APPENDIX 1 – REQUIREMENTS

Appendix 1.1: Document no. 028 HS2 Requirements 13-0409

Appendix 1.2: HS2’s Project Definition Statement (PDS) C241 – Calvert East-West Rail C241-PBR-DS-STA-020-000001 revision P08

Appendix 1.3: Client Requirements Document for the Phase 2 project

HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003

Page 61 of 357 Appendix 1.3: Client Requirements Document for the East West Rail Phase 2 project

HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003

Page 145 of 357 Client Requirements Document- OP133735 EAST WEST NetworkRail RAIL PHASE 2 -&~

Client Requirements Document OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Client Requirements Document Template: ref: NR/PSE/FRM/0239, Issue 02, 10th December 2013

Prepared by : Senior Programme Development ·• :'.,er

/i!!.il:fli. {late" t N:! o' 'f Bernmtfffulland

Checked by : Programme Development Manager

~ate :oLt/os /L::> r 4

Approved by: Lead Strategic Planner

;iPJ:~~ Date S 3 z.._c l'-r Z{ Tony Rudge

Accepted by : Senior Programme Developme~t ~~e r

B~ Date s/$1'-oll-f

This document is the property of Network Rail. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party without prior written permission. Copyright 2014 Network Rail

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 1 of 33 Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Document History

Issue Date Originator Modification 1 25 February Bernard First draft for comment 2014 Hulland

2 3 February Bernard Final Version 2014 Hulland

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 2 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Contents

1 Purpose ...... 4

1.1 Background Information ...... 4

1.2 Stakeholders ...... 5

2 General Description of the Scheme...... 6

2.1 Business Objectives (Aspirations)...... 6

2.2 Scheme Definition ...... 7

2.3 Boundaries and Relationships ...... 7

2.4 Assumptions, Dependencies, Constraints & Risks ...... 7 2.4.1 Assumptions ...... 7 2.4.2 Dependencies ...... 8 2.4.3 Constraints...... 8 2.4.4 Risks ...... 11

2.5 Whole Life Cost Strategy ...... 11

2.6 Scheme Key Milestones and Configuration States ...... 12

2.7 Scheme Acceptance Strategy...... 12

3 Scheme Requirements ...... 14

3.1 Safety Strategy - Requirements ...... 14

3.2 General Scheme - Requirements...... 14

3.3 Performance Aspiration - Requirements ...... 15

3.4 Maintenance Strategy - Requirements...... 18

Appendix A - Deliverables...... 19

Appendix B - References ...... 33

Appendix C - Glossary ...... 33

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 3 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

1 Purpose

1.1 Background Information

The “East West Rail” (EWR) project proposes the introduction of direct rail passenger services between , and , and also between (Marylebone) and Milton Keynes (via ), by reconstructing and upgrading the partially-disused Oxford – – – Bedford, and Princes Risborough - Aylesbury – Claydon Junction routes.

The project was promoted for a number of years by the East West Rail Consortium, formed by a partnership of Local Authorities along the line of route, who commissioned a series of studies culminating in 2009 in the issuing of a Project Prospectus, supported by a feasibility report, roughly equivalent to GRIP 3, produced by . These documents reflected an output specification which delivered a basic pattern of regular passenger services between the main centres served by the EWR route, together with some additional capacity for new freight and inter-regional passenger services, which is referred to today as the “core” scheme.

In 2012, the “core” EWR scheme was included in the High Level Output Statement (HLOS) for Control Period 5 (CP5) issued by the (DfT). Subsequently, in recognition of the potential of the reconstructed routes to exploit new markets, the DfT proposed an enhanced output specification, including additional capacity, higher line speeds, and enhanced route availability and . The Oxford – Bletchley - Bedford section was also identified as an integral part of the “” proposal to create an electrified network to create additional capacity, primarily for freight, between the south coast and the East and .

The section of the route between Oxford and Bicester was also proposed for substantial reconstruction under the “Evergreen 3” project, promoted and developed by . Following inclusion of the EWR project in the CP5 HLOS, and in order to secure efficiencies in delivery, the works required for both schemes were combined into a composite project as “East West Rail Phase 1”, to be delivered by Network Rail in accordance with timescales dictated by Chiltern’s franchise commitment to start the new Oxford – London service in March 2016. Construction of Phase 1 started in September 2012, and work is now progressing on site.

Owing to the enhanced specification now proposed by DfT and the potential need to integrate electrification, the remainder of the EWR project east of Bicester is, at the time of writing, at a much earlier stage of development (about mid-GRIP2), and much work remains to finalise the definitive output specification and secure funding for design and construction. To progress project development, an Industry Plan Group has been convened to secure, by March 2014, support across the industry for enhanced route capabilities. Following this, it is intended that the options identified will be developed and costed, with a view to securing funding for the project in the Final Determination in March 2015. The current programme includes a final completion date of March 2019 to comply with Network Rail’s commitment to deliver the project within CP5, but both the DfT and the EWR Consortium support earlier introduction of the new services by December 2017 if this can be realistically achieved. Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 4 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

The new EWR route intersects the proposed alignment of (HS2) near Steeple Claydon, where a major construction site (later to become the main HS2 Infrastructure maintenance Depot) is to be built, and both vertical and horizontal realignment of the Bicester - Bletchley and Aylesbury – Claydon will be necessary. These alterations are included in the HS2 hybrid bill submitted in December 2013 which is planned to receive royal assent in Summer 2015. The HS2 programme assumes that the EWR route will be available for disposal of spoil by rail from West London during 2018, and subsequently HS2 construction traffic between 2020 and 2026. These considerations may result in further enhancement of the EWR output specification, and will influence the EWR delivery programme.

1.2 Stakeholders The following stakeholders have been identified:

Name Role Contact Network Rail Paul Plummer Group Strategy Director Paul.plummer @networkrail.co.uk Jo Kaye Director, Strategy & [email protected] Planning (LNW & LNE) David Golding Principal Strategic [email protected]. Planner, LNW Route uk Graham Botham Principal Strategic [email protected] Planner, LNE & EM Route Chris Principal Strategic [email protected] Planner, Western Route Bernard Hulland Senior Programme [email protected] Development Manager, East West Rail Francis McGarry Programme Manager, [email protected] Infrastructure Projects Dyan Crowther Route Managing [email protected] Director, LNW Patrick Hallgate Route Managing [email protected] Director, Western Phil Verster Route Managing [email protected] Director, LNE & EM

Department for Transport Stuart Baker DfT Projects David Sexton DfT Strategy [email protected] Ben Stafford DfT Projects [email protected] Rowan Smith DfT Franchise Sponsor [email protected]

Office of Rail Regulation Richard Fisher [email protected]

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 5 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

EWR Consortium Neil Gibson Patrick O’Sullivan Patrick.O'Sullivan@Milton- keynes.gov.uk Steve Watson [email protected]

Train Operating Companies and Freight Operating Companies Chris Hanks Alliance Rail [email protected] Craig Leaper Chiltern Railways Howard Read Southern Railway Ian Kapur GB Railfreight [email protected] John Czyrko First Great Western John McGuinness Direct Rail Services Ltd. [email protected] Jonathan Dunster Virgin Trains [email protected] Lindsay Durham Freightliner Mike Hogg First Great Western [email protected] Nick Gibbons DB Schenker [email protected] Paul French First Capital Connect [email protected] Peter Graham Freightliner Peter Lane First Group Peter Tirrell Cross Country Trains [email protected] Robin Morgan London Midland [email protected] Simon Taylor Trains [email protected] k Graham Cross Chiltern Railways [email protected] Richard Devon & Cornwall :[email protected] Broughton Railways

2 General Description of the Scheme

2.1 Business Objectives (Aspirations)

The primary objective of the “East West Rail” project is to support development and economic growth across north , , Milton Keynes Borough and . The potential benefits delivered by the “core” project are described in the Project Prospectus issued by the EWR Consortium in 2009.

In addition, it is considered that the new routes will offer the rail industry significant opportunities to create and exploit new rail markets, and provide additional network capacity, capability and routeing opportunities. These benefits have not yet been fully appraised, but are being examined and considered through the Industry Plan Group. The DfT intends to undertake a more comprehensive Business Case analysis of the enhanced project, including rail industry-related and wider socio-economic benefits.

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 6 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

2.2 Scheme Definition

Outline specifications for the “core” project as defined in the Consortium’s project prospectus, and the enhanced specification proposed by DfT are attached as Appendix “A”. The final enhanced specification is subject to agreement and ratification by the Industry Plan Group.

2.3 Boundaries and Relationships

Strategic Routes: Route 13 () Route 16 (Chilterns) Route 18 () Route 19 ( & East Midlands) Operating Routes: Lead Route: London North Western Western London North Eastern and East Midlands

As discussed in section 2.4.3 below, in order to set manageable parameters for the project, it is necessary to define strict geographical boundaries for the works to be included within the project remit. The proposed boundaries are:

West Oxford station East Bedford Midland station North Milton Keynes station South Princes Risborough station

2.4 Assumptions, Dependencies, Constraints & Risks

2.4.1 Assumptions Reference Details A-EWR-1 resignalling: Resignalling at Oxford will be implemented by Western Route prior to EWR Phase 2, and will include additional infrastructure required to accommodate the later introduction of EWR services, principally doubling of North Junction and the route onwards to Tunnel. Further work also needs to be done to establish whether a fifth running line would be needed to accommodate the potential long-term growth in traffic on both EWR and GWML. The specification for these works is being developed in consultation with Western Route. A-EWR-2 Great Western Electrification: Electrification will be completed to Oxford prior to EWR Phase 2.

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 7 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

A-EWR-3 Construction in Claydon area: EWR construction will precede HS2 construction. HS2 will obtain Royal Assent for the Hybrid Bill as planned in Summer 2015 to enable the EWR works to be constructed on the revised alignments required to accommodate later implementation of HS2. (This includes vertical realignment of the Oxford – Bletchley line and horizontal realignment eastwards of the Aylesbury – Claydon Junction route). If this is not possible, for example because of delay in obtaining Royal Assent, the fallback option is likely to be to construct the EWR works on the existing alignments, and accept that disruption to EWR services will be caused by the HS2 works at a later date. (See Dependency D-EWR-1 below). A-EWR-4 Level crossings: The principle will be adopted that all level crossings should be removed, with rights of way diverted over new or existing bridges, or stopped up, as appropriate, unless it is not practicable to do so. Where level crossings must remain, they will be upgraded to the level of protection appropriate for the density of traffic passing over them.

2.4.2 Dependencies Reference Details D-EWR-1 HS2 legal powers: In order to secure efficiencies and reduce later disruption, the HS2 Hybrid Bill needs to receive Royal Assent in time for EWR works in the Claydon area to be constructed on their revised alignments within timescales compatible with the EWR programme. (See Assumption A-EWR-3 above) D-EWR-2 Electrification and other enhancements on the Midland Main Line : Electrification of the EWR route between Bletchley and Bedford is closely linked with (a) electrification of the MML north of Bedford, including possible “second phase” electrification and capacity enhancements designed to increase freight capacity, (b) the strategy for remodelling around the Bedford station area and (c) potentially, the emerging strategy for EWR Central Section east of Bedford. Bletchley – Bedford electrification is also very likely to require substantial upgrading of the route, including resignalling, level crossing closures, station access improvements and capacity enhancements, which have not yet been developed. Such works may, therefore, of necessity form a third phase of EWR during CP6 or later. If so, an interim diesel-powered passenger service between Oxford and Bedford, pending later electrification, should be considered as part of the Phase 2 development. D-EWR-3 Main Line Capacity: The ability to extend EWR services to Milton Keynes, London Paddington and London Marylebone (as specified in the Output Specification) will depend on the availability of sufficient capacity on the West Coast, Great Western and Chiltern Main Lines respectively.

2.4.3 Constraints Reference Details

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 8 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

C-EWR-1 Exploiting route capacity: It is recognised that, particularly in the event that the EWR route is constructed to an enhanced specification, the ability to exploit the route’s potential will be influenced by capacity constraints elsewhere on the national network, which it is not intended to try to resolve as part of this project. The objective will be to construct the EWR route to a standard and capability fit for the long-term, so that as other constraints are resolved, the EWR route will be able to accommodate the resulting increased levels of traffic without disruption to existing services. For this reason, geographical boundaries for physical works have been set as described in Section 2.3 above – for the avoidance of doubt, note that the boundaries include the section of the West Coast Main Line between Bletchley and Milton Keynes and the Chiltern route between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury (see Constraints C-EWR-2 and C-EWR-4 below). C-EWR-2 Bletchley – Milton Keynes: The revenue generated by Milton Keynes (both originating / destination traffic and through interchange opportunities) is central to the EWR business case. However, it is recognised that capacity on the West Coast Main Line between Bletchley and Milton Keynes is already severely constrained, and there is a significant risk that sufficient spare paths to accommodate even the minimum 2 tph in each direction proposed in the “core” scheme may not be available. Timetable & performance modelling will be required to prove whether the additional trains can be accommodated and it may be necessary to consider the feasibility of additional infrastructure on this section. In the event that no economic case can be made for infrastructure enhancement, it will be necessary to consider other alternatives for creating the necessary capacity or, in the last resort, to examine the implications of terminating EWR trains at Bletchley. C-EWR-3 Oxford – Reading – London Paddington: Capacity on the Great Western Main Line is also constrained, and sufficient spare paths to accommodate EWR services may not be available, even if electric traction is utilised. Timetable & performance modelling will be required to prove whether the additional trains can be accommodated on all or part of the route into Paddington. In the last resort, the implications, both commercial and operational, of starting / terminating all EWR services at Oxford may need to be considered.

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD Date: 25 February 2014 Page: 9 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

C-EWR-4 Claydon Junction – Princes Risborough: The railway between Claydon Junction and Princes Risborough is currently subject to capacity constraints which prevent reliable operation of a passenger and freight train within the same hour. It is, therefore, likely to require upgrading to reliably accommodate the proposed EWR London Marylebone service and more regular freight traffic, particularly if HS2 construction traffic between the London area and Claydon is routed via the as currently proposed. As little feasibility work has been carried out on this section in the Atkins report, it is unclear what level of infrastructure enhancement would be required. The junction at Princes Risborough will almost certainly require remodelling, but because of geometric constraints it will be difficult to avoid performance risks to the Chiltern Main Line at this location. The junction layout at Aylesbury and capacity through the station to the north is also a major constraint. The two intermediate stations (at Monks Risborough and Little Kimble) would require extensive reconstruction if double track were required through their locations.

The Atkins report concluded that the section between Claydon Junction and Aylesbury would require resignalling and relaying for higher speeds, but no assessment of operational performance over the single line was undertaken.

The option of reopening the former GC main line between Junction and Junction as an alternative to upgrading the Princes Risborough – Aylesbury – Grendon route has been suggested, mainly to accommodate freight traffic. However, it has been established that the relative alignments of the Aylesbury line and HS2 at Grendon Underwood would severely constrain the ability to reinstate the junction at this point, and a haul road to Calvert landfill site is presently being constructed along part of the old formation. Nevertheless, the feasibility of, and case for, reinstating the Ashendon – Grendon route should be examined. C-EWR-5 Bletchley – Bedford: Capacity on this part of the route is constrained by, amongst other things, 2-aspect signalling, two single line sections and a sharp, steeply graded curve giving access to the Midland Main Line through Bedford St. Johns station. There are at least 38 level crossings of various types, including 12 highway crossings, most of which provide the sole means of access to adjacent stations, and which would result in the need for station reconstruction if they were to be abolished.

The Atkins report concluded that no major infrastructure improvements would be required to accommodate the single additional fast Oxford – Bedford service proposed in the “core” scheme, and consequently did not include any significant enhancements. The additional train paths proposed in the enhanced scheme would certainly require substantial upgrading of the route, which would need to be developed from scratch.

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD 1 Date: 25 February 2014 Page: of 33 0

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

C-EWR-6 Bedford Midland Station: The Atkins report concluded that the existing bay platform 1A was capable of accommodating both the new Oxford – Bedford fast service and the existing Bletchley – Bedford local trains proposed under the core scheme. However, the platform is only 81 metres long and therefore capable of accommodating a maximum of 3 vehicles, and may in any case be proposed for abolition in the emerging strategy. Space constraints also mean that crossing movements from EWR over the junction onto the main line would inevitably have severe effects on capacity. EWR requirements in the Bedford station area will need to be developed as part of a wider strategy in partnership with other projects in similar fashion to the approach already adopted at Oxford.

2.4.4 Risks Reference Details R-EWR-1 Legal Powers: While much work can be carried out under Permitted Development rights, significant additional land take will be required at various points along the line of route between Bicester and Bedford.. Closure of level crossings will result in rights of way diversion and new stations will require a larger land footprint, including access roads and car parks. At least three sections of route appear to have been constructed outside the authorised limits of deviation or otherwise not in accordance with statutory powers.

A strategy for obtaining the necessary powers with the minimum of delay will be worked up, but experience on EWR Phase 1 is that such a large construction programme will inevitably attract a significant number of objections, particularly in view of the current status and use of the railway compared to the proposed capabilities. The Phase 1 powers took some 2½ years to gain assent – if repeated on Phase 2 this would make achieving the target December 2017 in use date impossible, jeopardise even completion within CP5 and potentially impact on HS2 delivery. R-EWR-2 Environmental issues: Experience on the Phase 1 works indicate that there are significant environmental issues to be addressed, including the effects on lineside residents of noise and vibration, closure or diversion of rights of way, protected species (newts, bats and badgers) and historic remains. The greater distances involved in Phase 2 and the larger number of people affected mean that these issues are likely to be

2.5 Whole Life Cost Strategy

The project shall demonstrate and evidence how Whole Life Cost (WLC) has been considered in the selection of single option(s).

There is no mandate on the model to use but it is required that it demonstrate a clear linkage between the options being considered and the implications of these options on cost, risk and performance.

All WLC products must be added and included in the stage gate reviews. Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD 1 Date: 25 February 2014 Page: of 33 1

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Period of analysis is to be 60 years.

Costing must be presented in Nett Present Value (NPV).

Sponsor - Is responsible for setting out the requirements of WLC for the project as well as the decision making regards WLC.

Project Manager – Is responsible for discussion with the Sponsor, to set out the options to be assessed and the Project Manager shall develop the options taking WLC into account.

Project team - Is responsible for constructing the model and will be accountable for its outputs.

2.6 Scheme Key Milestones and Configuration States

March 2014 Baseline Existing service patterns

September 2015 Configuration Start of service, London Marylebone to Oxford Parkway State 1

March 2016 Configuration Start of service, London Marylebone to Oxford State 2

March 2019 Configuration EWR core service introduced State 3 Enhanced freight capacity and capability

Electrification Oxford – Bletchley Denbigh Hall Junction

March 2019 (To Configuration W10 / W12+ gauge, Bletchley – Bedford be Confirmed) State 4

To be Confirmed Configuration EWR incremental services introduced State 5 Electrification Bletchley - Bedford

2.7 Scheme Acceptance Strategy Acceptance of this scheme will be provided through the Programme Board and its sub- groups, including; the Industry Planning Group and Project Delivery Group. Endorsement of requirements documents and prioritisation of funding will be considered through the ESDP Internal Working Group.

There is to be a project status report each period, comprising a Management Business Review (MBR), Project on a Page (POP), and Project Controls period reporting requirement.

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD 1 Date: 25 February 2014 Page: of 33 2

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Acceptance Criteria have been specified against each requirement in this document in order to enable the Client to have clear visibility of how the requirements will be satisfied.

The Client expectation is that the Route will be responsible for producing a set of requirements which will fully satisfy the Client requirements defined in section 3 of this CRD. The decomposition of requirements must be demonstrated and fully justified.

Document Ref: Issue: 1 CRD 1 Date: 25 February 2014 Page: of 33 3

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Supporting Reqt ID Source Reference Requirement and Heading Priority Acceptance Criteria Assumption Information CR-EWR- 1104 3 Scheme Requirements CR-EWR- 1114 3.1 Safety Strategy - Requirements CR-EWR- Client to Any works or design shall be Relevant legislation None Identified. None Identified. 1115 Programme delivered in a manner which is and standards Manager Remit. compliant with relevant identified, listed and legislation, railway industry complied with. High standards, guidance and procedures, and in accordance with “Safety by Design” principles. CR-EWR- Client to Infrastructure design stages Demonstration that None Identified. None Identified. 1298 Programme shall take into consideration the Live Saving Rules Manager Remit. Network Rail’s Life Saving have been adhered Rules and focus on reducing to. workforce safety risk both High during development and construction phases as well as post-commissioning when the assets are taken into operational use. CR-EWR- 1105 3.2 General Scheme - Requirements

Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 14 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Supporting Reqt ID Source Reference Requirement and Heading Priority Acceptance Criteria Assumption Information CR-EWR- Client to The Project shall ensure that The design shows None Identified. None Identified. 1106 Programme the infrastructure is cleared to that the gauge Manager Remit. W10/W12+ gauge on those clearances have not High sections of route specified in been made worse by the Client to Programme any proposed works. Manager Remit. CR-EWR- Client to The Project shall ensure that The design shows None Identified. Assumption ID: A- 1148 Programme the infrastructure enables the that the infrastructure EWR-2, A-EWR-3. Manager Remit. operation of trains of a enables a minimum minimum length of 775 metres. train operating length High of 775 metres. The report identifies implications of operating 775m trains. CR-EWR- 1107 3.3 Performance Aspiration - Requirements CR-EWR- Client to The capacity enhancement WLC analysis reports The WLC will develop None Identified. 1108 Programme shall be delivered at the lowest produced and agreed as the schemes / Manager Remit. Whole Life Cost (WLC), as far with the Client at options are selected. as reasonably practical. agreed timescale At given points milestones. determined by the High Client, appropriate WLC reports will be produced to prove that the lowest practical WLC is achieved.

Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 15 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

CR-EWR- Client to The Project shall deliver the Modelling The infrastructure Assumption ID: A- 1764 Programme capacity enhancement demonstrates that the should be developed EWR-4. Manager Remit. necessary to achieve the infrastructure for this scheme to passenger service as finally enhancements meet the expected defined, following further achieve the future services in development based on the passenger service as 2023. The scope output specification defined in finally defined, developed should Appendix A. following further assist in the development based implementation of the on the output infrastructure specification defined changes required to in Appendix A. deliver the 2033 and 2043 indicative capacity requirements High shown in Appendix D, Tables D2 & D3. Where questions of scope arise from consideration of these indicative requirements these should be discussed and clarified with the Client. Longer term origins and destinations of services are indicative. CR-EWR- Client to The Project shall deliver the Modelling Updated freight Assumption ID: A- 1299 Programme capacity enhancement demonstrates that the forecasts have been EWR-5. Manager Remit. necessary to achieve the infrastructure developed as part of High number of Freight Paths as enhancements the Long Term finally defined, following further achieve the freight Planning Process development based on the paths as finally (LTPP) Freight Market Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 16 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

output specification defined in defined, following Study for future years Appendix A. further development 2023, 33 and 43. The based on the output infrastructure specification defined requirement for this in Appendix A. scheme to meet the expected future services in 2023 and for a scenario of 1 intermodal train per hour in each direction with provision for the 2023 capacity requirements. The scope developed should not hinder what might be required to deliver the 2033 and 2043 indicative capacity requirements shown. The forecasts show the maximum train paths per hour forecast to be required in each direction within each route section. CR-EWR- Client to The Project shall deliver the The design shows See Appendix E3. Assumption ID: A- 1789 Programme infrastructure to enable the that the infrastructure EWR-6, A-EWR-7, A- Manager Remit. freight weight loading as finally enables the freight EWR-8. defined, following further weight loading High development based on the following further output specification defined in development based Appendix A. on the output specification defined Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 17 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

in Appendix A. CR-EWR- 1109 3.4 Maintenance Strategy - Requirements CR-EWR- Route Infrastructure assets shall be Infrastructure assets As defined in None identified 1110 Requirements designed and constructed in are accepted into use handover / handback Document accordance with the by the relevant RAM process

requirements of the relevant RAMs as defined in the Route requirements Document CR-EWR- 1295 3.5 Deliverables CR-EWR- Senior The deliverables listed in Deliverables listed in Some of these None Identified. 1296 Development Appendix A shall be produced Appendix A are deliverables may be Manager by the Project and delivered to produced as part of draft or preliminary in accordance with the agreed the GRIP 2 Study to versions This will be High timescales the satisfaction of agreed (and Senior Development documented) with the Manager. Senior Development Manager.

Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 18 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Appendix A – Deliverables

EAST WEST RAIL

Output Specification

1 Purpose

This document describes the output specification for the basic (or “core”) East West Rail (EWR) scheme included in the High Level Output Statement (HLOS) for Control Period 5 (CP5), together with the output specification for the incremental route capabilities subsequently requested by the Department for Transport (DfT) to cater for future growth, as endorsed by the EWR Industry Plan Group (IPG) on 10 March 2014.

The IPG was set up to gain broad cross-industry consensus regarding the project’s aims and objectives, and comprises representatives from:

 EWR Consortium  Department for Transport (DfT),  Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)  Passenger and freight Train Operators with interests on routes connecting with EWR  The Network Rail Electric Spine project  The High Speed 2 (HS2) project  Network Rail London North Western & Western Routes

The information included in this document will form the basis of further development of the project as described in Section 8.

2 Background

The EWR project proposes the introduction of direct rail passenger services between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford, and also between London (Marylebone) and Milton Keynes (via Aylesbury), by reconstructing and upgrading the partially-disused Oxford – Bicester – Bletchley – Bedford, and Princes Risborough - Aylesbury – Claydon Junction lines. The project also includes additional capacity to facilitate the exploitation of potential new passenger and freight markets afforded by the creation of a direct link between the main radial routes from London to the west and north.

The project was promoted for a number of years by the EWR Consortium, formed by a partnership of Local Authorities along the line of route, who commissioned a series of studies culminating in 2009 in the issuing of a Project Prospectus, supported by a feasibility report. These documents reflected an output specification which delivered the basic pattern of local Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

passenger services plus some additional capacity for new freight and inter- regional passenger services, and is referred to in this document as the “core scheme”.

In 2012, the core scheme was included in the HLOS for CP5 issued by the DfT. Subsequently, the DfT proposed an enhanced output specification with the objective of exploiting the opportunity offered by the reconstruction of the route to provide sufficient capability to meet forecast demand over the next 20-25 years. This is referred to below as the “incremental scheme”.

The Oxford – Bletchley - Bedford section was also identified as an integral component of the “Electric Spine” proposal to create an electrified network to provide additional capacity, primarily to accommodate freight growth, between the south coast and the East and West Midlands.

The EWR route intersects the proposed HS2 alignment at a point where a major construction site, later to become the main HS2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot, is to be built. The HS2 construction programme assumes that capacity will be available on the EWR route for rail-borne construction traffic.

3 Objectives

The core scheme has three main objectives:

 To provide a strategic east-west route linking key centres of economic activity, and provide a strategic link from Milton Keynes to Aylesbury and beyond.

 To support local authorities’ ambition for substantial economic growth based on the creation of new private sector jobs and the development of major areas of new housing.

 To provide a connection between existing radial routes out of London in order to facilitate journeys without the need to interchange through London.

The incremental scheme has the following additional objectives:

 To enhance network capacity and flexibility by creating opportunities for alternative routeing of passenger and freight services, and exploit new medium and long distance markets.

 To exploit the opportunity offered by the reconstruction of the route to create an asset that offers sufficient capacity for at least the next 20 years without the need for subsequent enhancement.

Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

4 Capacity specifications

The following table summarises the specification for the maximum number of train paths to be provided between Oxford / Princes Risborough and Milton Keynes / Aylesbury under the core and incremental schemes. These do not represent proposals for services to be provided from commissioning of the route, but theoretical capacity which is available to be exploited once constraints elsewhere on the network are removed, and any necessary business case for the new services made.

Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Table 1. Capacity specification (all frequencies are “each way”) Core scheme Incremental scheme

Oxford to London (Marylebone) – Chiltern 2 tph, calling Oxford Parkway and Bicester 2 tph, calling Oxford Parkway and Bicester Railways passenger service Town. Some trains also calling at Islip. Town. Some trains also calling at Islip.

Oxford to Milton Keynes passenger 1tph, calling Oxford Parkway, Bicester Town, 1tph, calling Oxford Parkway, Bicester Town, Winslow and Bletchley. Some trains also Winslow and Bletchley. Some trains also calling at Islip. Subject to capacity on GWML, calling at Islip. Subject to capacity on GWML, trains to start at or Reading trains to start at London Paddington. May also call at after commissioning of Heathrow Western Link.

Oxford to Bedford passenger 1tph, calling Oxford Parkway, Bicester Town, 1tph, calling Oxford Parkway, Bicester Town, Winslow, Bletchley, and Winslow, Bletchley, Woburn Sands and Ridgmont. Some trains also calling at Islip. Ridgmont. Some trains also calling at Islip. Subject to capacity on GWML, trains to start Subject to capacity on GWML, trains to start at Didcot or Reading at London Paddington. May also call at Heathrow Airport after commissioning of Heathrow Western Link.

Princes Risborough to Milton Keynes 1tph, calling Aylesbury, 2tph, calling Aylesbury, Aylesbury Vale passenger Parkway, Winslow and Bletchley. Train to Parkway, Winslow and Bletchley. Train to start at London Marylebone – calling pattern start at London Marylebone – calling pattern Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 22 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

London – Princes Risborough not specified London – Princes Risborough not specified

Bletchley – Bedford passenger (Current 1tph calling all stations. Frequency may be 1tph calling all stations. Frequency may be stopping service) reduced to 2-hourly, depending on demand reduced to 2-hourly, depending on demand and capacity. and capacity.

Oxford – Milton Keynes freight 1tph, Class 4 or 6. Origin & destination not 3tph, 2x Class 4 and 1x Class 6. Origin & specified. Includes existing freight rights. destination not specified. Includes existing freight rights.

Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 23 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

Table 1. Capacity specification (all frequencies are “each way”)

Core scheme Incremental scheme

Bletchley – Bedford freight No service specified but existing freight rights 2tph, 1x Class 4, 1x Class 6. Extension of to be retained. Oxford – Bletchley paths. Origin & destination not specified. Includes existing freight rights.

Princes Risborough – Claydon Junction 1tph, Class 4 or 6, primarily for Claydon / 1tph, Class 4 or 6, primarily for Claydon / freight Calvert waste traffic. Extension east or west Calvert waste traffic. Extension east or west of Claydon Junction catered for by utilising of Claydon Junction catered for by utilising Oxford – Milton Keynes / Bedford paths Oxford – Milton Keynes / Bedford paths

Oxford – Milton Keynes inter-regional 1tph. Origin & destination and stopping 2tph. Origin & destination and stopping passenger pattern on EWR route not specified, pattern on EWR route not specified,

Bletchley – Bedford inter-regional passenger No service specified 1tph. Extension of Oxford – Bletchley path. Origin & destination and stopping pattern on EWR route not specified

Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 24 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

East West Rail – Core scheme capacity Milton Keynes specification Central

Hourly service pattern – both directions

Bicester Bedford Oxford Town

Bletchley Didcot

Aylesbury

Reading

Princes Risborough EWR Chiltern Class 4 or 6 freight Inter-regional passenger

London Marylebone

Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 25 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

East West Rail – Incremental scheme Milton Keynes capacity specification Central

Hourly service pattern – both directions Bicester Oxford Town Bedford

Didcot Bletchley Aylesbury

Reading

Princes EWR Risborough Heathrow Chiltern Airport Class 6 freight Class 4 freight Inter-regional passenger London London Marylebone Paddington

Document Ref: CRD Issue: Date: Page: 26 of 33

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

5 Traction and Rolling Stock

Except for the Chiltern Railways Oxford – London service to be introduced from September 2015, no firm specification has been issued regarding the type of traction to be used, either pre- or post electrification. Current working assumptions are:

Diesel:

EWR services worked by classes 165, 166, 170 or 172.

Chiltern Railways services worked by classes 165, 168, 170, 172 or class 67 or class 68-hauled MkIII stock.

Freight services worked by classes 66 and 70

Inter-regional services worked by classes 220, 221 or class 43 HST

Electric:

EWR services worked by class 319 or 350 or “new build” EMU.

Freight services worked by class 92 or “new build” locomotive (potentially electro-diesel).

Inter-regional services worked by class 350, IEP or other “new build” EMU.

6 Infrastructure Specification

6.1 Common to core and incremental schemes

 All infrastructure throughout the route is to be designed and constructed or upgraded in accordance with “safety by design” principles, and to prevent or deter trespass, vandalism and route crime.

 Track & signalling throughout the route (including the Oxford station area, Bletchley to Milton Keynes and the Bedford area) to be adequate to deliver the target service specification, with a high degree of performance reliability, equivalent to or better than similar routes eleswhere.

 Level crossings to be closed wherever possible, and replaced with new bridges, or rights of way diverted over existing structures, or stopped up.

 Remaining level crossings to be upgraded to level of protection appropriate for increased traffic densities. Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

 Oxford North Junction doubled (work to be undertaken by Oxford resignalling /.remodelling project under remit from EWR project)

 Necessity for fifth running line between Oxford North Junction and Oxford station to be examined, in light of proposed EWR and incremental GWML service specifications, in association with Oxford remodelling project team.

 Station at Islip to be upgraded to suit double track layout.

 New station to be constructed at Winslow.

 New high level platforms at Bletchley (serving both Milton Keynes and Bedford routes) to be provided, integrated with the existing main line station.

 Capacity on the West Coast Main Line between Bletchley and Milton Keynes is a known constraint which will have a direct bearing on the ability to run EWR services between these points. While an infrastructure solution to this problem may be investigated, it should not be assumed that this will automatically provide the best solution, and other options, including re-timetabling and service pattern alterations should also be considered.

 Similarly, a range of solutions to potential capacity constraints at Bedford station should be developed.

 Potential future stations at Steeple Claydon and Quainton Road to be taken into account during design phase. These stations may be added to the specification later, depending on demand and availability of funding.

 Station facility specification (booking offices, waiting accommodation, CIS etc.) to be developed in consultation with the rail industry and other stakeholders.

 Freight access to Road Stone Terminal, Bicester MOD Depot and Calvert Waste Disposal site to be maintained at all times during construction and after completion.

 775-metre run-round facility to be provided east of Claydon LNE Junction for reversing Oxford – Calvert Waste Disposal Site freight trains.

 The requirement for, and location of, freight looping facilities to minimum 775-metre capacity to be examined during the development phase.

Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

 Route between Oxford and Bletchley (Denbigh Hall Junction) to be electrified on behalf of the “Electric Spine” project (see section 7 below)

 Route between Bletchley and Bedford (Midland) to be cleared to W10 AND W12+ (electrification) loading gauge in anticipation of electrification at a later date.

 New structures to be built to W10 AND W12+ (electrification) gauge between Princes Risborough and Claydon Junction.

 Target line speed between Oxford – Bletchley - Bedford is 100mph unless this is not realistically achievable due to infrastructure constraints or high cost.

 Target line speed between Claydon and Princes Risborough is 90mph unless this is not realistically achievable due to infrastructure constraints or high cost.

 Minimum Route Availability (RA) 10 or RA 12 if deliverable at marginal cost.

 Interface with HS2 at Claydon to be designed to take into account HS2 requirements in the area, in particular access to the HS2 maintenance depot and the alignment of the intersection bridge.

strategy to be developed in accordance with wider national strategy.

 No work has been carried out to assess the capability of the Princes Risborough – Aylesbury single line to accommodate either the core or incremental output specification. Given the existing constraints on this section of route, it is expected that a looping facility or perhaps installation of double track will be necessary, which in turn may require station reconstruction. There are also known constraints affecting the junction layouts and capacity at both Princes Risborough and Aylesbury stations. In view of these issues, the feasibility of reopening the former main line railway between and Grendon Underwood Junction as an alternative to upgrading the Princes Risborough – Aylesbury route is to be specifically examined with the objective of identifying the most cost-effective option for accommodating the proposed traffic between Princes Risborough and Claydon Junction.

 The practicality of accommodating the Centre’s aspirations to run heritage rail services on one of the running lines at Quainton Road station, and the possibility of providing rail access to the site (at the Centre’s expense) is to be examined during the development phase. Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

6.2 Additional specification for incremental scheme only

 Requirement for enhanced track & signalling throughout the route to deliver the incremental target capability specification, with a high degree of performance reliability, equivalent to or better than similar routes eleswhere.

 Feasibility and desirability of direct connection between the Up (eastbound) EWR line and the Down Fast West Coast Main Line at Bletchley to accommodate northbound inter-regional passenger services to be assessed. The disused trackbed of the former “low level” link to the WCML may be used. Southbound inter-regional services would use the flyover to avoid conflict with the WCML Fast Lines.

 Target line speed between Oxford – Bletchley - Bedford raised to 125mph unless this is not realistically achievable due to infrastructure constraints or high cost.

 Target line speed between Claydon and Princes Risborough raised to 100mph unless this is not realistically achievable due to infrastructure constraints or high cost.

7 Electrification

 It is currently the intention that the entire route between Oxford and Bedford via Bletchley will eventually be electrified as part of the “Electric Spine” proposal.

 The route between Oxford and Bletchley (Denbigh Hall Junction) is to be electrified as part of the East West works, under remit from the Electric Spine Project Team.

 The DfT has an aspiration for electrification to be extended to Bedford by December 2018. However, electrification of this section is very likely to trigger the need for more extensive enhancement of the route, including resignalling, removal of level crossings, station access improvements and layout remodelling at Bletchley and Bedford. In addition, exploitation of the potential of the route is likely to be linked with freight capacity enhancements and further electrification on the Midland Main Line, which are not included in the present Midland Main Line electrification programme. There is, therefore, serious doubt about whether it is feasible to extend electrification to Bedford at this stage, and it appears more likely that the works would be undertaken later, perhaps in CP6.

 However, it has been agreed that overline structures clearance to W10 AND W12+ (electrification) gauge between Bletchley and Bedford Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

(Midland) will be undertaken as part of this phase of the East West works in order to facilitate later electrification of this section of route.

 The Claydon Junction – Aylesbury section will not be electrified at this stage, but will form part of any subsequent project to electrify the Chiltern routes out of Marylebone. All new works should, therefore, be designed to accommodate electrification at a later date, although there is no requirement at this stage to clear the whole route to W10 AND W12+ (electrification) gauge unless a case can be made for doing so.

 Power supply, traction and rolling stock maintenance strategies will be developed in accordance with wider national strategies by the Electric Spine Team, and any consequential effects on the East West route will be advised through a revised electrification remit.

 All works associated with electrification of the route which are incremental to those required for the basic EWR services (including development and design) will be funded by the Electric Spine project.

8 Timescales

 The “Phase 1” works to reconstruct the railway between Oxford and Bicester commenced in late 2013, and are due for progressive commissioning between September 2015 and March 2016.

 The current target timescales for agreeing a final output specification and securing funding for the Phase 2 works (track, signalling and station works between Bicester / Princes Risborough and Bedford, and electrification between Oxford and Bletchley) are:

o The scope and estimated cost of the works required for the “core” scheme, together with the additional works required to deliver the enhanced capabilities required by the incremental scheme, are to be developed and costed by December 2014, to an appropriate state of completion (broadly equivalent to GRIP 2-3) to allow an informed decision to be made by DfT and Network Rail regarding the final project scope.

o By March 2015, funding sources and a delivery programme are to be agreed by DfT, Network Rail and the EWR Consortium, and Change Control through ECAM process is to be completed with ORR.

 Target dates for introduction of services are:

o Chiltern services Marylebone to Oxford Parkway, September 2015

Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document – OP133735 EAST WEST RAIL PHASE 2

o Extension of Chiltern services Oxford Parkway to Oxford, March 2016

o The EWR Consortium and DfT have a stated target for the start of EWR services between Oxford / Aylesbury and Milton Keynes / Bedford in December 2017. Network Rail has responded that it cannot commit to a final date for completion of the project until the definitive output specification has been established and a robust programme developed to support the works. Until then, Network Rail’s commitment remains to complete the project within CP5 (March 2019), but it will work with partners and stakeholders to develop and agree an earlier date for start of the EWR services if this can be realistically achieved.

 As noted above, it appears likely at the time of writing that electrification of the Bletchley – Bedford section would be undertaken later, perhaps in CP6, linked to other proposals for further capacity enhancement and electrification on the Midland Main Line, remodelling of Bedford station and, potentially, East West Rail Central Section between Bedford and .

 It is recognised that, as development of the EWR project proceeds, other considerations, such as emerging risks, availability of funding or interfaces with other projects, may lead to consideration of extended timescales in the interests of achieving efficient delivery.

 In particular, the DfT is considering two candidate schemes for CP6 or later which, if adopted, would interface closely with the current EWR project:

o Electrification of the Chiltern Main Line (including Princes Risborough to Claydon Junction)

o EWR Central Section east of Bedford by an as yet undefined route to Cambridge.

While there is at the time of writing no commitment to either of these schemes, they will need to be acknowledged and their effects on the scope and timing of the EWR project assessed as development progresses.

Document Ref: Issue: Date:

Client Requirements Document - [Add Title]

Appendix B – References NA Appendix C – Glossary

Abbreviation Description AiP Approval in Principle CP Control Period CRD Client Requirements Document DfT Department for Transport DRRD Detailed Route Requirements Document ESDP Electric Spine Development Programme EWR East West Rail FOC Freight Operating Company GWML Great Western Main Line HLOS High Level Output Specification IP Infrastructure Projects MBR Management Business Review MML Midland Main Line OLE Equipment ORR Office of Rail Regulation POP Project on a Page RAM Route Asset Manager RRD Route Requirements Document SFN Strategic Freight Network TBD To Be Defined TOC TWA Transport Works Act WCML West Coast Main Line WLC Whole Life Cost

Document Ref: Issue: CRD Date: Page: 33 of 33