Jump to content

Leeds inland port


Ray T

Featured Posts

all well and good, but 99% of the goods will need to be transhipped to trucks to complete the delivery. 

hard to see much economic sense in centralising all the goods in a port area, taking into account that most of the goods are not intended for a location anywhere near the port.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murflynn said:

all well and good, but 99% of the goods will need to be transhipped to trucks to complete the delivery. 

hard to see much economic sense in centralising all the goods in a port area, taking into account that most of the goods are not intended for a location anywhere near the port.   

 

To add to this, most of the potential traffic will probably already be carried by rail so there is no removal of "thousands of lorry miles" as such schemes often claim.  Rail and canal will be competing for the same bulk traffic.  Road normally carries on unabated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

all well and good, but 99% of the goods will need to be transhipped to trucks to complete the delivery. 

hard to see much economic sense in centralising all the goods in a port area, taking into account that most of the goods are not intended for a location anywhere near the port.   

 

They're suggesting a single barge can shift the equivalent of 17 trucks. That's 17 less trucks off the road between the Humber and Leeds, and that's only one boat. Sure, more likely than not the goods will have to be moved on from there but 17 trucks off the 60 odd mile stretch is a great start and stick a few more barges and you're talking a considerable number of trucks off the M62. I think it's a great idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, furnessvale said:

To add to this, most of the potential traffic will probably already be carried by rail so there is no removal of "thousands of lorry miles" as such schemes often claim.  Rail and canal will be competing for the same bulk traffic.  Road normally carries on unabated.

Why will most of the potential traffic already be carried by rail rather than by road? I'm not disagreeing with you because I don't know but I'm assuming those that are proposing this plan have done their research and see value in it.

Edited by NB Caelmiri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on gentlemen, a bit of positivity, please. That "99% of the goods described will need to be transhipped to trucks to complete their journey" is probably true, but it is also deplorable. 

 

Elsewhere the outlook is different. The forthcoming Seine-Nord Canal will not only enable huge tonnages to be taken off European roads, it will attract industry to the waterway's edge - something that on the Aire & Calder has long ago been forgotten about.

 

To revive a previous post, I attach a picture of my (English) friend Leigh Wootton's barge on her way across northern France. She can carry 1,450 tonnes when she really tries, but is limited to 1,000 tonnes hereabouts because of the lack of depth. A new canal is being built alongside, however, for 2,500 tonne loads when it's finished. That's the way to save Planet Earth.

L'Auxerre.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NB Caelmiri said:

Why will most of the potential traffic already be carried by rail? I'm not disagreeing with you but I'm assuming those that are proposing this plan have done their research and see value in it.

I am just going on previous schemes where the target traffic has been bulk such as aggregates or oil.  Where a short haul of 60 miles or so is viable, rail is the normal carrier now.  If water feels it can break into more time sensitive container traffic over this distance where rail has failed to date, best of luck to them.

Edited by furnessvale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I am just going on previous schemes where the target traffic has been bulk such as aggregates.  Where a short haul of 60 miles or so is viable, rail is the normal carrier now.  If water feels it can break into more time sensitive container traffic over this distance where rail has failed to date, best of luck to them.

 

Its a year or two 'old', but relevant.

 

https://www.aina.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/strategy_for_freight-1.pdf

 

UK Government Policy
In A new deal for transport: better for everyone research indicates a potential to divert about 3.5% of the UK’s road freight traffic to water by the following means:
● ships re-routing to ports nearer to origin and destination

● bulk and unit loads shifting to coastal traffic

● greater use of the UK’s estuaries and inland waterway network.


The paper encourages greater use of inland waterways where there is a practical option and economic benefit. The rules of the Freight Facility Grant (FFG) regime are to be re-examined with a view to encouraging more applications for inland waterway projects. It is the Government’s intention to see the best use made of inland waterways for transporting freight and consequently to reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) on UK roads. Recognition is given to the fact that the inland waterways also have an important role to play in providing leisure and tourism opportunities and can provide a catalyst for urban regeneration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Its a year or two 'old', but relevant.

 

https://www.aina.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/strategy_for_freight-1.pdf

 

UK Government Policy
In A new deal for transport: better for everyone research indicates a potential to divert about 3.5% of the UK’s road freight traffic to water by the following means:
● ships re-routing to ports nearer to origin and destination

● bulk and unit loads shifting to coastal traffic

● greater use of the UK’s estuaries and inland waterway network.


The paper encourages greater use of inland waterways where there is a practical option and economic benefit. The rules of the Freight Facility Grant (FFG) regime are to be re-examined with a view to encouraging more applications for inland waterway projects. It is the Government’s intention to see the best use made of inland waterways for transporting freight and consequently to reduce the number of heavy goods vehicles (HGV’s) on UK roads. Recognition is given to the fact that the inland waterways also have an important role to play in providing leisure and tourism opportunities and can provide a catalyst for urban regeneration

It's a surprising fact that 15-20% of UK domestic freight currently moves by water.  Unlike the European mainland, which has large rivers connected by canals, the UK being an island has comparatively small rivers BUT we do have a coastline which we use.  The percentage moving using our coastline is approximately the same as that moved by inland waterways in Europe.

 

Governments and other organisations always use the argument that such schemes will remove HGVs from our roads but they invariably enter the marketplace in competition with the other bulk carrier, rail.  A recent example of this is Liverpool port who, in their expansion plans, glowingly claimed all those HGV miles being removed from our roads by importing containers via their port and sending them from there by road.  This conveniently omits the fact that most of those containers currently move from the ports in the south east by rail, in dozens of daily trains to a variety of depots, some of which are a lot closer to final destination than Liverpool.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of freight landed ar UK ports is taken first to an inland distribution point, where it is unloaded, stored and then reloaded to the end customer, partly to get freight off the port as fast as possible. This is often done by road, but if the distribution point is connected to the port by water, then this first leg inland can be done by barge without extra double-handling 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a decision is important to keep traffic on the Aire & Calder, especially as the infrastructure is in place.

 

There have been serious plans for the site since 2018, it seems. Placed near the M1 and M61, it should be a useful waterway/ road interchange.

 

 

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For this to have a chance carrying containers there would need to be quite a change at the container port. These are geared up for rapid transfer from ship to truck and all the infrastructure is in place for this. To load to barge the containers would need to be moved to a separate loading area first so these would have to be identified from the ship manifest as they are unloaded. The same would apply to any carried to the port from the depot in Leeds. This will need major haulage or shipping company on board. Aggregate is an historical cargo to Leeds as was oil.

in johns French example they outbound containers are taken to a holding area and not direct to the port, obviously the distances are greater and the number of truck journeys needed to move the amount of containers this barge carry’s makes water transport a no brainer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A song for Leeds City Council:

 

Oh dear! Oh dear! his a curious age is,
Alteration all the rage is,
Young and old in the stream are moving,
All in the general cry improving,
From the Exhibition I've brought news down,
They're going to make it a seaport town,
Instead of factories and cheap tailors
Nothing you'll see but ships and sailors.

Chorus:
Thus 'twill be I'll bet you a crown,
When Leeds becomes sea-port town.

When the first ship appears in sight,
The town will be all joy and delight;
Eating, drinking, dancing, singing,
The old church spire will shake with ringing,
Then we shall meet with touts and prigs sirs,
Aldermen too in their gowns and wigs sirs,
The heads of the town with all their forces,
And the -- new Mayor they'll draw with horses.............

Edited by Ray T
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/11/2019 at 20:14, Murflynn said:

all well and good, but 99% of the goods will need to be transhipped to trucks to complete the delivery. 

hard to see much economic sense in centralising all the goods in a port area, taking into account that most of the goods are not intended for a location anywhere near the port.   

 

Apologies for delayed response and for needing to respect commercial confidentiality. 

It's intended to establish a readymix concrete plant on site which will take a substantial proportion of the initial tonnage (aggregate).  Some may be taken out of the gate to other local receivers.  There is a huge (and growing) demand for aggregate in central Leeds!  Other targeted markets are very close - e.g. a steel receiver within half a mile.  The inland port will not only receive and distribute goods but actually provide storage so that cargo can be quickly and conveniently delivered to customers off stockpile without the need to send lorries all the way to the Humber Ports.  Utilising the waterway reduces congestion (which is severe) in Hull docks and the roads out of Hull, and also parts of the M62/M1/M621 as well as reducing pollution.

David L

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/11/2019 at 21:53, furnessvale said:

To add to this, most of the potential traffic will probably already be carried by rail so there is no removal of "thousands of lorry miles" as such schemes often claim.  Rail and canal will be competing for the same bulk traffic.  Road normally carries on unabated.

None of the potential traffic (e.g. marine aggregate, steel section, timber) is carried by rail nor is it likely to be.  There are few paths available between Hull/Immingham and Leeds.  The only regular rail freight flow on this route is stone from Skipton (Rylestone) to Hull, Dairycoates.  There is some biomass rail traffic ex Hull but that's not going to transfer to waterway. There is also some limited rail traffic from Goole (steel to Rotherham) so not relevant to Leeds Inland Port.

A substantial traffic is expected to be marine aggregate which is landed in Albert Dock and can quickly and easily be loaded direct to barge from stockpile.  To take it away by rail it would need to be road hauled (expense) via a weighbridge (expense) to KGV dock rail terminal  then by rail into Leeds.  If a terminal would accept it there it would need road hauling back round to the plant on the wharf (which would make no sense and not be permitted by planners anyway).  It could, arguably, be road hauled to other receivers but the extra handling in Hull makes it a non starter in terms of cost. 

WYCA funding (and indeed CRT funding)  was conditional on an independent business case being provided by a very respected road, rail, and shipping consultancy, and this found in favour.

David L

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/11/2019 at 23:03, NB Caelmiri said:

They're suggesting a single barge can shift the equivalent of 17 trucks. That's 17 less trucks off the road between the Humber and Leeds, and that's only one boat. Sure, more likely than not the goods will have to be moved on from there but 17 trucks off the 60 odd mile stretch is a great start and stick a few more barges and you're talking a considerable number of trucks off the M62. I think it's a great idea.

It could be slightly better than 17 as the average HGV  carries 25 tonnes (29 tonne is the max payload of an artic) so a 600 tonne barge (currently the limit to Leeds) could equal 24 lorries.  With Bulholme slightly widened (being measured and checked out during the current stoppage) at the lower end and a bit of work at Castleford the additional beam and length then available  could increase payload to 650 tonnes or so and make containers viable (two abreast).  To make containers work an innovative design of barge will be needed to get under the lowest of the bridges (and/or possibly the lowest might need raising). 

Regards

 

David L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2019 at 20:18, Dav and Pen said:

For this to have a chance carrying containers there would need to be quite a change at the container port. These are geared up for rapid transfer from ship to truck and all the infrastructure is in place for this. To load to barge the containers would need to be moved to a separate loading area first so these would have to be identified from the ship manifest as they are unloaded. The same would apply to any carried to the port from the depot in Leeds. This will need major haulage or shipping company on board. Aggregate is an historical cargo to Leeds as was oil.

in johns French example they outbound containers are taken to a holding area and not direct to the port, obviously the distances are greater and the number of truck journeys needed to move the amount of containers this barge carry’s makes water transport a no brainer

The container lines and port operator are keen to see this happen in the Humber ports.  There is a very useful flow of boxes to and from Leeds (loaded both ways) which would be perfect as the receiver is close to Stourton.   There is also some prospect of half height boxes (for another customer) which removes the height problem if empty. But containers are a bit in the future.

David L

 

David L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2019 at 09:50, furnessvale said:

 

 

Governments and other organisations always use the argument that such schemes will remove HGVs from our roads but they invariably enter the marketplace in competition with the other bulk carrier, rail.  A recent example of this is Liverpool port who, in their expansion plans, glowingly claimed all those HGV miles being removed from our roads by importing containers via their port and sending them from there by road.  This conveniently omits the fact that most of those containers currently move from the ports in the south east by rail, in dozens of daily trains to a variety of depots, some of which are a lot closer to final destination than Liverpool.

 

 

This is interesting.  I've asked a colleague who specialises in the movement of containers and has just completed a study of this very subject.  Not all containers moving north use rail (rail moves about 25% of the total containers in the UK)  Although the doubling of the line into Felixstowe has helped there is finite capacity for rail freight in the south (Ely is still a bottleneck for example).  Liverpool is up to 100 km  closer to many of the inland destinations served and that reduces the road or rail haul. Many of the containers move out of Liverpool by rail in any case, and  some go by  water up to to Trafford Park/Irlam.    So on balance it's seen as better use of transport resources (and cheaper overall)   to ship to Liverpool for northern destinations, though getting rail paths through platforms 13/14 at Picaddilly is also a challenge! 

 

regards

 

David L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/11/2019 at 20:23, Ray T said:

A song for Leeds City Council:

 

Oh dear! Oh dear! his a curious age is,
Alteration all the rage is,
Young and old in the stream are moving,
All in the general cry improving,
From the Exhibition I've brought news down,
They're going to make it a seaport town,
Instead of factories and cheap tailors
Nothing you'll see but ships and sailors.

Chorus:
Thus 'twill be I'll bet you a crown,
When Leeds becomes sea-port town.

When the first ship appears in sight,
The town will be all joy and delight;
Eating, drinking, dancing, singing,
The old church spire will shake with ringing,
Then we shall meet with touts and prigs sirs,
Aldermen too in their gowns and wigs sirs,
The heads of the town with all their forces,
And the -- new Mayor they'll draw with horses.............

Coasting vessels did reach Leeds, as seen here, and the railway swing bridge at Thwaite Gate, photo by Geoff Wheat in 1969, was built when the navigation was being proposed for conversion to a ship canal.

Steamer:mission, Leed.jpg

1969 Thwaite Gate 055.jpg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.