https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2022/12/08/fresh-opposition-to-hinckley-rail-terminal-proposals-in-leicestershire/
Friends of Narborough Station (FONS)
Hinckley National Rail Freight
Interchange
Consultation Comments to Tritax
Symmetry
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Friends of Narborough Station is a group of people,
whose main aims as defined in our Constitution, are to;
1.2 Act as a User
Group and provide support for the Station Adoption Scheme, currently promoted
by East Midlands Railway.
1.3 Promote and
protect the interests of Users of Narborough Station, with an objective of
ensuring that better services are provided by Train Operating Companies – TOCs.
1.4 Work closely in a
constructive and responsible manner with TOCs, the Department for Transport and
local councils at all levels. This
includes Narborough Parish Council as Stakeholder and Blaby District Council
whose area the station serves.
1.5 Monitor
demographic changes in particular new housing and commercial developments in
the Blaby District Council area and the impact these will have on the station’s
capacity and the ability of the surrounding area to cope with such changes.
1.6 Liaise with other
public and private bodies, with an interest in rail travel and other associated
travel arrangements.
1.7 Take an interest
in the Narborough Station Buildings and their surroundings, including the
Station Garden and Signal Box.
2.
BACKGROUND
2.1 There are at
least ten Existing, Proposed or Planned Competitive Warehouse and Container
Facilities already within 50 miles of Hinckley, these are at:
·
Northampton Gateway
·
Wellingborough
·
DIRFT
·
Coventry
·
Hams Hall
·
East Midlands Gateway
·
Magna Park
·
Birch Coppice
·
Landor Street, Birmingham
·
and now proposed at Hinckley
2.2 The developer
argues that the project will bring jobs to the area and that employees will not
have to travel any significant distances between home and work. This is not
true as the unemployment rate in the area, is well below the national average
and one of the lowest in England.
2.3 The site would be
situated in what is already a heavily polluted area, with the additional road
journeys by employees over a 24 hour period making the area even more polluted.
2.4 Light and Noise
Pollution would be tremendous with local residents having to suffer at all
times of the day and night. This is in
addition to the noise of cranes, lorries and train movements coming into and
from the site itself.
2.5 Local people
would lose the enjoyment of their long-standing conservation and leisure areas,
such as Burbage Common and Aston Firs.
3.1 Firstly it has to be discussed that the
railway line at the entrance to the site is at present on a 1:162
gradient. Railway Rolling Stock unless
properly braked can “Run Away” on a gradient of 1:330. This tends to happen in private yards but
thankfully not often on running lines, but there have been plenty of instances
where it has happened.
3.2 We raise this matter as the Rail Accident
Investigation Branch has indicated its concern in their latest Annual
Report. Such incidents happened at
Clitheroe in Lancashire as recently as 2020 and at Toton in Nottinghamshire in
2021.
3.3 Will there be a guarantee that a locomotive
will always be attached to a train during container handling, and will there be
a clearly specified procedure that the fixed brakes are always applied to the
train at all other times. Will the
Operator or Network Rail be responsible for ensuring that the running lines are
protected by catch points or a sand drag arresting facility.
3.4 The rail junction into the site, will be
situated between Elmsthorpe and Hinckley. For safe access, trains will almost
certainly be slowed to a stand or to a maximum of 10 mph before being cleared
to enter. Depending on the direction the
train is coming from, will mean crossing over the opposite running line. This will cause a prolonged obstruction of
both eastbound and westbound lines, until the train is fully clear of the main
running lines and safely into the terminal.
3.5 Trains leaving the terminal will inevitably
cause similar delays to passenger trains during the cross over process. Restarting a 1,500 tonne half mile long
train, is not a quick process, particularly in winter time and during adverse
weather conditions. The fact there is a
1:162 gradient to climb, will require extended occupation while the train gets
to line speed. Delays to passenger
trains will have to be accepted and will
certainly compromise aspirations by Midlands Connect and others, to
provide a more frequent service and thus improve connectivity between the East
and West Midlands.
4.
RAIL OPERATIONS AT THE SITE
4.1 All Freight Train Rail Heads in this country
have what is called a “Cripple Road”. These are situated for instance at Power
Stations, Mines, Collieries, Oil Terminals, Quarries and other locations where
freight trains are loaded and unloaded.
These facilities are where “Red Carded” Wagons and Containers are
shunted out of the way in order to prevent delays to both freight and passenger
trains.
4.2 Will these facilities be provided and will
they be covered? Will covered facilities
be provided for the inspection, maintenance and repair of both locomotives and
wagons and if so, what will be the level of noise emitted? Will wagons have to be lifted by crane making
its own noise or will below ground inspection pits be provided?
4.3 In some overseas countries these “Cripple
Roads” are called “Sick Roads”. Whatever they are called, their importance in
support of a safe operational railway cannot be stressed too highly.
4.4 Will the terminal have an auditable “Fitness
to run Certification” procedure in place for all Locomotives and Wagons that
depart from the Interchange?
5.1 There is no doubt these long and heavy extra
trains will have an effect on the operation of the South Leicestershire
Line. We understand the longest trains
at present are some 600 metres, the extra trains proposed will be 775 metres
long.
5.2 Containers themselves are specified to
measure up to 40 feet long and 8 foot 6 inches high. How many of these will be on one train?
5.3 Whatever Tritax Symmetry may say, the South
Leicestershire Line is not a main line and was not built as a main line.
5.4 The line only has three aspect signalling, as
opposed to four aspect signalling on a main line. There are no refuges, no passing loops and no
facilities for Bi Directional working.
Putting that simply, it means that any breakdown or other incident could
close the line for hours or days. Who
would pick up the bill for its effect on the country’s economy?
5.5 Local residents hear the trains and feel the
vibration from freight trains, during the overnight period now. It could be argued that the railway line was
here first. When residents moved to the
area, the trains were not as heavy as they are today remembering it was not a
main line with no intention of taking such traffic.
5.6 Has the geology underlying the line been
analysed to ensure it is capable of supporting the longer, heavier trains? Will the additional cost of maintaining the
tracks, be picked up by Tritax Symmetry or Network Rail? If the latter, it will be a cost to the tax
payer, remembering that Tritax claim there will be no cost to the tax payer and
that every aspect of the project will be 100% privately financed.
5.7 Further constraints are the fact that both
Wigston North and South Junctions were some years ago, reduced to single rather
than double lead layouts.
6.1 FONS has done barrier timings at the crossing
and taking into account all current proposals, road closures will increase from
the current 20 minutes per hour to 40 minutes per hour. Timings taken by FONS were from the time the
red light flashes (Ordering vehicles and pedestrians to stop) to the barriers
going up and the roadway being fully clear again.
6.2 As a result of these timings, a report was
published by FONS in 2019 entitled “Will Narborough Be Ready”, which revealed
that the crossing was closed to road traffic for an average 16.25 minutes per
hour. The report stated “Whilst this
doesn’t sound too much, excessive delays are caused to road traffic,
particularly at peak times and if there is a build up of trains”.
6.3 In 2019 there were very few freight trains
using the South Leicestershire Line and thus going through Narborough. There are now up to two freight trains per
hour, hence the conservative estimate of barrier down time has increased to 20
minutes per hour.
6.4 FONS has submitted a Freedom Of Information
Request to Network Rail, in order to ascertain if barrier timings are electronically
recorded. A key request to Tritax
Symmetry and indeed Network Rail, would be for full transparency over the
numbers used to calculate line availability and barrier downtime.
6.5 It would also be useful to know the average
speed and length of current freight trains, against what is expected of Tritax
services. If slower (As expected due to
acceleration from the Interchange) or longer, then downtime will be far in
excess of four minutes per train. It is
imperative this information is obtained, so that meaningful, truthful and
accurate information is duly analysed.
6.6 This is a busy crossing for both road and
rail traffic. At peak times, road
traffic queues through Littlethorpe towards Whetstone and in the other
direction it completely clogs up the narrow roads and two mini roundabouts in
the Narborough village area and spills on to the already busy B4114 dual
carriageway, thus creating even further dangers.
6.7 The narrow pavements on the approaches to the
crossing at school times, see children and adults having to walk on the road in
order to proceed. Being held by the
extra trains using the crossing, will create even more congestion and dangers
than there are at present for all pedestrians.
6.8 Many of the parents taking and collecting
their children to and from school, have younger children and babies in their
families. As they cannot be left on
their own at home, this means negotiating prams and push chairs etc. along the
busy pavements and if not possible on to the also congested roadway.
6.9 This situation will only get worse and indeed
more dangerous, if barrier down times are extended. The two settlements of Narborough and
Littlethorpe are separated by the railway line, although the crossing acts as
an important link between the two settlements.
6.10 A flyover was proposed some years ago, but
this now would not be possible, due to a housing estate having been built on
the Narborough side.
6.11 Tritax Symmetry have taken no cognisance of
the impact these half mile long and heavy trains will have on the operation of
the crossing, the effect on the village and the overall effect on the community
itself.
6.12 It is not good enough to say that nothing can
be done to resolve the so called Narborough problem, it is however better
accepted that nothing should be done that knowingly makes the situation more
dangerous.
6.13 If the Secretary of State does make the wrong
decision, money and planning permission will be needed to resolve the so called
Narborough problem. County Highways will
have to be involved and at least one Pedestrian Lift, provided at the Level
Crossing.
6.14 There are no guidelines for the amount of
time that the barrier can be down for. This is an automatic process, with
Trains whether freight or passenger always taking priority over road traffic.
6.15 There is a
“Right Side Failure” process in place, which means that on occasions when the
barriers have failed, the Signaller at the Railway Operating Centre in Derby is
not aware there is a problem, until advised by a member of the public.
6.16 Whilst it is the Signallers role to monitor a
CCTV screen to check the crossing for any vehicle or other obstacle trapped on
the crossing when the barriers come down, is this a pure fail safe system? Cars and Tractors have been hit recently by
trains due to Signallers being distracted and unclear communications between
Signallers and Control Centres.
7. EFFECT
ON THE OPERATION OF NARBOROUGH STATION
7.1 FONS has for many years been concerned about
many safety aspects about the operation of the station. The size and weight of trains operating to
and from HNRFI and speeding through the station at 75 mph., has as yet never
been experienced.
7.2 At present and particularly on windy days,
there is a serious danger that people waiting on the platforms could be swept
under a train. This is not a dramatic
assertion, but a fact.
7.3 The narrowness of the platforms present their
own danger, particularly the widths from the yellow lines to the station
buildings. Waiting passengers are never
told to stand behind the yellow lines, as is customary at most other stations.
7.4 Thankfully wagons are no longer of an open
type and we do not any longer have passengers showered with coal dust and other
materials, since what were called HAA Wagons have been withdrawn.
7.5 There is however still a frightening draught
and noise created, made even worse due to few advanced safety announcements
being made. Occasionally when a stopping
passenger train is announced and the level crossing barriers come down, a
freight train passes through as waiting passengers are moving themselves
forward to the edge of the platform.
7.6 Both passenger and freight trains not
stopping at the station, are not required to sound their horn. There are no “W” Warning Signs either side of
the station, which FONS considers should be in place to protect both the
station itself and the level crossing.
8.
EFFECT ON THE OPERATION OF THE MIDLAND MAIN LINE
8.1 Most passenger and freight trains that come
off the South Leicestershire Line and thus head towards Leicester Station and
onwards, have to wait for a path on to the Midland Main Line before heading
northwards. This is always to give
priority to trains already on the MML.
8.2 Additional trains were introduced by East
Midlands Railway a few years ago, in order to provide a better more frequent
service between the East Midlands and London St Pancras, in order to boost the
East Midlands economy, get cars off the roads and support the government’s
levelling up agenda.
8.3 This has resulted in a capacity problem
between Wigston Junction and Syston Junction, the route trains to and from
HNRFI are planned to use. There is a
rail route for trains to turn right at Wigston Junction, but this has now for
some reason been put out of use.
8.4 There has been a proposal to reopen the line
for passenger trains to run directly between Burton on Trent and Leicester,
known as the Ivanhoe Line. This would
have relieved traffic on the A50 and other roads into and out of Leicester. This we are told cannot happen due mainly to
the foregoing capacity problem between Wigston Junction and Leicester.
8.5 So if we cannot relieve local roads to help
the constituents of Leicestershire and Staffordshire, plus the obvious help
with the environment, why can capacity be found for long and heavy freight
trains hauled by dirty diesel engines?
8.6 In addition this stretch of line will be
subject to long delays and closures, when MML electrification is under way
north of Market Harborough. This will be
a far more definite project than any plan to electrify the South Leicestershire
Line.
9.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY FACTORS
9.1 Tritax Symmetry claim the Interchange will
have NO impact on the environment or wild life.
We consider this to be a totally unsubstantiated statement. Tritax Symmetry also claim that Blaby
District Council and that Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, were both
happy with the way measurements were taken.
9.2 Interestingly the outcomes and results of these
measurements, have we understand not as yet been disclosed.
10. OVERWHELMING
CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Both of the webinars posed more questions
than answers, supplementary questions were not allowed. There was no mention about passing loops,
refuges, bi directional working or that freight trains even today cause delays
to passenger trains.
10.2 Tritax Symmetry claim there will be “No
Impact” on the environment or wild life and “Little Impact” as far as the
railway line was concerned. No evidence
of these claims has as yet been provided.
10.3 Safety matters relating to Narborough Station
highlighted by FONS have not been addressed, in fact Tritax Symmetry seem to
have no concern about the effect their project will have on the station, the
level crossing or indeed the village itself including the overall community.
10.4 A question to be asked relates to the genuine
requirement for the use of rail, or is it solely to expedite planning
consent. Could it be there could be
railway sidings and other related railway facilities built with all the loss of
green belt land, never to be used or even see a train.
10.5 We have highlighted a number of serious
problems with this application, with huge implications not just in the
Elmsthorpe and Hinckley area, but in an extremely wide radius from it.
10.6 FONS supports the widespread opposition to
this proposal from the Leicestershire Parishes and Action Groups, and hopes the
Secretary of State, will consider all detailed aspects and unanswered
questions, relating to each of the safety and environmental concerns raised in
this response.
ERTA Disclaimer and Background:
