---

Rail Links (Teesport)

First, I thank Mr. Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate, in which I wish to raise the current situation relating to the urgent need to upgrade rail links to and from Teesport. It is at the heart of the case for the development of the Teesport complex and for attracting much needed inward investment to the area. I wish to say a few words about the complex, as it is an economic driver for both Teesside and the UK. Teesport is the second largest port in volume in the United Kingdom and the 10th largest in western Europe. In 2005 the port of Tees and Hartlepool handled 55 million tonnes of cargo and goods, representing almost 10 per cent. of UK ports’ foreign and domestic traffic flow. In recent years the port has handled an increasing flow of container traffic. At present about 7.8 million 20-ft equivalent units—TEUs—of containers enter and leave the UK per annum. Owing to the growth in the manufacture of finished goods in the far east and the increasing demand for such goods in the UK, that level is expected to rise by 400,000 TEUs of containers a year. The UK’s port facilities are currently incapable of absorbing that growth. I am aware of the recent decisions to allow for port expansion at Felixstowe and Harwich and of the Minister being minded to approve the London gateway. PD Ports remains convinced that there is a strong commercial case for the expansion of Teesport, providing deep-water berthing in close proximity to major consumer markets. That would make a strong case to shippers and handling agents, particularly as it is estimated that more than 50 per cent. of all container traffic to the UK via ports in the south is destined for markets north of Birmingham. The port has submitted an ambitious planning proposal to the local planning authority, Redcar and Cleveland council, and separately to the Department for Transport. The proposal is for a major expansion of the container side of the port’s operations to provide new berths so that larger, more modern deep-sea container ships can call at Teesport. The development would be a big employment boost for Teesside and the north-east, bringing 500 highly skilled jobs and a further 2,000 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The port has had recent success in developing a riverside facility for Asda Wal-Mart, and in 2003 it invested £12 million in upgrading its container terminal. This is not just a pipe dream. The key issue that I wish to raise is the concern about access to and from Teesport and the best way to improve it. There is no real argument about road access, but container traffic being transported by rail rather than on the roads is more environmentally friendly and allows for greater security of carriage. There are significant constraints that preclude full access between Teesport and the east coast main line and beyond. Those constraints must be overcome. They are not on the availability of train paths, as evidenced by the partnership between PD Ports and Corus, which set up a direct internal rail link between the steelworks complex and shipping berths, which released extra freight trains paths. The problem lies in the present gauge limitation on much of the UK rail system. The rail lines near the port that connect with the east coast main line are at W8 standard, which allows only old, 8 ft 6 in-tall containers to be carried on standard intermodal rail wagons. Global shipping lines are increasingly utilising more modern containers, known as high-cube containers because they are 1 ft taller— 9 ft 6 in. That places Teesport at a disadvantage. The rest of the east coast main line is currently at W9 standard. High-cube, modern generation, 9 ft 6 in containers cannot travel on both W8 and W9 gauge tracks, but both W8 and W9 are adequate for use by freight trains with low-wheelbase well wagons and those known as low-profile pocket wagons. In its planning application details, PD Ports has assumed the use of such wagons to allow the inland transportation of modern, high-cube containers to and from the port by rail. However, the use of low-liners or well wagons is not the optimum solution. The payload, or economic viability, of freight trains is reduced by low platform-height wagons. In addition, Network Rail has identified 20 obstacles on the gauge of the Tees valley rail line, including one major obstacle in the shape of a tunnel near Yarm. Those obstacles need to be removed in order to create a rail line that is cleared to W10 standard gauge. The issue is quantifiable in scale, scope and remediation costs. The trouble is that it has been bogged down in the excessive complexities of the national rail investment programme. Initially, the former Strategic Rail Authority decided that the matter needed to be considered in the rail utilisation study for the entire east coast main line. That work has now been taken over by Network Rail, operating under the aegis of the Office of the Rail Regulator. The east coast main line route utilisation study and its parallel freight route utilisation study were part of a 2006 consultation process undertaken by Network Rail. I fear that the study was so wide ranging and involved so many major players that smaller improvements such as the one that I am advocating may get lost in the long grass. I am aware that the Minister has visited Teesport and recognised the strength of PD Ports’ case. I was pleased when he suggested that the best way forward would be to consider the issue through the mechanism of a transport innovation fund grant. A submission was made and in July last year the Teesport rail connection was listed as one of the contenders for possible funding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport then announced the outcome of the transport innovation fund application process to the House on 18 December last year. On the bid for the Teesport east coast main line link improvements, he said:"““The Teesport/east coast main line rail gauge enhancement scheme fitted well with our strategic approach, but the scheme was not sufficiently developed to enable an accurate appraisal to take place. Network Rail have, however, been working with the Northern Way and other stakeholders to develop a wider Northern ““W10 gauge”” strategy for routes to markets for the major northern ports, in which Teesport would be a key element. We look forward to seeing the outcome of this work.””—[Official Report, 18 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 135WS-136WS.]" I am not criticising the Secretary of State’s decisions, which I have no doubt were based on intellectually sound advice from his civil servants. I am sure that the work that he described will go forward and be examined when it is ready. However, I emphasise my concern that easily identifiable improvements to relatively short stretches of the lines between Teesport and the east coast main line will be subsumed into a wider study. That study will encompass a far wider geographical area, perhaps considering ports as diverse as the Humber and Liverpool. It will also consider a wider W10 gauge approach, which will be long, complicated and costly to first understand and then hopefully implement. I am concerned that the process will make the simple improvements to the Tees valley rail programme that I have outlined much more difficult to attain. Teesport is crucial to the national economy and the implementation of the proposals and investments from PD Ports, and it can create jobs and increase competition. Some thought should therefore be given to fast-tracking these matters. For once, cash is not a problem. I am aware that transport innovation funds require contributions from proposed beneficiaries, and provided that those are geographically ring-fenced within a reasonable distance from the port, I am sure that PD Ports will play its part in possible financing schemes. However, speed is of the essence. The west coast main line has recently been upgraded to W12 gauge at the expense of the public purse and Network Rail, but that is not the case for the east coast main line. Both lines are equally important strategic rail links. The need for extra container handling capacity in the UK both at our ports and on our railways is an issue here and now. If we only build new ports in the south, our road and rail networks in and around the south-east will be jammed for ever. We need to quickly enhance rail links to this key northern port to ensure that it can fulfil its huge potential. I am sure that the managers of PD Ports would welcome another meeting with Ministers to look at some of the points I have highlighted. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider making a helpful reply today and grant me a meeting to explore some of these ideas, because as I said, they are essential for the Tees valley, the north-east economy and the economy of our country.