There was cross-party warmth, plenty of nodding in agreement, and a familiar chorus about growth, resilience and decarbonisation. Yet beneath the polite applause lies a harder truth. The sector is still waiting for the UK government to match rhetoric with resolve. In fairness, it is not the only sector seeking some decisiveness. It iss becoming a bit of a political joke. However, if rail freight is to grow by 75% by 2050 – a target ministers are fond of quoting – then it is high time to get on the footplate and start driving. The time for incrementalism has surely passed.

A reception worth its salt – and its spend

Parliamentary receptions are not cheap. I speak from experience, having signed off such events in Edinburgh, and I suspect the catering bill here would have troubled the four-figure mark as well. So, if you are going to spend a wagonload of members’ money in Westminster, you had better make it count. The Rail Freight Group did just that, arriving not empty-handed but armed with Freight Forward – a report with both substance and intent.

They were right to do so. As the premier advocates for the sector, the Rail Freight Group has a duty to speak up, especially within earshot of the debating chamber. If not them, then who? The report makes a clear and compelling case for rail freight as an economic enabler, a decarbonisation tool, and a pillar of national resilience. Sure, they’re all the buzzwords, yes, but underpinned by real-world examples.

Those examples matter. Moving millions of tonnes of food to supermarket shelves, exporting cars to European markets, and transporting critical minerals. This is not abstract policy, but the daily business of keeping the UK functioning. Legal eagle Lydia Cullimore of Burges Salmon captured the mood well, describing the report as a “clear and compelling position paper” that highlights both current value and future opportunity. It is difficult to disagree. Case made. Well, not quite.

Growth, but on whose terms?

The report’s central thesis is straightforward. It proposes that rail freight can do more. It can help decarbonise logistics, strengthen domestic supply chains, and support emerging industries. Electrification, alternative traction, and technological innovation all feature prominently. In fact, rail in general and rail freight in particular, is an embodiment of future industrial function that everyone can see passing through every station, every day. The direction of travel is clear, even if the track ahead is less so. Ambition alone does not lay rail.

The sector’s growth hinges on capacity, access and policy certainty. These are three areas where government performance has been, at best, uneven. Rail advocate and friend of the sector, Rupert Brennan-Brown’s intervention at the reception struck a chord, particularly his emphasis on safeguarding access rights for freight operators. Without long-term certainty, private investment will always hesitate at the signal.

This is where the conversation inevitably turns to Great British Railways. That overarching body that will, eventually, rule the roost over the re-nationalised railways (freight operations excepted). However, those forthcoming reforms offer an opportunity to embed freight at the heart of the network, rather than treating it as an afterthought. Opportunity, though, is not necessarily the same as outcome. The risk remains that, in a system dominated by passenger priorities, freight will once again find itself squeezed into the margins. Time to make a song and dance in the House? Absolutely yes.

Fine words, familiar promises

To be fair, ministers are saying the right things. I’ve lost count of how many transport ministers have given me their personal reassurances for one project or another. This week, the flamboyant rail minister Lord Hendy reaffirmed his support for the sector and the growth target, while opposition voices have called for statutory protections to underpin investment. There is, as Lydia Cullimore noted, a reassuring degree of cross-party consensus.

Consensus without action is a well-worn Westminster tradition. The rail freight sector has heard these commitments before. Cue a procession of ministers (cross-bench) pulling off the right signals on capacity, on modal shift, on decarbonisation. Progress has been made, certainly, but rarely at the pace or scale required. The result is a lingering sense that rail freight is perpetually on the cusp of a breakthrough, yet never quite allowed to break through.

If Freight Forward does one thing well, it is to crystallise that frustration into a constructive agenda (perhaps that’s where I’ve been going wrong). It sets out not just what rail freight delivers, but what it needs. There should be investment in infrastructure, protection of access rights, and a regulatory framework that encourages growth rather than constrains it. None of this is revolutionary. All of it is necessary.

The real test lies ahead

Ultimately, the success of this report will not be measured by the quality of the reception or the warmth of the parliamentary applause. It will be judged by what happens next. Will the government translate endorsement into policy? Will Great British Railways be structured in a way that genuinely supports freight? Will the promised growth materialise, or remain an aspiration?

There are reasons for cautious optimism. The economic case is stronger than ever, the environmental imperative is undeniable, and the sector itself is more coordinated in its messaging. Freight Forward is, in many ways, a mature document – confident in its arguments and pragmatic in its recommendations.

But maturity on one side of the table must be matched on the other. If government is serious about growth, resilience and decarbonisation – and it insists that it is – then rail freight must move from the periphery to the mainstream of transport policy. Otherwise, we will be back in Westminster in a year or two, raising another glass, unveiling another report, and asking the same question. Minister, what, exactly, are we waiting for?

Rail freight operators understand momentum better than most. A freight train isn’t something you swerve on a whim. It requires a path, a plan, and steady application of power to get thousands of tonnes rolling in the right direction. Once that momentum is built, you protect it; you don’t introduce friction for the sake of a quick political gain, and you certainly don’t weave from side to side to demonstrate control. Unfortunately, Westminster’s fiscal behaviour of late has felt a little too much like “fish-tailing” – sudden policy shifts, short-term tax tweaks, and an increasingly reactive approach to economic turbulence. It’s difficult to run a railway that way, and impossible to run a freight railway.

A Budget that lands on the logistics front line

For the logistics sector, this Budget is not an abstract Westminster ritual. It is a material concern, and in some cases an existential one. Logistics UK has already warned that any rise in the cost of doing business – whether through fuel duty, employer National Insurance Contributions or business rates – will ultimately land on the consumer. A tax on logistics, they say, is a tax on everyone. Rail freight operators would add that it is also a tax on decarbonisation, modal shift, and economic resilience.

But taking lorries off the roads is not about putting truckers on the dole. It is about reducing truck route miles. The sector already suffers from chronic driver shortages, and there are far more “last mile” and urban delivery jobs than there are drivers to fulfil them. A healthy rail freight sector works best alongside a healthy road haulage sector, with each doing what it does most efficiently. Strengthening rail does not weaken road; it allows road to focus on the work only road can do.

The Rail Freight Group has spent the past year reiterating what should by now be obvious to ministers: rail freight is a force multiplier. Every additional freight path supports jobs, cuts emissions, and bolsters supply-chain certainty. But none of that happens without long-term policy alignment – something the industry has been waiting for since rail reform was first announced.

A Budget that took freight seriously would commit to giving Great British Railways a statutory freight duty; it would embrace the principle of a long-term freight growth target; and it would provide the clarity investors need to commit capital to locomotives, terminals and digital infrastructure. The sector is not asking for handouts. It is asking for certainty.

What a freight-focused Budget would really look like

The Chancellor may well choose to focus on headline-grabbing reliefs and fiscal adjustments designed to stabilise a volatile macro-environment. There is political logic to that approach. But it risks missing some quiet wins for freight – measures that would cost far less than a tax giveaway yet deliver far more value in the long term.

For instance, resolving the long-running distortion between road and rail energy costs would immediately strengthen the business case for modal shift. Committing to targeted upgrades at pinch-points – the sort of incremental capacity enhancements that unlock whole freight corridors – would demonstrate a serious commitment to growth, even if the wider capital envelope stays tight. Providing stability around access charges, track access rights and future pathing would give operators and customers the confidence to plan beyond the next twelve months.

Business at large will view this Budget through the usual lens of taxation, productivity and investment. Rail freight views it through those lenses too, but with an added layer: the recognition that freight is a strategic system. You can’t grow rail freight in bursts. You can’t incentivise modal shift with temporary reliefs. And you can’t expect operators to modernise, decarbonise and expand when policy signals swing like a pendulum every fiscal cycle. Just as you can’t drive a freight train with sudden braking and steering inputs, you can’t run a national economy with abrupt, short-term interventions and expect long-term stability.

Hoping for stability in a stop-start economy

If there is a note of optimism to be found, it lies in the fact that freight policy has finally entered the public conversation. The sector’s leaders – from trade bodies to operators – are speaking with unusual clarity and unity about what is needed: consistency, predictability, and a strategic framework that recognises the economic value of rail freight. Their argument is not one of special pleading. It is one of national interest. A stable, well-supported freight sector underpins everything from supermarket shelves to steelworks, construction, energy security and exports.

So as the Chancellor prepares her red briefcase, the freight sector will brace itself for another set of short-term manoeuvres – while hoping, perhaps unrealistically, for something more statesmanlike. A Budget for freight would not need to be flashy. It would simply need to acknowledge that momentum matters, stability matters, and that you don’t run a railway – or an economy – by yanking the controls to prove you’re in charge. Rather unlike Rachel Reeves failed to achieve for passengers a year ago. Steady power, steady planning and steady policy: that’s how you keep a freight train on course. And that’s how you build an economy that can carry its load, mile after mile, without the constant risk of fishtailing into trouble.

The chaos around Westminster last week was not all down to the union strike on the London Underground. Top appointments in the government were lost amid scandal and failure, and the judgment of the Prime Minister is being examined in excruciating detail. Hardly surprising then that the issues around rail freight have been laughably insignificant and blown away like the autumn leaves from College Green in front of Westminster.

Political distractions pile up

To list all the current matters of state that take precedence over the fate of rail freight would take until Friday. That, incidentally, is the day that Donald Trump’s state visit comes to an end. Not much sleep for Prime Minister Keir Starmer this week. Then again, Downing Street as restful as the first sleeper carriage over the points at Camden. Those seeking to take over his position are pacing the pavement. If not exactly ready to murder him in his bed, they are at least plotting to have him wake up to the sound of removal vans outside Number Ten.

All this may seem fanciful when considering the fate of rail freight – but it isn’t. Politics has a habit of getting in the way of running the country, and in the way of running the railway. Debate is going on in the Houses of Parliament right now that has direct implications for the railway industry. The biggest and most wide-ranging piece of legislation in the whole Labour Party manifesto is the nationalisation of the railway network. That bill is currently being enacted.

Rail freight cannot be ignored

To say that rail freight is not affected by the “Rail Reform Bill” is untrue. Rail freight will, under the terms of the bill, remain in the private sector. However, Britain’s 600 or so daily freight trains will run on nationalised lines alongside nationalised passenger trains (which vastly outnumber goods movements). Cynical commentators often remind optimists that freight trucks don’t vote – people do. If there is any doubt over which takes priority in the debating chamber, politicians will vote for the thing that votes for them.

Right now, the voters are not happy. The UK economy is flatlining. Most metrics show almost zero growth, and recent momentum is stalling. July’s data shows flat monthly growth, and quarterly growth has been slowing to a fraction of a percentage point. Business does not like instability. The anaemic economic figures translate into that fear. No growth means no new business, and that means no new freight trains.

Echoes of Harold Wilson’s famous quote

If speculation is correct that the Prime Minister is on the wrong track, it’s only a matter of time before he runs into an oncoming train. Could it be that the Trump presidency (often mistaken for a runaway freight train) is that unwelcome light at the end of the tunnel? The Donald and his entourage are in the country this week, and the opportunities for a political signal passed at danger are frighteningly real for Keir Starmer.

What, though, of the push towards modal shift and a net-zero economy? Neither is on the agenda for Donald Trump – but both are critical for Keir Starmer. Right now, the UK government is not concentrating on the issue.

The Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, was forced out of office last week, and Peter Mandelson, ambassador to the USA, was sacked. In other words, the top political appointment and the top diplomatic appointment were both lost in the space of three days. That might be called a distraction – but only by those who are gifted with an acute sense of understatement. A week is a long time in politics. This could be a long week, too, for rail freight prospects. Let’s see where we are by Friday.

A highly critical evaluation lays bare the relationship between government policy and government action on the rail freight industry. The story, published as an opinion editorial with a pen name, claims that even the target of increasing rail freight traffic by 75 per cent by 2050 would make little material difference to overall industrial decarbonisation. Private Eye says far more should be done, but even that modest target is being impacted negatively by current government inaction.

Effective investigative journalism

Few people in the UK are unaware of Private Eye. The fortnightly publication does not cut a glamorous dash on the shelf. It may be printed on newspaper stock, but it has a heavyweight reputation for mercilessly satirising government and public office, as well as an understated reputation for extremely effective investigative journalism. The publication is just entering its sixty-fourth year, and many of its most incisive and dogged reporting has begun with a short satirical piece published under an assumed name. It’s fair to say that the author of the editorial in question – Dr B Ching – is not on the staff at the London office.

The author is an obvious reference to the most infamous name in British railway history. Dr Richard Beeching was an industrialist who reviewed Britain’s nationalised railways in the early 1960s. His “Reshaping of British Railways” report – resulted in a radical reduction in the chaotic and unplanned national network – commonly known as the “Beeching Axe”. There was controversy over the enthusiasm of the transport secretary, Ernest Marples. He had commissioned the report and also greatly benefitted personally from a consequent emphasis on road building, through his own construction company.

Ministerial churn rate

Private Eye’s “correspondent” points to the revolving door at the Department for Transport, which leaves the incumbent minister frequently the least well briefed individual in the room, when it comes to making policy decisions or negotiating with the industry and the unions. The current government, led by the left-wing Labour Party, is only six months old and is already on its second minister – keeping up with the churn rate of its predecessors in power, the right-wing Conservatives.

Fuel duty also comes in for scrutiny. The fixed-rate tax on fossil fuel has not moved in three years, which Private Eye says vastly benefits road transport. It also points to electricity prices, which made some electric locomotives uneconomical to run. According to the publication, electric traction miles have fallen forty per cent in the last decade in the UK. Moves like the Royal Mail, which abandoned its ageing fleet of trains – with no apparent replacement strategy in place – is a case in point of “rail reverting to road” in the face of a net-zero government policy.

Decline and fall in tonne miles

It’s well known that road transport has the lion’s share of freight miles. However, the rather dubious metric of “lorry journeys avoided” is quoted, as an illustration of policy failing to halt a fall in rail freight traffic. Private Eye notes that ten years ago, the number of such journeys “avoided” was a little under ten million every year. By 2023, that figure was down to something just over five and a half million. In the interim, says Private Eye, road truck mileage has grown by 5.6 per cent. On the face of it, that seems a modest growth, given the explosion in delivery logistics and online retail.

Taking a swipe at coal traffic, the periodical says that too little has been done to replace those lost flows. It should be noted, however, that rail freight has picked up a growing supply of aggregates traffic. There is even an industry growing up around repurposing former coal wagons to carry other bulk loads.

Further investigations possible

Such new traffic is mainly minerals for construction. However, it’s also biomass, almost exclusively for the Drax power station complex. Private Eye believes that even this traffic may come under the “net-zero” scrutiny – and that would threaten fully seven per cent of all rail freight tonne miles, in a curious combination of metric and imperial measures.

Private Eye is a satirical publication, of which there are many contemporaries around Europe. However, the journal’s hardline investigative journalism is equally respected and feared in the corridors of power. Whether there are further revelations to come in the new year remains to be read. However, some of Private Eye’s greatest scoops and exposés have begun life as a simple opinion piece from the pen of correspondents such as Dr. Ching.

The summer season has passed without a focus on rail freight, says Maggie Simpson in her latest Rail Freight Group address. However, there has been a storm blowing through the corridors of power in Westminster, with a new government sweeping in and introducing a sheaf of new legislation. That has touched the rail industry in general. The new socialist Labour Party is pushing through its commitment to renationalise the passenger railway. However, Maggie Simpson urges the sector to speak up for rail freight, or they may find themselves whistling down that political whirlwind.

UK government growth target

The new Secretary of State for Transport and a Sheffield Member of Parliament, Louise Haigh, has directed her junior ministers and civil servants to work fast and fix matters left outstanding by the last government. Already, the Bill to enable the passenger railway to be renationalised is making its way through Parliament, and more recently, a shadow Great British Railways management structure has been launched to make that a reality. From now on, Haigh intends for Network Rail to work closely with the Department for Transport (DfT) on railway decision-making.

“The Ministerial statement on Shadow Great British Railways did include a number of welcome commitments to supporting our sector,” noted Maggie Simpson, including legal duties and a continuation of the UK government growth target for rail freight – albeit a modest 75 per cent uplift by 2050. However, she expressed concerns over a rapid rollout and a passenger emphasis. “It will be very easy for freight to be overlooked. To counter that, we all need to pull together to keep our sector high up the agenda.”

Interest in rail freight facilities

The rail freight sector has often been left to fend for itself, says the RFG. Maggie Simpson is encouraging the sector to fight its own corner. “Our task at RFG is always easier when there is positive news, and all members can use our networks to promote their activities,” she says. “The things you all do are making a difference and deserve their place in the spotlight. News sinks to the bottom quickly. We need to keep a constant flow of positive stories. We know they are out there.”

Maggie, who has been a frequent advocate for the sector and often contributes directly to RailFreight.com, also said that many newly elected or re-elected MPs are showing interest in rail freight, particularly where they have facilities in their constituencies. “Ensuring we have support on the backbenches, in particular, will be essential as new laws are progressed. Now is a great time to showcase what you are doing.” Any elected members can expect an invitation from the sector any day now.

Edinburgh raises eyebrows

Doing things a little differently may be construed as slightly contrary, and there are plenty of those willing to question that necessity. The government in Edinburgh says their way better answers the needs of the Scottish economy. Whatever. It’s taken somewhat longer to arrive at the successful applicants north of the border. The Highland (Cromarty) location came as no surprise, but the Edinburgh (Forth) did raise some eyebrows as perhaps not the most economically disadvantaged area of Scotland.

An intermodal train crosses Culloden Viaduct heading south out of Inverness, on the capacity constrained Highland Main Line (Image ScotRail – Scotland’s Railway)In common, both sites share existing rail freight infrastructure. The Cromarty site is potentially served by the Far North line, although additional capacity is at a premium – particularly on the main line south (the much criticised Highland Main Line).

The Forth Green Freeport is spread over a wide area, including both banks of the river. That could signal a return of more frequent freight over the iconic Forth Bridge, and a frequent grinding of the rusty rails in the port of Leith for the first time in several years.

Rusty freight rails to be polished up

The Inverness and Cromarty Firth bid aims to build a world-beating floating offshore wind manufacturing sector, with sites in the Cromarty Firth, Invergordon, Nigg, and Inverness. It expects to create up to 25,000 new jobs and attract 2.6 billion pounds (3.1 billion euro) in inward investment. In addition to offshore wind manufacturing, it will focus on green hydrogen and creating a new innovation cluster.

The Forth Green Freeport submitted a very ambitious bid to deliver up to an additional 50,000 jobs across the UK, and generate six billion pounds (7.1 billion euro) in investment. The promoters say it will contribute over four billion pounds (4.5 billion euro) in gross value added, across sites at Rosyth and Burntisland on the north side of the Firth of Forth, and Grangemouth, Leith, and Edinburgh Airport on the south bank.

Government pledges a support fund

Grangemouth has recently been extensively redeveloped to modernise its intermodal handling capacity, helping the bid make the finishing line. Edinburgh Airport is an anomaly. Only East Midlands airport near Nottingham has similar status, and it stands adjacent to East Midlands Gateway rail terminal. The airport was once slated for a direct heavy rail connection to the network with an underground passenger facility, but it makes do with a tram terminus instead – not really ideal for freight logistics.

The Forth Green Freeport will focus on renewables, advanced manufacturing, alternative fuels, carbon capture utilisation and storage, shipbuilding, logistics and the creative industries. The Scottish government says that both the Cromarty and Forth green freeport operations will be supported by a total fund of up to 52 million pounds (62 million euro) in start-up funding and will benefit from tax reliefs and other incentives through a combination of devolved and reserved powers.

An informed policy of planning required

In a somewhat lengthy response from the English Regional Transport Association, the government is encouraged to put money behind its proposals for the Future of Freight. “What we need is grants not loans for pieces of rail infrastructure to boost rail-connectivity to the wider rail network”, says their statement.

ERTA gives the example of Brackmills Industrial Estate in Northampton, which is bisected by a moribund line. They say a grant or direct government promotion could connect the vast estate directly to the West Coast Main Line. They say they want to see what they call strategic missing links reinstated, and an informed policy of planning and tailoring development to keep alive the possibility of rail re-connection.

Increase capacity and shorten journeys

The nationwide and influential advocates for rail transport, Railfuture, believe that tinkering around the fringes of the network is not enough. “A doubling of rail freight capacity is required by 2050 to shift freight traffic from road to rail, reduce carbon emissions and reduce congestion on the road network”, they say. “For example, creating a western access to Trafford Park freight terminal will relieve the Castlefield corridor, increase freight capacity and shorten freight journeys.”

Many industry insiders are looking towards new markets as a means for rail freight to grow. Light logistics has often been cited as the big ticket item, with many players on the sidelines. Network Rail, the infrastructure agency has already conducted a survey of facilities at major stations – with a view to hosting modern parcels traffic.

Legislation should be considered

ERTA voice an often discussed idea, which has yet to gain traction. They say a triple pronged approach to rail freight growth requires attention to volumes, shapes and sizes carried by rail. More radically, they say that legislation should be considered. “Give incentives and legal requirements for all freight [movements] over 50 miles [80 kilometres) to explore using rail.”

That latter proposal must echo uncomfortably for campaigners in Derbyshire. Recently, the Manchester and East Midlands Rail Action Partnership (MEMRAP) were disappointed in their ambitions, with proposals to repoen the direct route between Derby and Manchester knocked back. That route, which would fall into that ’50 mile’ criteria, would potentially carry aggregates traffic from the Peak District, as well as opening up a route for Trafford Park bound intermodal loads.

Extol the benefits of rail

MEMRAP say that the government backed programme to restore closed lines, the Department for Transport’s ‘Restoring Your Railway’ programme has proved the potential for rail, but it goes not nearly far enough. “This popular, highly competitive initiative saw some 85 proposals submitted in the third round, of which just 13 have been approved for funding.” ERTA agrees. “2050 is too little, too late for modal choice for modal shift in a climate emergency”, says their spokesman Richard Pill. “2030 is the cut-off date for irreversible climate change. We need plans hitting the ground now.”

Already on the ground are rails in the Scottish Borders. Connecting England and Scotland has been the loftier ambition of the Campaign for Borders Rail. That lobby group, which has already been effective in reintroducing rail services along the north part of the route, from Edinburgh to Tweedbank, remain frustrated that extension over the remaining 66 miles (110km) to Carlisle remains unfulfilled. They argue that freight traffic, which has not been included in Scottish government figures, would greatly enhance the business case for the line. Like MEMRAP they continue to develop their proposal, working with key stakeholders to improve their understanding of the significant benefits of the proposed reinstatement, with rail freight a live part of that mix. “Government needs to be working with partners for putting tracks back”, says Richard Pill of the ERTA. “Extol the benefits of rail, equip operators to do more and incentivise. Without government carrot and stick frameworks, incentives, development for rails, depots, access and joined-up-networks, this cannot begin to be realistic.”

A keen interest in rail freight affairs

In a formal session of questions on transport matters, Chris Heaton-Harris, the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, was cross-examined by his opposition counterpart, Luke Pollard of the socialist Labour and Co-operative party, who holds the portfolio of Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As the elected representative for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, his constituency has a keen interest in rail freight affairs. In a written question, Pollard asked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that increasing energy costs do not discourage freight operators from sending freight by rail instead of reverting to road transport.

Heaton-Harris replied that the Government recognised fully business concerns around increasing electricity prices. “We are regularly engaging with the rail freight industry on this issue”, he said. “We are not aware that increasing energy costs are causing freight operators to send freight by road instead of rail.”

London lagging behind

Making a general point, Heaton-Harris said the Government strongly supported the modal shift of freight from road to rail to reduce congestion and carbon emissions from across the freight sector. “This is supported through significant investment in the rail network”, he said. “[This is] to improve its capability and capacity for freight, and through £20m per year grant schemes which support the carriage of freight by rail and water on routes where road haulage has a financial advantage, resulting in the equivalent of 900,000 fewer HGV journeys in 2021/22 [heavy goods vehicles]. “The Government has also committed to introducing a rail freight growth target to encourage the continued growth of the sector and its success in the future”, she concluded.

The government in London has gone to great lengths to praise the virtues of rail freight enthusiastically. However, the industry has been critical of the lack of direction. They say that there is much talk of modal shift but little concerted action to make that ambition a reality. In that respect, London is lagging behind initiatives in another part of the UK.

Criticised for not speaking to the industry

A rail freight growth target has already been set in Scotland by the devolved government in Edinburgh. However, it was more directly on the vexed question of energy prices that the House of Lords spent time debating last week. The devolved governments in Edinburgh and Cardiff have powers over transport matters.

It was appropriate that a Welsh peer, Baroness Jenny Randerson, the centrist Liberal Democrat Spokesperson on Transport, asked what discussions the UK government have had with the representative Rail Freight Group, “and other freight operators who have stopped using electric trains and have returned to using diesel trains because of the rising price of energy.”

Continue to support rail freight

For the government, Baroness Charlotte Vere of Norbiton, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Transport, echoed her Conservative Party colleague from the lower house by reiterating that the Government fully recognised business concerns around increasing energy prices.

“We are regularly engaging with the rail freight industry on this issue”, said Baroness Vere. “The commercial decision to use electric or diesel traction for freight haulage is a matter for individual private sector freight operators”, she said, thereby putting the onus of answering into the hands of the industry, “We continue to support the rail freight sector strongly and recognise that rail freight remains one of the most carbon-efficient ways of moving goods over long distances. On average, rail freight trains currently emit around a quarter of the CO2e emissions of HGVs per tonne-km travelled”, concluded her reply.

Incentives for rail freight industry

The message, though, is clear from the latest document. “We will deliver a net-zero rail network by 2050, with sustained carbon reductions in rail along the way. Our ambition is to remove all diesel-only trains (passenger and freight) from the network by 2040”, says the strategy. “We will deploy new low-carbon technologies on the network such as hydrogen and battery trains, where they make operational and economic sense. We will incentivise the early take up of low carbon traction by the rail freight industry.”

As recent action by rail freight companies may suggest, the industry is not waiting for government action. Albeit only around ten per cent of rail freight operations are currently electrified, the industry is moving away from diesel already. That said, the recent massive hikes in energy prices have compelled operators to look again at their fuel profiles.

Support and encourage modal shift

While not prioritising freight to the extent the industry would like, the strategy document commits the government to broader rail development. It may be argued that all sectors would benefit in any case. “We will build extra capacity on our rail network to meet growing passenger and freight demand and support significant shifts from road and air to rail”, says the report. “This includes new high-speed lines, reopening lines closed and significant improvement to regional city public transport networks to make them as good as London’s.” That latter statement reflects the long-held belief that the capital benefits from vastly more infrastructure spending than elsewhere in the UK.

The government in London claims it is listening to demands for better connectivity and environmental sustainability. They recently consulted on phase-out dates for the sale of all new non-zero emission heavy goods vehicles. “We will support and encourage modal shift of freight from road to more sustainable alternatives, such as rail. This will be supported by a package of policies including investing in the capacity and capability of the rail network for freight, including infill electrification schemes”, they say.

Pedal power into the future

Other Net-Zero Strategy measures proposed include introducing a rail freight growth target, in line with a target already set by the Scottish government in Edinburgh. In a nod towards light logistics operators, the government says it will support ‘last mile’ measures to support more sustainable freight in urban areas.

Voices from within the industry will always look for much more support and investment in rail infrastructure. While there may only be scant pickings from this document, it does read like a sustainable ambition. Support for ‘last mile’ could be read as a prelude to a whole new rail freight sector. However, some say it sounds like an invitation for the rail freight industry to get on their collective bike.

The UK government in London has already conducted a competitive process, in order to establish a raft of ‘freeports’ around England. The exercise is intended to be a cornerstone of the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda – the process of balancing the national economy so that more investment is made in the disadvantaged parts of the country – principally the North of England. It is also designed to help answer existing legislation which calls for a net-zero carbon economy by 2050. Rail freight has therefore played a significant part in the process, and all the successful freeport locations lead with rail-based logistics.

In an effort to spread the economic benefits of the free-trade concept, the Scottish government is significantly adjusting the freeport legislation. Scotland’s landscape is generally less heavily populated than England, and the economic priorities are different. Ministers in Edinburgh are therefore acutely aware that environmental issues will have a higher priority in Scotland. “Our green port model for Scotland adapts the UK government’s freeport model to fit the Scottish context”, says their statement.

Rural and post industrial considerations

Scotland’s rail freight network has been radically reduced in the decades since the rationalisation of the 1960s, particularly in the less-populated rural areas, such as North East Scotland and the Scottish Borders. Even in the heavily-populated Central Belt, including the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, a significant proportion of rail infrastructure has been lost in more recent years, as heavy industry has declined (such as the steel industry in Lanarkshire) and coal mining has ceased (affecting areas like Fife, Midlothian and Ayrshire).

Paradoxically, it is these areas – rural communities and former centres of heavy industry – that have suffered the most from economic decline. They stand to benefit most from ‘green port’ designation. However, the demise of rail freight infrastructure makes it more difficult to establish sustainable industrial development, without an over-reliance on road-based logistics. That has been part of the problem for Holyrood politicians, and part of the frustration for would-be green port consortia.

No agreement between Edinburgh and London

In a statement from Holyrood, the government said it was yet to reach agreement with its counterparts in London. “The Scottish Government is committed to the publication of a full Applicant Prospectus and launch of a selection process for the designation of green ports in Scotland as soon as possible”, they say. “We want to work in partnership with the UK Government on this matter. However, the UK Government has not yet agreed the terms of the draft Applicant Prospectus.”

The extended delay in publishing a full prospectus for Scottish green ports has not however stopped a cohort of would-be applicants expressing their interest. The most recent has been a bid from the south west of Scotland, led by the local authority for the area, Dumfries and Galloway Council. Rob Davidson, who represents the council’s economy and resources committee, was enthusiastic about the proposal. “I believe we have a strong bid, notably in terms of private sector support,” he said. “There are also many wider benefits for Dumfries and Galloway as a whole.”

Competitive selection process

The Dumfries and Galloway bid would however be the one with the least recognisable opportunities for rail freight. The ferry port upon which the bid is centered, is not served by rail, and the former ferry port location – Stranraer – which is all but abandoned despite its rail connection, is not included. Furthermore, the railway line connecting the region with the West Coast Main Line was abandoned in 1965. “The Scottish Government is now seeking to gauge the level of interest by inviting potential applicants, including multi–applicant partnerships, to note their interest in participating in a competitive green port selection process”, said a statement from Edinburgh.

Elsewhere, many potential bids have a rail freight advantage. Edinburgh (Port of Leith) may have a moribund network within the quayside, but the owners, Forth Ports, have paired their bid with their property at Grangemouth on the same river, where the intermodal terminal was recently upgraded. Fort Ports already have a freeport under their belt, with a successful bid at Tilbury in London. There is also a city region bid expected from Aberdeen, where the port owners announced recently plans for major expansion, with rail playing a part. That bid would also included the city’s airport, and the nearby port of Peterhead, where campaigners hope to see rail services reintroduced.

Encourage rail freight investment

Possibly most deserving of an economic break is a bid by Dundee. That may well be led by Michelin Scotland Innovation Parc (MSIP), with the backing of Dundee City Council and Port of Dundee owner, who are also Forth Ports. However, rail freight opportunities are limited due to extensive redevelopment of the former riverside facilities, but proximity to the East Coast Main Line may encourage investment in a modern terminal.

Perhaps the most ambitious potential green port interest comes from Opportunity Cromarty Firth – a consortium in the far north of Scotland, that includes the Cromarty Firth Port Authority and Global Energy Group, owner of the Port of Nigg. “We can confirm we have submitted an expression of interest to the Scottish Government to become a green port”, said their statement. “We believe Opportunity Cromarty Firth would create a sustainable fifty-year pipeline of opportunities in the Highlands.” Investment in the line north from Inverness may be already on the agenda with the Scottish government. Timber traffic trials took place in the past twelve months, and the area has much potential in the offshore renewable energy sector.

Transition to net-zero

There are offshore bids expected from the islands in Orkney and Shetland, and a local bid from the east coast town of Montrose. A city-region bid is expected from Glasgow too.

“The model has been designed to apply effectively to areas with seaports, airports and rail ports”, said a government statement. “Every mode of port is welcome to make an application or form part of an application coalition. Green ports aim to support innovation, boost exports and attract inward investment, all underpinned by a commitment to the vital principles of fair work and a just transition to a net zero economy.”