Representation by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail Infrastructure Limited)
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Representation Withdrawn Please take this letter as our formal response to your letter sent on 2nd May 2023 concerning the Hinckley National Rail Freight Interchange Order. Principle For any new terminal proposal Network Rail, through its Licence Condition obligations, has a balancing duty of care to support the promoter’s development whilst at the same time ensuring that the proposed development does not compromise both Network Rail’s wider network stewardship obligations and the contractual rights of other users of the network. A technical evaluation of the proposals has been carried out, including assessing: a. Strategic fit b. the viability of connecting the terminal to the Network Rail network c. Affected level crossing assessments d. An assessment of indicative network capacity to support the proposed level of train movements. Some of the above is explored in more detail below. In terms of strategic demand, between 1994 and 2005 when the DfT first promoted development of the Strategic Freight Network, rail freight grew to 9.1% of all UK freight movements annually. Of this approximately 20% was intermodal traffic. Since commencement of the Strategic Freight Network programme in 2005 and 2021, intermodal rail freight has grown by 59% and is forecast to continue to grow through to the late 2040s. The Strategic Freight Network programme is intended to enhance the capability of key UK rail freight routes to support the movement of longer and heavier freight trains and supports Government freight mode shift objectives. For rail intermodal mode shift and growth forecasts to be achieved there needs to be investment in high quality inland terminals in key regional locations. Increasingly, private sector promoters are developing such terminals. The benefits of this investment are evidenced by accelerated levels of rail traffic growth to/from these terminals. The scheme also connects into the gauge cleared Strategic Freight Network cross country route from Felixstowe to the West Midlands and connections into the West Coast Main line at Nuneaton which has important connectivity benefits for the movement of deep-sea container traffic. Network Rail is therefore satisfied that, strategically, the Hinckley proposal, if consented, will support Government and rail industry targets for intermodal rail freight growth and delivering freight mode shift from road to rail. Having satisfied itself in a strategic context Network Rail has entered into a Basic Services Agreement with the promoter to support development of the rail works (excluding the internal rail terminal itself) in support of the promoter making an application via the NSIP process for a DCO to develop and build the terminal. This Agreement was entered into in December 2020. Detailed Site Issues As set out in our section 42 response dated 8th April 2023, there remain some issues on site that will need to be addressed. It is noted the proposal is to provide two 775m terminal sidings with a turnout at each end onto the main down line on the Leicester-Nuneaton route, along with associated trap points. This layout is considered to be acceptable and is standard for a freight terminal connection onto the network. Some earthworks are necessary to provide a level platform for the loading/unloading terminal because the existing main line lies on a rising gradient. As such the entry line to the terminal from the east end connection will be on a rising gradient as will the exit line between the terminal and the west end connection. As a consequence, there will be a need for earthworks on the Network Rail/ terminal boundary which will need to tie in with and not compromise the earthworks on the Leicester – Nuneaton line. The access will need to be fully signalled, with entry and exist signals and a protecting signal to guard against head on collisions for trains using the main-to-main crossovers. Signalling control for the connections will be undertaken from the signalling control centre at Derby and specifically the workstation responsible for all wider train movements on the Leicester – Nuneaton line. The scope of telecoms works related to the proposal include: i. Protection and diversion as necessary of existing lineside telecoms services and equipment. This will particularly apply at the two connection points but may include diversion and protection of services linked to earthworks and the works to reconstruct overbridge WNS 13. ii. Provision of Signal Post Telephones at all new/changed signals. iii. Provision of a telecoms/data link between the terminal operator and the Network Rail signaller. Passive provision for future electrification would also be sought. Although services to/from the terminal are expected to be diesel hauled at commencement, if the cross-country route were to be electrified there would be an expected transition for much if not all of the traffic to transition to electric haulage. Passive provision for the future electrification of the terminal has been incorporated in two ways: i. Provision of space on the terminal plateau for the future addition of reception lines. These become necessary under electrification to allow the electric locomotive to be detached and a diesel shunt locomotive to then perform the final positioning move of the wagons onto the gantry roads (for obvious reasons it is not possible to extend OLE onto the gantry roads as this would impede the safe positioning and removal of containers from the train). ii. Allowing appropriate space for the later addition of OLE structures and equipment. One over line structure, over bridge WNS13 Burbage Common Lane, is impacted by the proposals. The existing structure is a Network Rail owned three span masonry arch structure. The proposal requires reconstruction of this structure as part of the highway works associated with the development. The reconstruction works also require the structure to be widened to accommodate a bridleway alongside the railway. This will involve changes to the Network Rail boundary. Provision of a bridleway alongside the operational railway will require appropriate containment and screening provisions such that there can be no planned or unplanned incursion from the bridleway onto the operational railway by equestrian users and that the risk of horses being startled by a passing train is appropriately mitigated. Such screening should be the subject of approval by Network Rail via a bespoke addition to the protective provisions or via a requirement within the Order. A bridge agreement covering all matters pertaining to design, construction methodology, easements and future maintenance will need to be entered into following the grant of the Order. A number of level crossings are directly impacted by the proposal. These are crossings that either fall within the proposed red line boundaries for the Scheme or that are within the “blocking back” zones for a train waiting to enter the terminal. Works to these crossings must be included within the DCO. There are five level crossings directly affected. These are: The Outwoods NGR 444278/294186 ELR WNS 5 miles 213 yds Barwell NGR 445783/295246 ELR WNS 6 miles 469 yds Earl Shilton NGR 446057/295435 ELR WNS 6 miles 833 yds Elmesthorpe NGR 447128/295892 ELR WNS 7 miles 346 yds Thorneyfields Farm No 2 NGR 448103/295975 NGR WNS 7 miles 1402 yds Each crossing has been assessed for the change in risk profile as a result of the proposal. Three of the crossings need to close (Outwoods, Barwell and Earl Shilton), because the risk from increased activity because of the proposal cannot be reasonably alleviated. The preference for the other two (Elmesthorpe & Thorneyfields Farm No.2) is again closure, noting that the route of the diversions for both would be less than those proposed for Outwoods/Barwell & Earl Shilton. It is noted that the draft Order includes two options for the diversion route at Outwoods: (1) a ramped footbridge and (2) diversion of an existing public footpath. Given its urban location Network Rail considers that a footbridge is preferable to a diversion of over 1km via Atwell Close, though it would be expected that any bridge and surfacing would become the responsibility of the local highway authority; for Barwell and Earl Shilton the alternative access route would be over the re-constructed Burbage Common Road bridge; For Elmesthorpe the alternative access route would be over Station Road bridge and at Thorneyfields a diversion is proposed over Fields Farm railway bridge. In relation to the Elmesthorpe, it is noted that no alternative is proposed in Schedule Part 2. However, works number 22 refers to the closure of the Elmsesthorpe level crossing and the diversion of public footpath T89/1 to the extent shown on the plans. No diversion is shown on the plan so this may be a drafting error in respect of works number 22. Can you please clarify your intentions as regards this crossing? Network Rail support these diversions and the closure of the crossings as being the safest means of crossing the railway and in the wider interests of railway operation. If the promoter takes the view that closure is not appropriate then Network Rail expects any alternative solutions proposed by the promoter to be discussed with Network Rail, and the appropriateness of any alternative solutions will depend on the increase in risk at the relevant crossing. The DCO will need to make provision for the closure and diversion, or alteration, of these crossings accordingly. Other Related Network Issues The other main issue for the rail network relates to other level crossings outside the Order limits of the proposals. These crossings do not currently form part of the DCO but in certain circumstances the potential impact of the terminal traffic will warrant Network Rail seeking a contribution from the promoter to works to offset the impact of that traffic. Special circumstances also relate to Narborough level crossing. The particular sensitivities of this town centre located crossing are recognised and for this reason it has been considered separately. Network Rail has assessed 6 level crossings in this category (excluding Narborough) These are (west to east): which are anticipated to have closed at the point the proposals are constructed • Padge Hall Farm (Stretton Baskerville, Warwickshire NGR 440124/292533 ELR WNS 2 miles 532 yds) • Jericho (Hinckley, NGR 441802/293051-ELR WNS 3 miles 684 yds) • Holts (Potters Marston, NGR 449961/295736 – ELR WNS 8 miles 1703 yds) • Durhams (Cosby, NGR 453088/296692-ELR WNS 11 miles 116 yds) • Hinds (Whetstone, NGR 455364/297985- ELR WNS 12 miles 1204 yds) • Twittens (Glen Parva, NGR 457540/298424-ELR WNS 14 miles 120 yds) In the case of Padge Hall Farm and Jericho closure is being pursued by NR in any event because of the existing risk profile of the crossings. This is expected before the DCO Inquiry and thus the proposal should have no impact on the crossings which are anticipated to have closed at the point the proposals are constructed. For Holts crossing the provision of telephones with a proportionate contribution from the promoter is sought consequent on the uplift in risk as a result of the increase freight traffic. This should be secured via a S106 Agreement or alternative appropriate mechanism. For Durhams and Hinds crossings the preference is for closure but if that cannot be achieved, the provision of miniature warring lights and telephones may be a secondary alternative, again be secured via a S106 Agreement or alternative appropriate mechanism. For Twittens crossing Network Rail’s current position is that the risk profile at the crossing following opening of the terminal will be such that total closure is likely to be required. This could take the form of either closure and diversion via the nearby underpass or by means of a new bridge over the railway. Whilst the crossing does not need to be brought within the scope of the DCO, Network Rail and the promoter are in discussions to make arrangements to facilitate its closure within the Framework Agreement, however Network Rail fully reserves its position in this regard. Narborough Station level crossing has been considered separately because of the nature of the surrounding built up area, heavy usage (over 7,000 vehicles per day) and constrained highway features present. There is a history of blocking back over the crossing, which largely relates to the existing road layout and poor driver discipline. However, many of the issues relating to the crossing are pre-existing and the direct impact of the Scheme would be to increase the barrier down time by only another five minutes in the hour. Currently the barriers are down for between 17 and 19 minutes in the hour. This would be increased to a maximum of 24 minutes overall, well within the limits for a town centre level crossing down time of 40 minutes maximum. As such Network Rail is satisfied that the small increase in barrier down time will not impact significantly on the risk profile at the crossing as regards rail traffic and thus it is not considered the Terminal would trigger the need for further works at the crossing. We have specific comments on the actual wording of the DCO, which we set out below: (a) Network Rail has identified a number of level crossings outside the Order limits where measures are needed to mitigate the impacts arising from the proposed development. As detailed above, those mitigations need to secured by development consent obligation or other appropriate mechanism. Network Rail and the promoter are in ongoing discussions about these mechanisms. (b) Article 4 permits the authorised development to be carried out beyond the parameters shown on the plans where the relevant planning authority certifies that a deviation in excess of these limits would not be likely to give rise to any materially new or materially significant effects on the environment that have not been assessed in the environment statement. Network Rail's clearance will be based on the limits of development shown on the plans. (c) Any development beyond those limits would necessitate a further clearance. Network Rail therefore requires a contractual commitment that, notwithstanding any approval of the planning authority, no work beyond the Order limits will be carried out until further clearance approval has been obtained from Network Rail. (d) Article 38 permits Tritax to "operate and use the railway comprised in the authorised development and any other elements of the authorised development as a system, or part of a system, of transport for the carriage of goods". We asked that a new sub-clause is added as follows: "(2) Nothing in this Order, or in any enactment incorporated with or applied by this Order, prejudices or affects the operation of Part 1 (the provision of railway services) of the Railways Act 1993." This approach is consistent with The East Midlands Gateway Rail Freight Interchange and Highway Order 2016. (e) Article 44 sets out the governance of requirements and governance of protective provisions relating to highway works. The authorised works include, amongst other things, a new bridge over the railway. To the extent Network Rail must approve any of those details, they should be referenced in this article. Network Rail are happy to consider further drafting on this point as the position becomes more settled. (f) Schedule 2 Part 3, paragraph 3 – The timeframe given for the discharging authority to request further information is only 10 workings which is an unusually tight timeframe. Network Rail requests that this is amended to 20 working days in line with The Northampton Gateway Rail Freight Interchange Order 2019. (g) Schedule 14 Part 1 – The protective provisions in the draft DCO are inconsistent with Network Rail's standard form protective provisions. We enclose the standard form of protective provisions which Network Rail requires to be included within the DCO. Please note that these are secured by Article 43, not Article 47 as stated at the start of Schedule 14. 1.1.2 In carrying out our review we noted the following minor amendments are needed: (a) Schedule 2 Part 2, paragraph 4(2)(d) – After the words "paragraph (c)" insert "or such other timeframe specified by the Secretary of State". Please note that these observations represent Network Rail’s current position. We would hope that they can form the basis of further discussion between your client and Network Rail with the aim of establishing a mutually advantageous position leading to an agreed Statement Of Common Ground to table to the DCO Inquiry.