Jump to content
 

Brexit and railways serving ports


Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

If as is being suggested at least some of the traffic between continental Europe and Ireland will switch to an all sea route, will there be implications for the viability of any ports?

I have a feeling that one of the most vulnerable must be Fishguard, with traffic on the line already pretty low. But Holyhead could also be affected, and what about Felixstowe? There was talk at times of doubling the branch. Will that be needed? Also, what about the cross country freight routes?

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much freight traffic, but I feel Holyhead has been in decline for passengers since Ryanair started flights to all parts of Ireland from UK regional airports. 

 

My late Mother, a native of the West of Ireland, travelled home on the "Irish Mail" from Euston, via Holyhead, to Dublin and then another train to the West, through the 40s and early 50s.  It took the best part of 24 hours.  The last few times she flew, with Dad, from Stanstead to Knock (virtually on the doorstep of the family home) in around two hours, door to door.

 

Depending on the ultimate destination, travelling via the UK will be easier for some Irish freight and I suspect the initial and well publicised hiccups will be smoothed out in a few months anyway.  It's the nature of news that the stories about the one consignment delayed will create more column inches than the 99 other lorries that passed through without a hitch.

 

jch

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even before this year I wouldn't have expected there to be much container traffic to Ireland via rail from Southampton, Felixstowe etc. Fishguard and Holyhead don't seem to have much if any capability to handle containers arriving by train, and Cairnryan doesn't even have a railway, so anything using those ports probably went via road.

 

If there is anything then it probably goes via Liverpool or somewhere else, but I doubt it uses the ferry ports.

 

It seems hard to imagine that handling containers on/off a train at Felixstowe and Liverpool is going to be more efficient or measurably quicker than just sending a boat from Rotterdam direcly to Ireland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

I read something recently about possible investment in, and expansion of, a port in Southern Ireland (Rosslare perhaps) to cater for an increase in Europe-Ireland traffic. The gist of it was that until Brexit it was very straightforward for trucks going between the two to drive through Wales and England from Holyhead to Dover and vice versa but that extra customs checks might now make it easier and quicker for such traffic to go directly to Ostend, Rotterdam, Hamburg or wherever and, in effect, cut out the middle-man.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

If as is being suggested at least some of the traffic between continental Europe and Ireland will switch to an all sea route, will there be implications for the viability of any ports?

I have a feeling that one of the most vulnerable must be Fishguard, with traffic on the line already pretty low. But Holyhead could also be affected, and what about Felixstowe? There was talk at times of doubling the branch. Will that be needed? Also, what about the cross country freight routes?

Jonathan

 

Most freight that goes through the likes of Felixstowe and Southampton is international anyway (goods being made in the far east being transhipped to Europe or cross Atlantic shipments for example). This is not going to disappear or substantially reduce post Brexit.

 

Freight between Ireland, the UK and Europe mostly goes by lorry - and these are mostly of the accompanied type which primarily transit through ports like Holyhead and Dover (neither of which handle container traffic or Railfreight!)

 

As such the impact of Brexit of Railfreight to / from the ports it serves is going to be fairly minimal.

  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

As such the impact of Brexit of Railfreight to / from the ports it serves is going to be fairly minimal

In as much as it pertains to the island is Ireland at least. The traffic to/from GB may well be impacted, though whether we'll be importing and exporting more or less by rail and sea (or by rail via the tunnel) once things settle down remains to be seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

I am obviously well out of date as I remember seeing photos of container trains on the North Wales line, and that was one reason for rebuilding the Menai railway bridge after the fire.

As far as Fishguard is concerned I can't help feeling that even losing a small amount of what traffic it has, road freight and foot passengers presumably, could kill it. It has never been the success hoped for by the GWR. Irish independence and the First World War saw to that.

It is ironic that many of the the major ports were developed by railway companies, but have lost much of their rail based trade to road haulage.

Thanks for all the comments.

Jonathan

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Western Aviator said:

I read something recently about possible investment in, and expansion of, a port in Southern Ireland (Rosslare perhaps) to cater for an increase in Europe-Ireland traffic. The gist of it was that until Brexit it was very straightforward for trucks going between the two to drive through Wales and England from Holyhead to Dover and vice versa but that extra customs checks might now make it easier and quicker for such traffic to go directly to Ostend, Rotterdam, Hamburg or wherever and, in effect, cut out the middle-man.

One of the ferry companies has already put an extra vessel on to an Eire- Cherbourg service, rather than using it on Irish Sea services as originally planned.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

When we were in the EU, it probably made sense for trade between Ireland and some parts of the EU to come via Dover and and a second sea crossing to Ireland.  The new bureaucracy at two borders must have killed such traffic.    

 

The majority of traffic between ROI and mainland Europe comes via the UK.  Some additional capacity is being provided on the direct sea routes to/from ROI and no doubt more will follow but it will take a very substantial uplift indeed before there is enough for traffic via the UK to be "killed".

 

As to the "new bureaucracy", well in practice that is an amalgam of several issues some of which are changed processes and procedures which will remain but others are confusion about those processes and procedures, system teething troubles, and, in a few cases, a failure of companies to understand the trading framework that their business relied upon.  There's also covid imposing additional requirements.  It is not unreasonable to expect those elements to subside over time as the new arrangements bed in and everybody gets to grips with what is required of them.  Covid will, like all pandemics in history, eventually subside to manageable levels.  On that basis I expect the majority of ROI traffic will continue to transit via the UK.

Edited by DY444
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose one question we, in the U.K., should ask is just what do we get out of being a transit route?

 

we get a lot of foreign registered and foreign driven HGVs on our motorways and trunk roads, most will not need to buy fuel, many will not need accommodation nor food during their transit between ports.

 

We do not receive road tax for these transits. We do receive the air pollution from the HGVs.

 

we may employ a few at our ports and we may have a few citizens working in the ships. Does that amount to a net benefit over all of the other costs?

 

There will still be 2way traffic of U.K. to NI and U.K. to EIRE and of course, EU to U.K. 

 

so an open question, should we really be bothered if EU-EIRE trade goes direct via longer sea routes?

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Fishguard and Pembroke Dock do not handle containers the ferry service at both ports is ro-ro. There is a rail service to Pembroke Dock but not directly connected to the ferry service. Both Fishguard and PD seam to service Southern Ireland with a lot of lorries coming from Nolan’s of New Ross there is also a tie up with local firm Mansel Davies.

 

Keith

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

A lot of EU-Irish traffic came across England by lorry in recent years. You could tell how the boats were running by the timing and content of the traffic jams at Mottram. When I lived on the Woodhead route we used to get several thousand HGVs per day through the village, including a over 100 in a tug service procession in the early hours all with continental or Irish trailers.

Since mid-December there has been a big drop in the traffic level over there, a fortnight ago you could have walked down the middle of the A628 opposite Torside quite safely.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

so an open question, should we really be bothered if EU-EIRE trade goes direct via longer sea routes

I suppose the economic benefit to the UK is in how that traffic sustains the ferries and channel tunnel services. If the traffic goes direct then the reduction in demand for the ferries and tunnel might lead to service reductions, and maybe even the loss of a route or two.

 

Should we worry about that? Definitely if your livelihood is tied up in the impacted services, but beyond that I doubt many of the rest of us would notice.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KeithHC said:

Both Fishguard and Pembroke Dock do not handle containers the ferry service at both ports is ro-ro. There is a rail service to Pembroke Dock but not directly connected to the ferry service. Both Fishguard and PD seam to service Southern Ireland with a lot of lorries coming from Nolan’s of New Ross there is also a tie up with local firm Mansel Davies.

 

Keith

In the late 1960s/ early 1970s, there was a Freightliner service to Fishguard; at one point, container flats were attached to a boat train. Pembroke Dock is served via a tunnel that would have to be completely rebuilt to allow container vehicles to use it.

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zomboid said:

I suppose the economic benefit to the UK is in how that traffic sustains the ferries and channel tunnel services. If the traffic goes direct then the reduction in demand for the ferries and tunnel might lead to service reductions, and maybe even the loss of a route or two.

 

Should we worry about that? Definitely if your livelihood is tied up in the impacted services, but beyond that I doubt many of the rest of us would notice.

 

There's a lot of greaseburger vans who depend for their living on truckers and white van man

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
7 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

I suppose one question we, in the U.K., should ask is just what do we get out of being a transit route?

 

we get a lot of foreign registered and foreign driven HGVs on our motorways and trunk roads, most will not need to buy fuel, many will not need accommodation nor food during their transit between ports.

 

We do not receive road tax for these transits. We do receive the air pollution from the HGVs.

 

It's long amazed me that, unlike other countries, the UK doesn't have motorway tolls. They would ensure that vehicles transiting the UK paid a contribution to road maintenance, pollution etc. Yes, UK drivers would also have to pay, but the tolls could be weighted against HGVs and be collected automatically by overhead gantry readers and a few toll booths, so not meaning large swathes of countryside tarmaced over.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

 

It's long amazed me that, unlike other countries, the UK doesn't have motorway tolls. They would ensure that vehicles transiting the UK paid a contribution to road maintenance, pollution etc. Yes, UK drivers would also have to pay, but the tolls could be weighted against HGVs and be collected automatically by overhead gantry readers and a few toll booths, so not meaning large swathes of countryside tarmaced over.

 

Actually we DO get money* from foreign registered trucks for the permillage of driving on our roads.

 

A few years ago the Government introduced the "HGV Road User Levy" https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hgv-road-user-levy

 

Basically ALL hauliers (UK and overseas) pay it - but UK based companies get a rebate on their road tax which nullifies the cost. Overseas companies, not being subject to UK road tax end up paying it in full.

 

*Outside of a global pandemic that is

 

 

As for motorway tolls - that ship has sailed. Back in the 1960s we had a choice - go down the 'fee' route as per the Germans or the 'tolled' route as per the French. The UK Government misguidedly chose the German approach and this has subsequently made applying tolls retrospectively a non starter because...

 

(1) We use motorways as by-passes round small towns (where as the French will often only have a single junction and build separate all purpose by-passes for local traffic

 

(2) We use lots of all purpose roads instead of motorways (e.g. the A42, A14) as an integral part of the strategic road network - partly a legacy of the 1990s green movement and partly to save the Treasury money by building to a lower standard

 

(3) Voters have become accustomed to not paying road tolls outside of specific examples like Bridges or congestion charge schemes (where you do have PT alternatives). The alternative for motorways usually means travelling through hundreds of towns and villages which are not going to welcome traffic returning. Consequently imposing tolls (unless accompanied by a reduction in road tax) is going to cost at the ballot box.

  • Agree 3
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
22 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

 

It is ironic that many of the the major ports were developed by railway companies, but have lost much of their rail based trade to road haulage.

 

 

This is not surprising

 

Railways would not have existed had the UK gone straight from the 'horse and cart' type transport to the motor vehicle as has happened in many African or South American states.

 

Unless your customers reside next to a railhead at both ends, using rail transport extra incurs transhipment costs and increased resources compared to road transport throughout. It was only the fact that even with these disadvantages rail was so much faster than the alternatives (canals and horse + cart) which led it to achieving such dominance.

 

Todays rail freight is dominated by...

 

(1) Things that need transhipment anyway- e.g. sea dredge aggregates, containers from America / the far east, bulk products like wood pellets for power stations

 

(2) Cargo with a low price per weight ratio - e.g. building stone from the Mendips to terminals in the south east or in previous decades coal from pit to power station

 

Things like the Daventry - Scotland train are the exception and to be honest owe more to Tesco wanting to present itself as an 'environmentally responsible' retailer to its customers than it being so much more effective than a fleet of lorries heading up the M6

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, brushman47544 said:

 

It's long amazed me that, unlike other countries, the UK doesn't have motorway tolls. They would ensure that vehicles transiting the UK paid a contribution to road maintenance, pollution etc. Yes, UK drivers would also have to pay, but the tolls could be weighted against HGVs and be collected automatically by overhead gantry readers and a few toll booths, so not meaning large swathes of countryside tarmaced over.

 

We do of course have the M6 Toll in the West Midlands, but it is noticeable how much quieter it is, particularly in terms of lorry traffic, than the M6 itself. Presumably the possibility of congestion and delay on the M6 proper is outweighed by the cost of the toll. 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost for a HGV on the M6 Toll is pretty punitive. Combine that with many sat-navs defaulting to routes which avoid tolls and that's what you get.

 

I don't go that way often (a few times a year pre lockdown), but I'd only use the toll to access places along it or if the M6 itself is shown as being congested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
4 hours ago, StephenB said:

And then you’ve got the likes of the Second Severn Crossing, which is now toll-less ‘cos it’s been paid for.

 

Stephen

 

Which contrast with Dartford which say ALL debt associated with construction of the tunnels and the bridge paid off by 1999 - Over two decades on we are still paying tolls* to HM Treasury for no other reason than they don't want to give up a lucrative revenue stream.

 

The ONLY reason the tolls got removed was for political reasons - the crossing being administered by Highways England meaning it became a tool to try and buy Welsh / South Gloucestershire / Bristol votes. IIRC given the high levels of traffic congestion on the M4 round Newport and the opposition to building a southern motorway by-pass round the city from everyone other than the Conservatives, had the Welsh Government had their way tolls would have stayed.

 

Similarly the removal of road tolls in Scotland was a political move by the SNP - every crossing there still had construction debt to be paid off, or in the case of the Forth estuary a new bridge needing to be built.

 

 

* They might be officially called a congestion charge - but given the lack of decent alternatives its more like a stealth tax.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, caradoc said:

 

We do of course have the M6 Toll in the West Midlands, but it is noticeable how much quieter it is, particularly in terms of lorry traffic, than the M6 itself. Presumably the possibility of congestion and delay on the M6 proper is outweighed by the cost of the toll. 

 

 

HGVs cause significant damage to the carriageway over time due to their weight leading to rutting / tramline style recesses appearing in lane 1. Discouraging HGVs thus prolongs the life of the road surface and thus it is in the interests of the owners of the M6 Toll to keep lorry charges high.

 

Those high charges dissuade most lorry traffic from  using it and sticking to the old M6 - even though that motorway passes through the urban area and from a pollution perspective traffic would be better off being removed from it.

 

In a rational world the M6 toll would just be the plain M6 and a congestion charge be applied to the old M6 between the M5 and M42. That option however wouldn't have allowed the late 1990s Government to farm out what became the M6 Toll to the private sector as (1) an opportunity to try out private road building and (2) reduce the liability / financial spend by HM Treasury. Thus what should have been a vital piece of the strategic road network got transformed into a exercise in party politics....

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...