Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwmbwls
At the risk of mixing threads, could I venture the opinion that Port Salford's canal traffic operations are likely to be less succesful than their rail traffic. Looking at the ship canal infrastructure, there seems to be a fair amount of investment needed to mantain let alone enhance existing structures. My friends in the road haulage industry still think they will be taking the lion's share of the traffic out of Liverpool. Is the term Port Salford a red herring - should it not really be called Salford SRFI?
|
May well be MW;
- but for the puposes of this thread, it likely makes no difference. Port Salford is due to begin operations, I understand, in 2015. The Port bit will be built last, but in any case I cannot see that aspect of the business as generating much freight traffic initially. So, initially, Port Salford is likely to be functioning as a rail-road terminal for Trafford Park, competing directly with Freightliner and Euroterminal.
In that competition, Port Salford should be operating at a considerable advantage - due to the (publicly funded) Western Gateway bridge and road; and the (publicly funded) upgrading of the Chat Moss lline. In my - entirely uninformed - view; that makes it highly llikely that one or other of the existing terminal operators will withdraw from their current Trafford Park site.
Which (for me) leaves a question hanging; how far is the Chat Moss line (post Hub) limited to one freight path per hour? This is, of course, simply the obverse of the Oxford Road question. If Port Salford takes much of the current business; will it also be able to take the expected long-term expansion of that business? Assuming, with MW, that not much of the current rail-based containter traffic will switch to going out along the Ship Canal (at least initially); then simple arithmetic would suggest that two daytime hourly freight paths weswards through Chat Moss could eventually be needed. On the face of it, that should be easier to achieve than two freight paths eastwards across the Hub; but I presume there could still be substantial implications.
id