On Wednesday (25 March) and into Thursday, core routes were blocked by fallen trees and damage to overhead wires. In some cases, the support masts were destroyed. High winds caused significant disruption across the North West rail network, with fallen trees damaging overhead line equipment on routes between Manchester and Preston. Other incidents further south knocked out services to Wolverhampton.

Fraught freight flows

The incident near Lostock, outside Bolton, blocked a key artery used by both passenger and freight services. That forced cancellations and halted traffic while repairs were carried out. Lostock is midway between Manchester and Preston, and the line feeds into the West Coast Main Line. Further south, damage on the West Coast Main Line itself compounded the problem. That was a real headache for all traffic, and restricted capacity on the UK’s most important freight corridor.

Images of stranded passenger trains have illustrated the immediate impact of the storm. However, the consequences extended well beyond the passenger timetable. Freight services operating through the region — including flows linking Trafford Park, the Port of Liverpool, and inland terminals — were also affected by the loss of available paths. In a network with limited diversionary capability, even short sections of blocked line can have disproportionate consequences.

Capacity constraints ripple across the system

On Wednesday, most of the UK woke up to a sunny – albeit cold and moderately windy day. It was a different story for those on the West Coast. “The disruption has been caused by severe winds overnight,” said Darren Miller, infrastructure director for Network Rail’s North West route, delivering a statement on the day. “Trees [have knocked] down overhead power lines, severing connections, knocking down masts entirely, which causes major disruption.”

Britain’s passenger-intensive network has meant freight trains are held at terminals or looped en route, paths were lost or rescheduled at short notice. Congestion built up on alternative routes, where available. Fortunately, a diversion does exist at Lostock and on routes westward out of Manchester, which connect with the West Coast Main Line. Ironically, another blockage, further south on the WCML near Wolverhampton, left some capacity available for diverted workings.

The infrastructure agency Network Rail and the official passenger information service, National Rail Enquiries, warned of disruption until at least the end of Wednesday. That was still the case by early Thursday morning.

The parliamentary spending watchdog said the east–west railway project, intended to transform connections between northern cities, is now entering a more defined phase after years of policy changes. However, the NAO cautioned that major infrastructure programmes of this scale still face significant delivery challenges, particularly given the number of organisations involved and the shifting scope the project has experienced since its first conception more than a decade ago.

Shifting political plans

The scheme has undergone numerous revisions since the idea first emerged in the mid-2010s. Early ambitions for a largely new high-speed railway have gradually evolved into a programme combining new infrastructure with major upgrades to existing routes. Changes to the project have been closely linked to wider shifts in national transport policy, including decisions affecting HS2, the high-speed rail project that had its Manchester connection cancelled.

In recent years, the government’s wider Network North strategy has also reshaped how Northern Powerhouse Rail is expected to be delivered. Under current plans, the programme is intended to improve connectivity between major urban centres, including Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds, delivering faster journey times, additional rail capacity and upgraded stations across northern England.

Big on budget, small on progress

Despite the long gestation period, the NAO report highlights that the scheme remains relatively early in its development. The government has set an overall funding envelope of around £45 billion (€52.7bn), at 2025 prices, for the project’s future delivery phase. So far, around £410 million has been spent on development work, including route planning, design studies and programme preparation. Construction activity itself remains limited. There’s not much to see on the ground, reflecting the scale of planning and design required before major railway projects can move into full delivery.

The watchdog warned that cost estimates and delivery schedules will continue to evolve as the programme develops. It added that clear oversight will be required to ensure the project stays aligned with both national transport priorities and the wider economic ambitions behind the so-called “Northern Powerhouse”.

Complex governance structure

The report flagged up the complexity of the organisations involved in delivering the programme. The Department for Transport is responsible for overall policy direction, while infrastructure planning and delivery involve the infrastructure agency Network Rail, and the regional transport body Transport for the North.

The NAO said that coordination between these organisations, as well as local authorities and regional partners, will be critical if the programme is to achieve its intended economic benefits. The report emphasised that Northern Powerhouse Rail is more than simply a transport project. Its success, the auditors suggest, will depend on how effectively rail investment supports broader regional development goals across northern England.

Capacity implications for freight

Although the programme has largely been framed as a passenger connectivity scheme, the capacity increases proposed across the TransPennine Route Upgrade could also have implications for freight operations. The TRU is already underway, and it is something politicians have conflated with the NPR.

Additional rail capacity and upgraded routes linking northern ports and logistics hubs could potentially support greater rail freight flows across the region. Improved east–west corridors may help relieve pressure on existing routes and create opportunities for additional freight paths between ports, distribution centres and industrial areas. For the freight sector, the longer-term significance of Northern Powerhouse Rail may therefore lie not only in faster passenger journeys, but in the possibility of a more resilient and higher-capacity railway network across northern England.

While the scheme now appears to be entering a more settled phase after years of revisions, the auditors make clear that delivery will require sustained political commitment and effective programme management. Northern Powerhouse Rail could reshape economic geography across the region. However, the NAO’s latest assessment makes a clear warning. Turning long-standing ambition into operational railway infrastructure will remain a long-term undertaking, and no wavering of political ambition.

Northern Powerhouse Rail is, once again, back on track — at least in the glossy rhetoric of a government for whom Euston Road is just a little too far from the Thames. The official “Growth Plan for the North” promises “new and improved rail links to unlock opportunities for people, housing and businesses.” The cover shows no factories, only gleaming typefaces and imagined prosperity. Opposition parties sneer, businesses roll their eyes, and the people of the North collectively do a Jerry Maguire: “Show me the money!”

Well, maybe different this time. The government has pledged some money. £45 billion, apparently — although the reality is vaguer. There is a commitment to spend up to £45 billion on northern rail projects, spread over the next two decades. That amounts to an annual expenditure of roughly half the annual subsidy currently paid to passenger train operators, spread out over twenty years. Up front, £1.1 billion is earmarked for “consultation and feasibility studies.” No harm in getting things right the first time, but it is hard to avoid the sense that the money is doing very little on the track itself.

Pledging is easy, especially when delivery lies three political cycles in the future. In that spirit, I could pledge a billion pounds to completing my pet project: the Borders Railway, another billion to reconnect Peterhead and Fraserburgh in my native Scotland, ten billion to electrify all remaining main lines, and two billion to upgrade Ely — all with freight-ready infrastructure. I could promise a dozen more projects, all focused on freight and supporting sustainable growth – and I would have as much chance of seeing those trains run as the ministers making these announcements have of overseeing Northern Powerhouse Rail in action.

Freight. Guess what? Omitted, again

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander took to the House of Commons on Wednesday, delivering a near-1,400-word statement reiterating the government’s commitment to NPR. Her message: improved railways will reinvigorate the North, raising productivity in its largest cities to the national average — potentially adding £40 billion a year to the UK economy. Yet, she never mentioned freight. Nor did anyone else during the debate. For a region historically reliant on rail for goods as well as people, this is a glaring omission.

Heidi Alexander bemoaned the previous government’s cancellation of High Speed 2 to Manchester and Leeds and described a northern railway “still reliant on diesel trains and two-track Victorian infrastructure.” A charitable reading: many parts of the North rely on rationalised, decrepit single-track Victorian infrastructure, a nuance that was apparently lost in the statement. Well, forgive her for not mentioning it, previous generations of her government allowed that rationalisation of infrastructure.

The scale of the disparity between North and South is starkly illustrated by the Transpennine Route between Manchester and Leeds. Roughly the same distance as London’s Central Line between Ealing and Epping, the 45-mile (72km) corridor is a critical link between two major northern cities (both bigger than Ealing or Epping). On paper, it is vital. In practice, it is caught between ambition and inertia.

On a mid-morning weekday, there are just four direct trains an hour. That will increase, but it will still be a modest frequency compared with the Central Line, where trains swish past every two or three minutes. Journey times are broadly similar: the fastest Transpennine trains take just over an hour (often longer), while the Central Line, despite stopping at 49 stations, requires up to ninety minutes end-to-end. One line is a high-frequency urban lifeline; the other is a regional route expected to drive economic transformation with a fraction of the capacity.

The Transpennine Route Upgrade is, thankfully, actually underway and is rightly described as transformative, but the scale of planned improvements pales in comparison to the challenge. The route carries some freight alongside passengers, a mixed-traffic burden the Central Line never faces — London’s Tube moves commuters only, while goods travel along alternative corridors. The North has no such luxury: regional railways are expected to deliver speed, connectivity, and limited freight capacity, all on infrastructure that was never designed for modern economic expectations (it gets mentioned so often, people unfamiliar with Manchester believe there is a station called Castlefield Corridor – since so many trains stop there).

Stellar ambitions, but the eagle has not even taken off

Government pledges for northern railway investment — for all the fanfare of “transformational upgrades” — fall far short of what is required to close the South–North gap. Faster trains, smoother services, upgraded stations: small gains against decades of underinvestment. The Transpennine Route may improve, but it remains a symbol of ambition constrained by caution, a reminder that talk of a Northern Powerhouse has yet to meet the scale of the challenge.

There is no new high-speed line for the North. Government sources will crow about their proclaimed reactivation of the Birmingham–Manchester corridor, but only because the land is already bought. Its specification will fall short of HS2, and even if it proceeds, it will follow NPR in some distant future. Manchester’s hopes of a new rail route remain as remote as a man walking on Mars. That man will likely be a Chinese man, and we all know about their alacrity at building railways.

In the meantime, the North is left with three threads: the Transpennine Route Upgrade, a “pledged” Northern Powerhouse Rail project whose delivery horizon stretches decades ahead, and a possible Birmingham–Manchester line that exists mostly in aspiration.

For all the government rhetoric about a second rail revolution, the reality is that the North will continue to operate on a patchwork of Victorian and slightly upgraded lines, expected to support both passengers and freight on a shoestring. The promise of economic transformation through rail remains a distant echo of the glossy reports, not yet grounded in the steel and sleepers that make journeys real.

The proposed Parkside development is on land to the east of Newton-le-Willows, about 30km from Liverpool and Manchester, directly on the West Coast Main Line. It is intended to provide a large intermodal rail terminal with associated warehousing and logistics space. It is widely regarded within the rail freight sector as a necessary replacement for Trafford Park terminal in Manchester, which could be displaced by redevelopment plans linked to Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium.

‘Major concerns’ over scale and evidence

In a formal letter submitted to the Tritax Integrated Logistics Park North consultation, Burnham said he had “major concerns” about the scale of the proposed development and its proximity to nearby residential communities. He questioned whether the size of the warehousing element was justified and said the supporting evidence provided during the statutory consultation was “highly unsatisfactory”.

The mayor also called for additional road infrastructure, including a new bypass, arguing that such measures were “crucial” even before the site becomes operational. He criticised the consultation process for failing to present a complete picture of cumulative transport, environmental and mitigation impacts, and expressed disappointment that the consultation was not extended beyond a 23 December deadline. While acknowledging the potential economic benefits of a new strategic rail freight facility for the North West, Burnham said he would need to see “substantial changes” before he could consider supporting the scheme.

Freight relocation tied to Old Trafford plans

The Parkside SRFI is closely linked to the future of Trafford Park rail freight terminal, which has long been identified as one of the UK’s most constrained but strategically important intermodal sites. Earlier reporting by RailFreight.com has highlighted that the Newton-le-Willows site could effectively relocate rail freight operations out of central Manchester, improving operational efficiency and access to the West Coast Main Line.

That relocation is widely seen as a prerequisite if land at Trafford Park is to be released for major redevelopment, including potential rebuilding of Old Trafford football stadium. Andy Burnham is, conversly, a leading proponent of the “Wembley of the North” vision. Rail freight stakeholders have noted that opposition to Parkside raises questions about where displaced freight activity would be accommodated if Trafford Park is lost.

Post-HS2 Manchester – is it actually Northern Political Rail?

Burnham’s intervention comes against a wider political backdrop of uncertainty over rail investment in the North. Labour ministers are expected to set out a phased approach to Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR), prioritising upgrades to existing infrastructure rather than new high-speed lines. Burnham has previously argued for a more ambitious, “full-fat” vision for rail in the region.

The debate is further sharpened by the cancellation of HS2’s Birmingham-to-Manchester leg, a decision Burnham described as a “betrayal of the North” (see reporting on our sister service RailTech.com). With HS2 no longer providing additional capacity into Manchester, freight and passenger operators alike are increasingly focused on how remaining network space is protected and expanded.

Nevertheless, as plans for Parkside progress, Burnham’s objections underline the tension between local political concerns, community impact and the strategic requirement for additional rail freight capacity in one of the UK’s busiest transport corridors. The quest remains – is this the real corridor of power that Andy Burnham seeks, or do his own development plans lie further south, and terminate at the head of government in London?

RAIB has slammed Network Rail over design assurance, installation, inspection and maintenance at a bridge location, which led to a serious derailment. Investigators have also found that the track team in the maintenance unit responsible had neither recorded nor reported similar problems over a period of years. A total of eight safety recommendations have been made.

Previous failures, missing records

In the morning of 6 September 2024, at about 11:25, a bulk aggregates freight train derailed as it crossed a bridge that carries the railway over a public footpath (formerly a local road) in Audenshaw, in the south of Greater Manchester, England. The derailment involved nine of the train’s 24 fully laden wagons and led to extensive damage to the track, the bridge and the rolling stock. No one was injured during the accident, but the railway at this location was closed for around eight weeks, as RailFreight.com reported at the time.

The rails moved under the train, spreading the gauge and derailing the wagons. “The spread was caused by the failure of a number of the screws securing the baseplates to the longitudinal wooden bearers,” says the RAIB report. “Metallurgical examinations showed that these screws had sustained fatigue damage before the arrival of the train. RAIB examinations found that there had been previous screw failures at the same locations. Records of inspection and maintenance activities confirmed that there had been at least three previous failures, although many of the required records were not available.”

Automated and manual inspection didn’t detect trouble

The tracks over the bridge were installed on a typical longitudinal bearer system (LBS), an arrangement in which the rails are mounted on timber bearers that run longitudinally under the rails and not on sleepers and ballast. Critically, the rails are mounted using baseplates, which are screwed onto the bearers. The screw components failed, and this has drawn the ire of the RAIB.

Vehicle dynamics analysis and fatigue calculations (conducted by RAIB) indicated that these screws were not expected to have an infinite fatigue life when installed in the configuration used on the bridge. “The LBS was installed in 2007, and an increase in the volume of traffic over the bridge since 2015 had accelerated the rate of fatigue of the screws,” said the RAIB. “The investigation also found that those screws which had failed had not been detected by Network Rail’s inspection regime. This was because both the automated and manual inspection regimes were not capable of reliably detecting this type of failure.”

Wide ranging recommendations

While the RAIB found that the regular dynamic track geometry measurements were within the allowable limits, it further found that the significance of previous screw failures had not been appreciated. “There were two underlying factors,” Network Rail did not have effective processes for managing LBS assets,” it says in its report. RAIB also found that the track team in the maintenance unit responsible for the LBS at this bridge had neither recorded nor reported previous screw failures, and this had not been identified nor corrected by Network Rail’s assurance regime over a period of years.

As always, the RAIB has stressed that the sole purpose of investigations is to prevent future accidents. It does not establish blame, liability or carry out prosecutions. However, it has made eight stern recommendations to Network Rail. These aim to give greater assurance of the components used in its designs of LBS, improve the management of LBSs, including design, installation and maintenance guidance, and the reporting of component failures. The third recommendation deals with the competence of staff who manage those assets.

Root and branch record keeping

Network Rail should also improve the interfaces between the two disciplines responsible for the track and structures assets, says the Rail Accident Investigation Branch. It also wants Network Rail to better understand the effects of the condition of the LBS supporting structure on the track’s behaviour. It also wants a review of the way changes in rail traffic affect its LBS assets. Traffic over the bridge at Audenshaw had increased significantly since the installation in 2007.

Record keeping, in view of the missing documents, came in for attention from the Branch. The seventh recommendation is to improve the records of its LBS assets, ensuring that it knows the configurations of its LBS assets throughout Great Britain. The eighth recommendation is for Network Rail to improve its own assurance processes for LBS assets to ensure that staff are keeping accurate records of inspection and maintenance activities. It stops short of saying Audenshaw was an accident waiting to happen, but reading between the lines seems as obvious as reading between the widened tracks that lead to this derailment.

Lines blocked, trains cancelled, goods delayed and “do not travel” warnings issued. If anyone in the British Isles was praying for a quiet start to the winter discontentments, it’s clear their God had other ideas. Wales, South West England, Ireland and the usual suspects (the West Coast and the East Coast Main Lines) were all badly affected by very heavy rainfall and subsequent flooding.

Winter is coming

Storm Claudia, which swept across the south of the UK and Ireland last week, caused significant disruption on the rail networks. In Britain, the Great Western corridor was particularly affected. Sections between London Paddington, Bristol and South Wales were closed due to flooding. In Britain, the infrastructure agency Network Rail was compelled to issue an increasingly common “Do Not Travel” advisory. Culverts and drainage systems were overwhelmed, and standing water rendered several lines impassable. Extended possessions were required to clear debris, slowing both passenger and freight operations.

Passenger services from South Wales, predominantly operated by Great Western Railway, were notably affected. Freight intermodal services into Cardiff experienced delays and re-timing, while oil trains from Milford Haven faced potential restrictions too. Ireland’s woes were confined to the East Coast, between Dublin and the southern port of Rosslare. Across the UK and Ireland, engineers worked to restore normal running, but knock-on effects persisted into the weekend. Disruption did cascade across the network in the UK.

Unusual storm but not unique

While the West Coast Main Line and East Coast Main Line avoided full closures, both operated under precautionary speed restrictions. On the WCML, long-distance passenger operator Avanti West Coast and freight operators experienced tighter headways and extended sectional running times, particularly affecting intermodal and time-sensitive flows. On the ECML, minor restrictions were reported near Dunbar in Scotland, and precautionary monitoring further south. Though relatively short-lived, these measures highlighted the network’s ongoing sensitivity to rainfall-triggered asset issues.

Storm Claudia has underscored several persistent challenges for the UK rail network as winter approaches. It was only a week ago that a near-disaster was experienced on the West Coast Main Line, with a train derailed due to a weather-triggered landslip (see earlier reporting on our sister service RailTech.com). Further south, the Great Western route remains vulnerable in places, but less often tested to failure. However, last week, there was disruption from Manchester to Monmouthshire.

This was an unusually southerly event, but far from unique. Even a mid-range storm like Claudia has shown how quickly disruption can spread, highlighting that winter 2025–26 may be defined not by headline-grabbing failures, but by ongoing operational pressures that test punctuality, capacity and resilience across Britain’s network.

Trafford Park as a star striker

A critical turn of events has been the current sale of Freightliner’s intermodal business. French shipping giant CMA CGM acquired the business in September. It would seem likely that any owner would be eager to maximise the value of its assets. Certainly, the asset of Trafford Park carries a high value, especially when it sits as critical to the stadium plan as Manchester United’s form in the English Premier League.

The Guardian newspaper (historically founded in Manchester incidentally) reported that Brookfield has valued the terminal land at £400million (€472m). This mirrors what may very well happen in football. As soon as a leading football club takes an interest in your star striker, their stock rises. For their part, the regeneration partners had hoped to pluck this star player from their rail freight rivals for about a tenth of that figure.

Intangible benefits surely recognised

Freightliner, and rail freight in general, does have a replacement in mind. They are party to plans for a new terminal, about 25 miles (40km) down the line to the west, at a site near the city of St Helens. The irony is that the new site has potential for much smoother operations – and just happens to be adjacent to the West Coast Main Line and a network of highways.

There is also the matter of finally getting out from under the congestion of the Castlefield Corridor. Much of the traffic for the terminal has to navigate the narrow two-track mixed traffic line through central Manchester. It has become a byword for delays across the whole of the North of England. Moving out to St Helens could remove that freight traffic from the corridor, and help relieve pressure on a much wider swathe of the network. That intangible value is something that Freightliner’s owners have surely recognised.

Decision rests with the parent club

The prize for rail freight may not be as glamorous as the Premier League trophy. However, the value to the British economy could be almost as impressive. There are no trophies up for winning, but it would certainly promote operations up a division. Moving to a purpose-built intermodal terminal, designed for the twenty-first century, could offer the region a new facility, fit for international trade.

If this were a football transfer, then the negotiations would now be taking place behind the closed doors of some Manchester hotel penthouse suite. That may very well be the case anyway for this deal. However, it’s not just the sales side that has financial clout. The regeneration team has some formidable allies. Not least are the local authority and the national government. As with a star player transfer, though, the ultimate decision rests with the parent club. Right now, the only silverware coming to Trafford is in the back of a shipping container.

The development proposal is near Newton-le-Willows, midway between Manchester and Liverpool, about 25 miles (40km) from each city centre. The project is being promoted by Intermodal Logistics Park North Ltd, a company formed by Tritax Big Box REIT (Real Estate Investment Trust). The site, adjacent to the West Coast Main Line, has been identified as a potential replacement for Freightliner’s Trafford Park terminal in Manchester, which faces both capacity constraints and growing uncertainty over the future of its land.

Strategic location

The ILPN site, previously known as Parkside East, would serve both Greater Manchester and the Liverpool City Region Freeport, with strong rail and road links. Located less than 25 miles (40km) from both city centres, it benefits from direct access to the West Coast Main Line and the TransPennine corridor, offering dual north–south and east–west connectivity.

Industry sources suggest the new terminal could eventually handle operations relocated from Trafford Park, where Freightliner currently runs up to 20 intermodal services a day. The existing site, which lies close to Manchester United’s Old Trafford stadium, is being considered for redevelopment as part of a major expansion proposal linked to the club’s future stadium plans.

Congestion relief and capacity growth

If realised, the ILPN scheme could deliver significant operational benefits across the region’s rail network. The development would relieve pressure on central Manchester’s Castlefield Corridor, one of the busiest, most congested and most contentious freight and passenger routes in the UK.

Freightliner has previously expressed interest in establishing a presence at the new site, formerly known as Parkside East. A move could enable further growth of intermodal services from the North West, particularly given the proximity to Liverpool’s shipping container terminals and the Freeport logistics zone.

Nationally significant infrastructure

The proposed SRFI is classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), meaning consent will ultimately rest with the Secretary of State for Transport. “These proposals include an allocated site and will be instrumental in connecting the North West to global markets,” said Andrew Dickman, Chairman at Tritax Big Box Developments. “As part of Liverpool City Region’s Freeport, this development can unlock significant investment and create thousands of jobs, while delivering both economic and environmental freight solutions for the region. We are committed to working with our partners and the local community to ensure these benefits are fully realised.”

The developer says feedback from an initial informal consultation earlier this year has helped refine the current proposals, which now include a large-scale intermodal terminal, logistics accommodation, and warehousing. The second round of consultation opened on Tuesday 28 October and runs until Tuesday 23 December 2025. Local residents, businesses, and stakeholders are invited to review and comment on the updated plans, with a series of public information events scheduled across the Newton-le-Willows area in the coming weeks.

The Labour Party is in conference this week in Liverpool. It’s not just one of the most vital ports in the UK. It has become a major modern rail freight hub, delivering traffic onto the congested lines of Northwest England. Failing to solve the congestion issue could derail the entire Labour Party’s ambition for Britain’s industrial and economic growth. That could spell trouble for the prospects of Keir Starmer. His government needs to secure a significant victory at this year’s conference. However, railway development may not be the vote-winner he hopes for. It could derail his premiership, no matter what action he takes.

Challenge if he acts, challenge if he doesn’t

Railway development in the North of England is mired in political pitfalls. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s predecessor, Rishi Sunak, then leader of the right-wing Conservative government, crashed and burned out of office shortly after cancelling the unaffordable high-speed rail project HS2 to Manchester. Starmer is caught in a dilemma too, and a wrong move could be a high-speed line to his own political derailing.

Announcing a new rail development programme – loosely called Northern Powerhouse Rail – could well leave Starmer open to withering criticism from opposition parties, who are already painting him as a leaderless leader, bending easily in the wind. If he does nothing, then he is open to savage attack from his own party, and not least from the stalking horse for his post – the current mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, who is already widely tipped to make a move to oust Keir Starmer from leadership of the Labour Party.

Unlock rail bottleneck to unlock a political bottleneck

At stake is a long-term solution to the North of England’s chronic congestion nightmare. Across the region – broadly from Liverpool via Manchester to Leeds, Hull and Newcastle – demand far exceeds the railway’s ability to cope. Freight is squeezed for enough paths, which contributes to slow economic growth in the region. It is a common sight to see intermodal services crawl through Manchester’s notorious Castlefield Corridor – a two-track bottleneck in the centre of the city that constrains movement across the whole region.

Already though, the region’s main east-west line is the subject of a multi-billion-pound revamp. The Transpennine Route Upgrade is already well underway and will deliver tangible improvements for freight and passenger traffic. However, the critical bottleneck remains. Furthermore, there is no movement on an ambition to relocate the Trafford Park intermodal terminal in Greater Manchester to a site nearer to the West Coast Main Line. That move could take much of the freight pressure off the Castlefield Corridor, but like NPR, it’s stalled for now.

Pleasing the North politically or economically?

A compromise is on the table. Proposals have been submitted from a consortium of stakeholders, suggesting a brand new ‘high-speed’ line be built between Liverpool and Manchester (see RailTech.com). The routing has not been finalised, and the whole project does not have universal support. Backing it could be politically neutral at best for Keir Starmer. Failing to do so runs the risk of incurring the anger of two high-profile Labour Party members. One of them is Steve Rotheram, the mayor of Liverpool, who is hosting the Labour Party Conference in his city. The other is the even more dangerous Andy Burnham.

Putting that project on hold would undoubtedly ignite a leadership challenge, but there may be no alternative. Britain is basically broke, and Starmer and his Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, have no cash in the treasury to back up their expressed strong support for Northern Powerhouse Rail – in whatever form that may take. Sources have claimed that even a Liverpool – Manchester line would cost £17bn (about €20bn). In the week that Britain celebrates the 200th anniversary of the first modern passenger railway in the world, Keir Starmer may find himself standing in the tracks of a political express train, bearing down on him, and crashing his Labour Party into a political civil war it can ill-afford to fight.

“A week is a long time in politics,” said a North of England socialist politician for whom the highest office in the land remained his only goal. Except that wasn’t Andy Burnham, and it wasn’t this century. Harold Wilson, who coined the phrase, was the complete antithesis of his modern counterpart. Yet, the pipe-smoking premier remoulded Britain in the white heat of technology, in a way his abstemious modern-day counterpart can only dream of doing. Lest this be considered an obscure comparison, be warned that the Yorkshire-born PM saw through the greatest dismantling of the railway network in history.

Starmer still on the footplate

In reality, a week may indeed be a long time in politics, but it is far too soon to imagine Keir Starmer being shunted off into the cripple lane at the back of the depot. He may not be doing much for the health of the rail freight industry, but he has far more pressing issues in hand. So, while development of the sector moves with as much help from government as Thomas the Tank Engine attempting the Lickey Incline without a banker, what would a new ‘northern’ Prime Minister do for the health of freight railways in Great Britain?

Andy Burnham’s railway credentials are not in question. However, they have been concentrated on that most recalcitrant cargo of all: passengers. Reforming the operations around Manchester into the Bee Network has been widely praised – but not at the Rail Freight UK Summit. Back when it was planned for MediaCityUK in Salford, at the end of the short tram line from central Manchester, Andy declined to participate and deferred to give any keynote speech about how important rail freight is to the economy of Manchester. Newsflash: it’s vital to the economy of Manchester.

Mixed messages on freight

On the other hand, the Mayor of Manchester has been known to speak out on the subject of rail freight. It’s not always been complaints about freight trains clogging up passenger lines. He did support the development of Trafford Park, and now advocates the move of services to Wigan to clear the way for a new football stadium. In fact, getting freight off the main passenger lines, onto segregated freight routes, is something he’s toyed with. That could be interpreted as a dismissal of freight as superfluous, or a grandiose plan to massively enhance rail freight provision. Indecision translating into indifference has happened before.

Harold Wilson, had he not been inconveniently dead for 25 years, may have taken up the invitation to speak at the Rail Freight Summit. He was cut from a different cloth, and belonged to a different era. Wilson was born into a world of fire and steel, where Britain was an industrial powerhouse, albeit one where the furnaces were already beginning to cool. Wilson though had no particular love of the railways.

Under a policy enacted by a previous government, Harold Wilson let Britain’s muddled network be radically rationalised throughout both his terms in office. Radical pruning cost the network the ability of universal reach throughout Britain, and with it went the idyll of the branch line and any ambition of reviving wagonload freight.

A hostile climate in Westminster

Today, the only white heat coming down on the office of the Prime Minister is the searing glare of uncertainty. The incumbent Prime Minister – Keir Starmer – is under fire from all sides. So much so that Thursday’s bilateral meeting with Donald Trump could have been considered a relaxation. A succession of political missteps – from Starmer – notably lost cabinet ministers, misplaced ambassadors, and misread policy promises – has left him as the architect of his own decay. Keir Starmer has never knowingly addressed any Rail Freight Summit, either (not even this year’s upcoming Silk Road Summit).

Now, despite the oversight of not attending the Rail Freight Summit, Andy Burnham could hardly be described as an enemy of the railways. In his tenure as Mayor of Manchester, he has overseen the significant extension of the Metrolink tram network, unified much of the conurbation’s public transport, and lobbied without rest for greater transport infrastructure improvements – albeit occasionally dismissive of rail freight.

Andy’s Northern cause

Burnham is the man who coined a saying of his own – the betrayal of the North – on the news of the crass cancellation which axed HS2 trains to Manchester (see RailTech.com). He couldn’t save that, but this turbulent high priest of Manchester is widely perceived as a saviour of a failing Labour Party, which seems to have forgotten how to manage the country after fourteen years out of office.

There is a whole train of hoops which would be required to be timetabled before Father Andy could reach the high altar of Ten Downing Street. Would rail freight be top of his agenda, should he reach there? It’s unlikely. Homes and health may well be up there, as he returns to familiar ground, having held ministerial posts with both portfolios. Might he bring his railway reforms south with him from Manchester? Yes, almost certainly – but rail freight has played second fiddle to Bee Network implementation. Might he even use high office to promote Manchester’s case, such as the proposed new Liverpool-Manchester railway?

As it stands, there’s not a great deal on the table for rail freight. With the incumbent Prime Minister distracted by his own position, there’s only so much that can be done. Burnham would need to take a huge gamble – give up his mayoral role to fight a by-election in order to take the first step on that long road to first among equals. Right now, that doesn’t seem like a moving train worth jumping for. Then again, as Harold Wilson said: a week is a long time in politics.