rail connectivity to the feasibility and demand study documents/canada dock rail... · rail...

Rail Connectivity to the Canada Dock Area.

Feasibility and Demand Study

A study for Merseytravel by MDS Transmodal

with GHD, JLL & Gleeds

Final Report

April 2015

Ref: 215013r11

© MDS TRANSMODAL LIMITED 2015 The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of MDS Transmodal

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3

2. HISTORY AND PROSPECTS ..................................................................................................... 4

3. THE CANADA DOCKS BRANCH ITSELF ..................................................................................... 9

4. INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS AVAILABLE ............................................................................... 11

5. POTENTIAL TRAIN MOVEMENT SCHEDULES ......................................................................... 14

6. LONGER TERM ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................ 19

7. CONNECTIONS TO NETWORK RAIL AND MODE OF OPERATION ............................................ 20

8. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS .......................................................................................... 26

9. LAND ASSEMBLY ................................................................................................................. 27

10. OPERATIONAL COSTS .......................................................................................................... 29

11. OTHER COSTS AND BENEFITS............................................................................................... 31

12. OVERALL COMPARISON ...................................................................................................... 32

13. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................ 33

APPENDIX 1: INFRASTRUCTURE LAYOUT DRAWING ................................................................... 37

APPENDIX 2: POTENTIAL TRAIN MOVEMENT SCHEDULE TIMINGS ............................................... 38

APPENDIX 3: CAPACITY CONTRIBUTION OF B1/B2 INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................... 43

APPENDIX 4: HGV DELAY DUE TO PASSING TRAINS .................................................................... 46

APPENDIX 5: CAPITAL COSTS ..................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX 6: LAND ASSEMBLY PLANS ........................................................................................ 58

APPENDIX 7: JOB SPECIFICATION ............................................................................................... 62

Rail Connectivity to the Canada Dock Area. Feasibility and Demand Study Page 1

30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Peel Ports aspires to significantly increase rail freight traffic to and from the Port of Liverpool over

the coming years – increasing from today’s daily 9-12 departures (with 9-12 arrivals) to 38 daily

departures (with 38 arrivals). This would include rail-connecting the Canada Dock and the southern

zone of the port, which currently has no rail connection. We estimate that the rail freight potential

for the Canada Dock area is likely to be around 3 trains departing per day (with 3 arrivals).

Historically the Canada Dock branch line directly linked the wider rail network (via the Bootle Branch

line) to the Canada Dock area with a terminal to the East of Regent Road. See Figure 1. This disused

route includes a tunnel and 2 disused road bridges.

It has been suggested that rail-connecting the Canada Dock area may be best achieved by re-

instating the Canada Dock branch line, either with a terminal to the East of Regent Road (as

previously existed), or by curving to the North and running to the west of Regent Road in order to

accommodate modern-length trains (A in figure 1).

An alternative approach to rail-connecting the Canada Dock area is to build tracks from the existing

reception sidings in the Alexandra Dock area, to the south – also using a route to the west of Regent

Road (B in figure 1).

If this re-instated Canada Dock branch line route is not required, the land associated with it can be

released for other uses.

There is also the option to not build any new infrastructure in the Canada Dock area. In order to

cater for rail traffic, cargo could be transported within the port by rubber-tyred (road) vehicles

between an existing or new rail terminal in the Alexandra Dock area, and the Canada Dock area.

For each option we have produced high level estimates for construction, land assembly and

operational costs, impacts on other port users (e.g. blocked roads and gates as trains pass) and have

considered other impacts including traffic, environmental, local economy, to arrive at an overall Net

Present Value (NPV) for each option (using the DfT WebTAG’s suggested 60 year appraisal period

and 3.5% discount rate for public sector projects).

Cost comparison for options A3, B2 and C. £ million in NPV

Cost component A B C

Construction 22.7 10.8 -

Land values 8.6 - -

HGV delay cost (road access blocking) (NPV) 2.1 0.2 -

Operational costs (NPV) 6.4 6.4 50.5

Total (NPV) 39.7 17.3 50.5


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

A: Re-instating the Canada Dock branch line, curving to the North and running to the west

of Regent Road. Note that the option of terminating directly to the East of Regent Road is

discarded because the allowable train lengths would be too short.

B: Build tracks south from the existing Alexandra Dock rail freight sidings

C: Build no new infrastructure in the Canada Dock area and rely on within-port road

shuttling of cargo between the Canada Dock area and a rail terminal in the Alexandra Dock

area to cater for rail freight potential.

If the Canada Dock area is to be rail-connected, approaching from the existing sidings in the

Alexandra Dock area (B) is therefore a much cheaper option than re-instating the Canada Dock

branch (A).

Re-instating the Canada Dock branch is therefore not required, and the land it would require east of

Regent Road (which includes land in the ownership of HCA) can be released for other non-rail uses

without fear of compromising the future rail potential of Liverpool port.

The Canada Dock area should instead be reconnected from the existing rail facilities in the Alexandra

Dock area once Canada Dock rail freight potential approaches around 2 trains (into the port and

then departing) per day. To offer rail capability to the southern docks zone in the short term, rail

terminal capacity could be made available to all users (open access) to allow potential rail freight in

the Canada Dock area to use rail with a short within-port road journey.

We have assumed that the section of Regent Road affected by the new rail route would become

unadopted, and become part of the port estate. Regent Road remaining public while building a

railway in its western margin such that there would be train, HGV, pedestrian, car and bicycle

movements along the same route would present increased safety, construction and operational

costs. The case for rail-connecting the Canada Dock area is much harder to make if Regent Road

does not become part of the port estate.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

1. INTRODUCTION

Rail access to Liverpool Docks is now limited to the Bootle branch line, connecting the mainline at

Edge Hill with the docks adjacent to Alexandra Docks. However, in the past, Liverpool North Docks

was also connected to the mainline via branches from Canada Dock and Princes Dock (further south)

while the whole length of the North Docks was connected by a railway that ran the length of Regent

Road. Peel Ports’ plans for the Docks1 assume a substantial increase in the volume to be carried by

rail. City region stakeholders and local communities are also expressing a desire to see modal shift

from road to rail. Given these aspirations, the issue has arisen as to whether the access from Canada

Dock should be at least protected from development that would prevent its reopening.

The Canada Dock branch line is, in this context, defined as the length of railway line between

Kirkdale and the route of the dock railway that used to run the length of the Liverpool North Docks.

It was abandoned many years ago. Part of the route now lies under a deep layer of fill, the

remainder being in tunnel or as part of a brownfield site that is currently the subject of a land

transaction. Various interested parties need to establish whether there is (or could be) a case for re-

establishing this route.

Our method to assess the case for protecting the route and described in this report has been to:

1. Forecast future potential demand for rail freight to/from the southern port zone

2. Consider infrastructure options for rail-connecting the Canada Dock area (the southern

zone)

3. Estimate construction and operational costs of each of a number of options

4. Include impacts on other port users (e.g. blocked roads and gates as trains pass)

5. Consider other impacts (traffic, environmental, local economy)

6. Compare overall costs of each option

7. Conclude whether there are any realistic circumstances whereby reinstating the Canada

Dock branch might be the best option

Our conclusions take into account as to whether reopening the Canada Dock branch would impact

on Peel Ports’ ability to reach its targets for rail volumes.

1 Mersey Ports Master Plan


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

2. HISTORY AND PROSPECTS

Figure 1 describes the geography of the area. The line leading to the Canada Dock branch line (A)

was built from Tuebrook on the Liverpool – Manchester railway in 1861 and connected the Liverpool

North Docks with the mainline system, supplementing the line that already linked Edge Hill with

Princes Dock (south of the map). 20 years later, an extension of this line was made from Kirkdale to

reach Alexandra Dock (B) in Bootle following a shallower gradient and it is this link that continues to

be used. The Princes Dock branch closed in the early 1970s. The Canada Dock branch line (A) closed

in 1982. All three branches had direct links with a dock railway that ran the length of the North

Docks until around 40 – 50 years ago.

The current facilities in the Alexandra, Gladstone and Seaforth Docks areas cater for coal, biomass,

steel and scrap metal trains. They can also cater for container trains although there are currently no

services.

On weekdays, there are typically 9-12 departures from Liverpool port. These are typically:

5-6 coal trains to Fiddlers Ferry or Ratcliffe power stations

4-5 biomass trains to Ironbridge

a weekly steel train from Sheffield

an occasional scrap metal train.

The present double track Bootle branch line itself is capable of handling 2 trains per hour per

direction, has a W10 loading gauge (capable of handling standard 9’6” high ISO containers on metre

high (standard) wagons) and RA10 axle weight standards (the heaviest available). A Chord (Olive

Mount chord) was replaced some years ago so that trains can now move directly eastwards onto the

mainline towards Earlestown. There is currently a capacity to forward 2 freight trains per hour per

direction along the mainline and there is a reasonable expectation this will be protected after

passenger service frequencies rise once the current electrification and Northern Hub schemes are

completed. Network Rail’s long-term plans (as stated in their Freight Market Study2) are to cater for

approximately 30 train paths per day per direction to and from the port, and they are aware of

Peel’s aspirations for 38 trains per day per direction. When it becomes clearer in the future that

Peel’s aspirations are approaching fruition, Network Rail are likely to adjust their plans to cater for

this demand. See section 7.7 for more detail on capacity. We therefore believe that the rail network

should be able to accommodate the Port’s long term forecasts of being able to generate up to 38

trains per day per direction.

These 38 daily train departures reflect the long term rail freight potential of the port of Liverpool as

a whole. This potential was forecast in a separate report for Peel Ports. There is an implicit

2 www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/planning-policies-and-plans/long-term-planning-process/market-studies/freight/


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

assumption that additional rail infrastructure would be required within the port estate to cater for

this level of traffic. These 38 daily train departures include realising the rail potential of the Canada

Dock and southern zone area (south of Alexandra Dock), along with the additional infrastructure

required.

Bankhall St

Bankh

all Ln

Sta

nle

y R

d

Bankfield St

Derb

y Rd

Regent R

d

Miller's Bridge Rd

Kirkdale

Bank Hall

A

B

Gladstone Dock

Canada Dock

Langton Dock

Alexandra Dock

Figure 1: Map describing the

geography of the area

B1 / B

2: N

ew sid

ings w

ith cro

ssover at m

id-p

oin

t

A2/A

3:S

outh

sdgs

A2/A

3:N

orth

sdgs

Disused rail terminal

Canada Dockbranch

l ine

Boot l e Branchl ine

Coal &biomass

To Seaforth andLiverpool 2

Scrap terminal

EMR - scrap

Cargill

SeatruckRoro ferry

New SteelTerminal

Leeds - Liverp

ool C

anal

Disuse

d rail

tunnel

Existing freight railway

Rail A1

Rail A2/A3

Rail B1/B2

Rail Both A2/A3 & B1/B2

New Level Crossing

A roads

N

0 500 m


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

The Port’s expectation is that this cargo will be made up of biomass, coal and container trains plus a

handful of scrap, steel and automotive trains. Two of the key drivers of this growth are due to two

major investments.

These are:

The Liverpool2 (L2) container terminal, which will be able to accommodate the highest

capacity container vessels in the world (not necessarily at full draft) and raise port volumes

to around 1.3m containers per annum. Because the Port’s ‘reach’ is expected to be national

and not just regional, some 15% of throughput can be expected to be by rail (around

200,000 units per annum) which corresponds to some 15 trains per day per direction.

A large biomass terminal whose throughput will be entirely by rail to power stations

(approximately 12 departing trains per day, matched by empty return trains).

In addition we expect:

residual coal traffic, unlikely to be run-down until around 2024, but (say) 3 departing trains

per day in the long term, (matched by empty return trains).

Steel trains (1 per day departing) via a new steel terminal in Canada Dock, replacing one

located at Gladstone Dock.

Scrap trains carrying 15 – 20% of the Port’s anticipated throughput of 2.5 – 3m tonnes per

annum (2 – 3 trains per day arriving (with the empty return trains departing)).

All these trains will pass as far east as Earlestown. Beyond Earlestown, some will go north and some

south along the West Coast Main Line and some will continue eastwards into Yorkshire.

Most of this potential rail traffic passes through Alexandra Dock and docks further north, and this

will remain the case. However the steel terminal is relocating to the Canada Dock area, with

potential for 1 train departing per day. Large volumes of scrap metal traffic are processed in the

Canada Dock area too (700,000 tonnes in 20143). If we assume that in future around half the scrap

will pass through docks south of Alexandra Dock then that reflects up to 2 scrap trains per day per

direction.

In addition, long term redevelopment of the land between Regent Road and Derby Road as a port

linked distribution park can be expected to eventually accommodate around 150,000m2 of buildings

(say 200,000 pallet capacity). If devoted entirely to maritime traffic that would generate around

100,000 container arrivals per annum and, if sharing the same 15% rail share as for the container

terminal, this traffic could generate another 2 train loads per day per direction of containers.

3 Source: Peel


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

This distribution park traffic could either be loaded locally onto trains at a small intermodal terminal

in the Canada Dock area, or could be moved by rubber-tyred vehicles to the intermodal terminal at

Seaforth.

For the purposes of designing rail layouts, we have assumed that any rail traffic generated by a

distribution park between Regent Road and Derby Road would travel by rubber-tyred vehicle to the

terminal at Seaforth to be loaded to a train because, overall, we expect this to be the cheaper and

least disruptive option. Our rail layouts for the Canada Dock area therefore do not include an

intermodal terminal. However if a small local intermodal terminal was required for a particular

warehouse occupier, the designs for the main options could be added to in order to incorporate

such a terminal.

There may also be automotive trains in the future if the Port’s target to attract car traffic succeeds,

although we have not included these in the Canada Dock rail freight potential.

Taken together, we therefore estimate that the section of port south of Alexandra Docks has the

potential to generate demand for around 3 trains per day per direction. Two or three local terminals

would be required: one for scrap, one for steel (tracks running into a shed) and potentially one small

intermodal terminal.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

3. THE CANADA DOCKS BRANCH ITSELF

In the event of it being reopened, the junction with the ‘Bootle’ branch at Kirkdale (Atlantic Dock

junction) would need to be re-created and the track re-laid along a tunnel of around 400 metres that

appears to drop around 8 metres (approximate gradient 1:60) before passing under the Leeds –

Liverpool canal and emerging through a portal at the level of Regent Road that is currently beneath

around 5m depth of fill, running to the south of Bankhall Street. That fill is continuous between the

Canal and the site of the old rail freight terminal east of Regent Road and entirely encloses the

bridge arches that carried both Bankhall Lane and Derby Road over the railway. Whether these

bridges would retain their integrity if the fill was removed is unknown, as is the state of the tunnel.

The length of level railway formation between the canal and Regent Road is limited to around 400m.

Once length is allowed for switches to create a number of reception loops, no more than 300 metres

of train length could be accommodated. Trains of this short length are costly to operate per tonne

of cargo moved and are generally not viable. As a result we have not given any further consideration

to a rail freight terminus east of Regent Road. This discounted option is referred to as option A1 in

Merseytravel’s Specification.

However it would be possible to receive trains of a competitive length if the rebuilt route crossed

Regent Road and trains were brought to a halt parallel to (alongside) Regent Road. Given that cargo

generating sites will be generally north of this crossing, the curve also would face northwards. To be

able to operate long trains under modern conditions, a curve of 200 metres radius would be

expected, requiring as a result a substantial area of land. In the event of electrification of the wider

network this would imply that such overhead electrification would need to extend across Regent

Road.

The current connection to the Docks at Alexandra Dock involves the railway crossing Regent Road

immediately beyond the point of transfer between Network Rail and Peel Ports. There is no longer a

level crossing; the railway simply severs the roadway, which already limits free circulation even

though the roadway is no longer adopted highway4.

While a rail crossing of Regent Road in the Canada Dock area could be organised as a level crossing

across an adopted road, the required curvature is such that Bankfield Street would also have to be

crossed, making a highly complex arrangement. Network Rail believes the Office of Rail and Road

(ORR) may take issue with the introduction of new level crossings on the public highway, whether or

not the rail infrastructure was privately (Peel) or publicly (Network Rail) owned. It is therefore

difficult to envisage such an arrangement without closing Regent Road and Bankfield Street to public

4 The intention is to re-instate this level crossing. This would be in conjunction with the planned dualling of

this part of the branch line. The level crossing would serve part of the LIFT Zone (port-centric warehousing). One of the units on the other side of the level crossing is currently being built.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

traffic. It is Peel Port’s aspiration under its Master Plan that Regent Road is absorbed within the

Dock Estate to better serve the re-development of the Regent Road – Derby Road corridor as an

employment site for distribution (150,000m2 of distribution sheds would be expected to employ

around 1,500 people). In that event there would be no need for a level crossing because both

Bankfield Street and Regent Road could be closed at this point and road access to the port area

north of Bankfield Street would be via Millers Bridge Road.

For trains entering the Port through a re-instated Canada Dock branch line, the operational

connection between Network Rail’s network and that of Peel Ports could be at the Regent Road end

of the route because the length of the branch (approximately 700m from the connection to the

Bootle branch at Kirkdale and the level crossing over Bankfield Street) exceeds the length of the

trains likely to be serving the Canada Dock area. The rear of an arriving train brought to a halt at a

level crossing across Bankfield Street would be clear of the junction with the Bootle branch.

However for departing trains, as we shall discuss in section 5, a train held on tracks alongside Regent

Road awaiting release onto the Network Rail network will block several road accesses into the Docks

which would be unacceptable. It would be essential that the Port is able to forward a complete train

through the Regent Road and Bankfield Street level crossings onto the branch line towards Kirkdale

at a time of its choosing. This means the branch between Bankfield Street level crossing and

Kirkdale must be under the Port’s control and the connection agreement between Peel ports and

Network Rail must be adjacent to the junction with the existing Bootle branch near Kirkdale station.

While it would be possible for Regent Road to remain a public road and for there to be level crossing

arrangements that are acceptable for ‘uncontrolled’ public access and for the crossing to be

operated by Peel Ports, such an arrangement would be most unusual. This is particularly the case

because the crossing would have to cater for several different vehicle manoeuvres (Regent Road

North to Regent Road South, Regent Road South to Bankfield Street and Regent Road North to

Bankfield Street and the reverse).


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

4. INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS AVAILABLE

The infrastructure options to provide rail connectivity to the Canada Dock area that we have

considered are:

A1: Re-open the Canada Dock branch with a direct route towards Regent Road, terminating east

of Regent Road. This would require restoring the tunnel and rebuilding (or restoring) 2 road-

over-rail bridges (Bankhall Lane and Derby Road).

A2/A3: As A1 but instead of terminating east of Regent Road, build a 200m radius north-facing curve

crossing Bankfield Street and Regent Road towards Miller’s Bridge Road (with tracks

terminating some 900 – 1000 metres to the north near Miller’s Bridge Road, which is a train

length plus switches allowing train splitting and locomotive return). A short headshunt

south of Canada Dock would allow a new scrap terminal to be served. This option is later

referred to as option A2 or A3 depending on the land ownership of Regent Road.

B1/B2: Instead of reopening Canada Dock Branch, replace the Dock railway alignment from

reception tracks at Alexandra Dock for some 1500 metres southwards to Canada Dock. This

would follow the same alignment as for A2/A3 above along Regent Road plus an additional

400 metres of track between Miller’s Bridge road and the current rail crossing of Regent

Road. This option is later referred to as option B1 or B2 depending on the land ownership of

Regent Road.

C: Do nothing. This option is most simply interpreted as assuming all traffic to/from the

Canada Dock area goes by road. However it would still be possible for traffic suitable for rail

in the Canada Dock area to travel by rail, if it first travelled by road to an existing or adapted

rail terminal in the Alexandra / Gladstone Dock area.

For options A2 and B1, Regent Road is retained as a public road. For A3 and B2, the Regent Road

area becomes part of the port estate, as per Peel’s aspirations in their port Master Plan.

Fuller details of all the options are given in the job specification: Appendix 7 to this report.

Sketches for the A and B options are described in figure 1.We have produced potential track layout

designs reflecting these options. These are shown in Appendix 1.

In order to produce these designs, we have considered (A2/A3) and (B1/B2) in turn from an

operational perspective in order to cater for the likely demand (up to a total of 3 scrap and steel

trains arriving and then departing each day). These potential train movement schedules are

described in section 5.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

In options B1/B2, it is assumed that the existing rail route into Alexandra Docks is used. This would

use up capacity in the area. In a future scenario with a significantly larger number of trains, using

this capacity for Canada Dock trains could be to the detriment of other trains. The A2/A3 option has

no such detrimental impact on other rail freight traffic in the Alexandra Dock area.

Therefore, in order to make a fair comparison between A2/A3 and B1/B2, for the B1/B2 option we

need to include some infrastructure enhancement in the Alexandra Dock area that will reflect the

capacity usage of the Canada Dock trains.

We believe that a fair contribution to address that additional demand would be to build an extra

reception track alongside the existing route to Seaforth (to the east of the coal terminal), with a

crossover at the mid-point onto the existing route to Seaforth. This can be seen in the track layout

design (Appendix 1) (“B1/B2: New siding – with crossover at mid-point”). Our calculation is that the

capacity contributed by this option is broadly equivalent to the capacity used (shown in Appendix 3).

However we have also considered a more generous infrastructure contribution to the Alexandra

Dock rail network which contributes more capacity than the Canada Dock trains would use. This

involves:

Double-tracking the route from the Bootle branch into the Alexandra Dock area (as per

Peel’s existing plans)

Continuing this extra track northwards to become a dedicated route to Seaforth which

would never be blocked by the marshalling of the Canada Dock trains.

This more generous infrastructure enhancement is drawn in the layout designs (Appendix 1) and has

been costed as a worst-case infrastructure-cost scenario.

The future daily rail freight potential for the Port of 38 trains arriving (and 38 departing) implies that

the present double track Bootle branch needs in any case to be extended into the Alexandra Dock

area so that trains can depart the Docks independently from trains arriving. There would be no need

to create an active level crossing at this point but to instead use the width of Regent Road at that

point for extra reception tracks. In the long run, these could be electrified as no cargo handling will

take place near them and they could even be fenced (see long term plans for freight electrification

to Liverpool2 in ‘Northern Sparks’, Rail North, March 2015).

However, this arrangement would still require an internal level crossing if road vehicles are to pass

southwards along the dock road that is not currently in position. This could be provided by retaining

an internal road connection west of the steam pipeline and creating an inland level crossing at a

skew across a new single railway line immediately south of the present crossing of Regent Road by

passing under the steam pipeline within the dock estate. This will mean that the level crossing is


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

only used by relatively infrequent short trains that could be conducted entirely by a Port operated

shunting locomotive. This would be far easier to manage than one where full length trains are

received from the Network Rail network over ‘public’ roads. This solution would not itself require

the transfer of the full width (see below) of any current public road.

Whichever option is selected, however, because there is existing plant adjacent to the current Port

boundary (covering some of the width once occupied by the dock railway), the most sensible

approach may be to reduce the current width of Regent Road so that a single track railway

supplemented by loops can be laid, along what is presently public highway, alongside the current

Port boundary. This would not affect the functionality of the road but would require fencing if public

access to the highway is to be retained.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

5. POTENTIAL TRAIN MOVEMENT SCHEDULES

Modern freight trains within the Docks are limited to a trailing weight of around 2,000 tonnes and to

a length of around 600 metres. Weight constrained trains (scrap, coal, steel etc.) will be limited to a

length of around 500 metres. If bulk trains much longer than 500 metres were used, they would be

very heavy and would need to be hauled by more powerful (non-typical) locomotives. These

powerful locos would be required to ensure that the train could accelerate fast enough to minimise

the extent to which they obstruct other faster trains on the wider network.

Trains will enter and leave the Network Rail network complete but can be subdivided once within

reception sidings. With the exception of the track that serves the coal terminal (and the biomass

terminal that will be adjacent) none of the terminals within the Docks can be expected to handle

unbroken trains, either because the individual sites within the Docks are too small or because

holding long trains would block roadways essential to the circulation of Docks traffic.

Reception tracks have to be more or less flat because wagons will not be attached to manned

locomotives at all times.

We have assumed trains of up to 510 metres trailing length + 25m for the locomotive, so that these

can be split into 3 x 170 metre wagon lengths (front, middle and rear train-thirds). Such 170 metre

long portions of train are typical for steel and scrap terminals. They are not too long so as to require

too large a terminal area and they are not too short so that they require excessive shunting

movements to process a full train.

In each infrastructure option (A2/A3) and (B1/B2), we propose a train movement approach whereby

port terminals are only briefly obstructed by trains and at no time are blocked by a train for more

than a few minutes where possible. Apart from (A2/A3) arrival and departure, to minimise the time

the various road access points are closed, all movements across the road access points to port areas

are either a sole loco or a loco hauling (not propelling) a short section (one third) of train.

For scrap trains, we have assumed that the steel terminal track is available to store one train-third.

Similarly for steel trains, we have assumed that the scrap terminal loop is available to store one

train-third and for running the loco around. For both infrastructure options (A2/A3 and B1/B2), if it

was preferable for the steel and scrap terminals to be independent of each other, this could be

achieved with (for example) an additional track alongside the scrap terminal loop.

Train movement processes below should be read in conjunction with the track layout designs

(Appendix 1). The locations are marked on these designs.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

5.1 Option (A2/A3) operations: Canada Dock Branch re-instatement.

Movements associated with arrival, processing in steel terminal, and then departure.

1. Close Regent Road and Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

2. Close Cargill and new steel terminal road access

3. Cross Bankfield Street and Regent Road over level crossings

4. Just clear Regent Road with back of train and stop

5. Open Regent Road and Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

6. The front end of the train blocks Cargill and new steel terminal road access

7. Uncouple the back 2/3 of the train (340m of wagons) (which lies between Regent Road level

crossing and the new steel terminal’s road access)

8. Haul front train-third forward into A2/A3 Northern sidings so no road access points are

blocked

9. Open Cargill and new steel terminal road access

10. Run loco round and attach to northern end of rear 2 train-thirds

11. Propel rear 2 train-thirds so that the rear train third is in the scrap terminal loop

12. Split the middle and rear train-thirds by uncoupling

13. Haul the middle train-third (170m of wagons) into A2/A3 Southern sidings. Decouple

14. Attach to southern end of rear train-third and propel into the steel terminal

15. Once processed, haul this train-third into the scrap terminal loop. Decouple

16. Attach to middle train-third, haul and propel into steel terminal

17. Once processed, return the middle train-third to the A2/A3 Southern sidings. Decouple

18. Attach to front train-third, haul and propel into steel terminal. Decouple

19. Haul rear train-third to A2/A3 Northern sidings. Decouple and return to steel terminal

20. Once processed in steel terminal, haul this train-third into the scrap terminal loop

21. Propel new rear train-third and attach to middle train-third

22. Close Cargill and new steel terminal road access

23. Propel middle and rear train-thirds together northwards to attach to the front train-third in

A2/A3 Northern sidings to assemble the full train

24. Conduct brake test

25. Close Regent Road and Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

26. Depart – crossing Regent Road and Bankfield Street up to NR boundary at eastern end of

Canada Dock tunnel

27. Open Cargill and new steel terminal road access

28. Open Regent Road and Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

These movements are described in more detail in Appendix 2 with distances and timings for each

movement.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

We estimate the time that a train would be on-site (from the closing of Bankfield Street level

crossing to road traffic when the train arrives to the re-opening of the level crossing after the train

leaves) would be approximately 5 hours.

Several of these movements involve the blocking of roads while the trains, train-thirds or sole

locomotives pass. Appendix 4 notes each such blocking manoeuvre along with the time that the

road is blocked and shows the calculations for the overall HGV delay per train.

The total delay caused to HGVs is dependent on both the number of railway movements, and the

level of HGV traffic across each level crossing and road access point.

We have made tentative estimates of future HGV traffic volumes at each level crossing and road

access point. For example for the future, we estimate 800 HGVs per day through the Seatruck gate,

including some sole HGV tractors without trailers. In total, we calculate the overall HGV delay

caused by one train arriving and departing to be 2 hours 40 minutes of HGV time per day. Most of

this is due to the full train when fully assembled awaiting departure and conducting a brake test.

This blocks both the Cargill and the new steel terminal’s road access points, during which time a

queue will build up.

A stationary HGV with driver on-board costs around £35 per hour (principally depreciation and

driver’s wages). Therefore a 2 hour 40 minute HGV delay equates to approximately £93 in HGV cost

per day, along with a decrease in reliability and a need for the space for these HGVs to queue. At

public sector discount rates typically used for rail projects this would equate to a capitalised value of

£0.7m.

Arrival, processing in SCRAP terminal, and then departure.

Equivalent movements to those described above for the steel terminal can be performed to process

scrap trains. The steel terminal is used to store a train-third after processing in the scrap terminal.

5.2 Option (B1/B2) operations: Extending from existing rail terminal (Alexandra Docks

area) south to Canada Dock.

The movements described below relate to the less generous infrastructure contribution to the

Alexandra Docks area – intended to match capacity provided with capacity used (see Appendix 3) –

i.e. they do not include the double-tracking from the Bootle branch or the dedicated route to

Seaforth.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Movements associated with arrival, processing in steel terminal, and then departure.

1. Arrive into northern end of new reception track (to the east of the coal terminal and

alongside the existing route to Seaforth)

2. Train blocks one potential road access point to a factory until the rear third is moved,

and when the train is reassembled to depart. There is an alternative road access point

to this factory, so we have not included HGV delays for this point

3. Split the wagons into 3 train-thirds by uncoupling

4. Run loco around and attach to southern end of rear train-third

5. Haul this rear train-third (170m of wagons) south until the back end clears the route to

the steel terminal

6. Propel the rear train-third into the steel terminal

7. Once rear train-third is processed, haul to the scrap terminal loop and run around

8. Haul the rear train-third north and leave it on the route to Seaforth – adjacent to the

southern end of the new reception track. Decouple

9. Return to the new reception track via the crossover at the mid-point and attach to

middle train-third

10. Haul and propel into steel terminal

11. Once middle train-third is processed, haul to the scrap terminal loop and run around

12. Haul the middle train-third north and enter the new reception track

13. Crossover onto the original adjacent route to Seaforth and pull alongside front train-

third

14. Propel middle train-third to attach to rear train-third. Decouple

15. Return to the new reception track via the crossover at the mid-point and attach to front

train-third

16. Haul and propel into steel terminal

17. Once front train-third is processed, haul to the scrap terminal loop and run around

18. Haul this front train-third north and enter the new reception track

19. Crossover onto the original adjacent route to Seaforth

20. Propel front train-third to attach to middle and rear train-thirds to re-form the full train

21. Run round and attach loco to southern end of train

22. Conduct brake test and depart

Again, these movements are described in more detail in Appendix 2 with distances and timings for

each movement.

We estimate the time that a train would be on-site would be approximately 5 hours 30 minutes.

Again, several of these movements involve the blocking of roads while the trains, train-thirds or sole

locomotives pass. Appendix 4 notes each such blocking manoeuvre along with the time the road is

blocked for.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

In total, we calculate the overall HGV delay caused by one train arriving and departing with the

B1/B2 infrastructure to be just 12 minutes, equating to £7 in HGV cost (a capitalised value of

£50,000). This is far less disruptive in terms of HGV delay than option A2/A3. This is largely because

the train does not have to be re-formed and readied for departure while blocking road accesses.

Arrival, processing in SCRAP terminal, and then departure.

A similar operation can be performed for scrap trains.

If a quicker turnaround is required, while the first train-third is being processed in the steel terminal,

the loco can haul the next train-third from the reception sidings to the scrap terminal loop, so that

when the steel terminal has finished with the first train-third, the second train-third can be quickly

propelled into the steel terminal.

Extra capacity usage at the existing Alexandra Dock terminal area is compensated for by allowing

other trains to use the extra reception track when Canada Dock trains are not there. – e.g. container

trains. This is discussed in more detail in Appendix 3.

There appears to be space to create other sidings nearer to Seaforth for other additional container

trains, so this extra siding is not using up space that would necessarily be required to cater for the

forecast increase in container trains serving Seaforth.

We conclude that either approach (A2/A3 or B1/B2) is operationally viable.

For both options (A2/A3 or B1/B2), higher volumes of trains could be catered for by building

additional sidings.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

6. LONGER TERM ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT

The re-development of the area north of Bankfield Street between Derby Road and Regent Road by

the construction of around 150,000m2 of warehousing would generate some 400,000 heavy vehicle

movements per annum, as follows:

area available: 150,000m2

equivalent pallet positions: 200,000

vehicles/40’ containers: 8,000

turnover: 4 weeks

loaded arrivals per annum: 100,000

empty departures per annum: 100,000

empty arrivals per annum: 100,000

loaded departures per annum: 100,000

_______

Total movements per annum 400,000

Movements per day (5 day week): 1,600

Movements per hour (2 shift day): 100

This length of Regent Road would become extremely busy, given there is likely to also be some 2m

tonnes of steel, scrap and edible oil traffic plus freight ferry traffic in and out of the Seatruck

terminal. Altogether we estimate that up to 3,000 HGV movements per day could be generated in

addition to rail freight train movements and in many hours of the day there could be 200 HGV

movements, all of which would be making turning movements in and out of terminals or

warehouses.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

7. CONNECTIONS TO NETWORK RAIL AND MODE OF OPERATION

As volumes of trains rise the need for enhanced safety systems/procedures within the port will

increase. If the only extra traffic were the handful of Canada Dock trains we estimate, there is an

argument to retain the form of operation that exists today. However, when one takes into account

the dock operation as a whole and the potential for 38 trains per day per direction there is a

stronger argument for an enhanced level of control and improvement of reception and departure

arrangements.

7.1 Canada Dock

The connection to the Bootle Branch from Canada Dock no longer exists. Civil engineering required

to reinstate the junction is considered significant, with cost estimates given in Appendix 5. No

assessment of the signalling and control arrangements has been made at this time. However the

proximity and complexity of the level crossing arrangements that would be required on the public

highways suggest this option would present significant challenges in developing a form of protection

to both road and rail users that would be acceptable. Given the risk of trespass and other safety

issues, Network Rail and the ORR would consider the level crossings at Bankfield Street and Regent

Road unacceptable if the roads remained public.

The HGV movements across the road access points to Seatruck, Cargill and the new Steel terminal

would generally be gate controlled. For HGVs arriving along the road the simultaneous movement

of a train section would be self-evident. The gates could all be equipped with sensor equipment so

that exiting HGVs could be briefly held in the event of a passing train section.

Such an environment with train movements, many HGVs and HGV turning movements would not be

well suited to also catering for a large numbers of pedestrians and cyclists.

7.2 Alexandra Dock

The existing layout provides for the double track Bootle Branch to run through the Alexandra Dock

Tunnel where it becomes a single line. The single to double track connection is shown in the

Network Rail record as trailable sprung points configured for the departure direction and trailed

when entering the port. The double track section and the beginning of the single track section are

under the control of Edge Hill Signal Box. The Bootle Branch is operated using track circuit block

principles with two aspect signalling.

The single line within the dock is under the control of the Person In Charge (PIC). Operation within

the dock appears to be through manual instruction and hand point operation. A level crossing at

Regents Road (AOCL Type – Automatic Open Crossing Locally Monitored) is shown on the Network

Rail Records but is out of use with the road blocked off adjacent to the railway line. Track circuit

controls are provided locally for the operation of the level crossing.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Trains arriving at the Dock are signalled up to a Stop Await Instructions board by the Network Rail

Signaller. Track circuit controls and indications are provided to Edge Hill Signal Box to prove the

absence of trains on the approach to the stop board. Movement authority into the dock is granted

verbally by the Person in Charge.

Trains departing the dock require the Person in Charge to obtain a Line Clear release from the

Network Rail Signaller before verbal movement authority can be given allowing the train to advance

to ML62 signal at Bootle Junction.

The existing access arrangements are only suitable for low volumes of traffic and slow speed

movements.

7.3 Creation of Reception and Departure Roads

The creation of Reception and Departure Roads under the control of the Person in Charge would

require re-designation of the lines, relocation of the control boundary and revision to the local

operating procedures through negotiation and agreement with Network Rail. Additional controls

and indications would be required to inform the Person in Charge that the route up to ML62 Signal

and its overlap is clear.

Trains arriving at the dock could do so under the same method as exists today though agreement on

control boundaries and adaptation of the local instructions would be required.

Maintenance boundaries associated with the infrastructure assets do not need to align with the

control boundaries but would need to be agreed.

7.4 Mode of operation within the dock

Low volumes of train movements at slow speeds are commonly managed through manual operation

and verbal movement authority. As the volume of train movements within the dock increases,

exacerbated by the need to split and join trains, manual operation becomes increasingly time

consuming and unsafe. Careful consideration would need to be given to determining the

appropriate level of automation of point operation and control of movement authority to ensure

train movements are made efficiently but safely.

7.5 Segregation of road traffic from train movements

As the volume of trains increases the risk of collision with road vehicles will increase. It is considered

likely that the adopted roads (Regent Road and Bankfield Street) would need to be taken back into

port control and conflict management employed in a form of level crossing control to protect

movements on road / rail crossing points within the port implemented. The proximity of dock access

points and the length of trains being manoeuvred make it likely that crossings may be required to

close in sequence or simultaneously. This would form a constraint on how train movements are


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

authorised within the dock area and the locations that they are authorised to move between. If this

is not under some form of signal control system then local operating procedures would need to be

developed, informed by risk assessment where appropriate, to ensure safe movements of train and

lorry are able to be made whilst maintaining efficiency and performance within the dock. It may be

necessary to define “block sections” through which trains are authorised to move and within which

conflicts with the train movement are prevented.

7.6 On-site shunter locomotive method of operation in the Canada Dock area

Once the intensity of train movements increases beyond a threshold, instead of using expensive

main-line locomotives to shunt trains and train-sections within the Canada Dock area, a more

efficient option may be for within-port movements to be hauled by an on-site shunter locomotive.

This would free up the main-line locomotives to depart soon after arriving with a different set of

wagons. This could be an added service that Peel Ports supply to the rail freight sector for an

appropriate fee. Peel Ports could either purchase a shunter themselves or hire one through a spot

hire company.. Alongside implementation of a “Rail Traffic Management System” within the port’s

rail network, this would enable equitable treatment of freight train operators using the port

(currently two freight operators DB Schenker and GB Railfreight) rather than the current situation

whereby DB Schenker informally manage operations for all operators.

This is only an efficient method of working if there is sufficient rail traffic at the port for there to be a

fully formed train waiting to depart soon after a main-line locomotive arrives, such that freight train

operators can achieve better and more efficient usage of their main-line locomotives.

Using an on-site shunter opens up the possibility of electrification of the Bootle branch - into the

Alexandra reception sidings, from which point the on-site shunter(s) can haul the trains and train

sections to their final destinations within the port. There are plans for electric locomotives with “last

mile” diesel capability (i.e. incorporating a low power diesel engine) such as the Class 88s ordered by

Direct Rail Services. These hybrids open up the possibility of running “principally-electric” trains to

Alexandra Dock reception sidings even without electrifying the Bootle branch line, by relying on the

low-power diesel engine between Alexandra Dock and the recently-electrified main line (Chat Moss

route between Liverpool and Manchester). However journey times along the non-electrified Bootle

branch would be significantly longer due to relying on the low power diesel engine. In principle, in

the absence of a dedicated on-site shunter, it would be possible to use these hybrids as on-port

shunters, as main-line diesel locomotives are now. However away from electrified lines, they are

low-powered and expensive assets: not ideal for conducting such shunting operations.

The volumes of traffic in the Canada Dock area will be sufficiently low to be serviced by one on-site

shunter, which may also spend some time in other parts of the port, when not required in the

Canada Dock area.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

In the Canada Dock area, this on-site shunter could operate an arrangement similar to the tram

management system on Manchester Metrolink. Each tram operates independently – controlling

level crossings to give it priority as it passes.

7.7 Capacity

The potential train movement schedules in section 5 describe a movement schedule that takes

approximately 5 hours (option A2/A3) or 5 hours 30 minutes (option B1/B2) between arrival and

departure for each train. This allows sufficient time for 3 trains to arrive and then depart per day.

For option B1/B2 the extra infrastructure required to be built in the Alexandra Dock area is discussed

in Appendix 3. If more than 3 trains (to arrive and then depart per day) were required in the Canada

Dock area, additional infrastructure (for example additional loops or a small intermodal terminal)

could be built.

There are also capacity constraints on Network Rail’s wider network. On the Bootle branch line,

there is capacity for 2 trains to run per hour in each direction5. This is confirmed in practice because

trains do sometimes arrive within 30 minutes of each other (and similarly sometimes depart within

30 minutes of each other)6 – both in terms of timetabled timings and actual timings along the Bootle

branch route. This is despite the current low volume of trains. 2 trains per hour per direction is just

sufficient capacity to cater for 38 departures per day, if the trains could be organised to arrive at a

consistent rate throughout the day.

To provide more capacity and therefore flexibility (to better integrate with timetabling requirements

on the wider network) and robustness, Network Rail plan to improve the Bootle branch line-speed7,

and capacity (by adding intermediate signals in each direction8 and dualling the route into the

Alexandra Dock reception sidings9), which is entirely independent of the reopening of the Canada

Dock Branch.

Whether the trains leave the Bootle Branch at the existing Regent Road level crossing to Alexandra

Dock (B1/B2), or at a re-instated Atlantic Dock junction directly to the Canada Dock area (A2/A3)

makes little difference to the branch line capacity.

5 Page 7 of Strategic Freight Network Steering Group: Trans-Pennine and Northern Ports Freight Capacity.

Network Rail, Dec 2014 6 Source: MDST analysis of actual timings of trains in and out of Liverpool port

7 Page 8 of Strategic Freight Network Steering Group: Trans-Pennine and Northern Ports Freight Capacity.

Network Rail, Dec 2014 8 Page 7 of Strategic Freight Network Steering Group: Trans-Pennine and Northern Ports Freight Capacity.

Network Rail, Dec 2014 9 Page 6 of Strategic Freight Network Steering Group: Trans-Pennine and Northern Ports Freight Capacity.

Network Rail, Dec 2014


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Beyond the Bootle branch, trains reach the route towards Earlestown and Manchester (the Chat

Moss route). Network Rail’s “Northern Hub” scheme involves significantly more passenger trains

along this route. There is therefore a danger that capacity may become limited for freight trains to

and from Liverpool port. However we have analysed a Northern Hub Indicative Train Service

Specification (ITSS)10 from Network Rail along the Chat Moss route. This included 2 paths per hour

per direction between Liverpool port and Earlestown. Figure 2 describes this proposed train

schedule, with the freight paths highlighted.

More recently, in their North of England Programmes (Northern Hub and North West Electrification)

Network Rail have only considered 1 freight train path per hour per direction between the port and

Earlestown (for the West Coast Main Line), but the Northern Ports and Transpennine Freight Study

will also be testing the robustness of options required for 2 freight train paths per hour per direction

against the full North of England service specification (known as Configuration State 7). It is easier to

include freight paths if these paths are part of the timetabling exercise from the beginning, rather

than trying to fit additional freight trains into a timetable optimised around passenger services.

Network Rail’s long-term plans (as stated in their Freight Market Study11 for 2043) are to cater for

approximately 30 train paths per day per direction to and from the port, and they are aware of

Peel’s aspirations for 38 trains per day per direction and have agreed to consider it as a scenario as

part of the Liverpool City Region Strategic Rail Study. When it becomes clearer in future that Peel’s

aspirations are approaching fruition, Network Rail are likely to adjust their plans to cater for this

demand. We therefore believe that the rail network should be able to accommodate the Port’s long

term forecasts of being able to generate up to 38 trains per day per direction (i.e. 2 per hour x 19

hours).

The Liverpool City Region’s Long Term Rail Strategy (Summer 2014) represents a long term vision for

the region including the possibility of re-opening the Bootle branch line to passenger trains serving

new stations. If this were to happen, there may be a need for further infrastructure enhancement to

improve capacity to cater for this mixed use.

10

ITSS 06/12/12 (Modified) (Version 5) 11/03/13. A later version (CS7 ITSS. PROPOSED TO IPG 07 NOVEMBER 2013. (SUB GROUP VERSION 28.10.13) ) also included these 2 paths per hour per direction between Liverpool port and Earlestown 11

www.networkrail.co.uk/improvements/planning-policies-and-plans/long-term-planning-process/market-studies/freight/


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Figure 2: Northern Hub proposed train schedule for one hour with Liverpool port freight paths shown in red


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

8. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Gleeds has provided estimates of the capital construction costs for options A3 and B2. The

breakdown of these costs is shown in detail in Appendix 5. The results are:

£23m for A3: Reinstatement of the Canada Dock branch with curve and route alongside

Regent Road.

£11m for B2: Access from existing Alexandra Dock area, providing one new reception track

in Alexandra dock (sufficient capacity to compensate for the extra Alexandra dock area rail

capacity used)

£18m for B2b: As B2 but with generous infrastructure provision: double-tracking the route

from the Bootle branch and providing a dedicated new track to Seaforth (generous capacity

to compensate for the extra Alexandra dock area rail capacity used)

These costs do not include land values – see section 9.

The estimate for A3 is tentative because the state of the tunnel under Kirkdale and the road bridges

(Bankhall Lane and Derby Road) is not clear. This estimate assumes the road bridges have to be re-

built. A best-case scenario whereby the existing bridges were in a good condition and did not need

rebuilding may reduce costs by up to £3m. However an optimistic view of the state of the tunnel has

been taken with little structural work required to the tunnel. As the state of the tunnel is unknown,

the costs could be much higher – up to say £7m more expensive in a worst case scenario.

These costs do not include the cost of the terminals themselves. These terminal costs are common

to options A2, A3, B1 and B2. For option C (no direct rail access to the Canada Dock area), there

would also be costs associated with either adapting an existing terminal (e.g. the EMR terminal), or

creating a new terminal in the Alexandra Dock area if any rail potential demand in the Canada Dock

area is to be satisfied.

On-going maintenance costs for the rail-connecting options are not included. Having the equivalent

traffic going by road to/from the Canada Dock area also involves maintenance costs due to wear and

tear on the roads.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

9. LAND ASSEMBLY

In relation to delivery of the options considered within this report JLL has undertaken an analysis of

the relevant land ownerships that would be affected by each option and has considered the

indicative land assembly costs associated with each of these options. Plans showing the relevant

land required to facilitate options A1 and A2/A3 are included at Appendix 6.

In relation to the land that would be required to deliver options within the Port of Liverpool estate

and the public highway, we have consulted with Peel Ports and the highway authorities of both

Liverpool City Council and Sefton Council, to establish respective land ownerships. For all other land

ownerships required to deliver the options, ‘on line’ Land Registry searches have been undertaken

to establish the ownership.

The approach adopted in relation to the calculation of land assembly costs specifically excludes any

land assembly costs associated with land within the ownership of Peel Ports or highway land within

the control of Liverpool City Council or Sefton Council. The justifications being:

that the economic benefit of the introduction of this heavy rail link supports the growth of

Superport and the Port of Liverpool, which are key economic drivers for the City Region;

and the environmental benefits (including reduced road congestion) of encouraging a switch

from road to rail.

Regent Road and Bankfield Street are adopted highways, and are unregistered, and as such we are

unable to comment upon whether there are no encumbrances, restrictions, easements or other

matters of an onerous nature, which would have a material effect on the deliverability of the options

reliant upon use of the public highway. We recommend that verification be obtained from lawyers

representing Liverpool City Council and Sefton Council.

Set out in the table below is the indicative third party land assembly costs associated with the

delivery of Options A1 and A2/A3. As the balance of the land required to deliver the options is in

either Peel Ports or local authority ownership (Options A2/A3, B1 and B2) no land assembly cost has

been included for these land interests for the reasons set above. This Peel Ports or local authority

land in question relates to the potential rail route on the western side of Regent Road.

In arriving at our assessment of indicative land assembly costs we have had regard to recent

comparable land transactions in the Merseyside area and have adjusted these to reflect the

proximity of the land in question to the Port of Liverpool. Where sites contain operational buildings

we have included an additional allowance within the overall land assembly costs to take account of

these.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Indicative third party land assembly costs associated with the delivery of Options A1 and A2/A3

Option

Number of

registered legal

interests

Approximate total

site area

Ha (Acres)

Approximate site area

required for rail

infrastructure

Indicative land

assembly cost*

A1 5 3.80 (9.44) 1.31 (3.24) £2,500,000

A2/A3 9 6.76 (16.73) 1.04 (2.57) £8,560,000

*Assumes total site area acquired taking into account both land and buildings where applicable.

It is worth highlighting that the indicative land assembly costs do not take into account the costs of

disturbance or business relocation / extinguishment costs that may apply in relation to the delivery

of each option as this goes beyond the scope of this study. Clearly, the impact of the introduction of

a heavy rail line on affected existing business operations could result in substantial disturbance /

relocation/ extinguishment payments being justified. Incorporating these would increase the land

assembly costs.

However to balance this, the total land area associated with each affected site would not necessarily

be required to build the rail routes. There also may be some flexibility over the design of the curve

for options A2/A3. For example a tighter curve could potentially be built that would reduce the

impact on the land north of Bankfield Street.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

10. OPERATIONAL COSTS

The operational rail costs associated with options A3 and B2 are similar.

Option C (do nothing) has zero capital costs if all the traffic travels by road. However for traffic that

is suitable for rail, travelling by road instead incurs additional operational cost depending upon the

length of haul. For such traffic that is suitable for rail, there is a halfway house option: to travel by

road to an existing or adapted rail terminal in the Alexandra / Gladstone Dock area, and we have

estimated that cost.

The EMR scrap metal terminal may be an appropriate choice of existing terminal that could be used

for such operations. Terminal operators that have available capacity are required by law to allow

third parties to use their terminals on request. The EMR terminal has 3 sidings and low traffic

volumes (less than one train arriving and then departing per day). Assuming Peel were able to make

changes to EMR’s lease, they would be able to require that the terminal becomes an open access

terminal, serving both the existing EMR rail traffic and traffic from the Canada Dock area. This

should not affect EMR’s ability to use the terminal.

In such circumstances, the capital costs for option C would be small. However the additional

operational costs per tonne would be significant as compared to options A3 and B2. A daily train (in

one direction - assuming an empty return) typically represents the capacity to move around 250,000

tonnes per year. Internal road haulage and double-handling would cost around £2.70 per tonne.

Therefore the operational cost of transferring a daily train of cargo between the EMR sidings and

Canada Dock by road would be around £675,000 per year.

The equivalent operational costs for A3 and B2 using rail would be around an eighth of this: around

£85,000 per year per daily train (in one direction - assuming an empty return) based upon one

internal shunting locomotive, fuel and staff costing £250,000 per annum.

The operational costs of catering for the 3 daily trains (arriving and then departing) we are

considering here can be assumed to be 3 times the cost for a single daily train arriving and then

departing.

10.1 Net Present Value (NPV)

In order to compare the operational costs of option C to the capital costs of options A3 & B2,

ongoing operational costs over future years need to be added together to generate a Net Present

Value (NPV). To make this calculation requires a defined appraisal period - over which the

comparison should be made. It also requires a discount rate to be defined.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

The DfT’s WebTAG (Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance)12 suggests that a typical appraisal

period for long term public sector infrastructure should be 60 years after scheme opening, with a

discount rate of 3.5%.

This means that a project saving £1 million (real terms) every year for 60 years, opening 1 year in the

future (to represent construction time) is worth £25 million in NPV.

Therefore an annual operational cost of £675,000 for one daily train (arriving and then departing)

represents an NPV (long term public sector infrastructure) cost of £16.8m. For 3 daily trains (arriving

and then departing), the NPV cost is £50.5m.

Similarly an annual operational cost of £85,000 represents an NPV (long term public sector

infrastructure) cost of £2.1m.

We have used this long term public sector infrastructure approach to NPV calculations for the

comparisons of the various options. However it should be noted that the private sector is likely to

aim to have a faster return on investment with a higher discount rate. A typical private sector NPV

calculation for infrastructure may be 30 years with a discount rate of around 6%. This would mean

that a project saving £1 million (real terms) every year for 30 years, opening 1 year in the future

would be worth £14 million in NPV. This is 45% lower than the NPV for long term public sector

infrastructure.

12

TAG UNIT A1.1: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/372519/TAG_Unit_A1.1_-_Cost_Benefit_Analysis_November2014.pdf


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

11. OTHER COSTS AND BENEFITS

The building of the rail link of option A3 or B2 would offer employment in the construction phase,

along with some employment in operations. However the additional operational costs of option C

(shuttling between Canada and Alexandra Dock by road, or not using rail at all) are partly due to the

costs of employing HGV drivers.

The Canada Dock area being rail-connected is likely to make that area of the port more attractive to

potential occupiers with rail-suitable cargo, because the operational costs of using rail will be

reduced.

These reduced rail operational costs are likely to mean that more traffic will go by rail. If this extra

rail traffic was instead going by road, it would cause additional road congestion and emissions, both

locally and across the country. However congestion (or available capacity) is also becoming an

increasingly troublesome issue across the rail network.

Re-instating the Canada Dock branch from Kirkdale (A3) involves a steep incline in the tunnel and

requires a new connection to be made (re-instated) to Network Rail’s network, involving a crossover,

turnout, signals etc. This is avoided if Canada Dock is served from the existing connection at

Alexandra Dock (B2).

The operation of trains in the Canada Dock area poses safety issues and is unlikely to be compatible

with plans outlined in the North Liverpool Key Corridors major scheme for Regent Road involving

enhanced facilities for pedestrians and bicycles. This is particularly the case on the section of Regent

Road between Sandon Dock and Millers Bridge which is already heavily used by port traffic such as

HGVs. These interactions will therefore need careful consideration should the rail connections be

implemented. One solution would be to bring Regent Road between Sandon Dock and Millers

Bridge into the port estate and unadopt it as public highway as has been done with the section

further north within Sefton.

The costs and benefits in this section have not been quantified.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

12. OVERALL COMPARISON

Below we quantify and compare the overall costs of options A3, B2 and C, catering for 3 trains per

day arriving, being processed and then departing.

Cost comparison for options A3, B2 and C. £ million in NPV

Cost component A3 B2 C

Construction 22.7 10.8 -

Land values 8.6 - -

HGV delay cost (road access blocking) (NPV) 2.1 0.2 -

Operational costs (NPV) 6.4 6.4 50.5

Total (NPV) 39.7 17.3 50.5

Construction and Land values are costs that would need to be paid up front. Operational costs are

translated into an NPV using the typical long term public sector infrastructure NPV approach (3.5%

discount rate over 60 years). The HGV delay costs are taken from section 5. These show £93 per

train for A3, and £7 per train for B2. We are assuming 3 trains (arriving and then departing) per day

and 300 operational days per year.

The comparison table above does suggest that Option C (no rail infrastructure in the Canada Dock

area) is by far the worst option. However it should be noted that the 3 daily trains (arriving and then

departing) of cargo we are assuming for all options would not necessarily all materialise in option C.

Any marginal rail freight potential in options A3 and B2 would in all likelihood simply travel by road

for the entire journey in option C at lower cost rather than paying the cost of road transfer to a rail

terminal in the Alexandra Dock area. Therefore the NPV of option C is a worst case cost – assuming

that all the rail freight potential of options A3 and B2 would experience the full operational cost of

travelling by road to the Alexandra Dock area, and that none would find direct road-without-rail, a

cheaper option. In terms of cost, the best case cost for option C would be that the rail freight

potential traffic of options A3 and B2 could all use road-without-rail if Canada Dock was not directly

rail-connected, and that this road cost was similar to the cost of using rail in the A3 and B2 options.

In such circumstances the NPV for option C would be small and there would be little cost-based

justification for rail-connecting Canada Dock.

Despite the higher operating costs of using rail in option C and the opportunity to use road, if

demand for one daily train (arriving and then departing) could be found (i.e. a third of the estimated

rail freight potential of options A3 and B2), this would represent one third of the full NPV cost of

option C: £16.8m. This NPV broadly matches that of building the rail link under option B2.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

13. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS

We have considered various options to serve the Canada Dock area by rail as set out in the

Specification (Appendix 7).

Option A1 (re-instating the Canada Dock branch line from Kirkdale directly to a terminal east of

Regent Road) offers too short a length of track to be able to process modern trains.

Options A3 (re-instating the Canada Dock branch line from the Kirkdale area and then running north

to the west of Regent Road) and B2 (running south from the existing Alexandra Dock rail terminal

area) offer very similar rail capability.

A3 (£39.7 million) is significantly more expensive than option B2 (£17.3 million). For option B2, even

if we were to build a generous contribution to capacity in the Alexandra Dock area (option B2b: £7

million more expensive than B2), it is still significantly cheaper than option A3. A3 also causes more

delay to road users than B2.

If the Canada Dock area is to be rail-connected, approaching from the existing sidings in the

Alexandra Dock area (B2) is a much better option than re-instating the Canada Dock branch (A3).

Re-instating the Canada Dock branch is therefore not required, and the land it would require east of

Regent Road (which includes land in the ownership of HCA) can be released for other non-rail uses

without fear of compromising the future rail potential of Liverpool port.

Option A2 is the same as A3, and option B1 is the same as B2 except that Regent Road is retained as

a public road. Regent Road remaining public while building a railway in its western margin such that

there would be train, HGV, pedestrian, car and bicycle movements along the same route would

present increased safety, construction and operational costs. The new level crossings required to

reach a reopened Canada Dock Branch would be a trespass and safety risk such that Network Rail

and the ORR would object to the scheme. The case for rail-connecting the Canada Dock area is

much harder to make if Regent Road does not become part of the port estate.

The comparison between B2 and C (do nothing) depends on the level of traffic in the Canada Dock

area suitable for rail. This high level analysis suggests that if the rail potential of the Canada Dock

area is less than 1 train per day (into the port and then departing), it is unlikely that the operational

cost savings of a direct rail connection justify the capital costs and that therefore rail connecting the

Canada Dock area is difficult to justify. Once the rail potential reaches around 2 trains per day (into

the port and then departing), rail connecting the Canada Dock area with a connection from the

existing Alexandra Dock area (option B2) becomes worthwhile.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

The above conclusions assume a long term public sector infrastructure approach to an NPV

calculation (3.5% discount rate over 60 years). However if a typical private sector infrastructure NPV

approach is used (6% discount rate over 30 years), the infrastructure required to directly rail-connect

the Canada Dock area is harder to justify.

13.1 Could re-instating the Canada Dock branch ever be the best option?

In the event that:

Land in the Alexandra Dock area became very constrained such that rail freight capacity was

very limited

And the Seatruck area had a huge increase in HGV traffic, such that briefly blocking the road

access caused significant delay

And the current Regent Road level crossing became a through-road-route again such that

extra rail traffic was problematic

And Bankfield Street and nearby Regent Road became part of the port estate and had very

little road traffic, such that building new level crossings wouldn’t be problematic.

And the branch line re-instatement was not too expensive – the road bridges and tunnel

were found to be in good condition

And there was a very high rail freight potential in the Canada Dock area and the rest of the

southern zone,

it is conceivable that re-instating the Canada Dock Branch line (A3) could be judged as broadly

similar to running south from Alexandra Dock (B2).

However, this is an extremely unlikely outcome. Even in these extreme circumstances an alternative

based on the B options would probably still be more attractive than re-instating the Canada Dock

branch line.

13.2 Recommended preferred option

In our opinion the preferred option for consideration to take forward should be option B2: extending

the rail lines south from Alexandra Dock to serve the Canada Dock area. Our high level estimate as

to the total NPV cost of this is £17 million including enhanced infrastructure in the Alexandra Dock

area to compensate for capacity usage in the Alexandra Dock area. Once the rail potential in this

part of the port reaches around 2 trains per day (into the port and then departing), rail connecting

the Canada Dock area with a connection from the existing Alexandra Dock area (option B2) becomes

worthwhile.

This preferred option comprises the following essential components:


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

a) Extend rail lines south from Alexandra Dock along the Regent Road corridor to serve the Canada

Dock area plus associated capacity enhancements to existing port rail sidings.

b) Take Regent Road (Sandon Dock to Millers Bridge) into the port estate and remove it as adopted

public highway. This would resolve potential operational and safety concerns regarding interactions

between trains, HGVs, cars, pedestrians and cyclists on the Regent Road corridor north of Sandon

Dock.

c) On-site shunter locomotive provided by Peel Ports to increase the efficiency of on-port rail

movements, thereby separating operationally the internal port rail network from mainline

movements off Bootle Branch.

d) Implementation of a “rail traffic management system” to better control movements on the port

internal rail network.

In turn these measures outlined in the preferred option will open up the potential for the following

complementary rail improvements at the Port of Liverpool:

a) Electrification of the Bootle Branch from Olive Mount / Edge Hill as far as the Port of Liverpool

reception sidings near Alexandra Dock.

b) Extension of the internal port rail network from Seaforth to directly serve the new Liverpool 2

Container Terminal.

13.3 Next steps

In order to continue to promote and expand the use of rail freight to and from the Docks a number

of steps could be considered which include:

Proceed with negotiations with Network Rail to create a continuous double track access to

the Port and consider means whereby road access between the northern and southern parts

of the docks can be achieved without creating a new level crossing at the end of the Bootle

Branch. Action for Peel Ports with Network Rail.

Plan to expand reception track capacity in the Alexandra Dock area. Action for Peel Ports.

Implement a “rail traffic management system” to better control movements on the port

internal rail network. Action for Peel Ports.

The route of the old Canada Dock branch line to the east of Regent Road which includes land

in the ownership of HCA can be released for other non-rail uses without fear of

compromising the future rail potential of Liverpool port. Action for HCA


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

To offer rail capability to the southern docks zone in the short term, ensure current rail

terminal capacity is available to all users (open access) to allow potential rail freight in the

Canada Dock area to use rail with a short within-port road journey. Action for Peel Ports

Seek the land required to realise option B2 – largely the land in the western margin of

Regent Road. Action for Peel Ports with Merseytravel, Liverpool City Council, Sefton

Council

Plan to rail-connect the Canada Dock area from the Alexandra Dock area (option B2) once

rail freight potential approaches around 2 trains (into the port and then departing) per day.

This will be made easier once Regent Road has become part of the port estate. Action for

Peel Ports with Merseytravel, Liverpool City Council, Sefton Council.

Consider the acquisition or lease of an on-site shunter to increase the efficiency of on-port

rail movements. An on-site shunter opens the door to electrification of the Bootle branch

route incorporating electrified reception sidings in the Alexandra Dock area. Action for Peel

Ports.

In our opinion the abandonment of the Canada Dock Branch alignment does not in any way reduce

the Port’s potential to use rail freight. Much more important is the ability to create a railway

corridor along Regent Road which will in turn be safer, cheaper and more straightforward if the road

became part of the Dock Estate.

Regardless of the rail capacity available on the Bootle branch line and the wider network to reach

the Port of Liverpool, re-opening the Canada Dock branch line would not increase this capacity.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

APPENDIX 1: INFRASTRUCTURE LAYOUT DRAWING


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

APPENDIX 2: POTENTIAL TRAIN MOVEMENT SCHEDULE TIMINGS

In section 5, potential train movement schedules are summarised for options A2/A3 and B1/B2.

These schedules are shown below in more detail – with locations, movement speeds, times and

cumulative times

A2/A3 Potential train movement schedule timings serving the steel terminal

Ctr Event description for locomotive movements Location * Speed

m/s Time *

Cumulative time *

1 Start from stationary at Former Atlantic Dock Jn (NR (Kirkdale))

-850

2 Close Regent Road & Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

3 Cross Bankfield Street & Regent Road over level crossings

4 Close Cargill and new steel terminal road access 620 4.47 349 00:05:49

5 Just clear Regent Road with back of train and stop 880 4.47 78 00:07:07

6 Open Regent Road & Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

00:07:07

7 The front end of the train blocks Cargill and new steel terminal road access

00:07:07

8 Uncouple the back 2/3 of the train (340m of wagons) (which lies between Regent Road level crossing and new steel terminal road access)

60 00:08:07

9 Haul front train-third forward into A2/A3 Northern sidings so no road access points are blocked

1,204 4.47 93 00:09:39

10 Open Cargill & new steel terminal 00:09:39

11 Decouple 60 00:10:39

12 Run loco to Northern headshunt 1,252 4.47 31 00:11:10

13 Driver switch ends 60 00:12:10

14 Run loco to northern end of rear 2 train-thirds 680 4.47 148 00:14:38

15 Couple 60 00:15:38


17 Propel rear 2 train-thirds so that the rear train third is in the scrap terminal loop

480 1.34 169 00:19:27

18 Split the middle and rear train-thirds by uncoupling 60 00:20:27

19 Haul the middle train-third (170m of wagons) into A2/A3 Southern sidings

620 4.47 51 00:21:18

20 Decouple 60 00:22:18

21 Run to just north of A2/A3 Southern sidings 680 4.47 33 00:22:52


23 Run loco to Southern-most headshunt 29 4.47 166 00:26:38


25 Run to southern end of rear train-third 66 4.47 28 00:28:06

26 Couple 60 00:29:06

27 Propel into the steel terminal 730 1.34 515 00:37:41

28 Process train third in terminal 3,600 01:37:41

29 Once processed, haul this train-third into the scrap terminal loop

66 4.47 169 01:40:30

30 Decouple 60 01:41:30

31 Run loco to Southern headshunt 29 4.47 28 01:41:58


33 Run to southern end of middle train-third 350 4.47 92 01:44:30


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11


m/s Time *

Cumulative time *

34 Couple 60 01:45:30


36 Haul to 2nd scrap terminal loop 66 4.47 84 01:47:53



39 Once processed, haul this train-third into the 2nd scrap terminal loop

66 4.47 169 02:59:17

40 Propel into A2/A3 Southern sidings 350 1.34 232 03:03:09

41 Decouple 60 03:04:09

42 Run loco to south of A2/A3 Southern sidings 292 4.47 33 03:04:42


44 Run to southern end of front train-third 960 4.47 169 03:08:32

45 Couple 60 03:09:32


47 Haul this train-third south until the back end clears the route to the steel terminal

292 4.47 169 03:13:21


49 Start processing train-third in terminal Time

overlap* 3,600 04:19:08

50 Decouple 04:19:08

51 Run to northern end of rear train-third in scrap terminal loop

292 4.47 04:19:08

52 Couple 04:19:08

53 Driver switch ends 04:19:08

54 Haul rear train-third to A2/A3 Northern sidings 1,204 4.47 04:19:08

55 Decouple 04:19:08

56 Run to north of A2/A3 Northern sidings 1,252 4.47 04:19:08


58 Run to just south of steel terminal 580 4.47 04:19:08


60 Run into steel terminal 730 4.47 04:19:08

61 Couple 04:19:08


63 Once processed in steel terminal, haul this train-third into the scrap terminal loop

66 4.47 169 04:21:56

64 Propel this train-third into A2/A3 Southern sidings where middle train-third is

166 1.34 95 04:23:31

65 Couple to middle train-third 60 04:24:31

66 Close Cargill and new steel terminal road access 04:24:31

67 Propel these 2 train-thirds together northwards into A2/A3 Northern sidings where the other train-third is

580 1.34 329 04:30:00

68 Couple to re-form the full train 60 04:31:00

69 Conduct brake test. 600 04:41:00

70 Close Regent Road & Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

04:41:00

71 Depart – crossing Regent Road & Bankfield Street up to NR boundary at eastern end of Canada Dock tunnel

04:41:00

72 Open Cargill & new steel terminal 66 4.47 135 04:43:15

73 Open Regent Road & Bankfield Street level crossings to road traffic

04:43:15

74 Front of train reaches Former Atlantic Dock Jn (NR (Kirkdale))

-850 4.47 205 04:46:40

75 End of train clears Former Atlantic Dock Jn (NR (Kirkdale)) -1,380 4.47 119 04:48:39

*Notes:


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Location: Location of Northern end of locomotive. Metres from Southern end of tracks (by

Canada branch dock 1)

Time: Seconds after previous event

Cumulative time in hours:minutes:seconds

Time overlap: The loco makes the following manoeuvres while the train-third is being

processed in the steel terminal

Assumptions for specific operations (also applies to B1/B2 movements below)

Coupling / Decoupling 60 seconds

Run to headshunt 30 seconds

Driver change ends 60 seconds

Brake test 600 seconds

Process train-third in terminal 3600 seconds

Speed on site (10mph) 4.47 m/s

Propel speed (3mph) 1.34 m/s


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

B1/B2 Potential train movement schedule timings serving the steel terminal


m/s Time *

Cumulative time *

1 Start from stationary at NR/Peel boundary 1,361

2 Arrive into northern end of B1/B2 New siding reception track (to the east of the coal terminal and alongside the existing route to Seaforth)

2,547 4.47 285 00:04:45

3

Train blocks one road access point to a factory until the rear third is moved, and when the train is reassembled to depart. There is an alternative road access point to this factory

00:04:45

4 Split the wagons into 3 train-thirds by uncoupling 60 00:05:45



7 Run to parallel to EMR sidings 1,617 4.47 249 00:11:34


9 Run to southern end of rear train third 1,909 4.47 85 00:14:00

10 Couple 60 00:15:00


12 Haul this rear train-third (170m of wagons) south until the back end clears the route to the steel terminal

292 4.47 382 00:22:21

13 Propel the rear train-third into the steel terminal 730 1.34 347 00:28:08


15 Once rear train-third is processed, haul to the scrap terminal loop

66 4.47 169 01:30:56

16 Decouple 60 01:31:56



19 Run to north end of scrap terminal loop to turn round 350 4.47 92 01:34:56

20 Reverse to attach to front train-third 292 4.47 33 01:35:30

21 Couple 60 01:36:30

22 Haul the rear train-third north and leave it on the route to Seaforth – adjacent to the southern end of the B1/B2 New siding reception

1,909 4.47 382 01:42:51

23 Decouple 60 01:43:51

24 Run north to the crossover at the mid-point of the B1/B2 New siding

2,182 4.47 81 01:45:12

25 Reverse through crossover to new reception track 2,091 1.34 88 01:46:40

26 Run to southern end of middle train third 2,182 4.47 40 01:47:21

27 Couple 60 01:48:21


29 Haul this middle train-third (170m of wagons) south until the back end clears the route to the steel terminal

292 4.47 443 01:56:44

30 Propel the middle train-third into the steel terminal 730 1.34 347 02:02:30

31 Process train-third in terminal 3,600 03:02:30

32 Once middle train-third is processed, haul to the scrap terminal loop

66 4.47 169 03:05:19

33 Decouple 60 03:06:19




37 Reverse to attach to middle train-third 292 1.34 64 03:10:22

38 Couple 60 03:11:22

39 Haul the middle train-third north via the B1/B2 New siding reception track and crossover to the route to Seaforth

2,347 4.47 480 03:19:22

40 Propel towards and attach to rear train third 2,091 1.34 210 03:22:53


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11


m/s Time *

Cumulative time *

41 Decouple 60 03:23:53

42 Run to the crossover at the mid-point 2,182 4.47 40 03:24:33

43 Reverse through crossover to new reception track 2,091 1.34 88 03:26:01

44 Run to southern end of front train third 2,347 4.47 77 03:27:18

45 Couple 60 03:28:18


47 Haul this front train-third (170m of wagons) south until the back end clears the route to the steel terminal

292 4.47 480 03:37:18

48 Propel the front train-third into the steel terminal 730 1.34 347 03:43:04


50 Once front train-third is processed, haul to the scrap terminal loop

66 4.47 169 04:45:53

51 Decouple 60 04:46:53




55 Reverse to attach to front train-third 292 1.34 64 04:50:56

56 Couple 60 04:51:56

57 Haul the front train-third north via the B1/B2 New siding reception track and crossover to the route to Seaforth

2,347 4.47 480 04:59:56

58 Propel towards and attach to middle train third 2,182 1.34 142 05:02:19

59 Decouple 60 05:03:19



62 Run to parallel to EMR sidings 1,617 4.47 249 05:10:29


64 Run to southern end of rear train third 1,682 4.47 35 05:12:04

65 Couple 60 05:13:04


67 Brake test 600 05:24:04

68 Depart 05:24:04

69 End of train clears NR/Peel boundary 851 4.47 206 05:27:30


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

APPENDIX 3: CAPACITY CONTRIBUTION OF B1/B2 INFRASTRUCTURE

For options B1/B2 it will be necessary to use rail facilities in Alexandra Dock to hold sections of trains

while other sections are taken to and from the Canada Dock area terminals. This uses up capacity at

Alexandra Dock. If this was done using only the current rail infrastructure of Alexandra Dock, the

extra trains would get in the way of existing movements and would be detrimental to current

operations.

Therefore we need to provide additional capacity in Alexandra Dock. This should be such that the

overall impact of the capacity used by our Canada Dock trains is balanced by the additional capacity

we provide.

The rail layout designs shown in Appendix 1 show a generous amount of new-build infrastructure

associated with option B1/B2, including double-tracking the route from the Bootle branch and

providing a dedicated new track to Seaforth. This new infrastructure (and perhaps more) may well

be required to cater for the significant growth in rail freight potential – up to 38 departures per day.

However it is doubtful that costs of all this new infrastructure should be borne by the Canada Dock

area traffic.

Using the potential train movement schedule timings from Appendix 2, we seek to demonstrate that

a more modest infrastructure new-build broadly compensates for the capacity used by our trains for

the Canada Dock area. This modest infrastructure new-build includes an extra reception track

alongside and to the east of the coal terminal and directly alongside the existing single track route to

Seaforth, with a crossover at the mid-point to the existing route to Seaforth. This can be seen in the

track layout design (Appendix 1).

Each train that follows the B1/B2 train movement schedule takes 5 hours 30 minutes from the train

arriving to the train departing. Throughout this time, one track to Seaforth is blocked to through

traffic or the storing of other trains. However while the locomotive is in the Canada Dock area, a

through route to Seaforth is always available, even if this means using the cross-over at the mid-

point of the new B1/B2 siding to avoid sections of trains standing either in the new B1/B2 siding or

the original route to Seaforth.

When the locomotive is in the Alexandra Dock area, both routes to Seaforth are blocked. For each

Canada Dock train, this is the case for around 1 hour in total.

When the locomotive is passing between Canada Docks and Alexandra Docks, no trains can enter or

leave Liverpool Docks. For each Canada Dock train, this is the case for around 30 minutes.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

If no trains at all were going to Canada Dock, we would effectively be contributing a passing

loop for trains to/from Seaforth – available 24 hours a day.

If 1 train per day was going to Canada Dock, the modest infrastructure proposed would

contribute a passing loop for trains to/from Seaforth, but it would only be available for 18

hours 30 minutes per day (while our trains were not on site). We would be consuming 1

hour of capacity blocking the Seaforth route and 30 minutes of capacity blocking all access

to Liverpool port. Assuming a demand for Seaforth traffic such that offering a passing loop is

useful, this is a net contribution to capacity.

If 2 trains per day were going to Canada Dock, the proposed modest infrastructure would


hours per day (while our trains were not on site). We would be consuming 2 hours of

capacity blocking the Seaforth route and 1 hour of capacity blocking all access to Liverpool

port. Again, this is a net contribution to capacity.



hours 30 minutes per day (while our trains were not on site). We would be consuming 3

hours of capacity blocking the Seaforth route and 1 hour 30 minutes of capacity blocking all

access to Liverpool port. This appears to be broadly neutral: we are contributing broadly

the same amount of capacity as we are consuming. Further more detailed analysis would be

required to establish the precise balance for 3 trains per day.



hours per day (while our trains were not on site). We would be consuming 4 hours of

capacity blocking the Seaforth route and 2 hours of capacity blocking all access to Liverpool

port. With 4 trains per day, we are clearly consuming more capacity in Alexandra Dock than

we are contributing.

If 5 trains per day were going to Canada Dock, our train movement schedule would require

more than 24 hours per day. Therefore a different schedule would be required:

If capacity in the Alexandra Dock area was becoming a problem, it would be possible to build more

infrastructure in the Canada Dock area (extra loops) such that the whole Canada Dock train could be

taken to the Canada Dock area as soon as it arrived at Alexandra Dock, such that the train sectioning

could be done in the Canada Dock area. However this would contribute more HGV delay as full

trains would pass the road accesses instead of part-trains. This could be a similar arrangement to

the train sectioning for option A2/A3.

Trains for Seaforth would in any event pass through Alexandra sidings and be held further north

before being sectioned into the 400m long container terminal tracks. There is adequate ‘width’ next

to the existing single track towards Seaforth to add a second track so that one can be used to receive

and one to dispatch trains while a fourth terminal track could be added. This would allow the


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

existing site to receive a container train every 2 hours and for at least 3 hours to be available to turn

each train around.

Another alternative (option B3) to avoid the Alexandra Dock altogether would be to build a

triangular junction on approach to Alexandra Dock with a new south-bound curve. This would allow

direct access to Canada Dock from the Bootle branch. However this curve uses up a large amount of

new land, not required in B1/B2, for which Peel already have plans with a significant value. Arriving

and departing trains would also block Seatruck and Cargill for a couple of minutes and a new level

crossing would be required across Regent Road near Seatruck. We therefore believe it is unlikely

that this curve (B3) would be preferable to the B1/B2 options already described.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

APPENDIX 4: HGV DELAY DUE TO PASSING TRAINS

As described in section 5, several of the movements in the potential train movement schedules

involve the blocking of roads as the trains, train-thirds or sole locomotives pass. The total delay

caused to HGVs is dependent on both the number of railway movements, and the level of HGV

traffic across each level crossing and road access point.

HGV traffic at each level crossing and road access point We have made tentative estimates of future HGV daily traffic volumes at each level crossing and

road access point. Seatruck currently has 147,156 units (source: Peel ports for 2014). We are

assuming most of these are operated whereby no sole HGV tractors pass through the gate (an

arriving HGV tractor hauls a trailer in and a different trailer out), and the rest require an extra HGV

tractor movement. Incorporating the proposed Langton roro terminal to match some trade growth

we forecast an approximate 240,000 HGV movements across the gate. Per weekday (dividing by 300

operational days per year) this gives 800 daily HGVs through the gate.

We make simple assumptions relative to Seatruck for the other roads and road access points. From

North to South these are:

800 HGVs at B1/B2: Regent Road/Network Rail Level Crossing (LC)

800 HGVs at B1/B2: New potential LC south of current Regent Road/NR LC

800 HGVs at B1/B2: Seatruck

800 HGVs at A2/A3/B1/B2: Cargill: During the site visit there appeared to be broadly similar

volumes of HGV traffic to Seatruck

400 HGVs at A2/A3/B1/B2: New Steel terminal.

800 HGVs at A2/A3 Regent Road LC

400 HGVs at A2/A3 Bankfield Street LC

These are not robust estimates – particularly for the various level crossings over Regent Road and

Bankfield Street. If we assumed that current traffic levels continued along Bankfield Street and

Regent Road, then trains crossing the level crossing would have a large delay impact on road traffic:

In 2013 there were 1,349 vehicles per day along Bankfield Street and 8,475 along Regent Road13.

However if there were trains crossing, many of these vehicles may choose alternative routes when

the road was blocked, and if Regent Road became part of the port estate, traffic volumes could be

controlled and reduced – with no public through-traffic. If the A3 option (including the Bankfield

Street and new Regent Road level crossings, and the area becoming part of the port estate) was

being taken forward, then the impact of this re-routing of traffic would have to be modelled in the

knowledge that Bankfield Street is one of the few right turns planned for the A565 once dualling has

been completed. There would also be a need to consider alternative coach parking because

13

Source: DfT AADF traffic counts


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Bankfield Street has 8 medium-stay coach parking bays. Option B2 also involves the re-routing of

road traffic as Regent Road (but not Bankfield Street) becomes part of the port estate. A more

detailed study should include the modelling of such diverted road traffic.

Similarly if the current Regent Road LC was open to road traffic, there would be more than the

current zero flow of HGV traffic – we cannot pretend that the current rail route across Regent Road

does not cause delay to some HGVs by forcing them to re-route. We have simply assumed that the

Regent Road level crossing would have broadly similar flows to Seatruck and the Bankfield Street LC

would be half that.

Another unknown is who the occupiers of the various port facilities are likely to be in the long term.

For example it is possible that a new potential occupier of a site in the Canada Dock area may wish

to generate a large volume of HGV movements and want their own new road access to Regent Road,

thus requiring an additional level crossing.

Closure durations

We have also estimated the duration of each closure based on train length and speed (10mph).

A sole locomotive crosses and clears a 50 metre crossing in 16 seconds.

A locomotive hauling 1 train-third crosses and clears a 50 metre crossing in 54 seconds.

A locomotive hauling a full train crosses and clears a 50 metre crossing in 130 seconds.

Adding 20 seconds to each of these times (for gate closure and safety margin) gives an estimate of

the road-closure durations:

36 seconds for a sole locomotive

74 seconds for a locomotive hauling 1 train-third

150 seconds for a locomotive hauling a full train

Total HGV delay estimates per train

The delay per closure does not increase linearly with time. Consider the following example:

One HGV arrives every minute and the road is closed for 5 minutes. We could expect 5 HGVs

to arrive in this 5 minute period. Each would wait for 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, 0.5 minutes

respectively before the road re-opened. The total delay is 12.5 HGV minutes.

However if the road closed for 10 minutes, we could expect 10 HGVs to arrive in this 10

minute period. Each would wait for 9.5, 8.5, 7.5, 6.5, 5.5, 4.5, 3.5, 2.5, 1.5, 0.5 minutes

respectively before the road re-opened. The total delay is 50 HGV minutes – i.e. instead of

doubling the HGV minutes, the total HGV delay is quadruple the delay of the 5 minute

closure.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

A formula representing this HGV delay is:

0.5 X Average HGV flow X Closure-time squared

The following table summarises the estimates of total HGV delay by estimating the closure time and

therefore the HGV delay associated with each train movement crossing a road access point, and

then adding all these HGV delays up to give a total HGV delay per train arrival, processing and then

departure. The crossing movements are derived from the potential movements schedule in

Appendix 2.

A2/A3 Total HGV delay estimates per train

Cargill

New Steel terminal

A2/A3 Regent Rd LC

A2/A3 Bankfield St LC

Daily HGVs through gate 800 400 800 400

Hourly HGVs through gate 33.3 16.7 33.3 16.7

Minutely HGVs through gate 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.3

Average HGV flow per second 0.009 0.005 0.009 0.005

No Movements HGV delay (seconds) Total

2 Loco + full-length train

Each movement blocking time (s)

150 150

Each movement HGV delay (s)

104 52

All movements

208 104 311

1 Train arriving, stopping, decoupling and moving

Each movement blocking time (s) 231 231

Each movement HGV delay (s) 246 123

All movements 246 123

369

1 Train re-forming, coupling, brake testing and moving

Each movement blocking time (s) 1,124 1,124

Each movement HGV delay (s) 5,852 2,926

All movements 5,852 2,926

8,779

3 Loco



All movements 18 9

26

2 Loco + train-third



All movements 50 25

75

Total HGV delay per train (s)

9,561

9,561 seconds equates to 2 hour 40 minutes. A stationary HGV with driver on-board costs around

£35 per hour (principally depreciation and driver’s wages). Therefore the 2 hour 40 minute total

HGV delay equates to approximately £93 in HGV delay cost per train, along with a decrease in

reliability and a need for the space for these HGVs to queue.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

B1/B2 Total HGV delay estimates per train

Regent Rd/NR

LC

Potential LC south of current LC

Seatruck Cargill New Steel terminal

Daily HGVs through gate 800 800 800 800 400

Hourly HGVs through gate 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 16.7

Minutely HGVs through gate 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3

Average HGV flow per second 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.009 0.005

No Movements HGV delay (seconds) Total

2 Loco + full-length train

Each movement blocking time (s) 150

Each movement HGV delay (s) 104

All movements

208

208

6 Loco + train-third

Each movement blocking time (s) 74 74 74 74

Each movement HGV delay (s) 25 25 25 13

All movements

151 151 151 75

528

Total HGV delay per train (s)

736

736 seconds equates to 12 minutes, which equates to £7 in HGV cost per train. This is far less

disruptive in terms of HGV delay than option A2/A3. This is largely because the train does not have

to be re-formed and readied for departure while blocking road accesses.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

APPENDIX 5: CAPITAL COSTS

Gleeds have provided high level cost estimates for the key infrastructure options:

A3: Re-instating the Canada Dock branch: £22.7m

B2: Serve Canada Dock from the North (Alexandra Dock): £10.8m

B2b: As B2 but with generous infrastructure in Alexandra Dock area: £18.0

The breakdown of these costs is shown below


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Option A3: Re-instating the Canada Dock branch

Revision Rev 01 Estimate Stage GRIP 1

26-Mar-15 1Q15

WBS Estimate Breakdown ValueEscalation

(Y/N)

%age of

Point

Estimate

Remarks

Contractor's direct costs -

1.01 Railway Control Systems 467,438 Y 2.88%

1.02 Train Power Systems - Y 0.00%

1.03 Electric Power and Plant 734,628 Y 4.53%

1.04 Permanent Way 3,669,466 Y 22.61%

1.05 Telecommunication Systems 44,762 Y 0.28%

1.06 Buildings and Property - Y 0.00%

1.07 Civil Engineering 5,519,926 Y 34.01%

1.08 Enabling Works 90,000 Y 0.55%

Contractor's Base Construction Cost inc OH&P: Sub-Total A 10,526,221 64.86%

Client's "direct costs"

tbc NDS - Materials Y 0.00%

tbc NDS - Fleet Y 0.00%

tbc - Engineering trains Y 0.00%

tbc - Tampers Y 0.00%

tbc NDS - Possession/Isolation Management 0.00%

Sub - Total B -

10,526,221 64.86%

Contractor's indirect costs

tbc 20% 2,105,244 Y 12.97%

tbc 15% 1,578,933 Y 9.73%

tbc 175,903 Y 1.08%

tbc - Y 0.00%

tbc 40,000 Y 0.25%

tbc - Y 0.00%

Sub - Total D 3,900,080 24.03%

Total Construction Cost E (C+D) 14,426,301 88.89%

Client's indirect & other costs

tbc Project Management (COWD) N 0.00% To be advised

tbc Project Management (forecasted remaining costs) 12.5% 1,803,288 Y 11.11%

tbc - Y 0.00%

tbc TWA Charges 0% Y 0.00% To be advised

tbc Land/Property Costs & compensation Y 0.00% To be advised

tbc Escalation (see Note 1) % - NA 0.00% See Note 1

tbc Other (state) -

Sub - Total F 1,803,288 11.11%

Point Estimate - Sub - Total G (E+F) 16,229,588 100.00%

Anticipated Start Date Anticipated Finish Date

Project No.

Estimate No.

Estimate Date Price 'Base date'

Testing & Commissioning

Training

Spares

Project Title / Location Canada Dock Branch Line - Option A2/A3

Total Base Construction Cost inc OH&P: Sub-Total C (A+B)

Preliminaries

Design

Other

Compensation charges (TOC & FOC)


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Uplift for Risk and Contingency

tbc To Mean (see Note 3) % 40% 6,491,835 See Note 3

Project Budget (Point Estimate + Uplift to Mean) 22,721,423 for Project Manager's reference

tbc QRA Value - at P50 (see Note 3) £

tbc QRA Value - at P80 - incremental on P50 value (see Note 3) £

tbc Adjustment for residual factors (see Note 2) %

Project Anticipated Final Cost (AFC) 22,721,423 Authorised AFC

Other Costs to the Customer

tbc Allowance for Escalation (see Note 1) See Note 1

tbc -

tbc -

tbc Allowance for Insurance Top-up

01/05/2002

Cost to Customer 22,721,423

Name :-

Position :-

Signed :-

Date :-

Sponsor to advise if P50 or P80 value shall apply See Note 3

Uplift on Point Estimate Value (excluding the Cost of Work Done) See Note 2


Jeremy Evans

Associate Director

provided by Sponsor

APPROVAL & ENDORSEMENT

Estimate Produced by :- Estimate Approved by :- Estimate Endorsed by :-

Notes:-

1. Escalation will only be included within the Project Anticipated Final Cost (Project AFC) where the Project AFC is in excess of £50m and where the site works will be over 2 years

duration; escalation shall be calculated using RPI indices from the estimate 'base date' to the mid-point of the construction phase.

Where the project AFC is below £50m or the construction phase will be shorter than two years, escalation shall not be included but it shall be calculated as described herein and

shown in the Estimate Summary Report under "Other Costs to the Customer".

2. An 'Adjustment for residual factors' has been applied in accordance with the Guidance Notes on Estimating and Supplementary Note (dated 18th March 2010).

3. The project team or Risk & Value Manager should provide the values for uplifts to Mean, P50 and P80. The uplifts to Mean and P50 should be entered in the spaces provided; the

incremental value to P80 (beyond P50) should be shown in the box provided (i.e. P80 value - P50 value)


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Option B2: Serve Canada Dock from the North (Alexandra Dock)


19-Mar-15 1Q15


(Y/N)

%age of

Point

Estimate

Remarks


1.01 Railway Control Systems 303,796 Y 3.93%



1.04 Permanent Way 3,665,297 Y 47.41%

1.05 Telecommunication Systems - Y 0.00%


1.07 Civil Engineering 474,602 Y 6.14%









Sub - Total B -

4,982,203 64.45%


tbc 20% 996,441 Y 12.89%

tbc 15% 747,330 Y 9.67%

tbc 105,610 Y 1.37%

tbc - Y 0.00%

tbc 40,000 Y 0.52%

tbc - Y 0.00%

Sub - Total D 1,889,381 24.44%




tbc Project Management (forecasted remaining costs) 12.5% 858,948 Y 11.11%

tbc - Y 0.00%




tbc Other (state) -

Sub - Total F 858,948 11.11%



Project No.

Estimate No.



Training

Spares

Project Title / Location Canada Dock Branch Line - Option B1/B2


Preliminaries

Design

Other



30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11










tbc -

tbc -


01/05/2002


Name :-

Position :-

Signed :-

Date :-




Jeremy Evans

Associate Director

provided by Sponsor



Notes:-

1. Escalation will only be included within the Project Anticipated Final Cost (Project AFC) where the Project AFC is in excess of £50m and where the site works will be over 2 years

duration; escalation shall be calculated using RPI indices from the estimate 'base date' to the mid-point of the construction phase.




3. The project team or Risk & Value Manager should provide the values for uplifts to Mean, P50 and P80. The uplifts to Mean and P50 should be entered in the spaces provided; the

incremental value to P80 (beyond P50) should be shown in the box provided (i.e. P80 value - P50 value)


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Option B2b: As B2 but with generous infrastructure in Alexandra Dock area


26-Mar-15 1Q15


(Y/N)

%age of

Point

Estimate

Remarks


1.01 Railway Control Systems 1,034,511 Y 8.06%



1.04 Permanent Way 5,842,134 Y 45.54%

1.05 Telecommunication Systems - Y 0.00%


1.07 Civil Engineering 715,941 Y 5.58%









Sub - Total B -

8,223,386 64.11%


tbc 20% 1,644,677 Y 12.82%

tbc 15% 1,233,508 Y 9.62%

tbc 260,982 Y 2.03%

tbc - Y 0.00%

tbc 40,000 Y 0.31%

tbc - Y 0.00%

Sub - Total D 3,179,167 24.78%




tbc Project Management (forecasted remaining costs) 12.5% 1,425,319 Y 11.11%

tbc - Y 0.00%




tbc Other (state) -

Sub - Total F 1,425,319 11.11%


Other



Training

Spares

Project Title / Location Canada Dock Branch Line - Option B1/B2


Preliminaries

Design


Project No.

Estimate No.



30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11










tbc -

tbc -


01/05/2002


Name :-

Position :-

Signed :-

Date :-

Notes:-

1. Escalation will only be included within the Project Anticipated Final Cost (Project AFC) where the Project AFC is in excess of £50m and where the site works will be over 2

years duration; escalation shall be calculated using RPI indices from the estimate 'base date' to the mid-point of the construction phase.




3. The project team or Risk & Value Manager should provide the values for uplifts to Mean, P50 and P80. The uplifts to Mean and P50 should be entered in the spaces

provided; the incremental value to P80 (beyond P50) should be shown in the box provided (i.e. P80 value - P50 value)

Jeremy Evans

Associate Director

provided by Sponsor







30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

Assumptions

1. The estimate base date is 1Q 2015.

2. Allowances have been made for adverse ground conditions and service diversions.

3. Assumes all construction materials including p/way elements will be brought to site by lorry.

4. Assumes all excavated material to be removed from site by lorry.

5. Assumes extensive structural/remedial work will be required to bring the tunnel back into

operational use.

6. Assumes the existing road over rail bridges at Derby Road and Bankhall Lane will need to be

demolished and replaced with new structures.

7. Assumes a 5m depth of dig to track formation level along Bankfield St (South Side) to west

tunnel portal.

Exclusions 1. Excludes any allowance for Optimism Bias.

2. Escalation allowance is excluded from the "Cost to Customer" figure.

3. VAT is excluded.

4. Excludes 3rd party compensation charges.

5. Excludes planning and approval charges.

6. Excludes permanent land purchases.

7. Excludes costs associated with Statutory Fees (e.g. HMRI, Local Authority, etc.).

8. Excludes costs associated with taxes and levies, including VAT.

9. Excludes costs associated with licences and all associated costs and fees.

10. Excludes costs associated with changes in legislation and any form of applicable standards.

11. Excludes costs associated with changes in legislation, regulation and interpretation covering

discriminatory, specific and general issues that may lead to design and cost changes.

12. Excludes allowances for ground stabilisation works.

13. Excludes costs associated with working during Christmas and Bank Holidays.

14. No signalling or telecoms equipment has been included, unless specifically identified.


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

APPENDIX 6: LAND ASSEMBLY PLANS

Canada Dock Railway Option A1

Railway Land 3.24 acres (1.31 ha)

W F Doyle Holdings Ltd (MS399675)

3.81 acres (1.52 ha)

Liverpool City Council (MS402768) 0.11 acres (0.05 ha)

Blue Property and Investments Ltd

(MS480048) and SGB Services Ltd

(MS527230)

2.98 acres (1.21 ha)

Homes and Communities Agency

(MS376672) 2.54 acres (1.02 ha)

Canada Dock Railway Option A2 / A3

Railway Land 2.57acres (1.04 ha)

W F Doyle Holdings Ltd (MS399675)

3.81 acres (1.52 ha)

Homes and Communities Agency

(MS376672) 2.54 acres (1.02 ha)

Blue Property and Investments Ltd

(MS480048) and SGB Services Ltd

(MS527230)

2.98 acres (1.21 ha)

S Norton & Co (MS311611)

7.05 acres (2.85 ha)

Conor & Daragh McDonald (MS360037) 0.05 acres (0.02 ha)

John Conlan (MS206130)

0.12 acres (0.05 ha)

Mark Davies & Anthony Smith

(MS198075)

0.07 acres (0.03 ha)

Liverpool City Council (MS402768) 0.11 acres (0.05 ha)


30/04/15 16:09

Our Ref: 215013r11

APPENDIX 7: JOB SPECIFICATION

1

245 Canada Dock (Rev6 FINAL VERSION)

5th February 2015

Specification

Port of Liverpool (Southern Zone)

Rail Connectivity to Canada Dock Area

Feasibility & Demand Study

2


5th February 2015

1. Introduction

1.1 This study is to develop the business case for the reinstatement of rail

connectivity to the Canada Dock area and the Port of Liverpool

Southern Zone more generally (including Sandon Dock, Huskisson

Dock, Canada Dock, Brocklebank Dock and Langton Dock) and for

specific site options for rail freight terminals in the same area. This

needs development in the light of interest related to land currently

protected in regard to one potential option for provision of this rail link.

1.2 Merseytravel, on behalf of key stakeholders of the Liverpool City

Region (Homes & Communities Agency, Peel Ports, Liverpool City

Region LEP, Liverpool City Council, Sefton Council and Merseytravel),

wishes to commission a Feasibility and Demand Study to determine the

potential benefits of reconnecting the Canada Dock area to the rail

network and to gain an understanding of the practical, regulatory,

operational, land and cost implications of the possible options.

1.3 As part of the Feasibility & Demand Study there will be a requirement to

develop costs, the capital cost element will need to consider the cost of

reinstating the connection to this area of the port including any related

land assembly costs. Two separate main route options are to be

considered as part of this study with sub options identified.

1.4 The options and sub-options will need to be evaluated in terms of ease

of operation for freight movements both qualitatively and quantitatively

in terms of potential effects on demand and on the existing rail freight

operations within and to/from the port. Likely freight terminal or

terminals and their locations will depend on the needs and cargos of

existing or future businesses located in the port estate or local area.

1.5 As part of this study there will be a requirement to review current

timetables and to identify the potential freight paths in and out of the

locality and identify whether this would constrain demand.

1.6 The Feasibility & Demand Study will need to determine the Benefit Cost

Ratio (BCR) and Net Present Value (NPV) of the options.

1.7 Finally it will need to identify a preferred route option for rail connectivity

to Canada Dock and the Port of Liverpool (Southern Zone) including

costs, next steps and indicative implementation timescales. This will

establish a clear evidence based rationale for going forward in regard

3


5th February 2015

to why the rail connectivity to this area of the Port of Liverpool is

needed (the challenge), implementation issues / costs / timescale (the

solution) and what objectives / outputs / outcomes / benefits such rail

connectivity will deliver for the port and wider city region (the outcome).

2. Background

2.1 Historically the Port of Liverpool had an extensive network of rail lines

within the port estate. The LNWR Canada Dock goods yard, located on

the eastern side of Regent Road, had a dedicated rail link to the Bootle

Branch as well as connections on to the internal rail lines within the port

estate at Canada Dock to the west of Regent Road. In recent years

these lines were lost as the rail network was rationalised.

2.2 Today the main rail line into the Port of Liverpool is the Bootle Branch

and within the port estate the area from Alexandra Dock to Royal

Seaforth Dock is rail connected. However the rail lines within the port

estate south of Alexandra Dock have been removed so the Port of

Liverpool Southern Zone (including Langton Dock, Brocklebank Dock,

Canada Dock, Huskisson Dock and Sandon Dock) is no longer rail

connected. The Canada Dock rail link off the Bootle Branch which

served the port estate and the former LNWR Canada Dock goods yard

to the east of Regent Road closed in 1982. Since then parts of the

former Canada Dock goods yard have been infilled between the

Canada Dock Tunnel and Derby Road with different surface levels

created. However the former LNWR Canada Dock Goods Terminal

buildings still exist on the land between Regent Road and Derby Road.

2.3 There is an aspiration outlined in the draft Port Master Plan to connect

the Canada Dock area and the Port of Liverpool (Southern Zone) to the

rail network for freight movements to serve port related businesses in

this area and the wider local area that do not presently have the option

of rail connectivity.

2.4 A previous study is available for information only and cannot be relied

upon by the Consultant in this study. The study is “Canada Dock Rail

study v1 0 July 2008” by Steer Davis Gleave for English Partnerships

(predecessor to the Homes & Communities Agency). Other relevant

items of information that are available and in the public domain are:

Access to the Port of Liverpool Study (2010/11) by WSP http://www.letstravelwise.org/files/1832000440_PortOfLiverpoolStudy_Stage1

Report_May2010.pdf

http://www.letstravelwise.org/files/636125410_PortOfLiverpoolStudy_Stage2R

eport_Nov2011.pdf

http://www.letstravelwise.org/files/1832000440_PortOfLiverpoolStudy_Stage1Report_May2010.pdf

http://www.letstravelwise.org/files/1832000440_PortOfLiverpoolStudy_Stage1Report_May2010.pdf

http://www.letstravelwise.org/files/636125410_PortOfLiverpoolStudy_Stage2Report_Nov2011.pdf

http://www.letstravelwise.org/files/636125410_PortOfLiverpoolStudy_Stage2Report_Nov2011.pdf

4


5th February 2015

Mersey Ports Master Plan – Consultation Draft 2011 by Peel Ports

http://peelports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Consultation-Draft.pdf

http://peelports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Plans-1-6.pdf

Historical Background to LNWR Canada Dock Goods Yard (Disused Stations) http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/canada_dock_goods/index.shtml

The former LNWR Canada Dock Goods Terminal buildings still stand on one of the proposed

rail alignment options on the land between Regent Road and Derby Road. So there may be

potential for these buildings and their site footprint to form the basis for a new freight terminal.

(Disused Stations http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/canada_dock_goods/index.shtml)

http://peelports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Consultation-Draft.pdf

http://peelports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Plans-1-6.pdf

http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/canada_dock_goods/index.shtml


5


5th February 2015

This is the former LNWR Canada Dock Goods Terminal which still survives intact. This gate

was where the rail line once exited the former LNWR Canada Dock Goods Terminal and went

across Regent Road into the Peel Ports dock estate on the western side of Regent Road.


This is the western portal of the Canada Dock Tunnel as it was in the 1930s. This double

track tunnel survives intact and is owned by Network Rail. But this portal is no longer visible

due to infilling of the former Canada Dock Goods Yard site here to street level.




6


5th February 2015

3. Study Requirements

3.1 Merseytravel, on behalf of key stakeholders, wishes to commission a

Consultant to undertake a high level Feasibility & Demand Study for the

construction of a rail connection into Canada Dock and the Port of

Liverpool (Southern Zone). This work will involve identifying and

quantifying the capital costs (including land or lease costs), revenue

cost, operational aspects and constraints and demand for the route

options and scenarios for rail connectivity that are outlined.

3.2 The capital costs shall be based on typical high level industry rates

applied in relation to the Consultant’s knowledge of the area. Where

there are conditions that are unknown the Consultant shall apply a

reasonable assumption to the development of the cost and consider

upper and lower bounds. The uncertainties in cost will be developed

into a sensitivity analysis for each of the options with, median, upper

and lower bound costs being prepared. The Consultant shall provide

sufficient detail to show how costs are derived and demonstrate that

these are robust with appropriate historic or other documentary

evidence in support.

3.3 The Consultant shall list all the assumptions made in developing the

costs and identify the work that can be undertaken, if required or

appropriate, at a future date, so as to provide better cost certainty.

3.4 The Revenue Costs shall include any charges and costs incurred in the

provision of the rail freight service and any operational costs associated

with the freight handling facility. The costs should be based on typical

industry rates. The Consultant shall provide sufficient detail to show

how costs are derived and demonstrate that these are robust with

appropriate historic or other documentary evidence in support. This will

need to be informed also by the likely commodities and tonnages likely

to be handled by rail from this part of the Port of Liverpool.

3.5 Revenue Costs shall also include any savings associated with reducing

the road transport element as well as potential carbon savings.

3.6 The Consultant shall consider the options suggested and carry forward

only those that are considered acceptable in terms of operations.

Acceptable in this context means that Freight Operators would be able

to develop an operating pattern that is in accordance with normal

industry practice and is reasonably practical to implement.

3.7 The Consultant shall develop freight paths in and out of the proposed

rail freight terminal(s) for each of the options. This shall be considered

with the current timetables and any constraints that apply. Freight

7


5th February 2015

paths will look at local constraints as well as the path to the

origins/destinations. The demand study side of the work and likely

commodities will inform this element in terms of potential

origins/destinations. Current road transport and origins/destinations out

of the dock area shall also be considered. This element of the study is

intended to be a high level study with the primary focus being on a

detailed consideration of local constraints to freight movement.

Additionally it will include a secondary focus on a less detailed overview

of potential constraints further afield to possible origins/destinations.

3.8 The Consultant shall develop a demand model that considers current

usage of the dock area and develops this to identify any current and

increasing demand with the provision of these new rail freight facilities.

3.9 The capital cost shall include land purchase costs or amendments to

current leases. The Consultant will need to highlight those land parcels

that are likely to be impacted upon as a result of the proposed rail link

options. This will enable the key stakeholders to consider further any

impacts on occupiers with leases within the port estate and elsewhere

in a sensitive manner. The costs should be based on typical land costs

in the area. The Consultant shall provide sufficient detail to show how

these costs are derived and demonstrate that these are robust with

appropriate historic or other documentary evidence in support.

3.10 The Consultant shall also undertake the following as part of the study.

A high level review of the existing infrastructure in terms of constraints

to implementing the options and the works required to remove

constraints.

An overview feasibility of undertaking the works to implement the

individual options with high level risks identified.

A detailed comparison of the various infrastructure options detailing

risks, benefits, and relevant merits of each of the proposals, with the

preferred option clearly identified as a way forward.

Consider fully any planned infrastructure improvements in the area

including highway improvements, e.g. the planned improvements to

Regent Road by Liverpool City Council, and Peel Ports proposed

Langton In-River Ro-Ro Terminal, ensure any improvements are

integrated into option development for the Canada Dock rail links

The study shall consider known and planned local growth and shall

consider the opportunity to link in with other business in the location.

Likely terminal locations will depend on the cargo requirements of

existing and future businesses located in the port estate and local area.

8


5th February 2015

Provide relevant advice on further studies required to remove

unknowns, reduce risks or develop more robust costs.

Outline timescales for the potential implementation of the preferred

route option with key milestones including land acquisition, planning,

Network Rail procedures and the like.

High level consideration of the wider economic benefits such as

potential impacts on, local job and wealth creation, on the local Gross

Value Added (GVA) and improved accessibility to business.

High level consideration of environmental effects of options required

including any positive or negative impacts on the reduction of accidents

as well as noise, carbon and air quality improvements as a result of

removing freight from the roads and other relevant issues.

A high level consideration of benefits to other stakeholders.

Risks associated with the options and any necessary sensitivity

analysis to quantify the risks.

High level overview of the policy context and business aspirations for

the area of the Port of Liverpool and related port businesses with

leases in the area (particularly in port estate south of Alexandra Dock

including Langton Dock, Brocklebank Dock, Canada Dock, Huskisson

Dock and Sandon Dock in the Port of Liverpool Southern Zone).

Liaison with the stakeholders to understand and quantify the land and

lease constraints, identify the likelihood of approval of a level crossing

and the potential for taking the public highway into private ownership.

Qualitative analysis of the options and related benefits with a

commentary on the results with a specific focus of the necessity or

desire of a rail connection as appropriate to the findings of the study.

Drawing showing land ownership boundaries and detailed data of

ownership for the options evaluated.

Calculate Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR)

utilising WEBtag guidance in so far as this is possible or relevant.

Identify a preferred route option and indicative timescale for

implementation of this route option and suggest likely next steps.

9


5th February 2015

3.11 There are a number of separate infrastructure options to consider. The

map on p12 shows an overview of the two main route scenarios.

ROUTE A: New dedicated rail link off Bootle Branch to Canada Dock

and various other docks within the Port of Liverpool Southern Zone

Option A1:

This option includes the following elements –

Reinstate points at the former Atlantic Dock Junction between

Westminster Tunnel and Oriel Road Tunnel on the Bootle Branch;

project will need to provide a trailing crossover at the reinstated

Atlantic Dock Junction, for trains departing Canada Dock area of port

to allow them to access the Up Bootle Branch, (this is likely to

involve three point ends in total).

All new and modified signalling as necessary to facilitate rail link

Re-commission Canada Dock Tunnel under Leeds Liverpool Canal

with single or double track line reinstated as necessary

New single or double track line as necessary from tunnel to run

parallel to Bankfield Street with new or revived crossings under Bank

Hall Lane and Derby Road. These two roads historically were carried

over the former Canada Dock goods yard on multiple arched bridges

which may still be intact. Rail alignment should be future proofed to

cater for implementation of a double track capability if necessary.

Single or double track as necessary from terminal to buffer stop

Suitable length of track with associated sets of points to allow typical

freight train length and to allow loco to run around

Termination to the east of Regent Road with new freight terminal

created on part of the former LNWR Canada Dock goods yard site

including hard standing area suitable for cargo handling

Option A2

Option A2 is as per Option A1 but with the following additions:

Rail line extended into the port estate to west of Regent Road

through the creation of a level crossing of Regent Road before

curving northwards and / or southwards in the vicinity of the

Canada Dock area to serve the various docks as necessary.

Suitable length of track with associated sets of points to allow

typical freight train length and to allow loco to run around

Run around facilities within the Peel Ports estate to the west of

Regent Road and various freight terminals located as necessary

to serve the relevant port businesses and cargos. This will

enable the rail line to serve the Port of Liverpool (Southern

10


5th February 2015

Zone) including Sandon Dock, Huskisson Dock, Canada Dock,

Brocklebank Dock and Langton Dock.

Location of new freight terminal(s) within the port estate will

need to be informed by the port businesses and those in the

local area and the likely cargo / commodities.

Regent Road is to remain a public highway in this option. As a

result there will be a need to explore impact of level crossing on

the highway network and journey times in the area.

Option A3

This is as Option A2 except for the last point in regard to Regent Road:

Regent Road in this option is brought into the Peel Ports estate

and so will no longer be public highway but will become private.

This scenario for Regent Road is proposed in the medium to

long term by Peel Ports in the draft Mersey Ports Master Plan.

As a result there will be a need to explore impact of level

crossing on the highway network and journey times in the area.

Various combinations of the above options may also be worth

considering if the consultant feels this is necessary. For example there

may be merit in having both a freight terminal to east of Regent Road

on former Canada Dock Goods Yard site as well as ones to west within

the Peel Ports estate serving key docks in the southern part of the Port.

ROUTE B: Extension of rail lines within port estate southwards from

Alexandra Dock area to serve Canada Dock and Port of Liverpool

Southern Zone

Option B1:

This option includes the following elements –

New sets of points to the Bootle Branch and existing rail lines within

port estate close to Alexandra Dock to the west of Regent Road

New single or double track running to the west of Regent Road

within port estate or alternatively within or adjacent to the highway

itself in a southerly direction to buffer stops at Canada Dock or other

docks depending on cargos and needs of port businesses.

Hard standing area suitable for cargo handling

Suitable length of track with associated sets of points to allow typical

freight train length and to allow loco to run around

11


5th February 2015

Location of freight terminal(s) within the port estate will need to be

informed by the port businesses and those in the local area and the

likely cargo / commodities.

This option will need to examine the impact on rail capacity of the

existing rail lines within the port estate due to the shunting of trains

up to the northern end of port in this option from the southern end

that will be required prior to them exiting the port via Bootle Branch

Regent Road is to remain a public highway in this option. As a result

there will be a need to explore impact of rail line in this corridor on

the highway network and journey times in the area.

Option B2:

This is as option B1 except for the last point in regard to Regent Road –

Regent Road in this option is brought into the Peel Ports estate and

so will no longer be public highway but will become private. This

scenario for Regent Road is proposed in the medium to long term by

Peel Ports in the draft Mersey Ports Master Plan. As a result there

will be a need to explore impact of rail line in this corridor on the

highway network and journey times in the area.

ROUTE C: Do nothing approach and retain the status quo This option includes the following elements –

Do not proceed with any rail link to this part of port and accept the consequent limits on rail access and impact on the ability to promote multi-modal access to the Port of Liverpool.

Current safeguarding provisions are retained indefinitely

12


5th February 2015

Freight Rail Line to Port

of Liverpool Northern

Zone (Alexandra Dock

to Royal Seaforth Dock)

Merseyrail to Southport

and disused North

Mersey Branch to

Aintree and Ormskirk

FREIGHT ONLY

Bootle Branch

from Port of

Liverpool to

Chat Moss Line

and the WCML

Merseyrail to

Ormskirk and

Kirkby

Merseyrail to

Liverpool Central

and Hunts Cross

Port of Liverpool

Southern Zone (Langton

Dock to Sandon Dock)

NOT RAIL CONNECTED

Seatruck Ferries

Ro-Ro Terminal

at Langton Dock Southern Zone

Millers Bridge

Bankfield Street

Regent Road

A565

Derby

Road

Leeds

Liverpool

Canal

Northern Zone

13


5th February 2015

3.12 Freight movement by rail out of the Canada Dock area and other docks

in the Port of Liverpool (Southern Zone) cannot currently take place so

new freight paths will need to be identified as part of this study to

enable the trains to go onto the Bootle Branch and beyond. This will

need to take into account the rail freight forecasts for the Port of

Liverpool (Northern Zone) which predict 38 freight trains per day

outbound from the Port of Liverpool via the Bootle Branch (therefore 76

train movements in total overall including outbound and inbound).

3.13 Key stakeholders include:

Merseytravel

Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership

Sefton Council

Network Rail

Homes & Communities Agency (HCA)

Liverpool City Council

Peel Ports

Various Freight Operators

All businesses in and adjacent to the port estate, particularly in the

Port of Liverpool (Southern Zone) which is currently not rail

connected i.e. the area encompassing Langton Dock, Brocklebank

Dock, Canada Dock, Huskisson Dock and Sandon Dock that are all

located south of Alexandra Dock in the Port of Liverpool.

3.14 The Consultant shall facilitate and manage an inception meeting

presenting an understanding of the brief. The Consultant shall produce

a brief report following this meeting confirming his approach and

understanding. This report shall include a programme

3.15 The Consultant shall produce a two weekly headline progress report

detailing completion of items against programme and highlighting any

issues and developing risks to the programmed service.

3.16 The Consultant shall plan to produce and issue a draft report for

comment followed by facilitating and managing a meeting to review the

content of the draft report. The Consultant shall record all comments

made and detail actions based on comments.

3.17 The Consultant shall issue the final report following comments. The

Consultant shall present the findings to the stakeholders to be

facilitated and managed by the Consultant.

14


5th February 2015

3.18 The Consultant should be aware that the indicative headline budget for

this study work should not exceed £30,000 if possible.

4. Deliverables

4.1 Inception meeting summary.

4.2 Agreed and revised programme following inception meeting.

4.3 Draft Report.

4.4 Final Report.

5. Timescales

5.1 The Consultant shall provide a programme following the inception

meeting on 27 February 2015.

5.2 The Consultant shall complete the work in accordance with this

programme which shall be for completion of the draft report by end of

March 2015 and completed final report by end of April 2015.

5.3 The study is intended to provide outline baseline data to determine the

future direction for work in this area and is intended to be a high level

study. All data produced should be based on evidenced data with

assumptions clearly identified.

6. Project Management

The Consultant shall maintain a single point of contact throughout the

contract. Merseytravel shall identify a single point of contact following award.

7. Report Content

The precise format, layout and sections are as determined by the Consultant.

rail connectivity to the feasibility and demand study documents/canada dock rail... · rail...

Documents