FTA is lukewarm
Page 21
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE AMOUNT of traffic which would use a fixed channel link should not be over-estimated, according to Freight Transport Association director-general Hugh Featherstone.
Addressing the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport last week, a four-man FTA delegation said that a fixed link across the Channel would be of limited value to freight users. However, of British Rail's plans for a tunnel went ahead, piggy-back train faeilities would be needed.
"The piggy-back system does have a future which we have not explored,'" said Mr Featherstone. "There would be a much better chance of attracting freight if a piggy-back system was available."
Although the FTA did not totally dismiss the idea of either a tunnel or bridge, feelings leaned towards the fact that on a journey lasting several days, the saving of a few hours on the Channel crossing was not important.
As FTA director of transport user services Jack Welsh pointed out, ferry crossings can act as rest periods for drivers_ In its written evidence to the committee, FTA says it is likely that most freight carried by BR's proposed rail-only facility will originate from existing rail traffic through Dover, and that relatively little will switch from road.
From the freight user's standpoint FTA says there are higher investment priorities, both road and rail, than a fixed channel link. The FTA's feelings are summed up by George Smith of ICI and Ian Dallison of the British Steel Corporation, the two other FTA representatives. "If it was cheaper, we'd be at the front of the queue,said Mr Smith.