growth can be realised as soon as possible.

Staffordshire One route section in the very North of the County is included within the North of England Route Study Area: • Kidsgrove – Stoke-on-Trent

The Rail-freight services Intermodal Container traffic to/from Trafford Park and Ditton use this route section, along with traffic to/from the Marcroft Wagon Works. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 7.

Growth Growth is forecast on this route section as the forecasting model routes Intermodal Container between Felixstowe and Crewe via Uttoxeter. The route via Uttoxeter would need to be gauge cleared for this to occur. In reality, these services could be routed via Nuneaton and Crewe instead. Rail-freight traffic is forecast to increase from 8pd to 18tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph. Cockshute Sidings, north of Stoke-on-Trent station, is also likely to become and active freight terminal, once again.

Northumberland There is an extensive network of freight railway lines in the Blyth/Ashington area, that historically have linked various coal mines, Lynemouth Power Station and the Port of Blyth. Rail-freight traffic has significantly decreased over the last 30 years.

The Rail-freight services • The Port of Blyth currently imports coal that is transported by rail to Power Stations in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, although this traffic is due to cease in the next 10 years. • The Port of Blyth imports Alumina, (Bauxite), from Ireland, which is then transported to Scotland by rail. • Lynemouth Power Station has recently converted to Biomass fuelled power generation and is supplied by rail from the Port of Tyne.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 8.

Growth Traffic levels are forecast to generally remain constant over the next 30 years. There is spare freight capacity if growth were to occur, although the ECML section between Newcastle and Benton Junction, then crossing to the Blyth & Tyne route, can be a constraint to accommodating freight growth.

Tyne & Wear The area includes route sections that link Newcastle with Sunderland and Teesside. There are also branches that provide connections to the Port of Sunderland, Port of Tyne and Jarrow Oil Terminal.

The Rail-freight services The Port of Tyne is a significant generator of rail-freight traffic. It imports coal that is destined for Power Stations in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, although this traffic will cease in the next 10 years. It also imports Biomass that is destined for Drax and Lynemouth. The Port also receives scrap metal from various locations across the country. Jarrow Oil Terminal receives Petroleum from Lindsey Oil Refinery. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 9.

Growth There is a small amount of growth on the routes to/from the Port of Tyne, which can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision.

County Durham County Durham’s main freight route is the Durham Coast route that links Tyneside, Sunderland and Teesside.

The Rail-freight services The Port of Tyne is a significant generator of rail-freight traffic for this route section. It imports coal that is destined for Power Stations in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, although this traffic will cease in the next 10 years. It also imports Biomass that is destined for Drax. The Port also receives scrap metal from various locations across the country. Cement traffic is also conveyed to Seaham, from Hope in the Peak District, via this route section. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 10.

Growth There is a small amount of growth on this route section which can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision.

Tees Valley The railways of the Tees Valley are very busy in terms of rail freight, particularly the route sections from Northallerton via Middlesbrough to Teesport. There are also branch lines to Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station, Seal Sands and Boulby Mine. The area also has important links to the ECML at Northallerton, Darlington and Tursdale Jn.

The Rail-freight services Lots of different commodity groups are represented across the Tees Valley: • Intermodal Container services to/from Teesport to both Felistowe and Scotland. • Intermodal Tar Tanks from South Wales to the AV Dawson Container Terminal at Middlesbrough. • Potash, Polyhalite and Rock Salt from Boulby Mine to Teesport and Middlesbrough. • Imported coal through Redcar to Power Stations in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire. • Coking Coal, Coke Nuts and Granulated Blast Furnace Slag from Redcar to Scunthorpe. • Iron Ore residues from Redcar to South Wales. • Unfinished Steel Slab and Blooms from Scunthorpe to Skinningrove and Lackenby. • Steel Coil from South Wales to the AV Dawson Container Terminal at Middlesbrough. • Steel traffic from South Wales to Hartlepool 20” Pipe Mill. • Cement from Hope to Seaham. • Domestic Waste from Knowsley to Wilton. • Nuclear waste from Hartlepool Power Station to Sellafield. • Petroleum from Port Clarence to South Wales. • Biomass passes through the area from the Port of Tyne to Drax Power Station.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 11.

Growth There is significant growth from Teesport, (Grangetown Jn) via Middlesbrough to Bowesfield Jn. Rail-freight traffic is forecast to increase from 11tpd to 41tpd by 2043. This level of traffic can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 2tph, as much of this route section is 4 tracks and has previously accomodated much higher levels of freight traffic, when the route was very busy with metals and coal traffic.

Yorkshire Yorkshire has an extensive network of railway lines, many of which are busy freight routes. The routes include the following categories: • Rural routes such as the lines to Scarborough, Harrogate, Ilkley and the Yorkshire Coast line that do not have any freight traffic at present.

• Routes that have over the years served the County’s coal mines and power stations. • Routes near the urban centres of Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford that have low levels of freight traffic. • Key long distance routes for freight such as: - Leeds and Sheffield to the Port of Hull. - Colton Jn to Tapton Jn via Ferrybridge and Rotherham.

The Rail-freight services Lots of different commodity groups are represented in Yorkshire: • Coal traffic to Drax Power Station. Coal traffic also passes through the area on its way from the Ports of Blyth and Tyne to the Nottinghamshire Power Stations. Coal traffic will cease in the future as coal-fired power generation is scheduled to end in 2025. • Biomass to Drax Power Station. • Metals traffic from South York and Tees Valley to the West Midlands and South Wales. • Construction Aggregates from Rylstone quarry near Skipton and the Peak District quarries to various aggregates terminals in Yorkshire and also via the Midland Main Line to London and the South East. • Intermodal Container traffic from terminals in Yorkshire to Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway. • Petroleum traffic passes through the county from the oil refineries at Immingham to various destinations. • Sand delivered to glass production plants at Kirk Sandall and Monk Bretton.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 12.

Growth There is significant rail-freight growth on the following route sections: • From Colton Jn to Milford Jn, traffic is due to increase from 12tpd to 25tpd by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Teesport. • From Ferrybridge Jn to Moorthorpe, traffic is due to increase from 4tpd to 13tpd by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Teesport. • From Moorthorpe to Swinton, traffic is due to increase from 9tpd to 28tpd by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the Yorkshire Terminals and Teesport. • From Swinton to Doncaster, traffic is due to increase from 9tpd to 24tpd by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the Yorkshire Terminals.

• From Swinton to Rotherham Masborough Jn, traffic is due to increase from 15tpd to 44tpd by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the Yorkshire Terminals and Teesport. • From Rotherham Masborough Jn to Tapton Jn, traffic is due to increase from 9tpd to 41tpd by 2043, mainly as a result of an increase in Intermodal Container traffic to/from the Yorkshire Terminals and Teesport.

For all of the above routes, there is no requirement for any infrastructure interventions, as there is sufficient spare freight capacity, as the growth is restoring rail-freight traffic to levels that have been experienced in the recent past, when there were greater volumes of coal and metals traffic, although this should be reviewed as part of the North of England – Sheffield Area Strategic Question, particularly for Swinton to Rotherham Masborough Jn, to assess how the timetable could be constructed to make it more compliant for accomodating freight growth. There is also significant growth on the following route sections: • From Rylstone Quarry to Skipton, traffic is due to increase from 5tpd to 7tpd in the coming years, so a scheme to install axle counters on the branch to increase capacity will be delivered in the next couple of years. • From Dore Station Jn to Nunnery Main Line Jn, traffic is due to increase from 5tpd to 11tpd by 2043. Similarly, the route section from Dore to Tapton Jn, traffic is due to increase from 8tpd to 17tpd by 2043. These route sections should be subject to further assessment as part of the North of England – Sheffield Area Strategic Question, as this route will be used by High Speed 2 passenger services and there will be growth in other passenger services via Sheffield station. • From Crofton West Jn to Hare Park Jn, traffic is due to increase from 16tpd to 50tpd by 2043. The growth on this route section can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 2tph, plus additional freight paths in the overnight hours. • From Crofton West Jn to Wakefield Westgate/Turners Lane Jn, traffic is due to increase from 15tpd to 51tpd by 2043. The growth on this route section can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 2tph, plus additional freight paths in the overnight hours.

Nottinghamshire The North of Nottinghamshire is included within the North of England Route Study area, which is the following two route sections: • Brancliffe East Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn. • Clarborough Jn – Cottam Power Station.

The Rail-freight services These route sections include both Cottam and West Burton Power Stations. Both Power Stations have, until recently, received high volumes of coal by rail. However, both Power Stations, in common with all of the coal-fired generators in the country, have significantly reduced their levels of generation in recent years, as other forms of power generation have become more cost effective. There is therefore only a small number of coal services per day on the route sections at present. In addition to the coal services, there are a small number of Intermodal Container services to/from Doncaster Europort that are routed via Retford, Worksop and Brancliffe Jn. This routing enables the terminal to receive longer trains in comparison to being routed via the ECML or GN/GE. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 13.

Growth There will be a small amount of growth on the section between Brancliffe East Jn and Gainsborough Trent Jn, mainly as a result of increases in Intermodal Container traffic to/from Doncaster Europort and Rossington. If Cottam and/or West Burton Power Station is developed for future rail freight use, then these route section would see additional rail-freight traffic.

North and North East Lincolnshire The North of the County is included within the North of England Route Study area. It includes some key freight routes to/from the Port of Immingham and various branch lines, some of which convey rail-freight.

The Rail-freight services

There is still coal traffic that is imported via the Port of Immingham, which is one of the last deep- sea ports importing large quantities of coal in the UK. The route from Wrawby Jn and Lincoln is a busy route for Petroleum traffic from the Humber and Lindsey Oil Refineries to various oil terminals in the Midlands and beyond. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 14.

Growth The only route section that is due to see growth in rail-freight traffic is between Wrawby Jn and Lincoln, where traffic is forecast to increase from 7tpd to 19tpd by 2043. Much of this growth is based on Intermodal Container growth from Immingham to the Midlands, which may actually be routed via Scunthorpe. This increase can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph, although Level Crossing risk assessments will need to be undertaken, particularly for those in Lincoln city centre.

Core West – East Freight Routes These busy freight routes are considered as linear routes, rather than within a County/Area, as they function as a defined linear freight route and on the Trans-Pennine routes there can be an interaction between the different routes, with the ability to switch freight traffic between the various routes.

F.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes The main route from the Port of Immingham is via Barnetby and Scunthorpe towards Doncaster and also up to Knottingley for Trans-Pennine traffic and to the Yorkshire Power Stations. Sections of the route are 4 track in places to accommodate all the passenger and freight traffic.

The Rail-freight services Lots of different commodity groups are represented on this route: • Coal traffic to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire Power Stations. Coal traffic will cease in the future as coal-fired power generation is scheduled to end in 2025. • Biomass to Drax Power Station. • Metals traffic from the British Steel Plant at Scunthorpe. • Imported iron ore through the Port of Immingham to the British Steel Plant at Scunthorpe. • Coking Coal through the Port of Immingham to the British Steel Plant at Scunthorpe. • Petroleum traffic from the oil refineries at Immingham to various destinations.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.1

Growth There is significant rail-freight growth on the following route sections by 2043: • From Doncaster to Stainforth Jn, traffic is due to increase from 12tpd to 18tpd. • From Stainforth Jn to Thorne Jn, traffic is due to increase from 28tpd to 49tpd. • From Thorne Jn to Scunthorpe Trent Jn, traffic is due to increase from 20tpd to 47tpd. • From Scunthorpe Trent Jn to Wrawby Jn, traffic is due to increase from 17tpd to 63tpd. • From Wrawby Jn to Immingham West Jn, traffic is due to increase from 24tpd to 88tpd. • From Stainforth Jn to Applehurst Jn, traffic is due to increase from 15tpd to 32tpd. • From Applehurst Jn to Haywood Jn/Joan Croft Jn, traffic is due to increase from 14tpd to 31tpd. • From Haywood Jn to Knottingley, traffic is due to increase from 15tpd to 19tpd.

The majority of this growth will come from Intermodal Container services to/from the Port of Immingham and the Killingholme area. It is likely that the growth on these route sections is over- stated as the forecasting model appears to over-estimate future growth in Biomass services between the Port of Immingham and Drax Power Station, as it appears to not take account of competition from other Ports such as Liverpool and Port of Tyne in supplying Biomass to Drax. These route sections will be able to accommodate the future growth in traffic, as they were accommodating such levels of freight traffic in the last 10-20 years when the Port of Immingham was importing 10 million tonnes of coal per annum for supply to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire Power Stations.

F.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle The Carlisle – Newcastle route is a key West-East rail corridor across the North of England.

The Rail-freight services At present there is nuclear waste traffic from Hartlepool Nuclear Power Station to Sellafield and occasional Anglo-Scottish Coal traffic to the Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire Power Stations. A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.2

Growth Traffic on the route is forecast to increase from 1tpd to 7tpd by 2026. The growth is as a result of a proposed new coal mine near Whitehaven that will supply Coking Coal for export via Redcar. There is suitable spare freight capacity available to accommodate this growth, following the decline of Anglo-Scottish Coal traffic.

F.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds The Carlisle – Settle – Leeds corridor is a key rail corridor across the North of England for both West – East and North – South traffic. This corridor also considers the route sections south of Leeds to Altofts Jn/Whitwell Jn.

The Rail-freight services There are several, varied freight commodities that use this corridor: • Anglo-Scottish coal services to the Yorkshire & Nottinghamshire Power Stations. Coal traffic will cease in the future as coal-fired power generation is scheduled to end in 2025. • Construction Aggregates services from the quarries at Arcow, (Horton-in-Ribblesdale), Ribblehead and Rylstone, (near Skipton) to various aggregates terminals in Yorkshire and Greater Manchester.

• Timber traffic from Chirk to Scotland. • Cement from Ribblesdale Works (Clitheroe) to Mossend. • Gypsum from Teesport and Port of Hull to Kirkby Thore. • Intermodal Container traffic from Leeds Stourton Freightliner Terminal and Wakefield Europort to destinations such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.3

Growth Freight traffic on the northern sections of the corridor is not forecast to grow. There is some growth on the route sections in the Leeds area: • A new connection into Horton-in-Ribblesdale Quarry is likely to come on stream, supplying more aggregate traffic along the line. • From Skipton – Stourton Jn, traffic is forecast to increase from 8tpd to 11tpd by 2043, as a result in an increase in Construction Aggregates services from Rylstone Quarry. There is scope within the existing capacity provision of 1tph on the route to accommodate this growth. • There is significant growth forecast from Stourton Jn to Altofts Jn/Whitwell Jn, increasing from 14tpd to 47tpd by 2043. This is a result of Intermodal Container traffic to/from Leeds Stourton Freightliner Terminal and Wakefield Europort.

There is also the possibility that the section from Carlisle – Hellifield could see growth in rail-freight traffic if it used to relieve pressure on the WCML between Carlisle and Preston.

F.15.4 Calder Valley Routes The Calder Valley routes includes the route section from Thorpes Bridge Jn in Manchester, via Rochdale to Heaton Lodge Jn, near Dewsbury, where it joins the main Manchester – Leeds Trans- Pennine route. It also includes the route section from Farington Jns, (near Preston), to Hall Royd Jn, (near Todmorden), where it joins the main Calder Valley route.

The Rail-freight services The following commodities use these route sections: • The Calder Valley route via Rochdale is the main route for loaded Biomass services from the Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station. • Coal services for Fiddlers Ferry Power Station. • Domestic Waste traffic from Knowsley to Teesside.

• Scrap metal traffic to the Port of Liverpool. • Construction Aggregates traffic from Arcow and Rylstone Quarries to aggregate terminals in Greater Manchester. • Petroleum services from Lindsey Oil Refinery to Preston Docks. • Waste spoil from Manchester Collyhurst Street to Roxby Gullet.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.4

Growth There is no forecast growth in rail-freight traffic on the Calder Valley route sections. There would be scope to incorporate additional freight traffic on these route sections within the hourly freight path that exists, if there is a desire to re-route freight traffic away from other Trans-Pennine corridors. It may be that, were an upgraded North Trans-Pennine Route hourly freight path only be able to accommodate the weight of an Intermodal service, then the heavier bulk Trans-Pennine services would all need to run via the Calder Valley route.

F.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn This is the main West – East freight route through the Pennines. From the West, it begins at Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn and runs via Earlestown and the “Chat Moss” route to Manchester Victoria. It then continues East via “Miles Platting Bank”, (which has a 1 in 50 gradient that heavily restricts loaded trains in the eastbound direction), through Stalybridge and Huddersfield to Wakefield and Milford Jn, where there is a divergence of routes towards either Immingham, Hull or the North East.

The Rail-freight services The following commodities use these route sections:

• Biomass services from Port of Liverpool to Drax use this route for part of their loaded journey. The loading restrictions at Miles Platting Bank means that they need to use the Calder Valley route. Empty services returning from Drax, use these route sections. • Scrap Metal services to the Port of Liverpool. • There are some Construction Aggregates services on certain route sections, particularly in the Manchester area. • Coal services for Fiddlers Ferry Power Station. • Domestic Waste traffic from Knowsley to Teesside.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.5.

Growth There is significant rail-freight growth on the following route sections by 2043: • From Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn to Earlestown West Jn, freight traffic will increase from 6tpd to 34tpd by 2043. The majority of this growth is Intermodal Container traffic from the Port of Liverpool. This growth will be accommodated by an infrastructure enhancement that will be delivered in 2019 and will increase rail-freight capacity from the Port of Liverpool from 1tph to 2tph. The enhancement is a signalling improvement at Earlestown West Jn that will enable freight trains from the Port of Liverpool that are heading towards the WCML, to pass through the junction more quickly. • From Ordsall Lane Jn to Phillips Park West Jn, (via Manchester Victoria and Miles Platting Bank), freight traffic is forecast to increase from 6tpd to 11tpd by 2043. This can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph. • From Stalybridge to Heaton Lodge Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 3tpd to 24tpd by 2043. This increase will require infrastructure enhancements. Some of Network Rail’s options for the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade Programme would provide this level of freight capacity and W12 gauge enhancement, which is key, as much of the growth is Intermodal Container traffic. • From Heaton Lodge Jn to Thornhill LNW Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 10tpd to 24tpd by 2043. This increase will require infrastructure enhancements. There are options for the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade Programme that would provide this level of freight capacity and W12 gauge enhancement, which is key, as much of the growth is Intermodal Container traffic. • From Thornhill LNW Jn to Turners Lane Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 11tpd to 24tpd by 2043. This can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph. • From Turners Lane Jn to Altofts Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 14tpd to 47tpd by 2043. This section of route conveys not only Trans-Pennine traffic, but also the Intermodal Container traffic to/from Leeds Stourton and Deep-Sea Ports such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway. This route section has for many years been a busy

route for Coal and Intermodal Container traffic, so there is an existing freight capacity provision of 2tph, which will be sufficient to cater for the forecast growth. • From Altofts Jn to Milford Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 4tpd to 7tpd by 2043. This can be accommodated within the existing freight capacity provision of 1tph. The forecasts for this route section may be an under-estimate if Trans-Pennine Intermodal Container traffic to the North-East and Hull becomes established. If this were to be the case, the freight capacity provision of 1tph will still be sufficient.

Infrastructure Enhancements to Accommodate Growth Stalybridge - Heaton Lodge Jn - Thornhill LNW Jn Freight traffic shares the two-track section with higher speed passenger services. As freight traffic grows from the current relatively low levels, to 1tph in each direction, there would be a need for the provision of a standard hourly freight path in each direction. As the majority of the growth is in Intermodal Containers, it is key that a W12 cleared route is also provided, to faciltate the growth. Additional infrastructure will be required on this 22 mile corridor two-track corridor, to enable the higher speed passenger services to overtake the freight services. Grade separation is also likely to be required between Heaton Lodge Jn and Thornhill LNW Jn, to enable freight services to access the route towards Wakefield, without having to conflict with other services. The delivery of these freight outputs are options within the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade and the DfT are due to determine the exact scope and outputs of the Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade in winter 2018.

F.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley) The Manchester – Sheffield route via Chinley and Edale, (which is often referred to as the Hope Valley route), offers West-East connectivity for freight, but tends not to function in this manner at present, and is mainly utilised by freight services from the Peak District Quarries, which join the route at Chinley. In recent years, the use of the route for longer distance West-East traffic has been considered, particularly for Biomass traffic, but the need to route trains through Sheffield Station is a major constraint to pathing any freight services destined for Yorkshire, the North East or Immingham/Hull.

The Rail-freight services The predominant freight flows on the route are as follows:

• Construction services from the Peak District quarries at Peak Forest, Tunstead, Dowlow and Hindlow join the route at Chinley and go both westbound and eastbound to serve terminals in Greater Manchester, Yorkshire and numerous other aggregate terminals across the country. • The Cement production facility at Hope makes significant use of rail-freight for distributing its product to numerous locations across the country.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 15.6.

Growth There is significant rail-freight growth forecast on both route sections by 2043: • From New Mills South Jn – Chinley North/East Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 6tpd to 19tpd by 2043. This growth can be accommodated within the current freight capacity provision of 1.5tph. • From Chinley North/East Jn – Dore Station Jn/South Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 10tpd to 29tpd by 2043. This growth can be accommodated within the current freight capacity provision of 1.5tph.

F.15.7 Skipton - Colne The line between Skipton and Colne closed in 1970, but the vast majority of the alignment is still intact. The Department for Transport, working closely with Transport for the North, has recently commissioned a study to develop a Strategic Outline Business Case for the re-opening of the route. The study is considering a number of passenger options that could improve connectivity in the Leeds – Skipton – Colne – Burnley – Preston corridor. It also considers an hourly freight path in each direction between the Port of Liverpool and Drax/West Yorkshire. These paths could be utilised by the Biomass services that run between these locations, but it is also envisaged that the Skipton – Colne route could also be utilised by intermodal container traffic. The Skipton – Colne route, (and extended corridor to/from the Port of Liverpol and into the wider Yorkshire area), is not as direct as some other Trans-Pennine routes, but it does have many other advantages with regards to freight: • The route has lesser gradients than other Trans-Pennine routes. The steepest gradients are westbound between Skipton and Elslack, (1 in 141), and Thornton-in-Craven and Foulridge, (1 in 231). The steepest gradient in the eastbound direction is 1 in 396 between Colne and Foulridge.

• The routes it shares with passenger services are not as intensively used as many others in the North of England, particularly in comparison to the various Trans-Pennines routes that pass through Greater Manchester. • A key part of the route, from Skipton towards Leeds and through towards the Wakefield area, has a significant element of unused freight capacity, as there has been until recently, an hourly path for Anglo-Scottish Coal services.

Key challenges in developing the extended corridor as a Trans-Pennine freight route include accommodating freight on the following route sections: • On the WCML, in the Wigan area, particularly the 8 mile two-track section North of Wigan. • At Farington Junction, on the WCML to the South of Preston, where eastbound freight services would have to cross all 4 lines of the WCML on a flat junction, to head towards Burnley and Colne. • The severe gradient from Lostock Hall towards Blackburn, (includes a 3½ mile section of 1 in 101). • The single-track section between Gannow Jn and Colne. • The cost and engineering challenges of reinstating the Skipton – Colne link to current railway standards. • In pathing the freight services across Whitehall Junction, (on the western approach towards Leeds Station).

Commercially viable end-to-end journey times over the full route, will also be a key requirement.

The Strategic Outline Business Case is due to be completed in late 2018.

Core West-East Freight Route Key Issues A key consideration across all of the Core West-East Freight routes is 24/7 availability for freight services, as many end customers, particularly logistics companies and retailers who themselves have 24/7 operations, need the same flexibility they get from road haulage, from rail-freight. This may be achieved through ensuring that if one route is unavailable due to engineering work, then a parallel route is available that offers the same freight capability. This is particularly important across the Trans-Pennine routes as decisions are made as to which route could be gauge cleared to W12. It is important that a diversionary W12 route is also considered in the North of England, or whether the route via the current W12 route via the East Midlands, is seen to be the alternative W12 route between the North West and Yorkshire, the North East and the North’s East Coast Ports. Multiple W12 routes across the Trans-Pennine routes will be important if the “Landbridge” concept is to develop in future years. The Landbridge concept would see Deep-Sea ships from the Americas and potentially the Far East docking at Liverpool and loading containers on to trains to travel to one of the North’s East Coast Ports. The containers would then be loaded onto ships that could serve destinations such as Rotterdam, Antwerp or Hamburg, where the containers could then be

distributed across numerous countries in mainland Europe. The flow of containers would also move in the opposite direction. New rail-freight services that operate as a result of the landbridge concept are not included in the freight forecasts that have been produced by Network Rail or Transport for the North, that consider growth through to 2043 and 2050 respectively. However, Freight Operating Companies and Ports in the North of England have advised that they have received commercial enquiries regarding potential new intermodal container services operating to the landbridge concept. A further, developing West - East flow of Container traffic, is from Scotland to the East Coast ports. At present there are just 2 trains per day, via Berwick-upon-Tweed and the ECML, but this flow could grow further to both Teesport and other East Coast ports such as Immingham. An additional W12 route between Scotland and the East Coast ports will be beneficial for when sections of the ECML are unavailable.

East Coast Main Line (ECML) Although the ECML, (and the parallel section of the GN/GE line from Lincoln to Doncaster), is not part of the North of England Route Study, as it has its own recently published Route Study, it is a key freight arterial route through the North of England, so needs to be considered within this report to provide the full picture of rail-freight in the North of England.

The Rail-freight services The main freight flows on the ECML are: • Intermodal Container services from the Teesport and the Yorkshire terminals to/from Felixstowe and London Gateway. • Sand is delivered to glass production plants at Kirk Sandall and Monk Bretton. • High Speed, (up to 125mph), Royal Mail services use the ECML to move post between London and Edinburgh. • Petroleum from the oil refineries at Humber, (Immingham), use sections of the ECML to serve locations such as Jarrow.

• Biomass services from the Port of Tyne to Drax use the ECML from Northallerton, via York to Colton Jn and those from the Port of Tyne to Lynemouth are on the ECML for a short section from King Edward Bridge South Jn, (Gateshead) to Benton Jn.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 16.

Growth Traffic levels on the ECML in the North of England are at a historically low level at present, with the significant reduction in coal traffic that has occurred in recent years. Growth is due to occur on the following route sections of the ECML, mainly as a result of forecast increases in Intermodal Container traffic: • From Loversall Carr Jn to Doncaster Marshgate Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 33tpd to 59tpd by 2043. This growth is in Intermodal Container services to the Yorkshire terminals, particularly those at Doncaster Europort and Rossington that are adjacent to this route section. • From Doncaster Marshgate Jn to Joan Croft Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 13tpd to 23tpd by 2043. • From Joan Croft Jn to Colton Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 9tpd to 32tpd by 2043. • From Colton Jn to Northallerton freight traffic is forecast to increase from 24tpd to 51tpd by 2043. • From Northallerton to King Edward Bridge Jn, (just to the south of Newcastle Station), freight traffic is forecast to increase from 10tpd to 14tpd by 2043. • To the North of Newcastle, there are two remaining route sections to the Scottish border near Berwick-upon-Tweed, (which is also the northern limit of the North of England Route Study). From King Edward Bridge Jn to Benton Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 5tpd to 11tpd by 2043 and from Benton Jn to Berwick-upon-Tweed its forecast to increase from 4tpd to 9tpd by 2043.

The ECML Route Study also includes the GN/GE from Lincoln to Doncaster, (Pyewipe Jn to Loversall Carr Jn). The GN/GE has been upgraded within the last 5 years to be the primary freight route between Peterborough and Doncaster. Freight is forecast to increase from 9tpd to 53tpd by 2043, which is in line with the 2tph freight capacity that has been specified for the various enhancements on the GN/GE. The ECML Route Study also includes the Doncaster – Leeds branch of the ECML. This is a busy section of route for rail-freight, particularly Intermodal Container services to/from Leeds Stourton and Wakefield Europort, but also increasingly busy with construction traffic: • From Doncaster – South Kirkby Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 15tpd to 26tpd by 2043.

• From South Kirkby Jn – Hare Park Jn freight traffic is forecast to increase from 20tpd to 52tpd by 2043. This growth exceeds the current freight capacity provision and the ECML Route Study recommends additional infrastructure on this corridor to cater for the freight, (and passenger) growth.

The developing strategy on the ECML over the last 20 years has been to seek to segregate freight traffic from high speed passenger traffic, either through grade separation, such as with the North Doncaster Chord that segregates freight traffic to/from Immingham/Scunthorpe that is heading for West Yorkshire and beyond, or by utilising parallel routes such as with the GN/GE. Similar solutions may be required for other route sections of the ECML in the North of England, as freight and passenger services grow, particular as HS2 and other high speed passenger services are due to use the ECML from Colton Jn northwards from 2033 onwards. The reopening of the Leamside line between Tursdale Jn and Pelaw via Washington has been considered at various times over the last 20 years as a freight diversionary route, to provide additional capacity on the ECML. Re-routing freight traffic onto a re-opened Leamside line could be the best means of creating additional passenger capacity to/from Newcastle for both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, (NPR), services. Reopening of the Leamside line would alter freight flows in the North-East, as freight services on the ECML would also use the Northallerton – Eaglescliffe – Stockton-on-Tees – Ferryhill route, as an alternative to the parallel section of the ECML.

West Coast Main Line (WCML) Although the WCML is not part of the North of England Route Study, it is the country’s main North- South freight, so needs to be considered within this report to provide the full picture of rail-freight in the North of England.

The Rail-freight services The main freight flows on the WCML are: • Intermodal Container services between various Intermodal terminals in the North-West and ports in the South East, such as Felixstowe, Southampton and London Gateway. • Intermodal Container services to/from Scotland and various destinations in England. • Biomass services from the Port of Liverpool to Drax Power Station use the WCML for a short section of the route near Warrington Bank Quay, (Winwick Jn – Hartford CLC Jn). • High Speed, (up to 125mph), Royal Mail services between London and Scotland.

• Anglo-Scottish coal services. • Construction Aggregates from the Shap and Hardendale Quarries in Cumbria. • Cement from Clitheroe to Mossend.

A detailed breakdown of the current levels of rail-freight traffic for each route section and the levels of traffic that are forecast for future years is shown in Appendix 17.

Growth The WCML is an exceptionally busy route for freight and is forecast to grow further in future years. High Speed 2 Phase 2b may provide additional capacity for freight services on the WCML. In terms of the North of England, this would be from Crewe, to just to the south of Wigan. However, HS2 is also due to run additional services on sections of the WCML in the North of England will mean that rail capacity may be at a premium for: • Crewe – Weaver Jn: HS2 services to Liverpool, Preston and Scotland from 2026 to 2033. • Weaver Jn – Lowton Jn: HS2 services to Preston and Scotland from 2026 to 2033. • Lowton Jn – Carlisle/Gretna Jn: HS2 services to Preston and Scotland from 2026 onwards.

Growth is due to occur on the following route sections of the WCML, mainly as a result of forecast increases in Intermodal Container traffic: • From Crewe to Hartford Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 40tpd to 135tpd by 2043. • From Hartford CLC Jn to Weaver Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 46tpd to 139tpd by 2043. • From Weaver Jn to Winwick Jn, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 28tpd to 110tpd by 2043. • From Winwick Jn to Carlisle, freight traffic is forecast to increase from 19tpd to 67tpd by 2043.

Future work under the Continuous Modular Strategic Planning process will consider how this very significant growth in rail-freight can be accommodated, particularly in relation to the challenges and opportunities that will occur in relation to HS2 and whether any sections of parallel routes can accommodate north-south freight traffic.

Freight Flows through the North of England to/from Scotland At present there are the following number of daily rail freight services to/from Scotland in each direction: • Via Carlisle and the WCML = 28 • Via Berwick-upon-Tweed and the ECML = 4

By 2043 the number of daily rail freight services to/from Scotland in each direction is forecast to increase to the following:

• Via Carlisle and the WCML = 69 • Via Berwick-upon-Tweed and the ECML = 9

The majority of freight services via Carlisle and the WCML are to/from areas beyond the North of England, such as the Midlands or the Deep-Sea ports in the South of England. The freight services on the ECML to/from Scotland are more localised and tend to be from the North East or Yorkshire. Freight growth on the ECML to/from Scotland is still comfortably within an hourly daytime freight path although the trailing load on certain services can be restricted, so as to fit between the passenger services. Such spare freight capacity would be important on the occasions when the WCML is unavailable, such as during engineering work and there is a need to re-route freight services. There is significant freight growth forecast on the WCML to/from Scotland, with up to 3 freight paths per hour in each direction being required by 2043. Further consideration would need to be given in future years as to whether some Anglo-Scottish freight services could be permanently re-routed via the ECML, rather than via the WCML, to balance out rail-freight across the two routes. This would however add significant mileage and cost to freight services. For example, an intermodal container service between Felixstowe and Coatbridge would incur an additional 50 miles if it was re-routed at Peterborough and travelled via Berwick-upon-Tweed, in comparison to a journey via Nuneaton, Carlisle and the WCML. It is questionable therefore whether this would constitute efficient freight routing and it would depend upon the journey time on each route and how many times the freight service might be looped awaiting its onward path.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Enhancements that provide wider strategic network benefits.

Enhancements facilitating growth for a more specific regional cluster of freight terminals.

Future freight strategic questions for the North of England.

Conclusion and Recommendations The Working Group for the North of England Freight Strategic Question have endorsed the following infrastructure enhancement choices to faciliate growth in railfreight in the North of England.

A distinction has been drawn between those schemes that provide wider strategic network benefits and those schemes which facilitate growth for specific freight terminals. The first category will facilitate freight growth on at least one and sometimes two key main line freight routes. This will provide freight benefits across the North of England and into other areas, across the network. The second category generates benefits for a more specific regional cluster of freight terminals, which in turn will generate a concentration of benefits for the respective regional economy. While the schemes aren’t formally ranked, there is a strong consensus that the top priority for freight within the North of England is for the provision of additional freight capacity on a Trans-Pennine corridor, (and with the provision in parallel of W12 gauge to stimulate the intermodal container

market). The route from Stalybridge via Diggle, Huddersfield and Heaton Lodge Junction to Thornhill LNW Junction is the most direct route and offers the greatest freight connectivity to a the widest range of freight terminals. If, however, it is determined that investment on the route via Huddersfield in the Transpennine Route Upgrade is focussed towards passenger outputs, then investment in freight outputs would need to take place on a parallel Trans-Pennine route such as the Calder Valley route via Rochdale and Hebden Bridge, or a re-opened Skipton – Colne route.

Future Freight Strategic Questions for the North of England This report has primarily considered freight capacity within the North of England and the ability of the existing network to accommodate future freight growth. It is recommended that future freight strategic questions for the North of England consider in more detail how aspects of freight capability can be developed over time. Key aspects of freight capability to consider could include: • Development of the W12 network. • Freight Train Length • Freight Journey Times • Freight Traction

Consultation and Next Steps This section of the document sets out how the North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question – Draft for Consultation has been managed, how stakeholders have been consulted to date, and how interested parties can respond to this Consultation.

Network Rail has taken an open, collaborative and consultative approach to the development of the Long Term Planning Process. This process is a way of planning the future of the rail network, and this Route Study is a key part of this. Development of the Route Studies followed the publication of the four Market Studies which set out the direction of travel for demand on the rail network in Great Britain over the next 30 years. The suite of Route Studies is a key next step in the process to develop the case for investment in the future rail network.

Close collaborative working by a wide range of stakeholders from within and outside the industry has meant that the work has been subject to comment and guidance to ensure that, as options have been developed, they have been tested and challenged. Further to this, comments are welcomed on this document from any interested party who may wish to respond.

How can you contribute A wide range of views will help to develop and complete the North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question. If you wish to respond to any of the ideas and interventions set out within this Draft for Consultation document, please email your comments to the following email address:

[email protected]

Or by post to the address below:

North of England Freight Strategic Question (Consultation) Network Rail George Stephenson House Toft Green York YO1 6JT

This report is only being published on the Network Rail website. If you would like a printed copy please contact the address above.

Privacy Statement Respondents should indicate clearly if they wish all or part of their response to be published on the Network Rail website. Otherwise, responses or parts thereof will remain confidential and only a summary of all responses will be published, with this summary being used to inform the final Route Study publication. Where consultation responses are published on the Network Rail website, personal details will be redacted.

The North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question will have a formal consultation period of 90 days, with the final date for receiving responses being 7th March 2019. Earlier responses would be very much appreciated in order to maximise the time available to respond in the final study.

Next Steps After the conclusion of the formal consultation phase, the North of England Route Study Freight Strategic Question Working Group will consider further work that may be required to conclude the study, prior to the publication of the final document.

Further details of the Long Term Planning Process, including an overview of the work, frequently asked questions and contact details for preceding work, including previous Route Studies and information about the CMSP process can be found on the Network Rail website – click here.

To comply with the requirements of the Data Protection Act, Network Rail holds (where supplied) the name, email address, telephone number, organisation and postal address information of respondents. It will be held for no longer than necessary to produce the finalised Route Study.

Appendix A: Freight Forecasts by Route Section All figures quoted in Appendix A relate to the number of freight trains per day in one direction. There is therefore the same number of freight trains in the opposite direction.

FF.01 Cumbria

Figure 2 – Cumbria Route Sections

1.1 Longtown Branch Route Section Mossband Jn – Longtown Freight Traffic Ministry of Defence 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

1.2 Brunthill/Stainton Branch Route Section Carlisle Kingmoor Yard – Stainton – Harker Kingstown Freight Traffic None 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

1.3 Cumbrian Coast 1.3.1 Carlisle – Sellafield Route Section Carlisle South Jn – Sellafield Freight Traffic Petroleum, Nuclear, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 18 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 18 2050 Forecast 18 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, as a result of a new coal mine near Whitehaven and additional traffic from the nuclear facilities in the Sellafield area. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required and are described in the main body of this report.

1.3.2 Sellafield – Carnforth Route Section Sellafield – Carnforth North Jn Park Jn – Dalton Jn Freight Traffic Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 11 2033 Forecast 11 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, as a result of additional traffic from the nuclear facilities in the Sellafield area. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required and are described in the main body of this report.

1.4 Oxenholme – Windermere Route Section Oxenholme Jn – Windermere Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

FF.02 Lancashire

Figure 3 – Lancashire Route Sections

2.1 Carnforth – Settle Jn Route Section Carnforth – Settle Jn Freight Traffic This route is only occasionally used by commercial freight traffic. It is used by Network Rail Engineering Trains to/from other routes and by Charter Trains Rolling Stock. 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary This route is only occasionally used by commercial freight traffic and this is forecast to remain constant into the future. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.2 Morecambe/Heysham Branch Route Section Morecambe South Jn/Hest Bank Jn – Morecambe – Heysham Freight Traffic Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary Freight to/from Heysham Power Station is forecast to remain constant. There are no known aspirations for freight traffic to/from Heysham Port. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.3 Preston – Blackpool North Route Section Preston Fylde Jn – Blackpool North Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.4 Blackpool South Branch Route Section Kirkham North Jn – Blackpool South Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.5 Burn Naze Branch Route Section Poulton-le-Fylde Jn – Wyre Dock Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.6 Preston: Ribble Branch Route Section Preston South Jn – Preston Docks Freight Traffic Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.7 Blackburn – Hellifield Route Section Daisyfield Jn – Hellifield Freight Traffic Construction, Timber, Cement 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It does accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML, (Preston – Carlisle). As Preston – Carlisle becomes capacity constrained, there is the likelihood that some non-gauge dependent freight traffic is routed via this route. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.8 Gannow Jn – Colne Route Section Gannow Jn – Colne Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.9 Preston – Ormskirk Route Section Farington Curve Jn – Ormskirk Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.10 Wigan – Southport Route Section Wigan Wallgate Jn – Southport Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.11 Wigan – Kirkby Route Section Wigan Station Jn – Kirkby Freight Traffic Waste 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no defined growth in freight traffic on the route, but the Potter Group, (terminal at Knowsley), do have aspirations for further waste traffic and new Intermodal services. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

2.12 Blackburn – Bolton Route Section Blackburn Bolton Jn – Bolton Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

FF.03 Merseyside

Figure 4 – Merseyside Route Sections

3.1 MerseyRail Third Rail D.C. Network Route Section Southport – Liverpool Central – Hunts Cross Sandhills Jn – Ormskirk Walton Jn – Kirkby Liverpool Lime Street (Low Level Loop) – West Kirkby Bidston East Jn – New Brighton Canning Street Jn – Chester Hooton South Jn – Ellesmere Port Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for these route sections. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

3.2 Liverpool Lime Street – Edge Hill Route Section Liverpool Lime Street – Edge Hill Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

3.3 Bootle Branch Route Section Port of Liverpool – Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 24 2033 Forecast 29 2043 Forecast 38 2050 Forecast 38 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Port of Liverpool. This is primarily Intermodal traffic and some Biomass traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required beyond those that are already planned.

3.4 Earlestown West/East Jn – Winwick Jn Route Section Earlestown West/East Jn – Winwick Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 24 2033 Forecast 34 2043 Forecast 50 2050 Forecast 50 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Port of Liverpool. This is primarily Intermodal traffic and some Biomass traffic. There is also growth forecast in relation to the proposed Intermodal freight terminals at Parkside and Port Salford. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required and are described in the main body of this report.

3.5 Huyton – Wigan Route Section Huyton Jn – Springs Branch Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route, (including this route section), which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

3.6 St. Helens (Sutton Oak) Branch Route Section St. Helens Station Jn – Sutton Oak Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

3.7 St. Helens (Cowley Hill) Branch Route Section Gerards Bridge Jn – Cowley Hill Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

3.8 Edge Hill – Speke Jn Route Section Edge Hill – Speke Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 5 2026 Forecast 5 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 5 2050 Forecast 5 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Traffic to/from the Port of Liverpool may be routed this way when the Chat Moss route is not available. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

3.9 Speke Jn – Ditton Route Section Speke Jn – Ditton West Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Biomass, Intermodal, Automotives 2017 Traffic Level 11 2026 Forecast 11 2033 Forecast 11 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Traffic to/from the Port of Liverpool may be routed this way when the Chat Moss route is not available. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

FF.04 Greater Manchester

Figure 5 – Greater Manchester Route Sections

4.1 Euxton Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn Route Section Euxton Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn Freight Traffic Waste 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. It does however accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML, (Crewe – Preston), on an occasional basis. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.2 Wigan – Salford Crescent Route Section Wigan Station Jn – Salford Crescent Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.3 Crow Nest Jn – Lostock Jn Route Section Crow Nest Jn – Lostock Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.4 Salford Crescent – Manchester Victoria Route Section Salford Crescent – Manchester Victoria West Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 5 2050 Forecast 5 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.5 Ordsall Lane Jn – Castlefield Jn Route Section Ordsall Lane Jn – Castlefield Jn Freight Traffic Various 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It does however accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML, (Crewe – Preston), on an occasional basis. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.6 Castleton Branch Route Section Castleton South/East Jn – East Lancashire Railway Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. There are rolling stock movements to/from the East Lancashire Railway. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.7 Brewery Jn – Phillips Park West Jn Route Section Brewery Jn – Phillips Park West Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 8 2033 Forecast 8 2043 Forecast 8 2050 Forecast 8 Freight Forecast Commentary Slight decline due to loss of coal traffic. This is a key freight route between the Calder Valley route and the route towards Stockport, and can also be used for freight diversions. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.8 Phillips Park Branch Route Section Phillips Park West Jn/Baguley Fold Jn – Ashburys West Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 5 2050 Forecast 5 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. This is a key line between North and South Manchester and can also be used for freight diversions. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.9 Ashton Moss North Jn – Denton Jn Route Section Ashton Moss North Jn – Denton Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 10 2033 Forecast 10 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. This is a key line between North and South Manchester so could be used for freight diversions. This is a key line between North and South Manchester and can also be used for freight diversions. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.10 Trafford Park – Castlefield Jn Route Section Trafford Park West Jn – Castlefield Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 13 2026 Forecast 17 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 26 2050 Forecast 26 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Trafford Park Container Terminals. One freight path per hour in daytime hours, (plus additional paths in the overnight hours), will continue to be sufficient. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.11 Castlefield Jn – Slade Lane Jn Route Section Castlefield Jn – Slade Lane Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 13 2026 Forecast 17 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 27 2050 Forecast 27 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Trafford Park Container Terminals. One freight path per hour in daytime hours, (plus additional paths in the overnight hours), will continue to be sufficient. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.12 Slade Lane Jn – Wilmslow Route Section Slade Lane Jn – Wilmslow via Heald Green Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 13 2026 Forecast 17 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 27 2050 Forecast 27 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast from the Trafford Park Container Terminals. One freight path per hour in daytime hours, (plus additional paths in the overnight hours), will continue to be sufficient. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.13 Slade Lane Jn – Heaton Norris Jn Route Section Slade Lane Jn – Heaton Norris Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 6 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 8 2050 Forecast 8 Freight Forecast Commentary Some Intermodal traffic to/from Trafford Park could be routed this way. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.14 Heaton Norris Jn – Edgeley Jn Route Section Heaton Norris Jn – Edgeley Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Construction, Coal, Intermodal, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 11 2026 Forecast 12 2033 Forecast 14 2043 Forecast 15 2050 Forecast 15 Freight Forecast Commentary Some Intermodal traffic to/from Trafford Park could be routed this way. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.15 Guide Bridge – Heaton Norris Jn Route Section Guide Bridge Station Jn – Heaton Norris Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Construction, Coal, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary Coal traffic on the route will stop in the coming years, otherwise traffic levels are likely to remain stable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.16 Guide Bridge – Hyde Jn – Woodley Jn Route Section Guide Bridge Station Jn – Hyde Jn – Woodley Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic levels on this route section are forecast to remain stable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.17 Hyde Jn – Glossop/Hadfield Route Section Hyde Jn – Glossop/Hadfield Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.18 Woodley Jn – Bredbury Freight Terminals Route Section Woodley Jn – Bredbury Freight Terminals Freight Traffic Construction, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic levels on this route section are forecast to remain stable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.19 Woodley Jn – Romiley Route Section Woodley Jn – Romiley Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 6 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 8 2050 Forecast 8 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.20 Ashburys – Romiley Route Section Ashburys East Jn – Romiley Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 8 2050 Forecast 8 Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section. It could be routed via this route section or via Woodley Jn and Hyde Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.21 Stockport – Hazel Grove Route Section Edgeley Jn – Hazel Grove East Jn/High Level Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.22 Ardwick Jn – Guide Bridge Route Section Ardwick Jn – Guide Bridge Station Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Intermodal, Waste, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. The route section has occasional Construction traffic to Ashburys and is also used for some West-East (and vice versa) traffic in the overnight period when paths are available across the throat at Manchester Piccadilly, or the route via Manchester Victoria is unavailable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

4.23 Heald Green North/South Jn – Manchester Airport Route Section Heald Green North/South Jn – Manchester Airport Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section, although the Manchester Airport Branch has previously had campaigns of construction aggregates in relation to construction projects, so this could potentially occur in the future. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

100

FF.05 Derbyshire

Figure 6 – Derbyshire Route Sections

101

5.1 Chinley Jns – Great Rocks Jn Route Section Chinley North/East Jn – Great Rocks Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 15 2026 Forecast 32 2033 Forecast 34 2043 Forecast 37 2050 Forecast 37 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast to/from the Derbyshire quarries. Freight Capacity Assessment An intervention is required and is described in the main body of this report. Chinley South Jn was doubled in 2014 to help cater for the forecast growth.

5.2 Great Rocks Jn – Buxton – Dowlow Route Section Great Rocks Jn – Buxton – Dowlow Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 10 2033 Forecast 11 2043 Forecast 12 2050 Forecast 12 Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

102

5.3 Hazel Grove – Buxton Route Section Hazel Grove – Buxton Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

5.4 Tapton Jn – Chesterfield Route Section Tapton Jn – Chesterfield Freight Traffic Construction, Metals, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 24 2026 Forecast 37 2033 Forecast 45 2043 Forecast 63 2050 Forecast 63 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Intermodal and Construction traffic is the driver of the growth. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required post-2033 to cater for 3 freight paths per hour and are described in the main body of this report.

103

FF.06 Cheshire

Figure 7 – Cheshire Route Sections

104

6.1 Bidston – Dee Marsh Route Section Bidston Dee Jn – Dee Marsh Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.2 Dee Marsh – Shotton High Level Route Section Dee Marsh – Shotton High Level Freight Traffic Metals 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

105

6.3 Shotton Low Level – Saltney Jn Route Section Shotton Low Level – Saltney Jn Freight Traffic Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.4 Saltney Jn – Helsby Jn Route Section Saltney Jn – Helsby Jn Freight Traffic Timber 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary Hanson (Cement) is actively pushing forward with the re-opening of Penyffordd Cement Works, which would result in additional traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

106

6.5 Helsby Jn – Acton Grange Jn Route Section Helsby Jn – Acton Grange Jn Freight Traffic Timber, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.6 Ellesmere Port – Helsby Jn Route Section Ellesmere Port – Helsby Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

107

6.7 Frodsham Branch Route Section Frodsham Jn – Halton Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.8 Ditton – Weaver Jn Route Section Ditton West Jn – Weaver Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Biomass, Intermodal, Automotives 2017 Traffic Level 20 2026 Forecast 27 2033 Forecast 28 2043 Forecast 34 2050 Forecast 34 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. A 2nd hourly freight path in each direction is required post 2033. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required to provide a 2nd hourly freight path and are described in the main body of this report.

108

6.9 Ditton – Fiddler’s Ferry Route Section Ditton – Fiddler’s Ferry Freight Traffic Automotives 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. This route is also used for Light Engine movements between Ditton and Warrington. It could also be used for freight diversions. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.10 Fiddler’s Ferry – Warrington Arpley Route Section Fiddler’s Ferry – Warrington Arpley Freight Traffic Coal, Automotives 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic will decline with the closure of Fiddlers Ferry Power Station. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

109

6.11 Allerton Jn – Trafford Park Route Section Allerton Jn – Trafford Park Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.12 Chester – Crewe Route Section Chester – Crewe Freight Traffic Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

110

6.13 Mickle Trafford Jn – Hartford CLC Jn Route Section Mickle Trafford Jn – Hartford CLC Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.14 Hartford CLC Jn – Northenden Jn Route Section Hartford CLC Jn – Northenden Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 10 2033 Forecast 10 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

111

6.15 Northenden Jn – Edgeley Jn Route Section Northenden Jn – Edgeley Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 7 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 8 2043 Forecast 9 2050 Forecast 9 Freight Forecast Commentary There is Construction growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.16 Northenden Jn – New Mills South Jn Route Section Northenden Jn – New Mills South Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

112

6.17 Sandbach – Northwich Route Section Sandbach North Jn – Northwich/Northwich West Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

6.18 Edgeley Jn – Kidsgrove Route Section Edgeley Jn – Kidsgrove Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. This route may take diversions from the Wilmslow route. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

113

6.19 Crewe – Wilmslow Route Section Crewe North Jn – Wilmslow Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 15 2026 Forecast 16 2033 Forecast 16 2043 Forecast 24 2050 Forecast 24 Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

114

FF.07 Staffordshire

Figure 8 – Staffordshire Route Sections Note: There are other route sections in Staffordshire, but are not within the geographical scope of the North of England Route Study.

115

7.1 Kidsgrove – Stoke-on-Trent Route Section Kidsgrove – Stoke-on-Trent Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 13 2033 Forecast 14 2043 Forecast 18 2050 Forecast 18 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. The growth is Intermodal traffic between Felixstowe and Crewe. This traffic may actually be routed via Nuneaton and Crewe. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

116

FF.08 Northumberland

Figure 9 – Northumberland Route Sections

117

8.1 Lynemouth – Ashington Jn Route Section Lynemouth – Ashington Jn Freight Traffic Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Note - Lynemouth Power Station has now re-opened having been converted for Biomass generation. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

8.2 Ashington Jn – West Sleekburn Jn Route Section Ashington Jn – West Sleekburn Jn Freight Traffic Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

118

8.3 North Blyth – West Sleekburn Jn/Marchey’s House Jn Route Section North Blyth – West Sleekburn Jn/Marchey’s House Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic as a result of a decline in coal. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

8.4 West Sleekburn Jn – Bedlington Jn Route Section West Sleekburn Jn – Bedlington Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 7 2026 Forecast 5 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 5 2050 Forecast 5 Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic as a result of a decline in coal traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

119

8.5 Bedlington – Morpeth Route Section Bedlington Jn – Morpeth Jn/Morpeth North Jn Freight Traffic Metals 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

8.6 Bedlington – Benton Jn Route Section Bedlington Jn – Benton Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

120

FF.09 Tyne & Wear

Figure 10 – Tyne & Wear Route Sections

121

9.1 Newcastle – High Level Bridge Route Section Newcastle East Jn – Park Lane Jn/Greensfield Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Commercial freight traffic is generally prohibited over the bridge, but is occasionally used for diversions. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

9.2 King Edward Bridge Jn – Pelaw Route Section King Edward Bridge North & South Jn – Pelaw Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Petroleum, Construction, Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 13 2033 Forecast 13 2043 Forecast 13 2050 Forecast 13 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small increase in freight on this route section. There is also the potential that some Class 6 Bulk Traffic is re-routed via this route, (Durham Coast), rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and King Edward Bridge Jn Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

122

9.3 Pelaw – Boldon West Jn Route Section Pelaw Jn – Boldon West Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Construction, Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 11 2033 Forecast 11 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small increase in freight on this route section. There is also the potential that some Class 6 Bulk Traffic is re-routed via this route, (Durham Coast), rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and King Edward Bridge Jn Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

9.4 Boldon West Jn – Boldon East Jn Route Section Boldon West Jn – Boldon East Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight on this route section. There is also the potential that some bulk traffic is re-routed via this route, (Durham Coast), rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and King Edward Bridge Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

123

9.5 Pelaw – Jarrow Oil Terminal Route Section Pelaw Jn – Jarrow Oil Terminal Freight Traffic Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

9.6 Boldon West/East Jns – Port of Tyne Route Section Boldon West/East Jns – Port of Tyne Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 7 2026 Forecast 8 2033 Forecast 8 2043 Forecast 8 2050 Forecast 8 Freight Forecast Commentary There is minor growth forecast on this route section. These forecasts may not fully represent the future growth from the Port of Tyne, as there is scope for the future expansion in rail-freight services to offset the decline in coal traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

124

9.7 Ryhope Grange Jn – Port of Sunderland Route Section Ryhope Grange Jn – Port of Sunderland Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary These forecasts may not fully represent the future growth from the Port of Sunderland, as the Port has recently re-instated their rail connection, so some rail freight traffic is expected in the future. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

125

FF.10 County Durham

Figure 11 – County Durham Route Sections

126

10.1 Boldon East Jn – Norton South Jn Route Section Boldon East Jn – Norton South Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 11 2026 Forecast 16 2033 Forecast 16 2043 Forecast 16 2050 Forecast 16 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight on this route section. There is also the potential that some bulk freight traffic is re-routed via this route rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

127

FF.11 Tees Valley

Figure 12 – Tees Valley Route Sections

128

11.1 Norton South Jn – Hartburn Jn Route Section Norton South Jn – Hartburn Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 15 2033 Forecast 15 2043 Forecast 15 2050 Forecast 15 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight on this route section. There is also the potential that some freight traffic is re-routed via this route rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn, particularly if the route was cleared to W12 gauge, as Teesport – Scotland intermodal container traffic could also then be routed this way. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

11.2 Hartburn Jn – Stockton Cut Jn Route Section Hartburn Jn – Stockton Cut Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 5 2050 Forecast 5 Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic as a result of a decline in coal traffic. There is also the potential that some freight traffic is re- routed via this route rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

129

11.3 Stockton Cut Jn - Eaglescliffe Route Section Stockton Cut Jn – Eaglescliffe Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Intermodal, Domestic Waste 2017 Traffic Level 12 2026 Forecast 11 2033 Forecast 12 2043 Forecast 20 2050 Forecast 20 Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic in the short-term as a result of a decline in coal traffic. In the longer term traffic will increase as a result of growth in Intermodal. There is also the potential that some freight traffic is re-routed via this route rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.

11.4 Eaglescliffe – Northallerton Route Section Eaglescliffe – Northallerton Freight Traffic Biomass, Metals, Coal, Construction, Intermodal, Domestic Waste, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 11 2026 Forecast 10 2033 Forecast 11 2043 Forecast 18 2050 Forecast 18 Freight Forecast Commentary There will be a reduction in traffic in the short-term as a result of a decline in coal traffic. In the longer term traffic will increase as a result of growth in Intermodal. There is also the potential that some freight traffic is re-routed via this route rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale/King Edward Bridge Jn. Development work is currently ongoing for W12 gauge enhancement between Eaglescliffe and Northallerton, which would provide a more direct route to/from Teesport and the South. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

130

11.5 Seaton Snook Jn – Hartlepool Power Station Route Section Seaton Snook Jn – Hartlepool Power Station Freight Traffic Nuclear 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

11.6 Billingham Jn – Haverton Hill/Port Clarence/Seal Sands Route Section Billingham Jn – Haverton Hill/Port Clarence/Seal Sands Freight Traffic Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

131

11.7 Hartburn Jn – Bowesfield Jn Route Section Hartburn Jn – Bowesfield Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 8 2033 Forecast 8 2043 Forecast 8 2050 Forecast 8 Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, particularly if the route, (and those beyond to Ferryhill/Tursdale Jn) are cleared to W12 gauge, as Teesport – Scotland intermodal container traffic could also then be routed this way. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

11.8 Bowesfield Jn – Grangetown Jn Route Section Bowesfield Jn – Grangetown Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Intermodal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 11 2026 Forecast 26 2033 Forecast 31 2043 Forecast 41 2050 Forecast 41 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, primarily due to growth in Intermodal traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required. Much of this route section is 4 tracked and during the 1990s/2000s the route section carried even higher levels of freight traffic, but bulk traffic has declined in recent years.

132

11.9 Grangetown Jn – Boulby Potash Route Section Grangetown Jn – Boulby Potash Freight Traffic Construction (Potash, Polyhalite, Rock Salt, Granulated Blast Furnace Slag), Metals, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 14 2033 Forecast 14 2043 Forecast 14 2050 Forecast 14 Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

11.10 Guisborough Jn – Whitby Route Section Guisborough Jn – Whitby Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

133

11.11 Tursdale Jn – Norton-on-Tees South/East Jn Route Section Tursdale Jn – Norton-on-Tees South/East Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Intermodal, Coal, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small amount of growth on this route section. There is also the potential that some freight traffic is re-routed via this route rather than via the ECML between Northallerton and Tursdale, particularly if the route was cleared to W12 gauge, as Teesport – Scotland intermodal container traffic could also then be routed this way. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

11.12 Eaglescliffe – Darlington Route Section Eaglescliffe – Darlington South Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

134

11.13 Darlington North Jn – Bishop Auckland Route Section Darlington North Jn – Bishop Auckland Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no firm freight aspirations for this route section, although there have been aspirations for an Intermodal Terminal at Heighington. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

135

FF.12 Yorkshire

Figure 13 – Yorkshire Route Sections

136

12.1 York – Scarborough Route Section York – Scarborough Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.2 Seamer – Hull Route Section Seamer West Jn – West Parade Jn/Anlaby Road Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

137

12.3 Hessle Road Jn – Hull Route Section Hessle Road Jn – Hull Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.4 York – Harrogate – Leeds Route Section Skelton Jn – Armley Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

138

12.5 Rylstone – Skipton Middle Jn Route Section Rylstone – Skipton Middle Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 5 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a growth in tonnage by rail from Rylstone Quarry. Freight Capacity Assessment Alterations to the current “One Train Working” on the branch will be required. This scheme is planned to be delivered in 2019.

12.6 Apperley Jn – Ilkley Route Section Apperley Jn – Ilkley Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

139

12.7 Bradford Forster Square – Esholt Jn Route Section Bradford Forster Square – Shipley East/West Jns Dockfield Jn – Esholt Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.8 Leeds – Neville Hill West Jn Route Section Whitehall Jn – Neville Hill West Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small amount of growth on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

140

12.9 Neville Hill West Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn Route Section Neville Hill West Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a small amount of growth on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.10 Gascoigne Wood Jn – Selby Route Section Gascoigne Wood Jn – Selby West Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 8 2033 Forecast 8 2043 Forecast 8 2050 Forecast 8 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Although this route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

141

12.11 Selby – Gilberdyke Route Section Selby West Jn – Gilberdyke Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 6 2033 Forecast 6 2043 Forecast 6 2050 Forecast 6 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.12 Gilberdyke – Hessle Road Jn Route Section Gilberdyke – Hessle Road Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, 2017 Traffic Level 7 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

142

12.13 Hessle Road Jn – Port of Hull Route Section Hessle Road Jn – Port of Hull Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 6 2033 Forecast 6 2043 Forecast 6 2050 Forecast 6 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.14 Milner Royd Jn – Bradford Interchange – Leeds Route Section Milner Royd Jn – Bradford Interchange – Leeds Freight Traffic Metals 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

143

12.15 Thornhill LNW Jn – Leeds Route Section Thornhill LNW Jn – Copley Hill East Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. It could potentially be used for diversions when the route via Healey Mills is unavailable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.16 Huddersfield – Barnsley Route Section Springwood Jn – Barnsley Station Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

144

12.17 Horbury Jn – Wincobank Jn Route Section Horbury Jn – Wincobank Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.18 Wakefield Westgate – Wakefield Kirkgate Route Section Wakefield Westgate South Jn – Wakefield Kirkgate West Jn Freight Traffic Spoil 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. In addition to the Spoil train from Leeds Whitehall Road to Roxby (Scunthorpe), there are also occasional wagon movements associated with stabling at Wrenthorpe Sidings. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

145

12.19 Oakenshaw Jn/Crofton East Jn – Monk Bretton Route Section Oakenshaw Jn/Crofton East Jn – Monk Bretton Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.20 Castleford – Pontefract Monkhill Route Section Castleford West Jn – Pontefract West Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Trains are routed this way for route knowledge/match Power Station Slots/diversions. If Ferrybridge Power Station was re-developed for greater rail-freight usage, then this route section would see future growth. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

146

12.21 Knottingley – Drax Branch Jn Route Section Knottingley West – Drax Branch Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 29 2026 Forecast 29 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 18 2050 Forecast 18 Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially a reduction in the longer term if coal-fired units at Drax Power Station are decommissioned. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.22 Drax Branch Jn – Drax Power Station Route Section Drax Branch Jn – Drax Power Station Freight Traffic Biomass, Coal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 29 2026 Forecast 29 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 18 2050 Forecast 18 Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially a reduction in the longer term if units at Drax Power Station are decommissioned. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

147

12.23 Drax Branch Jn – Potters Grange Jn Route Section Drax Branch Jn – Potters Grange Jn Freight Traffic Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Services are routed this way between Hull and Drax to retain route knowledge. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.24 Micklefield – Church Fenton Route Section Micklefield – Church Fenton Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

148

12.25 Sherburn Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn Route Section Sherburn Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn Freight Traffic Metals 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section, although this route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.26 Colton Jn – Milford Jn Route Section Colton Jn – Milford Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal, Intermodal, Metals, Waste, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 12 2026 Forecast 21 2033 Forecast 21 2043 Forecast 25 2050 Forecast 25 Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, due to a rise in Intermodal traffic, but it is just restoring freight levels to those experienced in the recent past. This route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Doncaster/Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required. Much of this route section is 4 tracked and during the 1990s/2000s the route section carried even higher levels of freight traffic, but bulk traffic has declined in recent years.

149

12.27 Milford Jn – Ferrybridge Jn Route Section Milford Jn – Ferrybridge Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Biomass, Coal, Metals, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 20 2026 Forecast 21 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 21 2050 Forecast 21 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Intermodal traffic is behind the growth, but this would be routed via Doncaster, unless this route is gauge cleared. This route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Doncaster and Colton Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.28 Ferrybridge Jn – Moorthorpe Route Section Ferrybridge Jn – Moorthorpe Freight Traffic Construction, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 9 2033 Forecast 10 2043 Forecast 13 2050 Forecast 13 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Intermodal container traffic is the driver of this growth, but this would be routed via Doncaster, unless this route is gauge cleared. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

150

12.29 Moorthorpe – Swinton Route Section Moorthorpe – Swinton Freight Traffic Construction, Coal, Metals, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 14 2033 Forecast 21 2043 Forecast 28 2050 Forecast 28 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.30 Swinton – Rotherham Masborough Jn Route Section Swinton – Rotherham Masborough Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Coal, Metals, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 15 2026 Forecast 20 2033 Forecast 27 2043 Forecast 44 2050 Forecast 44 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

151

12.31 Rotherham Masborough Jn – Tapton Jn Route Section Rotherham Masborough Jn – Tapton Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Coal, Metals, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 18 2033 Forecast 26 2043 Forecast 41 2050 Forecast 41 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.32 Aldwarke Jn – Woodburn Jn Route Section Aldwarke Jn – Woodburn Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required

152

12.33 Dore Station Jn – Nunnery Main Line Route Section Dore Station Jn – Nunnery Main Line Freight Traffic Metals, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 5 2026 Forecast 9 2033 Forecast 10 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.34 Nunnery Main Line – Rotherham Masborough Jn/Rotherham Central Jn Route Section Nunnery Main Line – Rotherham Masborough Jn Holmes Jn/Rotherham Central Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 5 2026 Forecast 6 2033 Forecast 6 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on these route sections. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required

153

12.35 Broughton Lane Jn/Tinsley South Jn – Tinsley Route Section Broughton Lane Jn/Tinsley South Jn – Tinsley Freight Traffic Metals, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required

12.36 Nunnery Main Line – Woodburn Jn Route Section Nunnery Main Line – Woodburn Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required

154

12.37 Woodburn Jn – Woodhouse Jn/Beighton Jn Route Section Nunnery Main Line – Woodhouse Jn/Beighton Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. This route section can be used for diversions when the route via Dronfield is unavailable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required

12.38 Woodhouse Jn – Brancliffe East Jn Route Section Woodhouse Jn – Brancliffe East Jn Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

155

12.39 Aldwarke Jn – Mexborough Jn Route Section Aldwarke Jn – Mexborough Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Aggregates 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.40 Swinton – Doncaster Route Section Swinton – Doncaster South Yorkshire Jn/Bridge Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Aggregates, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 14 2033 Forecast 17 2043 Forecast 24 2050 Forecast 24 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Intermodal traffic is the driver of the growth. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

156

12.41 Gilberdyke – Thorne Jn Route Section Gilberdyke – Thorne Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Aggregates, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 4 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.42 Applehurst Jn – Adwick Jn/Carcroft Jn Route Section Applehurst Jn – Adwick Jn/Carcroft Jn Freight Traffic Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

157

12.43 Kirk Sandall Jn – St. Catherine’s Jn Route Section Kirk Sandall Jn – St. Catherine’s Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.44 St. Catherine’s Jn – Brancliffe East Jn Route Section St. Catherine’s Jn – Brancliffe East Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 5 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 5 2050 Forecast 5 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Growth in Intermodal traffic will replace coal traffic. Further growth could occur, if the I-Port at Rossington, generates significant volumes of rail traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

158

12.45 Dore – Tapton Jn Route Section Dore Station Jn/Dore West Jn – Tapton Jn Freight Traffic Construction, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 15 2033 Forecast 16 2043 Forecast 17 2050 Forecast 17 Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, as a result of increased Construction traffic from the Peak District Quarries. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.46 Ferrybridge Jn – Knottingley West Jn Route Section Ferrybridge Jn – Knottingley West Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Construction, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 16 2026 Forecast 19 2033 Forecast 13 2043 Forecast 13 2050 Forecast 13 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a long term decline in traffic as a result of a decline in Coal/Biomass. This route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Doncaster and Colton Jn Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.

159

12.47 Crofton West Jn – Hare Park Jn Route Section Crofton West Jn – Hare Park Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 16 2026 Forecast 31 2033 Forecast 37 2043 Forecast 50 2050 Forecast 50 Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially significant growth forecast on this route section. This is driven by growth in Intermodal traffic from the Yorkshire Terminals. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.48 Crofton West Jn – Wakefield Westgate/Turners Lane Jn Route Section Crofton West Jn – Wakefield Westgate/Turners Lane Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Intermodal, Construction, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 15 2026 Forecast 33 2033 Forecast 38 2043 Forecast 51 2050 Forecast 51 Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially significant growth forecast on this route section. This is driven by growth in Intermodal traffic from the Yorkshire Terminals. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

160

12.49 Temple Hirst Jn – Selby West Jn Route Section Temple Hirst Jn – Selby West Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section although it could be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Temple Hirst Jn and Colton Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

12.50 Milford Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn Route Section Milford Jn – Gascoigne Wood Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass, Intermodal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 4 2050 Forecast 4 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

161

12.51 Woodburn Jn – Stocksbridge Steelworks Route Section Woodburn Jn – Stocksbridge Steelworks Freight Traffic Metals 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

162

FF.13 Nottingham shire

Figure 14 – Nottinghamshire Route Sections Note: There are other route sections in Nottinghamshire, but are not within the geographical scope of the North of England Route Study.

163

13.1 Brancliffe East Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn Route Section Brancliffe East Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 5 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

13.2 Cottam Branch Route Section Clarborough Jn – Cottam Power Station Freight Traffic Coal 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary Freight traffic on the branch will cease once Cottam Power Station closes. If Cottam Power Station is re-developed for usage that requires rail-freight, then the branch could be used in the longer term. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

164

FF.14 North and North East Lincolnshire

Figure 15 – Lincolnshire Route Sections

165

14.1 Gainsborough Trent Jn – Brigg – Wrawby Jn Route Section Gainsborough Trent Jn – Brigg – Wrawby Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. The future closure of Cottam/West Burton Power Stations will result in limited traffic using this route section, except for when it is used for freight diversions when the route via Scunthorpe is unavailable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

14.2 Wrawby Jn – Lincoln Route Section Wrawby Jn – Lincoln Pelham Street Jn Freight Traffic Petroleum, Coal, Intermodal, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 7 2026 Forecast 10 2033 Forecast 16 2043 Forecast 19 2050 Forecast 19 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight, based on growth a variety of commodities, including Intermodal. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.

166

14.3 Ulceby – Barton-on-Humber Route Section Ulceby North Jn – Barton-on-Humber Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

14.4 Brocklesby Jn – Cleethorpes Route Section Brocklesby Jn – Cleethorpes Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. The route between Marsh West Jn and Brocklesby is occasionally used for freight diversions when the route via Ulceby is unavailable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

167

14.5 Marsh West Jn – Immingham East Jn – Immingham Reception SB Route Section Marsh West Jn – Immingham East Jn – Immingham Reception SB Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 0 2033 Forecast 0 2043 Forecast 0 2050 Forecast 0 Freight Forecast Commentary There are no known freight aspirations for this route section. There are light engine movements between Immingham East Jn and Immingham Reception Signal Box. The full route is occasionally used for freight diversions when the route via Ulceby is unavailable. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

14.6 Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Roxby Gullet Route Section Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Roxby Gullet Freight Traffic None at present 2017 Traffic Level 0 2026 Forecast 2 2033 Forecast 2 2043 Forecast 2 2050 Forecast 2 Freight Forecast Commentary Traffic to Roxby Gullet is likely to resume in the near future. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

168

FF.15 Core West-East Freight Routes

FF.15.1 Port of Immingham Routes

Figure 16 – Port of Immingham Route Sections

169

15.1.1 Doncaster – Stainforth Jn Route Section Doncaster/Hexthorpe Jn – Stainforth Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 12 2026 Forecast 12 2033 Forecast 14 2043 Forecast 18 2050 Forecast 18 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.1.2 Stainforth Jn – Thorne Jn Route Section Stainforth Jn – Thorne Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 28 2026 Forecast 35 2033 Forecast 43 2043 Forecast 49 2050 Forecast 49 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

170

15.1.3 Thorne Jn – Scunthorpe Trent Jn Route Section Thorne Jn – Scunthorpe Trent Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 20 2026 Forecast 30 2033 Forecast 41 2043 Forecast 47 2050 Forecast 47 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.1.4 Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Wrawby Jn Route Section Scunthorpe Trent Jn – Wrawby Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal, Coking Coal, Iron Ore 2017 Traffic Level 17 2026 Forecast 35 2033 Forecast 56 2043 Forecast 63 2050 Forecast 63 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on the route section, mainly from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

171

15.1.5 Wrawby Jn – Brocklesby Route Section Wrawby Jn – Brocklesby Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal, Coking Coal, Iron Ore 2017 Traffic Level 24 2026 Forecast 50 2033 Forecast 79 2043 Forecast 88 2050 Forecast 88 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.1.6 Brocklesby – Humber Rd Jn/Immingham West Jn Route Section Brocklesby – Humber Rd Jn/Immingham West Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Construction, Petroleum, Intermodal, Coking Coal, Iron Ore 2017 Traffic Level 24 2026 Forecast 50 2033 Forecast 79 2043 Forecast 88 2050 Forecast 88 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly from Intermodal traffic. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

172

15.1.7 Immingham West Jn – Killingholme Route Section Immingham West Jn – Killingholme Freight Traffic Construction, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 2 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.1.8 Stainforth Jn – Applehurst Jn Route Section Stainforth Jn – Applehurst Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Petroleum, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 15 2026 Forecast 22 2033 Forecast 30 2043 Forecast 32 2050 Forecast 32 Freight Forecast Commentary There is potentially significant growth forecast on this route section. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.

173

15.1.9 Applehurst Jn – Joan Croft Jn/Haywood Jn Route Section Applehurst Jn – Joan Croft Jn/Haywood Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Petroleum, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 14 2026 Forecast 21 2033 Forecast 29 2043 Forecast 31 2050 Forecast 31 Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.1.10 Shaftholme Jn/Haywood Jn – Knottingley West/East Jn Route Section Shaftholme Jn/Haywood Jn – Knottingley West/East Jn Freight Traffic Metals, Coal, Biomass, Petroleum, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 15 2026 Forecast 16 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 19 2050 Forecast 19 Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section. Forecast levels of Biomass traffic are high and probably don’t fully take account of the supply of Biomass to Drax from Liverpool. This route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Doncaster and Colton Jn & Doncaster and Hare Park Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

174

15.1.11 Knottingley West Jn – Featherstone – Crofton West Jn Route Section Knottingley West Jn – Featherstone – Crofton West Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 6 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a decline in traffic on this route section as a result of a long-term decline in Coal/Biomass. This route section can be used as part of freight diversions from the ECML between Doncaster and Colton Jn & Doncaster and Hare Park Jn. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

175

FF.15.2 Carlisle – Newcastle

Figure 17 – Carlisle – Newcastle Route Sections

176

15.2.1 Carlisle – Newcastle Route Section Pettrill Bridge Jn – Low Fell Jn/King Edward Bridge South Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Nuclear, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is growth forecast on this route section, as a result of a new coal mine near Whitehaven. Freight may get re-routed this way if the Settle & Carlisle or ECML/WCML isn’t available. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

177

FF.15.3 Carlisle – Settle – Leeds Corridor

Figure 18 – Carlisle – Settle – Leeds Corridor Route Sections

178

15.3.1 Carlisle – Skipton Route Section Carlisle South JnJn – Skipton Middle Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Timber 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 5 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 5 2050 Forecast 5 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight may be re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or ECML/WCML isn’t available. It does accommodate, (as far as Hellifield), diverted freight from the WCML. As Preston – Carlisle becomes capacity constrained, there is the likelihood that non-gauge dependent freight is routed via this route. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.3.2 Skipton – Leeds Route Section Skipton Middle Jn – Whitehall Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 9 2033 Forecast 10 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight may get re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or the ECML isn’t available. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

179

15.3.3 Leeds – Stourton Jn Route Section Whitehall Jn – Stourton Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 8 2026 Forecast 9 2033 Forecast 10 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight may get re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or the ECML isn’t available. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route, (including this route section), which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.3.4 Stourton Jn – Altfofts Jn/Whitwell Jn Route Section Stourton Jn – Altfofts Jn/Whitwell Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 14 2026 Forecast 30 2033 Forecast 34 2043 Forecast 47 2050 Forecast 47 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. The growth is due to an increase in Intermodal traffic to from Leeds Stourton Freightliner Terminal and Wakefield Europort. Freight may get re-routed this way if Newcastle – Carlisle or the ECML isn’t available. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re- open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route, (including this route section), which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

180

FF.15.4 Calder Valley Routes

Figure 19 – Calder Valley Route Sections

181

15.4.1 Thorpes Bridge Jn – Hall Royd Jn Route Section Thorpes Bridge Jn – Hall Royd Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Waste, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 7 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight traffic could be re-routed onto this route section when the line via Huddersfield is not available. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.4.2 Hall Royd Jn – Heaton Lodge Jn Route Section Hall Royd Jn – Heaton Lodge Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Construction, Biomass, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 7 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight traffic could be re-routed onto this route section when the line via Huddersfield is not available. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

182

15.4.3 Farington Jn/Farington Curve Jn – Daisyfield Jn Route Section Farington Curve Jn – Daisyfield Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 3 2033 Forecast 3 2043 Forecast 3 2050 Forecast 3 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It does however accommodate diverted freight traffic from the WCML, (Preston – Carlisle), so an hourly freight path in each direction is required. As Preston – Carlisle becomes capacity constrained, there is the likelihood that some non-gauge dependent freight traffic is routed via this route. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re- open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route, (including this route section), which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.4.4 Daisyfield Jn – Gannow Jn Route Section Daisyfield Jn – Gannow Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route, (including this route section), which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

183

15.4.5 Gannow Jn – Hall Royd Jn Route Section Gannow Jn – Hall Royd Jn Freight Traffic Coal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

184

FF.15.5 Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn

Figure 20: Liverpool – Manchester – Huddersfield – Wakefield – Milford Jn Route Sections

185

15.5.1 Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn – Earlestown West Jn Route Section Bootle Branch Jn/Olive Mount Jn – Earlestown West Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 19 2033 Forecast 25 2043 Forecast 34 2050 Forecast 34 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, as a result of Intermodal and Biomass growth from the Port of Liverpool. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required, beyond the flashing Yellow aspect signals that are planned for Earlestown West Jn to help create a 2nd hourly path from the Port of Liverpool.

15.5.2 Earlestown West Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn Route Section Earlestown West Jn – Ordsall Lane Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 6 2050 Forecast 6 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. If an Intermodal freight terminal is developed at Parkside or Port Salford, then there will be additional growth on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

186

15.5.3 Ordsall Lane Jn – Phillips Park West Jn Route Section Ordsall Lane Jn – Phillips Park West Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 7 2033 Forecast 9 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.5.4 Phillips Park West Jn – Stalybridge Route Section Phillips Park West Jn – Stalybridge Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 5 2026 Forecast 5 2033 Forecast 7 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is limited growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required for capacity.

187

15.5.5 Stalybridge – Heaton Lodge Jn Route Section Stalybridge – Heaton Lodge Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 3 2026 Forecast 6 2033 Forecast 14 2043 Forecast 24 2050 Forecast 24 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are required to provide an hourly freight path in each direction.

15.5.6 Heaton Lodge Jn – Thornhill LNW Jn Route Section Heaton Lodge Jn – Thornhill LNW Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 13 2033 Forecast 21 2043 Forecast 31 2050 Forecast 31 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required to provide an hourly freight path in each direction.

188

15.5.7 Thornhill LNW Jn – Turners Lane Jn Route Section Thornhill LNW Jn – Turners Lane Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 13 2033 Forecast 21 2043 Forecast 31 2050 Forecast 31 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.5.8 Turners Lane Jn – Altofts Jn Route Section Turners Lane Jn – Altofts Jn Freight Traffic Biomass, Scrap, Aggregates, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 14 2026 Forecast 30 2033 Forecast 34 2043 Forecast 47 2050 Forecast 47 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section, mainly as a result of growth in intermodal container traffic. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

189

15.5.9 Altofts Jn – Milford Jn Route Section Altofts Jn – Milford Jn Freight Traffic Scrap, Intermodal, Aggregates, Waste 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 5 2043 Forecast 7 2050 Forecast 7 Freight Forecast Commentary There is some growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

190

FF.15.6 Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley)

Figure 21: Manchester – Sheffield (Hope Valley) Route Sections

191

15.6.1 New Mills South Jn – Chinley North/East Jn Route Section New Mills South Jn – Chinley North/East Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 6 2026 Forecast 17 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 19 2050 Forecast 19 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. This is for Construction traffic from the Peak District quarries. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

15.6.2 Chinley North/East Jn – Dore Route Section Chinley North/East Jn – Dore Station Jn/Dore South Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 24 2033 Forecast 27 2043 Forecast 29 2050 Forecast 29 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. This is for Construction traffic from the Peak District quarries. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

192

FF.16 East Coast Main Line and GN/GE

Figure 22 – East Coast Main Line (ECML) Route Sections

193

16.1 Retford – Loversall Carr Jn Route Section Retford – Loversall Carr Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 10 2033 Forecast 6 2043 Forecast 6 2050 Forecast 6 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a forecast for a slight decline in traffic on this route section as the forecast growth in North – South (and vice versa) traffic on the ECML corridor will use the parallel section of the GN/GE. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

16.2 Loversall Carr Jn – Doncaster Marshgate Jn Route Section Loversall Carr Jn – Doncaster Marshgate Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Metals 2017 Traffic Level 33 2026 Forecast 34 2033 Forecast 44 2043 Forecast 59 2050 Forecast 59 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions may be required on this route section. This will be addressed as part of future ECML Strategic Questions.

194

16.3 Doncaster Marshgate Jn – Joan Croft Jn Route Section Doncaster Marshgate Jn- Joan Croft Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 13 2026 Forecast 17 2033 Forecast 18 2043 Forecast 23 2050 Forecast 23 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

16.4 Joan Croft Jn – Hambleton South Jn Route Section Joan Croft Jn – Hambleton South Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 24 2033 Forecast 26 2043 Forecast 32 2050 Forecast 32 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route section. Traffic can be switched between this route and the route via Askern. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

195

16.5 Hambleton South Jn – Colton Jn Route Section Hambleton South Jn – Colton Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 24 2033 Forecast 26 2043 Forecast 32 2050 Forecast 32 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route section. Traffic can be switched between this route and the route via Askern or Gascoigne Wood. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

16.6 Colton Jn – Northallerton Route Section Colton Jn – Northallerton Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 24 2026 Forecast 40 2033 Forecast 41 2043 Forecast 51 2050 Forecast 51 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route section. This route section is 4 tracked and has catered for this level of freight traffic during the 1990s/2000s. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

196

16.7 Northallerton – Ferryhill Jn Route Section Northallerton – Ferryhill Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 12 2033 Forecast 12 2043 Forecast 14 2050 Forecast 14 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

16.8 Ferryhill Jn – King Edward Bridge Jn Route Section Tursdale Jn – King Edward Bridge Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 10 2026 Forecast 11 2033 Forecast 11 2043 Forecast 14 2050 Forecast 14 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

197

16.9 King Edward Bridge Jn – Benton Jn Route Section King Edward Bridge Jn – Benton Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 5 2026 Forecast 8 2033 Forecast 8 2043 Forecast 11 2050 Forecast 11 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

16.10 Benton Jn – Berwick-upon-Tweed Route Section Benton Jn – Berwick-upon-Tweed Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail, Coal, Biomass 2017 Traffic Level 4 2026 Forecast 4 2033 Forecast 6 2043 Forecast 9 2050 Forecast 9 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

198

16.11 Pyewipe Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn Route Section Pyewipe Jn – Gainsborough Trent Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 22 2033 Forecast 37 2043 Forecast 53 2050 Forecast 53 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

16.12 Gainsborough Trent Jn – Loversall Carr Jn Route Section Gainsborough Trent Jn – Loversall Carr Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 9 2026 Forecast 22 2033 Forecast 37 2043 Forecast 53 2050 Forecast 53 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

199

16.13 Doncaster – South Kirkby Jn Route Section Doncaster – South Kirkby Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction 2017 Traffic Level 15 2026 Forecast 17 2033 Forecast 20 2043 Forecast 26 2050 Forecast 26 Freight Forecast Commentary There is an increase in freight traffic on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required on this route section.

16.14 South Kirkby Jn – Hare Park Jn Route Section South Kirkby Jn – Hare Park Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Petroleum 2017 Traffic Level 20 2026 Forecast 33 2033 Forecast 39 2043 Forecast 52 2050 Forecast 52 Freight Forecast Commentary There is a significant increase in freight traffic on this route section, largely driven by Intermodal growth to/from the West Yorkshire Terminals. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions will be required, either additional running lines or grade separation. Another option could be re-routing freight traffic via Knottingley. This will be addressed as part of future ECML Strategic Questions.

200

16.15 Hare Park Jn – Leeds Route Section Hare Park Jn – Whitehall Jn Freight Traffic Construction 2017 Traffic Level 1 2026 Forecast 1 2033 Forecast 1 2043 Forecast 1 2050 Forecast 1 Freight Forecast Commentary There is no growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment No interventions are required.

201

FF.17 West Coast Main Line (WCML)

Figure 23 – West Coast Main Line (WCML) Route Sections

202

17.1 Crewe – Hartford Jn Route Section Crewe – Hartford Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail 2017 Traffic Level 40 2026 Forecast 77 2033 Forecast 99 2043 Forecast 135 2050 Forecast 135 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as part of future WCML Strategic Questions.

17.2 Hartford Jn – Weaver Jn Route Section Hartford Jn – Weaver Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail 2017 Traffic Level 46 2026 Forecast 79 2033 Forecast 101 2043 Forecast 139 2050 Forecast 139 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. . Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as part of future WCML Strategic Questions.

203

17.3 Weaver Jn – Winwick Jn Route Section Weaver Jn – Winwick Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail 2017 Traffic Level 28 2026 Forecast 61 2033 Forecast 79 2043 Forecast 110 2050 Forecast 110 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as part of future WCML Strategic Questions.

17.4 Winwick Jn – Preston Route Section Winwick Jn – Preston Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail 2017 Traffic Level 19 2026 Forecast 40 2033 Forecast 50 2043 Forecast 67 2050 Forecast 67 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as part of future WCML Strategic Questions. It should be noted that there are aspirations to re-open the route between Colne and Skipton, which could open up a through route, (including this route section from Springs Branch Jn to Farington Jn), which could be used by Construction, Biomass or even Intermodal Container traffic.

204

17.5 Preston – Carlisle Route Section Preston – Carlisle Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail 2017 Traffic Level 19 2026 Forecast 40 2033 Forecast 50 2043 Forecast 67 2050 Forecast 67 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as part of future WCML Strategic Questions.

17.6 Carlisle – Gretna Jn Route Section Carlisle – Gretna Jn Freight Traffic Intermodal, Construction, Royal Mail 2017 Traffic Level 28 2026 Forecast 45 2033 Forecast 52 2043 Forecast 69 2050 Forecast 69 Freight Forecast Commentary There is significant growth forecast on this route section. Freight Capacity Assessment Interventions are likely to be required. This will be addressed as part of future WCML Strategic Questions.

205

Appendix B: Summary of Investment Choices

Cost - 2017 prices Intervention Location Benefit Cost Ratio Net Present Value (Includes Contingency)

Cumbrian Coast Package of Enhancements Cumbria To be Confirmed as part To be Confirmed as To be Confirmed as part of Network Rail’s Cumbria part of Network Rail’s of Network Rail’s CMSP Workstream Cumbria CMSP Cumbria CMSP Workstream Workstream Earlestown West & East Jns – Winwick Jn Merseyside £90m 16.5 £325m

Chinley North/East Jn – Great Rocks Jn Derbyshire £5m Financially Positive £17m Tapton Jn - Chesterfield Derbyshire £20m Financially Positive £302m Ditton West Jn – Weaver Jn Cheshire £50m 3.9 £73m Trans-Pennine Route Upgrade (Package of Core West-East To be Confirmed as part of To be Confirmed as To be Confirmed as part Enhancements to provide Freight Capacity & W12 Gauge) Freight Route the Trans-Pennine Route part of the Trans- of the Trans-Pennine Upgrade Pennine Route Route Upgrade Upgrade

206

Appendix C: Abbreviations & Glossary

Acronym Meaning Definition

This is an indicator used in cost-benfit analysis that attempts to summarise the overall valus for money of a BCR Benefit Cost Ratio project. It is the ratio of the benefits of a project or proposal, expressed in monetary terms, relative to its costs, also expressed in monetary terms. Approach Network Rail is adopting to undertake the Long Term Planning of CMSP Continuous Modular Strategic Planning the railways, designed to be more dynamic and customer friendly. The main intercity railway which runs from Scotland to London, via ECML East Coast Main Line Newcastle, Darlington, York, and Doncaster. A type of signalling system which ETB Electronic Token Block negates the need for a physical token for controlling traffic on a route. The railway line between Peterborough GN/GE Great Northern/Great Eastern Joint Railway and Doncaster via Spalding, Sleaford and Gainsborough. Road based goods vehicles up to 40 HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle tonnes laden weight and up to 18.75m in length. High Speed 2 is the planned high- speed railway in the United Kingdom, directly linking London with, HS2 High Speed 2 Birmingham, the East Midlands, Leeds and Manchester, with connections onto the ECML to connect to Newcatle and onto the WCML to connect to Scotland. The point at which two railway lines connect. Jn Junction

207

Acronym Meaning Definition These are voluntary partnerships between local authorities and LEP Local Enterprise Partnerships businesses to help determine local economic growth and job creation within the local area. The Network Rail route that runs from Berwick-upon-Tweed, through the North East, Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, the LNE & EM London North Eastern and East Midlands East Midlands and via the ECML to Kings Cross, and via the Midland Main Line to St. Pancras. The Network Rail route that runs from Gretna at the Scottish Borders, through London North Western LNW Cumbria, the North West of England,

through the West Midlands and to London Euston in the South. The industry’s planning process led by Network Rail to develop strategic LTPP Long Term Planning Process proposals for the rail network through analysis and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. This is an indicator of how much value a project will provide. It is a measurement of profit calculated by NPV Net Present Value subtracting the present cost values of a project from the present values of benefits over a period of time. A predecessor to the LTPP, supporting RUS Route Utilisation Strategy the strategic development of the railways. A signalling system which relies on the continuous train detection throughout every block section. This gives visibility TCB Track Circuit Block to the signal person without having to physically observe the train clearing a particular block section. Sub-National Transport Body for the TfN Transport for the North North of England. Used to describe the number of freight trains per day on a route section. tpd Trains per Day Describes the number of trains in one direction, (with the assumption that

208

there is also an equal number of freight trains in the opposite direction.) Used to describe the number of freight trains per hour on a route section. Describes the number of trains in one tph Trains per Hour direction, (with the assumption that there is also an equal number of freight trains in the opposite direction.) 8 ft 6 in (2.60 m) x 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m). This enables standard height, (8ft 6”) W8 Network Rail Gauge Classification System shipping containers to be carried on standard wagons 9 ft 6 in (2.90 m) x 8 ft 2 in (2.5 m). This enables Hi-Cube shipping W10 Network Rail Gauge Classification System containers to be carried on standard wagons 9 ft 6 in (2.90 m) x 8 ft 6 in (2.6 m). This enables Hi-Cube shipping containers to be carried on standard W12 Network Rail Gauge Classification System wagons. It is slightly wider than W10 to enable refridgerated containers to be conveyed. The main intercity railway which runs from Scotland to London, via Carlisle, WCML West Coast Main Line Preston, Wigan, Warrington and Crewe. Network Rail plans designed to Weather Resilience and Climate Change WRCCA strengthen the resilience of the railway Adaptation Plan network. The rail industries version of the public national timetable showing all WTT Working Timetable movements on the rail network including freight rains, empty trains and those coming in and out of depots.

209

Appendix D: Reference Material

• Department for Transport, Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline/Market Led Proposals, 2018: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-network-enhancements-pipeline

• Digital Railway Programme, Digital Railway Strategy, 2018: http://digitalrailway.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Digital-Railway-Programme.pdf

• The Hansford Review, 2017 https://thehansfordreview.co.uk/

• Network Rail, LNW WRCCA: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/LNW-Route-WRCCA-Plan.pdf

• Network Rail, LNE & EM WRCCA: https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/LNE-and-EM-Route-WRCCA- Plan.pdf

• Network Rail, Long Term Planning Process: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/long-term-planning/

• Network Rail, Open for Business 2018: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/industry-commercial-partners/third-party-investors/networkrail-open-business/

• Network Rail Strategic Business Plan, 2019 - 2024: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/who-we-are/publications-resources/strategicbusinessplan/

210