ORR Decision
| Date | 30 October 2015 |
| Section | Regulation 29 appeal by DBS for access and services at Freightliner Southampton Maritime Terminal |
ORR’s Decision on
an appeal by DB
Schenker Rail (UK)
Limited regarding
access and services
at Freightliner
Southampton
Maritime Terminal
30 October 2015
Southampton Maritime Terminal
1
DECISION: ORR dismisses this appeal and determines that Freightliner Limited’s
refusal to grant DB Schenker Rail (UK) Limited access and services
on the terms sought was justified.
Introduction
1. This is the Decision of the Office of Rail and Road (ORR)
1
regarding an appeal
made by DB Schenker Rail (UK) Limited (DBS) on 9 January 2015 under
regulation 29 of The Railways Infrastructure (Access and Management)
Regulations 2005 (the Regulations).
2. The appeal concerns the refusal by Freightliner Limited (Freightliner) of DBS‘s
request for access to, and services at, Freightliner Southampton Maritime
Terminal (Maritime Terminal).
3. DBS‘s appeal concerns not being able to agree terms with Freightliner to enable
it to have access to Maritime Terminal for up to four regular pairs of train services
per day and for associated services including loading and unloading containers
(the request).
4. Freightliner refused DBS‘s request for access on the basis that there is
insufficient capacity at Maritime Terminal. The issue in this appeal is therefore
whether sufficient capacity exists or could exist at Maritime Terminal to
accommodate the request. In cases where access has been refused, we would
expect a facility owner to provide a fully reasoned and objectively justified
argument for refusing access.
5. This Decision includes references to Freightliner‘s and DBS‘s (the parties’)
respective positions and representations. The parties‘ representations and
supporting documents are published alongside this Decision
2
and should be
referred to for the parties‘ detailed arguments and evidence.
6. In this Decision, words and definitions have the same meaning as under the
Regulations unless expressly stated otherwise or the context requires otherwise.
7. This Decision considers the legal framework and preliminary issues raised by this
appeal first before setting out the background to this appeal, the issues raised by
the parties and then ORR‘s analysis and conclusion.
8. The appeal also raised issues about disclosure of commercially sensitive
information, in particular which elements of each party‘s representations should
or should not be disclosed to the other party. We have addressed this issue
separately below.
1
Pursuant to the Infrastructure Act 2015 new functions were conferred on ORR in respect of monitoring how
Highways England exercises its functions in relation to the strategic road network in England. The Office of Rail
Regulation (Change of Name) Regulations 2015 changed the name to the ‗Office of Rail and Road‘ from the
‗Office of Rail Regulation‘ with effect from 16 October 2015.
2
http://orr.gov.uk/what-and-how-we-regulate/track-access/policies Note: certain information is redacted.
To continue reading
Request your trial