Opinion
Delivering the goods
The principle got lost in the detail
I
n the September 2012 issue, FTA welcomed news of a planned land sale transfer from DB Schenker to Network Rail. We felt the changes would, in Network Rail’s words, ‘Right one of the great market imperfections since rail privatisation where rail freight terminal sites were effectively vested in the privatised incumbent freight train operating companies.’ Following consultation, Network Rail has decided not to proceed with the deal, losing out on what we feel was an excellent opportunity for the industry as a whole. DB Schenker and Freightliner currently hold on lease most rail freight terminal sites across the network. Given that the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has concerns over the potential negative competition effects of this, the news of a land sale transfer between DB Schenker as the biggest holder of these sites and Network Rail was very welcome. Network Rail’s proposed plans for management of the sites were designed to increase the ability of other operators to use them, thus helping network utilisation, freight train pathing, customer choice and on-rail competition.
The plan was for about 260 sites that are currently held by DB Schenker on 125-year leases to transfer to Network Rail, which would buy out the unexpired portion of the leases. The deal would have been self-financing to Network Rail as the rent roll would effectively pay for the cost of purchase. The sites concerned fitted into seven broad categories, and the plans for some of them were very interesting indeed in terms of freight network utilisation and enhanced competition. Network Rail received a number of responses to its consultation on the proposal. There was strong support from many consultees for the general principle of the acquisition, and it is clear that there is a desire to improve transparency on matters such as access to sites. Aspects of the proposal which attracted positive responses included: • the potential operational benefits (particularly those associated with the creation of additional network nodal yards)
• the opportunity to create an ownership structure which could improve clarity and availability of access opportunities for freight sites
• opportunities for investing rental income to enhance and develop freight schemes which could encourage freight growth.
Aspects of the consultation which consultees sought clarification on, or wished to consider or understand further, included: • whether separation of site ownership could affect rent and haulage rates
• more detail as to the extent of and nature of the sites being respectively acquired and retained by Network Rail and DB Schenker
• more certainty around both the terms on which sites would be retained and/or made available to other operators (in particular in relation to ‘use it or lose it’ clauses)
• the basis on which sites would be protected for freight or other railway use in the future.
Contention had
particularly surrounded the first group of sites, comprising end user sites where predominantly
aggregates companies sub-lease. With Network Rail taking these over it would have freed up the potential for other sub- tenants and for different rail freight hauliers to service the customers, as train operation and site ownership would be divorced. However, concern by existing aggregate tenants over the effect on haulage rates by this separation seems to have played higher than the effects of greater haulage choice.
The second group of sites also attracted contention in its plans, despite looking perhaps the most interesting. These were the network nodal yards at key locations around the network. The plan was for part of these to become effectively common use, with the double-ended reception sidings open to any train freight operating company. As this would allow for recessing trains, loco run-round moves, crew changes, fuelling etc, it would all have helped make more efficient use of the network and allowed for more efficient train pathing. A particular bugbear of newer entrant operators is that as they did not traditionally have access to these yards, pathing A to B train movements was harder. If they have access to a yard en route, pathing could actually be made easier in certain cases. So, this would have stimulated competition which is good for the end shipper. Contention about this group surrounded not the principle but the detail of the individual yard plans and what was reserved to Foc’s, what was open access, what was reserved for headroom growth etc. It seems that the principle got lost in the detail here.
Overall, this looks like an excellent opportunity lost!
Chris MacRae is rail freight policy manager at the Freight Transport Association. March 2013 Page 37
Chris MacRae says Network Rail’s decision not
to move forward with a planned land sale transfer from DB Schenker represents a lost opportunity for the rail freight industry
Network Rail’s Consultation Conclusion Statement said: ‘Having carefully considered and taken account of the responses, we have decided not to proceed with the proposal. ‘Nevertheless, we remain keen to continue to explore ways in which it may be possible to achieve the overarching objectives identified in our consultation document. We recognise the desirability of wider industry support should there be major structural changes required to achieve this. In the meantime, Network Rail will continue to support the development by the industry of code(s) of practice relating to freight site access/ leases, as identified in the Industry Action Plan consulted on by ORR following the findings of its Freight Sites market study.’
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116