GB Railfreight continues to invest in new rolling stock

On Tuesday 28th November GB Railfreight (GBRf) took delivery of the first of its brand new, purpose-built IIA hoppers, which will be used to transport sand on behalf of Sibelco from Middleton Towers in East Anglia to Barnby Dun, Monk Bretton and Goole in Yorkshire. Arriving at Whitemoor Yard in Cambridgeshire, pulled by loco 66746, the hoppers had an arduous journey across Europe, having been constructed by Greenbriar in Poland. They will be entering service in the coming weeks.

Commenting on their arrival, GBRf Managing Director John Smith said: “These new hoppers represent GBRf’s continued commitment to excellent customer service, to increased investment in our business and to our continued support for UK plc. We will be able to run shorter, faster trains ensuring timely delivery and demonstrating again the vital role that rail freight plays in keeping the UK economy going.

“The sand we are delivering will all be used in the manufacturing of glass products. Keeping this off our roads and on the railways decreases congestion, helps tackle air quality issues and improves economic productivity. That is why GBRf is continuing to invest and grow as a business, and pushing to have rail freight’s role in delivering the UK economy recognised and expanded.”

Andrew Smith, Sibelco’s Network Logistics Manager, SW Europe, said: “We are delighted to see our new wagons arrive in UK. The rail service provided by GB Railfreight is an integral element in our supply of high purity Silica sand to the glass industry. The new wagons will enable us to continue providing our customers with a reliable, sustainable, environmentally-friendly service and avoid the need for many hundreds of lorry movements.”

The new fleet of 41 hoppers, which replaces the old 71 single-axle PAA wagons inherited at the start of the contract, can hold up to 70 tonnes each, meaning services can run shorter 14-wagon services and still deliver the same tonnage. Additionally, the wagons can travel at up to 75 mph when empty, meaning the Southbound 6L31 and 6L987 paths can be re-timed as class 4s.

The hoppers’ doors are also powered by air from the locomotive rather than from an external air supply via a lance, while the bogies are the track-friendlier T-25 varieties and will reduce track access costs.

ENDS

For further information, please contact:
Westbourne Communications
020 3397 0100
GBRF@westbournecoms.com

About GB Railfreight
Founded in 1999 and headquartered in London, United Kingdom, GB Railfreight is the third largest rail freight operator in the United Kingdom, with a turnover in excess of GBP 120m. GB Railfreight is one of the fastest growing companies in the railway sector and transports goods for a wide range of customers.

For further information, please visit www.gbrailfreight.com

GB Railfreight objects to additional network charges

GB Railfreight (GBRf) has responded to the Office of Rail and Road’s (ORR) consultation on charges to recover fixed network costs. In this response, GBRf has reiterated its commitment to defend its interests and the interests of its customers for the benefit of the sustainability of freight on rail.

Objecting strongly to the increase and introduction of charging on commodities such as ESI coal and biomass, GBRf’s response argues that any increase in rail costs will add to the overall increase in energy generation costs. This comes at a time when the government is giving serious focus to the cost of energy to the consumer, and would seemingly contradict their efforts to reduce this burden.

Speaking on the consultation’s key proposals, Duncan Clark, Strategic Development Director at GBRf said: “This consultation is an exercise in buck-passing, with the ORR determining that it is reasonable to pass network inefficiencies on to the rail freight sector in the form of increased or new charges. If fixed network costs were continuing to increase while industry authorities, particularly Network Rail, were becoming more efficient, we might consider an increase in charges as fair, however we do not see any evidence of this.

“The proposals in this consultation risk further undermining the profitability of the rail freight sector at a time when government says it is committed to improving air quality and economic productivity. Introducing measures that would see more freight move onto the road network, or demand reduce for commodities such as biomass as it becomes increasingly expensive to transport, conflicts with these aims and we hope that our response, as well as the responses of the wider rail freight sector, convinces the authorities to not introduce new charges.”

The response identifies four factors that the ORR and Network Rail should be considering if they are to be taken seriously in their desire to see a thriving rail freight sector:

1. Long-term charging certainty;
2. Sustainability of existing rail contracts based on the ability to guarantee access for freight to the network;
3. Potential for further rail freight growth by identifying latent network capacity;
4. Investment linked to incentives.

In their current forms, GBRf felt the ORR’s proposals showed a lack of understanding of freight and end user contracts and the ability of Freight Operating Companies to absorb any mark-up or pass-through. They also demonstrate that there is little evidence of a clear understanding of the actual costs of energy generation from biomass, and thus an inability to develop a fair and reasonable charging model. GBRf therefore feels there is diminishing confidence in the ability of ORR to accurately understand the profitability of rail freight haulage in the UK.

ENDS

The full consultation response can be found here.

For further information, please contact:
Westbourne Communications
020 3397 0100
GBRF@westbournecoms.com

About GB Railfreight
Founded in 1999 and headquartered in London, United Kingdom, GB Railfreight is the third largest rail freight operator in the United Kingdom, with a turnover in excess of GBP 120m. GB Railfreight is one of the fastest growing companies in the railway sector and transports goods for a wide range of customers.

For further information, please visit www.gbrailfreight.com

Brexit: a risk to Britain’s rail freight sector

It seems clear that any exit from the EU will lead to an economic recession. The only arguments appear to be around how deep and long this will be.

The last time GB Railfreight (GBRf) faced similar circumstances was back in 2008. At that time, we experienced a reduction in intermodal demand and watched from afar as aggregates traffic collapsed. Fortunately for us, we weren’t exposed to aggregates and had invested in coal. This proved to be a stroke of genius as coal became buoyant for a number of years. All of this was more luck than judgement and we consequently rode out the country’s severe economic downturn.

This time around, we won’t be as lucky.  We are surviving the coal downturn (which, incidentally, is due to much more draconian carbon emissions controls than are required by the EU) by growing in other markets, particularly passenger, aggregates and intermodal. All of these markets would be hit hard by a recession, leaving GBRf in very difficult waters.

It is also worth reflecting on a number of our commercial arrangements in the light of our EU membership. Many of our customers have strong links to the rest of Europe. Czech business, EPH, has bought Lynemouth Power; Aggregate Industries is owned by the French/German conglomerate LafargeHolcim; and EDF Energy is French-owned. The list goes on.

Most importantly, we buy our wagons in Romania and Poland. Our membership makes trade simple and quick. As we speak, I’m about to sign a letter of intent for 50 sand hoppers for Siniat, and there are no duties to pay, no taxes and no tariffs.

From a personal, more emotional standpoint, managing a business in a recession is never easy and will always have an effect on all our circumstances. I’m not an economist so I have no idea if all the above would have happened were we outside the EU. What I do know is that it HAS all happened whilst we have been members and that membership has been a huge help.

Secondly, it is clear that to leave will create a political and commercial vacuum. Businesses like EPH won’t be attracted to invest until they are clear of the rules. With all the political negotiations that will have to take place, it could take years to sort this out; years that will (in my opinion) see a long, hard recession that will negatively impact us all. One particular area of concern is our border with France and what this could mean for controls at Calais.

So overall, it’s very definitely IN from my perspective. The logic of leaping into the unknown is definitely not attractive. Whilst the EU is bureaucratic and on occasions frustrating, I see no reason to think this will change in isolation. What makes the EU work is not Brussels or Strasbourg, but businesses like our own doing deals across Europe day-in day-out, deals that are facilitated by our membership.

Safeguard capacity, not wires, in CP5

In response to the Government’s review of Network Rail and its CP5 programme, I wrote a letter to RAIL Magazine outlining my views. In short, we should not get too hung up about the cancellation of electrification programmes so long as they continue to invest in key capacity enhancements on the network. You can read the letter in full below.

It is capacity that is important, not wires above the tracks

Political, industry and media figures alike have voiced their concerns over the delayed electrification plans announced in the Transport Secretary’s speech to the Commons last week.

While I can see the benefits both the Midland Main Line (MML) and TransPennine electrification plans will bring to passenger and freight services, I think people are looking at this incorrectly.

If a delay to these electrification programmes is accompanied by continued investment in CP5 capacity enhancements – particularly on the MML – then I welcome the Government’s announcement. It is capacity that is important, not wires above the tracks.

There are CP5 projects still in place that will provide more extensive capacity improvements in the short-medium term. Two schemes that are particularly important are the four tracking from Kettering to Corby and from Bedford to just north of Kettering.

Take the line to the north of Bedford, for example. The combination of stopping and non-stopping
passenger services is a major constraint for freight paths. So is the mixture of four, three and two-track alignments. Four-tracking this route would tackle many of the bottlenecks along the line and cater for future freight and passenger growth. This is far more valuable in the short-term than overhead wires.

The Secretary of State has made it clear that further changes will be made to fundamental CP5 projects. As the incoming Sir Peter Hendy and Dame Colette Bow develop their proposals for better investment in and operations of the rail improvement programme, it is vital that capacity enhancements such as four-tracking plans are taken forward to safeguard freight services.

Another policy I would publically call for is a re-evaluation of timetabling for the MML, in order to free up more freight paths. In RAIL’s Issue I775, GBRf’s very own Phil Amos described the restrictions that exist on our services for Aggregate Industries. It needs to be recognised that industry markets fluctuate and timetabling must be regularly updated to reflect that.

With Network Rail due to report on CP5 projects in the autumn, let’s put electrification to one side and urge the infrastructure provider to safeguard these key capacity enhancement projects to cater for short-term freight and passenger growth.