MPs have recently been debating whether more goods should be moved by train to reduce HGV journeys, congestion and emissions on the UK’s roads.
The debate, held in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 3 June, focused on the role of rail freight in Britain’s transport network, with MPs being told that rail currently makes up around 7% of the country’s freight, compared to Europe with an average of around 19%.
In 2023 the UK government set its target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050, to support economic growth and remove lorries off roads - cutting emissions and congestion. According to figures cited in the debate earlier this month, rail freight forestalls around 7 million HGV journeys each year and contributes an estimated £2.5bn in economic and social value.
The discussion comes as the UK continues to face pressures regarding road capacity, driver shortages, and the reduction of emissions. Rail freight supporters argue that moving more long-distance and bulk freight by train could ease congestion on key road corridors, and in turn reduce road wear and support decarbonisation without removing the need for HGVs in first-mile and last-mile operations.
The main question, however, is how far can this shift go? Most of the UK’s domestic freight market still depends on road transport. This is due to its flexibility, delivery speed, customer locations and lack of suitable rail-connected sites, whereas rail freight is more competitive for longer-distance, high-volume flows and goods moving between ports, terminals and distribution hubs.
The MPs debate highlighted an ongoing concern in the logistics sector: rail freight growth is dependent on terminal capacity, network access, timetable planning and investment in routes that can handle heavier and longer freight trains. Industry bodies have continuously warned that freight operators need certainty regarding access to the rail network - especially as rail reform continues to progress and the Great British Railways takes shape. Without reliable paths, terminal development and competitive costs, modal shift from road to rail is unlikely to happen at the scale that ministers are requiring.
Julian Worth, Chair of CILT’s Rail Freight Forum, commented:
“We welcome the Westminster Hall debate and commend Lisa Smart’s advocacy for rail freight. Lilian Greenwood’s response was encouraging, particularly her confirmation that there will be a dedicated freight representative on the GBR board. However, more needs to be done. The Railways Bill should be strengthened to ensure Government ambitions for rail freight are delivered in practice, and CILT (UK) has proposed a small number of targeted amendments."
“Government backing for key infrastructure enhancements would support economic growth and house building. In particular, additional capacity is urgently needed from London Gateway to the Midlands and North. This could be achieved by electrifying the 3-mile branch line to London Gateway and improving capacity on the North London Line through selective junction upgrades. The corridor is also increasingly important for transporting construction materials across London and the South East."
“Current proposals at Handsacre Junction do not resolve the major bottleneck at Colwich, which restricts capacity on Britain’s most important rail corridor serving the North West, Scotland and North Wales. Government ambitions for 75% freight growth by 2050 are unlikely to be met without addressing this issue, which CILT (UK) highlighted in its response to the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into HS2.”