Planning the London International Freight Exchange at Colnbrook. Tim Allen Senior Associate. Peter Brett Associates

Transcription

1 Tim Allen Senior Associate Peter Brett Associates

2 The Challenge: To respond to emerging Government policy and encourage a shift to rail freight - especially for new markets To meet the challenge of rail viability in the FMCG sector - where time is of the essence. Double handling becomes a make or break issue

3 Source Railhead Railhead Break even haul by rail = 500 km Outlet RDC

4 Source Railhead Break even haul by rail = 300 km Railhead & RDC Outlet

5 The Proposition: To provide an International Freight Exchange within a realistic distance to the most concentrated consumer catchment in the UK - measured by density and wealth West of London & Home Counties catchment Confluence of M4/M25 Great Western Railway Heathrow

6

7 The Solution: A site located central to the potential catchment, and able to meet the unique demands of servicing the facility Western connection to GWR Freight sidings, Transit Shed, etc 2.4 mft 2 Rail Connected Warehouses Landscaping/Open Space

8

9 A holistic proposal: The site is configured to be optimal for use by rail and road modes together: All buildings rail-connected at the outset Configuration of buildings sub-optimal for non-rail uses Internal rail network Ability to deal with all modes of freight: Palletised Containers Swap body vehicles Trains marshalled within the site

10 Operational Estimates: Existing sources of travel data were limited A new approach was required: Customs data used for Continental freight CSRG used for regional freight Analysis of warehouse operation Understanding of logistics needs

11 The Users: A range of potential users: Logistics firms occupying buildings on the site Local manufacturers exporting goods by rail Distant manufacturers importing goods by rail Retailers importing goods to the catchment by rail Any combination of these!! A complex range of interactions build up!

12 Basis of the Freight Model: Operational data based on a number of constraining factors: Pallet size Pallet turnaround Building heights Proportions given over to racking Aisle sizes and pallet stocks Level of vehicle utilisation Types of vehicles used Researched values were used to define a proxy overall that could define the loads moved

13

14 Freight Movement by Rail: 14 trains per day - (28 train movements per day) 7 UK (4 Intermodal, 3 Conventional) 7 Continental (6 Intermodal, 1 Conventional) 25% INBOUND by Rail 8% OUTBOUND by Rail RDC not NDC

15 Freight Movement by Lorry: 1343 HGV trips - (2686 HGV movements per day) 40% M25 (S) 30% M25 (N) 10% M4 (E) 5% A4 (E) 15% M4 (W) 85% towards target catchment

16 Freight Transfer Benefits: Despite only 16½% of freight tonnes by rail, haul distance means: 786m Tonne km pa by rail - only in the UK Compared with around: 712m Tonne km pa by lorry

17 Other Factors: 2355 light vehicle trips per day one way - (4710 LV movements per day) Empirical data comparisons Various distribution and assignment scenarios!

18 Managing the local effects: An innovative, and radical Site Transport Plan that bites on operations and employees Transport Co-ordinator Traffic Management Plan Green Transport Plan Highway Network Improvements Monitoring and Review Funding and Incentives

19 Operational Effects Lorry Routes Lorry arrival and departure management Logistics Management - back-loads clearing house Lorry Tolls Sliding scale Geared to rail use High rail use can produce a pay back

20 Employee effects Managed by a Green Transport Plan: Information Common Travel Groups Working time co-ordination Car sharing Bus Services/Shuttle Bus Cycle Club/Cycle Purchase Highway improvements - cycle tracks, bus measures

21 GTP Targets Walk 3% Cycle 8% Bus 5% Rail 1% Car Share 15% Car 68%

22 Finally: