Feb 26 2007
Freight
No, the FTA does not have a massive input into “Tory roads policy”. As one of those constructing a transport policy, we draw on a wide range of sources including the FTA.
My main conclusion is that we need more capacity of all kinds, including railways. I would love to find ways to divert much more freight onto trains - that requires the railways to want more freight. It means single waggon marshalling, more spur and branch lines into industrial parks, and a much more freight friendly approach by rail, which has only really been interested in train load traffic from the coal, aggregates,oil and other
RSS Feed
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Freight traffic on the railways has gone up by 60% in the last 10 years. There are four privatised railway companies specialising in freight that are all aggresively looking for more business.
There are some signs that the supermarket chains and the large parcel distribution chains are interested in putting long haul (in the UK, 200 miles plus) onto the railways.
Single wagon marshalling is not viable because of the labour costs and time involved in assembling and disassembling the trains. But there is scope for combined marshalling yards and warehousing areas as at the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal.
It is pleasing that the FTA (oldRHA?) does not have a massive input into policy. Much changes as the years roll by.
James Strachan is quite right about single wagon costs and time. The evidence comes from BR days, but much American freight is of the type that John suggests: moving goods into industrial parks on the edges of towns for local lorry and van delivery, I believe. Perhaps a carrot and stick approach to major road hauliers would help? You must use rail and in exchange you get peace of mind over your responsible attitudes to public and safety, or a tax break maybe?