Dangerous freight switches to roads: Leaked Shell document puts blame on soaring BR charges (CORRECTED)

CORRECTION (PUBLISHED 13 NOVEMBER 1993) APPENDED TO THIS ARTICLE

RISING freight charges on British Rail are forcing distributors of highly flammable and dangerous loads to switch from rail to road.

The loads involved have lower flashpoints than the cargo of methanol that ignited yesterday in France killing 17 people, but the tankers used are similar to the one that erupted yesterday.

BR figures suggest a considerable nationwide switch from rail to road, showing a drop of almost 15 per cent in petroleum traffic in the last three years. In 1988-89, Trainload Freight, the BR freight division, carried 10.9m tons of petroleum goods. In 1991-92, that total was down to 9.4m tons.

A leaked document from Shell UK, one of the country's largest operators, reveals it is transferring 200,000 tons of gas oil, diesel, kerosene and motor spirit from rail to road this year. The internal staff briefing blames the move on soaring BR freight fares and the need for profitability: 'Shell UK switched certain locations from rail to road feeding from April 1993. Road now represents the most cost- effective option on routes affected by the increased freight charges.'

According to the Shell document, dated May 1993, long-term freight contracts were renegotiated at the end of 1992 'when BR quoted substantial price increases on some routes, ranging from 50 per cent to over 100 per cent'. BR charges rose about 100 per cent at Shell's Grangemouth refinery; 85 per cent at Shell Haven and 50 per cent at the company's Stanlow depot.

The Shell paper explains: 'BR has argued that, in the face of declining demand . . . cost must be spread over less freight traffic to achieve the necessary profitability. This profitability is lowest on more marginal routes which have since suffered the greatest price rises.'

As a result, says Shell, 'a number of industrial companies have chosen to transfer some, or all, of their rail freight to road . . . soaring rail charges make road transport the most cost-effective option.' The document goes on to name Esso and BP as also using road in preference to some rail services.

Shell acknowledges that 'public concern about the issue has been mounting steadily . . . More tanker traffic is viewed as a threat to motorist and pedestrian safety.'

Public anxiety, the paper admits, is also directed towards the future of the rural lines, which will suffer in the move to road. 'ScotRail users are worried that an absence of freight on the West Highland line will undermine the future of the passenger service. In Wales, some expect the loss of the remaining Cambrian line freight train to lead to downgrading of the route to light traffic.' The paper tells staff that Shell may return to rail freight, 'if it becomes economically viable to do so'. Staff were also told that 'companies . . . cannot accept competitive disadvantage to meet social or environmental needs. It is up to government to establish an equitable framework which addresses these needs'.

In July, Friends of the Earth in Shropshire wrote to the chairman of Shell UK, Sir Peter Holmes, protesting about the rise in tanker traffic in the county and mid-Wales. The reply, from David Varney, made it clear that Shell blamed BR fare increases.

A Trainload Freight spokeswoman defended the fare increases, saying: 'We are not subsidised by the Government and we must run like a business.'

CORRECTION

In a report in yesterday's paper, 'Dangerous freight switches to roads', we referred to a leaked document from Shell UK. In fact, the document was an internal briefing document produced for staff and was also distributed to MPs.