Item 3, Appendix 3

Toton HS2 Classic Connectivity Study Report for Councils and County Council

August 2016 www.slcrail.com

1 | P a g e

CONTENTS Executive Summary ...... 3 1. Scope ...... 6 The Commission ...... 6 Context and Background ...... 7 2. Key Issues ...... 9 3. Assessment of GVA ...... 11 GVA and the “String of Pearls” ...... 11 Headline Results ...... 12 GVA Results and the Classic Connection ...... 12 4. Capacity Analysis – Timetabling, Coleshill Delta Junction and Interchange 13 Timetabling ...... 13 Coleshill Delta Junction...... 13 Birmingham Curzon Street ...... 14 5. The Key Arguments ...... 15 HS2 Headline Arguments ...... 15 The Proposed Services ...... 16 6. Appendix 1: Technical Note on Wider Economic Impacts ...... 18 7. Appendix 2: Analysis of Coleshill Junction Capacity ...... 33

2 | P a g e

Executive Summary The Government is proposing that the Eastern Arm of HS2 will be routed via a station called East Midlands Interchange at between and . East Midlands Councils, including Leicestershire County Council who have commissioned this study, wish to lobby for connections between HS2 and the existing network in the Toton area in order to facilitate through “classic compatible” services to support the growth and prosperity of the East Midlands region.

The purpose of this report is to establish a case for these connections. The objective is to demonstrate to HS2, DfT and that further business case work should be undertaken to assess the value of these connections.

Headlines

This report:

- Assesses the economic value in terms of GVA uplift of potential services over HS2 directly serving Derby, Nottingham and - Assesses at a high level the feasibility of such services – in terms of capacity and the investment required

The headline results show that the best result is a service of two trains per hour – one connecting the southern end of the with via the potential Rail, and the other linking the Thames Valley, Midland Main Line and via the line. These services are forecast to deliver £1.9bn of GVA uplift1 facilitated by an investment of between £60m and £95m in a north facing connection south of Toton between the existing rail network and HS2.

These proposed services would replace the 2 train per hour shuttle service between Leicester and East Midlands Interchange and the service between Reading and Nottingham, both of which are proposed in Network Rail’s East Midlands Route Study.

Other Conclusions

The other conclusions from this study are that:

Network Rail and HS2 agree that physical connections between the classic network and HS2 in the Toton area are feasible. There are two potential connections: north facing to allow direct services between Derby, Nottingham and Leicester to access the Northern cities via HS2; and a south facing one to enable direct services between Nottingham and Birmingham via HS2. Both connections have a quoted capital cost of between £60m and £95m.

Direct services between Derby and/or Nottingham and the Northern Powerhouse cities via HS2 have a weaker economic value than those from further south because the catchment areas for the city centre stations overlap with that of East Midlands Interchange.

1 Discounted over 60 years from proposed opening in 2033

3 | P a g e

Direct services between Nottingham and Birmingham deliver a low economic value for the same reason. Our analysis suggests, however, that the HS2 line through the Delta Junction at Coleshill and to Birmingham Curzon Street station should have sufficient capacity for such a service.

The case for through services between Leicester and the North is significantly enhanced by these trains also serving the South Midlands towns of , and , destinations on the East West route (Bletchley, located just to the south of Milton Keynes and Bicester), and Oxford and Reading. This “string of pearls” bolsters the case for such a service, which might not be justified by Leicestershire locations alone.

GVA Results Summary

The table below illustrates the potential GVA value of new services accessing HS2 via Toton in £m discounted over 60 years. The strongest cases are illustrated in green.

Nottingham £70 £30 £349

Derby £64 £26 £332

St Pancras £642 £148 £1,051

Reading £873 £217 N/A

These GVA uplifts result from the transformation of journey time from these proposed new services across a whole range of origins and destinations connecting cities and towns throughout the East Midlands, South Midlands and Thames Valley with destinations in the North West and North East. Most of these links would be c. one hour faster than is achievable by current rail services or by existing car journeys.

Infrastructure Required

Clearly these potential services would be dependent on the construction of a north facing connection between the Midlands Main Line and HS2 in the Toton area. HS2 and Network Rail have both assessed at a high level that this connection is feasible. On the basis of bills of quantities only, the cost estimates of this connection vary significantly. Previously estimated by Network Rail at £17m, HS2 has assessed the cost at between £60m and £95m based on their emerging work on junctions elsewhere between HS2 and the existing network.

Additional services on the Midland Main Line would also require more capacity to be provided on the existing network, including:

 Works in the Leicester area – four tracking between and Wigston and grade-separation at Wigston Junction, assessed by Network Rail at between £500m and £1bn.  Capacity work on the Midland Main Line south of Leicester, including north of Bedford and at Bedford itself.  Completion of the East West Rail link as a new strategic main line between Oxford and Bedford.

4 | P a g e

 Capacity work between Oxford and Didcot on the .

However, all these works are already identified in Network Rail’s route studies as key capacity requirements to meet growth over the period to 2043. Some of these works are likely to form part of Network Rail’s choices for funders for Control Period 6 and 7 (2019-2029). The proposed services outlined in this report should not – as far out as we are from the opening of HS2 Phase 2 in 2033 – be seen as additional to those shown in the Route Studies’ Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS), and therefore these additional infrastructure interventions should not be directly attributable to the proposed services via HS2. In fact the East Midlands ITSS already shows new classic rail services between the Thames Valley and the East Midlands and additional services on the Midland Main Line from St Pancras.

The additional platform proposed at Leicester for the HS2 shuttle to Toton might no longer be required under the scenario outlined in this report. Network Rail’s indicative cost for this is c.£10m.

The concept of a through service between St Pancras and Manchester via HS2 is also based on the assumption that (formerly called HS3) will be constructed such that fast interconnection between the Leeds arm of HS2 and Manchester can be achieved.

Next Steps

The development of a Benefit:Cost ratio for these proposed services did not form part of this commission. However, the economic value of direct services between the Midland Main Line and HS2 towards the Northern Powerhouse has been demonstrated. The next step is to use these results to lobby HS2 to run their full financial and economic model to assess the BCR of these service options. The objective remains to ensure that the physical connection at Toton between the Midland Main Line and HS2 is included in the Hybrid Bill for Phase 2. To miss this opportunity would close off the potential to bring the full benefits of HS2 to wide areas of the East Midlands, South Midlands and Thames Valley.

SLC Rail Birmingham August 2016

5 | P a g e

1. Scope

THE COMMISSION SLC Rail was commissioned in April 2016 by Leicestershire County Council (LCC) to assess the possibility of connecting HS2 with the classic network at Toton. HS2’s current stance is that the Birmingham – Toton section of the HS2 route will be “full” and therefore they will not be looking to add any extra services to the proposed timetable, nor integrate the two networks at Toton. The work undertaken was to identify the benefits to the area if additional services are made available via the HS2 network in terms of journey times and GVA benefits to the community.

Our proposal identified the following activities:

 Undertake an assessment of GVA against a suitable range of scenarios  Engage with key stakeholders, including HS2 Limited, Network Rail and  Undertake a capacity review of the proposed Delta Junction at Coleshill to establish whether additional services via HS2 could be achieved between Birmingham and Nottingham

In undertaking this commission, SLC has:

 Commissioned JMP Consultants limited to carry out GVA analysis of a number of selected scenarios  Engaged with key stakeholders to assess the viability of northbound links for the East Midlands and how these would benefit both areas  Undertaken a capacity review of the Coleshill Delta Junction, particularly in the context of the capacity constraints of Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street  Examined the arguments to convince HS2 to run their business planning model on the “classic connection” scenario  Assessed options going forward

The remainder of this chapter assesses the current position, to provide background to the work which has been carried out.

Chapter 2 examines the key issues facing LCC/EMA in their efforts to secure a connection at Toton between HS2 and the classic network.

Chapter 3 undertakes a review of the work on GVA scenarios carried out by JMP Consultants Ltd.

Chapter 4 sets out the capacity issues; timetabling, review of the Coleshill Delta Junction and related capacity issues at Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street.

Chapter 5 reviews the discussions with stakeholders and suitable headline arguments for the next stage.

Chapter 6 summarises the results of the work done.

6 | P a g e

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND The planned route of HS2 (to be confirmed in Autumn 2016) will divide at the Coleshill Delta Junction with the eastern arm routed via the proposed East Midlands Interchange station at Toton. It will be separated from the “classic network” which will still provide train services between , Leicester, Derby and Nottingham. As currently planned, there will be no connection between the two networks at Toton as HS2’s current stance is that parts of the Birmingham – Toton section will be at capacity, and that passenger loadings on direct train services from the East Midlands cities onto HS2 would be insufficient to justify their provision.

Some changes expected to this section of route

Source: HS2 Limited

The new station at Toton will be built on the site of the former marshalling yards, where HS2 will run parallel to the existing line. The site is within 2Km of Junction 25 on the , and, in addition to extensive car parking facilities, various forms of public transport links from the station to both Derby, Nottingham and Leicester city centres have been proposed, including:

7 | P a g e

 Heavy Rail “shuttle” services running on existing and new formations between Nottingham, Derby and Leicester stations and a new station on the classic network at Toton next to the HS2 station  “Tram Train” type operations over existing and new railway formations, extended into via the tram (NET) network, and possibly to Derby via new street routes  Extension of the Nottingham tram system to Toton over new segregated and street routes  New technology – monorail or for example  Guided busways  Conventional buses, perhaps operating on segregated rights of way

HS2’s view is that from the following options there will be sufficient connections for passengers between the two networks to serve the area appropriately.

We understand that there is a potential economic need for improved services between the East Midlands and the northern cities, and also between Birmingham and Nottingham on the new infrastructure. It is therefore incumbent on Leicestershire County Council (on behalf of East Midlands Connect) to present HS2 with a convincing argument to run their full economic model for the service scenarios that will be of benefit to the area.

Work already carried out for LCC (in the Leicester and Leicestershire draft Rail Strategy) suggests that there is a potential £60m pa GVA uplift if the service originates from the Thames Valley via Bedford and Leicester, and then joins the HS2 infrastructure for services further north. Calculated over a 60- year period, this figure rises to about £1bn.

The key to success is the use of the “string of pearls” idea; combining the economic value of a number of destinations along the south – northeast route to improve the strength of the proposal. However, linking the two networks will represent a major outlay to HS2, both in terms of infrastructure work and the purchase/lease of classic compatible trainsets for use on these journeys. They are unlikely to make this sort of investment unless they are presented with a compelling argument.

We, along with colleagues at JMP Consultants, have carried out GVA analysis on a series of scenarios that involve services between the East Midlands and the North, and also using the “string of pearls” idea with origin points further south. The GVA model has been used to show the value in terms of GDP uplift to the economies affected.

This work, in conjunction with conversations with key stakeholders and a detailed analysis of the capacity issues, forms the basis of this report.

8 | P a g e

2. Key Issues Time is of the essence to persuade HS2 Limited to undertake further business case work on the proposed connections; ministers are already being briefed and the route announcement is expected during the Autumn. However, structural plans will not be finalised until Autumn 2017, giving a valuable time window for amendments such as the classic connection at Toton.

The primary requirement for the East Midlands is to integrate HS2 and the classic network by including connections at Toton in either or both of the northbound and southbound directions.

There are different issues with the connections, as follows:

Southbound:  This would allow Nottingham – Birmingham Curzon Street services. HS2 will be delivering a fast (19 mins), frequent and reliable service from Toton to Birmingham Curzon Street. This is likely to be presented as a good option from travellers between Nottingham and Birmingham, even if it requires an interchange. and County Council are already lobbying for an improved service between the two cities  Other upgrades to the classic network could potentially deliver significant journey time improvements between Nottingham and Birmingham. The Network Rail East Midlands Route Study identified interventions (Options 8 and 9) including at Sheet Stores Junction that would be beneficial. Improved journey times between Nottingham and Birmingham is one of the emerging priorities from the work of Midlands Connect. Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council have already been lobbying HS2 about improved services between the two cities as they feel that the largest cities in the East and justify this.

Northbound:  A northwards connection from Leicester/Nottingham-North has fewer challenges and there is an intuitive case for such a link, depending on the business case which can be made  HS2’s current view is that they will deliver a fast, frequent and reliable service from Toton towards Leeds and Newcastle. They believe that classic compatible services would therefore only add marginal benefits over and above the HS2 scheme involving a change of trains between the stations at East Midlands Interchange.  There are a limited number of train paths available on the Eastern Leg of HS2. Transport for the North are currently looking at similar issues with the -Leeds section of the Eastern Leg, related to forward planning for Northern Powerhouse Rail; one option could involve a further delta junction constructed between Sheffield and Leeds to allow faster services between , Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.  Capacity north of towards Newcastle is also constrained; it may not be possible to accommodate additional classic compatible services to Newcastle.

9 | P a g e

Both directions:  There is a possibility that providing a connection in both directions could cause engineering conflict.

Diagrammatic representation of the two networks and the possible connections:

To North East & TOTON HS2 / CLASSIC CONNECTIVITY

YORK Through Services – Classic Network Through Services – HS2 Network Other lines – Classic Network Other lines – HS2 Network LEEDS Potential new links – HS2 Network Potential new links - Classic Network or other modes

MANCHESTER PICCADILLY To London Kings Cross MEADOWHALL

To Liverpool, North INTERCHANGE West England & SHEFFIELD Scotland TOTON INTERCHANGE To Peterborough DERBY & East Anglia NOTTINGHAM

LOUGHBOROUGH BIRMINGHAM NEW STREET BIRMINGHAM LEICESTER BIRMINGHAM CURZON STREET INTERNATIONAL INTERCHANGE

KETTERTINGWELLINGBOROUGH

WELLINGBOROUGHKETTERING

MILTON KEYNES CENTRAL BEDFORD OXFORD

READING To South Coast & To London To London Euston St. Pancras

To and Diagrammatic only. Not to London Paddington scale. Not all lines shown

10 | P a g e

3. Assessment of GVA

GVA AND THE “STRING OF PEARLS”

Newcastle Leeds York Manchester HS3

Sheffield Meadowhall

HS2 POTENTIAL TRANSFORMATORY SERVICES USING TOTON INTERCHANGE HS2 EASTERN LEG

Leicester

Kettering/Wellingborough

Bedford

Milton Keynes Cambridge Oxford Swindon Reading Bristol Heathrow Southampton Bournemouth

Gross Value Added (GVA) is the measure of the value of goods and services produced in an area, industry or sector of an economy. In national accounts GVA is output minus intermediate consumption; it is a balancing item of the national accounts' production account. GVA is cumulative, therefore results from a string of destinations on a length of railway line can be added together and contribute to the overall total, rather than using the GVA of the East Midlands cities alone, creating the “string of pearls” concept which adds strength to the overall argument for a classic connection at Toton.

11 | P a g e

HEADLINE RESULTS The full GVA report is attached at appendix 1, but the headline findings are as follows:

 The largest benefits come from operating services from the Midland Main Line on to HS2 towards Northern Powerhouse destinations  The case for running direct from the Midlands Main Line is further supported by the benefits of direct services from East West Rail stations and the Thames Valley  The benefits of direct services from Nottingham and Derby – whilst still significant - are muted by the overlap of the catchment of the city centre stations with that of the proposed East Midlands Interchange.  There is a large benefit of operating directly from the East Midlands to Manchester via HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, depending on the route chosen for the latter.  The benefits of Nottingham – Birmingham services via HS2 are also muted by the overlap of the catchment areas of Nottingham and East Midlands Interchange stations.

GVA RESULTS AND THE CLASSIC CONNECTION It is clear that there is a significant benefit to agglomerating the economic benefits from towns/cities outside the immediate East Midlands. Leicester is by far the best performer out of these and would benefit most from the classic connection at Toton, particularly in the northbound direction. The economic value of potential services between Leicester and the northern cities is significantly strengthened if they also serve the South Midlands and the Thames Valley.

12 | P a g e

4. Capacity Analysis – Timetabling, Coleshill Delta Junction and

TIMETABLING HS2’s notional timetable currently shows 18tph leaving Euston, with 9tph passing through the Coleshill Delta Junction. HS2 Ltd contend that with this service pattern the Delta Junction will be operating at its reliable maximum.

At the moment, 2tph are currently timetabled to be occupied by Heathrow trains, but this service is in doubt until any further news about the third runway is available, and Government thinking is not strongly in favour of this move. In theory, this could release two paths per hour out of Euston, but if available these will be strongly competed for. The impact of recent announcements regarding a potential branch to Sheffield on the overall service pattern is currently uncertain.

COLESHILL DELTA JUNCTION A detailed note on the operation of railway junctions is attached at appendix 2, and contains an analysis of the capacity constraints which have been identified.

This analysis of the Coleshill Delta Junction has demonstrated the following:

 Grade separation of routes will help eliminate conflicts which slow down trains. This is expensive infrastructure work but is justified to maintain high frequencies and speeds on a line such as HS2  There are still a number of conflict points across the junction; it is impossible to eliminate them entirely  The four lines running towards the junction from the south will provide additional flexibility and capacity at the southern end of the junction  The trains using the junction are likely to have very similar performance characteristics, helping to minimise conflicts; there will not be the same issues as often occur on the classic network of an express train becoming “stuck” behind a stopping train with a lower overall speed capability  Signalling will be transmission based, separating trains by relative speed which assists capacity. The system used is likely to be similar to the European Rail Traffic Management System.

The proposed service pattern shown for the relevant part of the junction that would affect any potential Nottingham – Birmingham service is for 9 trains per hour – three from the south, three from the Western arm and three from the Eastern arm. These services converge onto the route towards Birmingham Curzon Street. Given the high speed transition time of trains through this converging point, it appears unlikely that this part of the junction will be operating at capacity.

13 | P a g e

BIRMINGHAM CURZON STREET Birmingham Curzon Street is being designed with seven platforms, with a proposed service pattern from 2033 of 9 arrivals and 9 departures per hour. With turnaround times of up to 25 minutes per train (ie between arrival and departure), a minimum of 5 platforms would be in use per hour.

14 | P a g e

5. The Key Arguments

HS2 HEADLINE ARGUMENTS

1. There is significant value for connectivity between the East Midlands and the Northern Powerhouse which needs to be captured by HS2 2. The most economically valuable train service for the East Midlands city using HS2 Eastern arm would be:  St Pancras – Manchester via Midlands Main Line, HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail (£1bn over 60 years)  Reading – Leeds via East West Rail, Midland Main Line and HS2 (£900m over 60 years) 3. The economic value of connecting Leicester with the northern cities is significantly enhanced if these services start further south using the “string of pearls” concept. 4. Services extending south of Leicester would remove the need for spending £10m on the extra platform at Leicester station. 5. The Coleshill Delta Junction is not a major capacity constraint in the direction that would be used for a Nottingham-Birmingham service, but this service does not generate significant economic value in the GVA model. 6. There is a large disparity on quoted costs for each of the suggested connections between the existing network and HS2 in the Toton area: Network Rail £17m vs. HS2 £60-95m. It is anticipated that HS2’s figures are likely to be more accurate 7. The best option for the classic connection is in the northbound direction 8. The infrastructure on the Midland Main Line and elsewhere that could be required for the services proposed is already identified within Network Rail’s Route Studies as key requirements to accommodate growth regardless of the proposed services. 9. The proposed services south of Leicester already feature in Network Rail’s long term Indicative Train Service Specification. 10. The next step is for HS2 to run their operational and economic model to work out a BCR so that the northbound connection can be taken forward for inclusion in the Phase 2 plans.

15 | P a g e

THE PROPOSED SERVICES

The map below illustrates the services that performed best in the model.

LEEDS MANCHESTER SHEFFIELD

TOTON

East Midlands Parkway

Loughborough

Bold text = HS2 line Leicester

Market Harborough

Kettering

Wellingborough

Bedford

Bletchley Oxford Parkway Bicester

Oxford

London St Pancras Reading

To gain a sense of unity with the Northern Powerhouse, it would be highly beneficial to lobby for the East Midlands cities to be included as the southernmost post on the regional map once decisions are made on the best route for Northern Powerhouse Rail.

16 | P a g e

17 | P a g e

6. Appendix 1: Technical Note on Wider Economic Impacts

1. Introduction

1.1 SLC Rail is working on behalf of East Midlands Councils to assess the case for providing a physical connection between and existing “classic” lines at Toton close to the proposed East Midlands Interchange station. 1.2 The development of such a link would allow the operation of direct services from Nottingham, Derby and the to the north of England, and potentially also from Nottingham to Birmingham. Through the utilisation of East West Rail, and potentially Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) it would be possible to extend these benefits to include the South Midlands and Manchester. 1.3 In May 2016 JMP Consultants Ltd was commissioned by SLC Rail to support their activity to assess the potential Wider Economic Impacts of the connection. Subsequently the route of HS2 through South was substantially altered to allow central Sheffield to be served directly whilst plans for a station at Meadowhall have been abandoned, with the main HS2 route running further east of Sheffield. These changes have been accommodated within the work presented here.

AIMS

1.4 The main aims of the study were to understand the impact of these proposals relative to the existing situation, and more pertinently in relation to the impact of HS2 in the form in which it is now planned. The study has limited its assessment of benefits to the catchment areas of stations directly served by the proposed stations. Clearly there would be further benefits to other areas, for example if services starting at Nottingham were extended back to serve places east of Nottingham, or benefits achieved by interchange.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

1.5 There are a number of key findings from the study summarised in the following bullet points:

 The largest benefits come from operating a service from St Pancras to Manchester via the Midland Mainline, HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail, delivering over £1bn of benefits over 60 years

 This is strongly supported by direct services from Reading to Leeds via East West Rail, the Midland Mainline and HS2, which deliver approaching £900m of benefits over 60 years

 The impact on both Nottingham and Derby is relatively muted by the impact on the catchments of these stations of East Midlands Interchange

18 | P a g e

REPORT STRUCTURE

1.6 The structure of this note is as follows:

 Section 2 describes the methodological approach to the study  Section 3 describes the detail of the service options being tested and assumptions around them  Section 4 presents the results of the modelling work  Section 5 presents a summary and conclusions

2. Methodological Approach

2.1 We have used a model which is based on an approach developed by Network Rail as part of their series of Market Studies in 2013. The model estimates change in the GDP as a result of changes to rail services. The benefits are based largely on the impacts of agglomeration between economies. Put simply, if Nottingham and Leeds are brought ‘closer together’ through improved rail links the model predicts the scale of the increase in the level of interaction between the two economies, measured in GDP.

Agglomeration Economies

2.2 At their broadest level, agglomeration economies occur when individuals benefit from being “near” to other individuals, and exist when the spatial concentration of economic activity gives rise to increasing returns in production. Transport and communications play a crucial role because, in most contexts, speed and low costs in transportation and communication provide a direct substitute for physical proximity2.

2.3 Research3 has identified where improved rail connectivity between places of different size may provide economic benefits. The obvious example in UK terms is the difference between London and regional cities where better connectivity will enable the regional centre to become “a more attractive location; it starts off with lower wages and rents, and improved connectivity means that it will get better access to London’s large economic market and large base of suppliers”.

2 Daniel Graham & Patricia Melo, Advice on the Assessment of Wider Economic Impacts: a report for HS2, March 2010 3 Bridget Rosewell (Volterra Partners) and Tony Venables (University of Oxford) High Speed Rail, Transport Investment and Economic Impact, 2013

19 | P a g e

The Modelling Work

2.4 We have assessed the wider economic impacts of the impact of a classic line connection at Toton. Although the analysis is based on the Network Rail model we have adapted it to include the impact that different sectors of the economy will have on the scale of the benefits. The importance of this segmentation by economic sector has been highlighted in research on agglomeration and the ‘connectedness’ of locations - “there is some evidence that suggests that the strength of these relationships changes by economic sector, with some sectors likely to benefit more from concentration of activity than others”4.

2.5 The data incorporated into the modelling to define economic sectors was taken from WebTAG guidance on wider impacts (WebTAG Unit A2-1). The four sectors of the economy defined within the modelling are:

 Construction;  Manufacturing;  Consumer Services;  Producer Services. 2.6 While the first two sectors are relatively self explanatory the components of the last two perhaps requires further definition, provided in the table below:

Table 1 Definition of Consumer & Producer Services Segments Consumer Services Producer Services Motor Trade Financial Wholesale Insurance Retail Auxiliary/Financial Hotels/Restaurants Machinery Renting Land Transport Computer Services Water Transport Research & Development Travel Support Other business services

Post Telecom

2.7 As well as economic data, the model utilises information on existing and future rail services, including information on journey times, service frequencies, the number of interchanges required and the impact of access times to stations. 2.8 To provide suitably disaggregate models that reflect the spatial geography of the economy access times to stations have been produced for each of the four economic sectors with access times weighted by the distance of jobs in each sector from each station. This was achieved by zoning the catchment areas of stations at Middle Super Output Area (MSOA) level. This enables us to reflect the tendency for producer services employment, such as financial or business support services, to be located in city centres, whilst manufacturing employment might be located further out of city centres, in the results.

4 Daniel Graham & Patricia Melo, March 2010, op cit

20 | P a g e

The Modelled Area

2.9 The focus of this work is on the impact of classic line connections to the Eastern Leg of HS2, and the impact of three discrete groups of services. The stations included in the model represent a mix of station in the following groups:

 Stations served directly by HS2 or Northern Powerhouse Rail  Classic Stations not served directly by HS2 but which are central to the HS2 concept  Classic Stations that are not directly part of the HS2 concept but are served by the proposed direct services assessed in this study 2.10 The stations within each group are as follows:

HS2 & Northern Powerhouse Rail Stations;

 Birmingham Curzon Street  East Midlands Interchange  Leeds  Manchester Piccadilly  Sheffield  York Classic Stations Central to the HS2 Concept but not directly served by HS2 as planned;

 Nottingham  Derby Other Classic Stations;

 Reading  Oxford  Oxford Parkway  Bicester  Bletchley  Milton Keynes  Bedford  Wellingborough  Kettering  Market Harborough  Leicester  Loughborough  East Midlands Parkway 2.11 It should be noted that to accommodate the impact of the proposed East Midlands Interchange station it has been necessary to amend the catchment areas for Nottingham and

21 | P a g e

Derby station in the Do Minimum and Do Something options. The key difference being that in the Do Something options it is assumed that the outer areas of the west side of Nottingham and east side of Derby transfer to East Midlands Interchange as access to this station for journeys on HS2 would be more convenient than accessing Derby or Nottingham stations.

INTERPRETING THE OUTPUTS

2.12 The outputs of the model are presented in terms of the uplift to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and are presented relative to the proposed HS2 service unless stated. When interpreting the results one has to consider the relative size of the economies and the relative change in accessibility that HS2 could bring about. The value of improving links between two large economies that are already well served might be more limited than improving links between two smaller economies that are presently poorly served for example. 2.13 The results presented are in terms of additional GDP per annum for the economies as they are now in 2016 and are shown in 2016 prices,

3. The Service Options

3.1 The overriding purpose of this work is to understand the benefit of classic line connections at Toton relative to HS2 in the form in which it is presently planned. We have treated the present HS2 proposals as our base and then developed a ‘Classic Line Connection’ scenario which assesses the impact of HS2 with the addition of a classic line connection at Toton and with the East Midlands Interchange station 3.2 The base scenario service levels are therefore those specified by HS2. The Classic Line Connection Scenario however contains a number of service options that require further explanation.

CLASSIC LINE CONNECTION SERVICE OPTIONS

3.3 There are four broad services providing links between the classic network and HS2 that have been tested within this work:

 Nottingham to the North  Derby to the North  Reading – Bedford – Leicester to the North  Nottingham to Birmingham via HS2 3.4 Within the first three options there are a range of potential destinations that could be served including York, Leeds and Manchester. Part of this work seeks to identify which destinations will provide the optimal solution.

3.5 In terms of serving locations in the north of England the following has been assumed:

22 | P a g e

 Manchester would only be served if Northern Powerhouse Rail was completed, and would be served via a call at Sheffield  It is assumed that Leeds would be a terminal station for services  Services heading to York could continue to the North East; however this has not been modelled.

3.6 It has been suggested that capacity issues on HS2 itself would mean that only two of the three services identified above could be accommodated within the timetable and as such identifying the best combination of services is important.

3.7 The stopping patterns of the three services are presented in the table below. The pattern only goes as far as Sheffield where services could diverge to serve Manchester, Leeds or York.

Table 3.1 Service Option stopping patterns south of Sheffield

Service Stopping Pattern Service 1 Reading – Oxford – Oxford Parkway – Bicester – Bletchley – Bedford – Wellingborough – Kettering – Market Harborough – Leicester – Loughborough – East Midlands P’Way – East Midlands Interchange – Leeds/York/Sheffield/Manchester Service 2 Nottingham – East Midlands Interchange – Leeds/York/Sheffield/Manchester Service 3 Derby – East Midlands Interchange – Leeds/York/Sheffield/Manchester

3.8 In addition to the services tested above a further option of direct services between Nottingham and Birmingham Curzon Street using HS2 has also been tested. This would provide significantly improved journey times between the two cities. 3.9 The table below presents a summary of key journey times within the three scenarios:

Table 3.2 Example Journey times

HS2 plus classic line connection Flow Now HS2

Nottingham – Leeds 1 hour 55 min 55 minutes 45 minutes Derby – Manchester 1 hour 38 min 1 hour 30 min 1 hour 15 min Leicester – York 2 hours 10 min 1 hour 18 min 1 hour 1 min Oxford – Leeds 3 hours 22 min 2 hours 42 min 1 hour 25 min Nottingham – Birmingham 1 hour 14 min 44 minutes 28 minutes

3.10 The table shows that whilst HS2 as planned brings some large absolute changes in journey times the link to the classic network would bring further useful journey time reductions including some large proportional changes relative to HS2.

23 | P a g e

4. Modelling Results

4.1 This chapter presents the results of the modelling work. The results are divided into the four key service options:

 Nottingham to the North  Derby to the North  Reading via East West Rail and the Midland Mainline to the north  Nottingham – Birmingham 4.2 The results are presented in terms of additional GDP per annum at 2016 prices.

NOTTINGHAM TO THE NORTH

4.3 The operation of direct services from Nottingham to the north via a link into the HS2 network at Toton presents the opportunity to improve on the connectivity benefits already offered by the construction of the East Midlands Interchange station. 4.4 The assessment of the benefits of operating services from Nottingham is complicated somewhat by the impact that the East Midlands Interchange station has on catchment areas for the existing station in Nottingham. At present the majority of the city of Nottingham would travel to to access long distance rail services, as there are relatively few competing stations, particularly for travel to the north of England. However with the opening of East Midlands Interchange much of the catchment for Nottingham station outside of the city centre, especially to the west of the city migrates to East Midlands Interchange. The same issue also applies to Derby station and the catchment for East Midlands Interchange is an amalgam of the Derby City and Nottingham City local authorities areas, in addition to the Broxstowe and Erewash districts which the station site is within or adjacent to. 4.5 Due to the size of the change in the catchment area the model outputs for Nottingham can appear to be negative and therefore have to be read in conjunction with outputs for East Midlands Interchange. The impact of operating services directly onto HS2 has the effect of reducing the scale of the negative impact and is therefore, in net terms, a benefit. This is an important point to consider when interpreting the results. 4.6 A further point to consider relates to the link to Manchester Piccadilly. With HS2 configured in its present form there is no option for the operation of services to Manchester via the Eastern Leg. Assuming that Northern Powerhouse Rail was completed there would be an opportunity to run services from the Eastern Leg of HS2 onto NPR; however this is not a committed option at the present time. Therefore the benefits relating to this are treated as a benefit associated with having a link onto the classic network.

Results

4.7 The table below looks at the wider economic impact of links between Nottingham and the North.

24 | P a g e

a) Table 4.1 GDP Impacts of direct links from Nottingham to the North (GDP £m pa)

Flow Classic Connection Additional to HS2 % Diff Nottingham – Sheffield -£6.37m £10.08m £2.68m 36% East Midlands Int – Sheffield £16.45m Nottingham – Leeds £3.74m £35.01m £1.84m 6% East Midlands Int – Leeds £31.27m Nottingham – York £1.30m £8.49m £0.79m 10% East Midlands Int – York £7.19m Nottingham – Manchester -£0.88m £21.43m £21.43m N/A East Midlands Int - Manchester £22.31m Nottingham Total -£2.21m £75.03 £26.74m 55% East Midlands Int Total £77.24m

4.8 Although the results presented are complex they demonstrate that overall there is a gain from direct services from Nottingham to the north via HS2, including the introduction of as yet unplanned services to Manchester, of around £27m per annum. Of this figure around £22m of additional GDP comes from the benefits of a direct link from the East Midlands Interchange to Manchester via NPR. The remainder, around £4.4m, comes from the benefits of direct links into Nottingham. 4.9 Overall for the flows being examined the classic line connection and proposed services represent an increase in wider economic benefits of around 55% compared to the benefits of HS2 as currently proposed.

DERBY TO THE NORTH

4.10 As with Nottingham the development of a direct link between HS2 Phase 2 and the classic network provides an opportunity to significantly improve connectivity to the north from Derby, relative both to the existing timetable and that provided by HS2 via interchange at Toton. Although relative to Nottingham connectivity to the north is better with a relatively fast and frequent service to Sheffield, Leeds and York. 4.11 The estimation of benefits at Derby is also subject to similar issues that occur at Nottingham in that a proportion of the area covered by the city moves from being within the catchment for Derby station to being within the catchment for East Midlands Interchange. The impact of this is somewhat reduced in Derby as the city is further from East Midlands Interchange station than the station at Nottingham is.

Results

4.12 The table below looks at the wider economic impact of direct services from Derby to the north via HS2 compared to the impact of HS2 as it is currently planned, requiring an interchange at East Midlands Interchange station.

25 | P a g e

b) Table 4.2 GDP Impacts of direct links from Derby to the North (GDP £m pa)

Flow Classic Connection Additional to HS2 % Diff Derby – Sheffield -£5.56m £10.89m £2.55m 31% East Midlands Int – Sheffield £16.45m Derby – Leeds -£0.65m £30.62m £1.67m 6% East Midlands Int – Leeds £31.27m Derby – York £0.008m £7.19m £0.67m 10% East Midlands Int – York £7.19m Derby – Manchester £3.16m £25.47m £25.47m N/A East Midlands Int - Manchester £22.31 Derby Total -£3.04m £74.20m £30.36m 70% East Midlands Int Total £77.24m

4.13 Overall the results for Derby are largely consistent with those for Nottingham. There is an overall increase in GDP of around £30m per annum. This figure (as with the Nottingham figures) includes the impact of direct services from East Midlands Interchange to Manchester, which represent around £22m of additional benefits. However the uplift in benefits of a direct service from Derby to Manchester is also larger than those for Nottingham reflecting the existing situation where there is no direct service from Derby to Manchester. 4.14 It can be seen that the results for the link between Derby city centre and Sheffield are negative. This is because the route via HS2 is relatively circuitous and provides a longer journey time than the direct route via the Midland Mainline. The issue is complicated further by the changes in catchment areas between Derby and East Midlands Interchange station. Overall there is a net benefit to Derby city centre of around £8.05m.

EAST-WEST RAIL TO THE NORTH

4.15 The development of a direct link between East West Rail services and HS2/NPR would have the most far reaching implications of the options tested here. Such a service, running from Reading to stations in the north would have two distinct segments. The first would be the East West Rail stations between Bedford (exclusive) and Oxford, plus Reading. The second stage would cover those stations on the Midland Mainline between Bedford and East Midlands Interchange (exclusive). As such the benefits of the service have been assessed in two stages. 4.16 When assessing East West Rail stations a sensitivity test was conducted to identify if the total journey cost was lowest using the proposed direct service, relative to passengers travelling to Birmingham to access HS2. In all cases however it was found that the direct service had a lower journey cost than travelling via Birmingham with the exception of journeys to Manchester.

26 | P a g e

Summary Findings

4.17 Given the large number of origin destination pairs it is not feasible to present all results in a single table therefore summary results are presented for the two main stages of the result.

c) Table 4.3 East West Rail/Midland Mainline to the North (GDP per annum)

East West Rail Midland Mainline Total Classic Connection £12.62m £71.36m £83.98 Additional to HS2 £11.52m £48.50m £60.02

4.18 It can be seen that the majority of the benefits accrue to the Midland Mainline. This reflects the size of the economies and their proximity to HS2 where the largest journey time savings are achieved. The increase in GDP achieved by the classic connection service relative to HS2 as planned is around £60m per annum, which is a similar number to the combined value of services from Derby and Nottingham to the north via a direct link. Of this, around 80% of the benefits relate to Midland Mainline stations. 4.19 The performance of East – West Rail is relatively muted in absolute terms compared to the Midland Mainline. This is probably unsurprising given the distance between these economies and those in the north of England. Also the number of stations included in the model is much lower. However it is interesting to note that the proportional rather than absolute increase in GDP relative to HS2 as presently planned is much larger than the result for the Midland Mainline. The reason for this relates to the impact of interchanges. For some stations on the Midland Mainline, routing via HS2 introduces an additional interchange relative to the present service, and therefore some flows remain on the classic network as HS2 imposes a higher overall journey cost. In contrast at the present time the East West Rail stations often require an interchange and the introduction of HS2 without a classic link moves the location of interchanges rather than imposing new ones.

27 | P a g e

Individual Flows

4.20 The table below sets out the 20 largest changes in GDP for each of the Midland Mainline and East West Rail.

d) Table 4.4 Top 20 GDP Changes on Midland Mainline (£ GDP pa)

Flow Rank GDP Uplift £m Leicester - Manchester Piccadilly 1 £8.59 Leicester - Leeds 2 £8.48 Leicester - Sheffield 3 £3.63 Loughborough - Manchester Piccadilly 4 £2.98 Bedford Midland - Manchester Piccadilly 5 £2.05 Loughborough - Leeds 6 £1.97 Leicester - York 7 £1.88 Bedford Midland - Leeds 8 £1.64 Kettering - Manchester Piccadilly 9 £1.55 Kettering - Leeds 10 £1.48 Market Harborough - Manchester Piccadilly 11 £1.32 East Midlands Parkway - Leeds 12 £1.31 East Midlands Parkway - Manchester 13 £1.23 Piccadilly Wellingborough - Manchester Piccadilly 14 £1.17 Market Harborough - Leeds 15 £1.11 Loughborough - Sheffield 16 £0.99 Wellingborough - Leeds 17 £0.92 Kettering - Sheffield 18 £0.86 Market Harborough - Sheffield 19 £0.61 Loughborough - York 20 £0.61

4.21 It can be seen that the result for Leicester (highlighted in green) dominate the outputs, reflecting a combination of the large change in journey times from Leicester and the size of the economy in Leicester compared to other stations on the Midland Mainline.

4.22 It is also clear that Manchester dominates the results, with 4 of the top 10 origin – destination pairs including Manchester. This is function both of the improvement the HS2/NPR delivers, but also the existing poor service between these links.

28 | P a g e

e) Table 4.5 All GDP Changes on East West Rail (£m GDP pa)

Flow Rank GDP Uplift £m Milton Keynes Central - Leeds 1 £2.23 Oxford - Leeds 2 £1.99 Milton Keynes Central - Sheffield 3 £1.03 Reading - Sheffield 4 £0.83 Bletchley - Leeds 5 £0.73 Milton Keynes Central - York 6 £0.60 Reading - Leeds 7 £0.51 Oxford - York 8 £0.50 Meadowhall - Oxford 9 £0.45 Oxford Parkway - Leeds 10 £0.37 Meadowhall - Reading 11 £0.36 Reading - York 12 £0.26 Bicester North - Leeds 13 £0.25 Bletchley - York 14 £0.25 Meadowhall - Bletchley 15 £0.20 Oxford - Sheffield 16 £0.19 Bletchley - Sheffield 17 £0.17 Oxford Parkway - Sheffield 18 £0.15 Meadowhall - Milton Keynes Central 19 £0.14 Bicester North - York 20 £0.10

4.23 The results for East West Rail demonstrate the impact that the combination of East West Rail and HS2 break through a number of the existing barriers of railway geography, with for example Milton Keynes – Leeds having the largest uplift reflecting the existing poor connectivity between the two locations, and the very limited impact that HS2 has in its current form. 4.24 Overall the East West Rail results produce a worthwhile uplift in GDP relative to the number and size of the economies involved.

NOTTINGHAM TO BIRMINGHAM VIA HS2

4.25 The final test examines the impact of linking Nottingham to Birmingham via HS2. This would bring a useful reduction in journey times for city centre to city centre movements. 4.26 The table below presents the GDP impact of such a service.

29 | P a g e

Table 4.6 GDP Impact of direct Nottingham – Birmingham service

Flow Additional GDP (£m pa) Nottingham - Birmingham 4.66

4.27 It can be seen that the service produces around £4.7m of additional GDP per annum. It should be noted that like the ‘Nottingham to the north’ options, the catchment area for Nottingham station is reduced between the do minimum and do something as a result of the impact of East Midlands Interchange station.

It should also be noted that as the focus of this model is on business to business agglomeration impacts, it does not pick up any further labour market impacts associated with this service given the potential for commuting between the two cities.

IDENTIFYING SERVICES

4.28 The results presented above have focussed on individual origin destination flows; however it is important to group these into potential services to understand what combination of service represents the best value. This is complicated by the limited availability of train paths on HS2 and the three possible locations for terminating services – Leeds, York and Manchester. The table below presents results for all possible combination of services. It should be noted that Nottingham – Birmingham via HS2 is a freestanding service and is not included in this list, and that the figure for East Midlands Interchange to Manchester has not been included as this could be delivered by any of the service groups. It has been assumed that any service using East West Rail would start from Reading and any service starting on the Midland Mainline would begin at London St Pancras, although it should be noted that London has not been assessed within the model.

Table 4.7 Combined Service Options

Service Additional GDP (£m pa) Derby – Manchester £8.75 Derby – Leeds £1.68 Derby – York £0.67 Nottingham – Manchester £9.20 Nottingham – Leeds £1.85 Nottingham – York £0.80 St Pancras – Manchester £27.68 St Pancras – Leeds £16.92 St Pancras – York £3.91 Reading – Leeds £22.99 Reading – York £5.71

30 | P a g e

4.29 The table above clearly shows the dominance of links from the Midland Mainline to the north relative to other options. The benefits arising from serving Nottingham and Derby directly are in comparison relatively limited and are complicated by the impact that the opening of the East Midlands Interchange station would have on their catchment areas. 4.30 In a situation where capacity is constrained to 2 trains per hour the most valuable services would be:

 1 train per hour Reading – Leeds via East West Rail and the Midland Mainline  1 train per hour St Pancras – Manchester via the Midland Mainline, HS2, Sheffield and Northern Powerhouse Rail.

Long Term Benefits

4.31 The long term benefits of the different service options have also been assessed. This helps to illustrate the magnitude of the benefits. Clearly these impacts should be thought of as indicative as they assume that the size and composition of the economies being assessed remain constant in the long term (i.e. they are not influenced by any other external factors).

4.32 The assessment has been conducted by using DfT Webtag guidance in inflate the GDP increases to the value in future years before discounting the values back to present prices. The appraisal has been conducted over 60 years from the year of opening (assumed to be 2032) in line with government guidance. 4.33 The table below presents the results.

f) Table 8 Total Present Value of Benefits Discounted over 60 years (£M)

Nottingham £70 £30 £349 Derby £64 £26 £332 St Pancras £642 £148 £1,051 Reading £873 £217 N/A

4.34 It can be seen that the delivery of a Reading – Leeds and St Pancras – Manchester service would generate the most substantial benefit over 60 years. Together the two services would generate £1.92Bn over 60 years.

31 | P a g e

5. Summary & Conclusions

5.1 This short study has examined a number of options for the development of direct services utilising a link between HS2 and the classic network at Toton. The wider economic benefits of services to the north of England from a range of locations have been assessed. 5.2 Overall the greatest benefits relate to the development of direct services from Reading to Leeds and St Pancras to Manchester via the Midland Mainline and HS2/NPR, with the services providing over £1.9Bn of economic benefit over 60 years through a combination of journey time reductions and improved direct services. 5.3 The impact on Nottingham and Derby is relatively muted partly due to the impact that HS2 in its planned form has on the economy, but also because of the impact that East Midlands Interchange has on the catchment for the two stations. This would therefore suggest that if a classic connection were to be provided to HS2 at Toton the most appropriate services to operate on it would be from the Midland Mainline and East West Rail.

32 | P a g e

7. Appendix 2: Analysis of Coleshill Junction Capacity

Overview

A Railway Junction is the meeting of two or more railway lines where trains can be switched between routes. Junctions can create conflict between train movements, and operating rules are applied to maintain physical separation between trains passing over them.

Junctions are protected by lineside signals. Signals split the railway track into sections, and only one train in each direction can be in a section at any one time on a double track, and one train on a single track. Signals:

 Issue “caution” and “stop” signals to train drivers  Ensure there is an adequate distance between a “caution” (yellow) signal and a “stop” (red) signal for normal braking, so that the train can come to a full stop when required

Signals are usually placed between 1 and 2 miles from a junction, depending on the maximum line speed. When a train is required to stop at a junction, the driver will first see a yellow “caution”, at least the normal braking distance from the second signal, which will be the red “stop” signal. In addition, the “stop” signal is situated a sufficient distance from the junction to safeguard against a train overrunning it (e.g. in poor weather conditions, or following a driver error).

Junction signalling 1

Four trains are approaching the junction.

 Trains B (North to East) and C (East to North) have priority as their movements do not conflict with each other. They are allowed to pass through green signals and can travel at the maximum line speed.

33 | P a g e

 These movements conflict with Train A (approaching from the West). The driver will start braking at the yellow signal and come to a stop at the red signal  Train D is approaching from the East and is issued with a “stop” signal as Train C is occupying the section of line in front of it

Junction signalling 2

 After Trains B and C have passed the junction and C is clear of the section, the points are reset and Train D will be allowed to proceed. The signal will be changed directly from red to green as there is no other train in front  Train A will only be allowed to proceed under a yellow signal when Train B has passed through the next signal in advance, which will remain at red to protect it from the following train  The signal to the north of the junction will remain at red to protect Train A as it crosses the junction

34 | P a g e

Effects of junction signalling on train journey times

 Train A is likely to be delayed by the crossing moves of Trains B and C in front of it, and Train D may also be delayed by closely following Train C, particularly if the junction curve is subject to a speed restriction significantly lower than the maximum on a straight track.  Timetabling is managed by using “Junction Margins”, i.e. defined minimum times between conflicting movements at junctions. This helps to reduce the incidents of known conflicts and risk of delay to trains; the safe physical separation of trains by signalling always take priority. Grade separation

 Conflicts can be reduced (and timetable reliability increased) by the use of flyovers and/or underpasses to provide grade separation between routes, as shown in Figure 4 below.

35 | P a g e

This grade separation would result in the following:

 East-North movements are separated from West-East movements  Train A is no longer be delayed by Train C  The turnout from the East to the North route allows a higher speed which might also reduce the risk of delay to following services such as Train D, as Train C would clear the junction more quickly  There is still conflict between West-East and North-East movements which must be managed through timetable planning  The incidence of conflicting moves could be reduced further by the provision of more infrastructure such as additional running lines as shown dotted on the diagram above.

Grade separated junctions are more costly infrastructure than a simple flat junction because of the land take required and building works such as bridges and . They are usually only viable where the need to accommodate and maintain high train frequencies/speeds justifies the expenditure.

Advanced signalling systems

These are being developed and trialled and include systems such as the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS). The eventual intention is to replace fixed lineside signalling with transmission-based, on-board equipment which will allow the safe distance between trains to be varied according to actual (rather than theoretical maximum) speed. Installations commissioned to date on main lines are largely experimental. It is expected that advanced signalling systems will replace the current system, allowing significant increases in line capacity and better train regulation at junctions. It will be less likely that trains will be slowed or halted by conflicting movements in front of them.

Junction capacity

This is determined by a number of factors:

36 | P a g e

 Timetable planning margins for conflicting moves that apply  Maximum permissible speed over the diverging and straight routes through the junction  Maximum line speed on the lines approaching the junction, and the extent to which trains have to slow down before passing over the junction  Differential between the maximum permitted speeds of the fastest and slowest trains using the junction  Maximum number of trains that can be accommodated by the signalling system on the lines approaching the junction (and hence the number of potentially conflicting moves).  Layout of the junction – whether or not some measure of grade separation is included.  Other factors which affect the timetabling and operation of trains, e.g. proximity of stations to the junction and train patterns stopping at them, mix of fast and slow trains in the timetable, different types of rolling stock employed on the route and their braking and acceleration characteristics HS2 Coleshill Delta Junction

The layout of this junction is shown on the next page. The boxed figures show the number of trains per hour on each section of the junction under the 2033 projections. The incidence of conflict between trains cannot be established until the timetable is finalised. There are a number of issues which may influence capacity:

 Grade separation between the four routes will help eliminate conflicts between trains passing over the junction itself and maximise flexibility in timetabling trains  Potential conflict will remain where routes join each other, marked “X” on the diagram. This will be taken into account when planning the timetable  Four lines running towards Birmingham Interchange will provide additional flexibility and capacity at the south end of the junction. It is not yet confirmed how far south the four track section will extend, but continuing it through the Interchange station would maximise benefit  All trains are likely to be of similar design, in terms of maximum speed, braking and acceleration characteristics; train performance conflicts should be minimised  Signalling will be transmission-based, so the safe distance between trains can be maintained according to their relative speeds, increasing theoretical line capacity compared to conventional lineside signalling

37 | P a g e

To Toton Interchange, Sheffield, Leeds and

8+1

8+1

5+1 3 3 “X” “X” “X” 8 +1 3 5+1 ` 11+1 8 +1 “X” 8 +1 “X” 11+1 8 +1 8 +1 “X” 5+1 To Manchester, Liverpool, 8 +1 3 “X” North East England, 3 6 To Birmingham Interchange, and 3 3 and 6 London Euston “X” 9 COLESHILL DELTA JUNCTION

Planned trains per hour 9 9 “+1” indicates the paths originally allocated to services to Heathrow Airport, which will not now be used. Further spare capacity may also be available. To Birmingham Curzon Street

38 | P a g e

 There is likely to be a significant difference in maximum speed between the through Manchester - London main lines (400kph), and the junctions between Birmingham and the north (c.260kph), which could affect capacity and reliability of the Manchester services. The other junctions at Coleshill do not have such a wide speed differential, so Leeds and Birmingham trains are less affected  Nominal timetable plans are for up to 18 trains per hour in each direction on the double track sections south of Birmingham Interchange to London. However, train paths from Coleshill towards Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds is relatively low, indicating spare capacity may be available  Early timetable planning include paths to and from Heathrow Airport, now likely to be superfluous with the third runway unlikely to go ahead Conclusions

It is reasonable to conclude that at least some spare capacity is available for additional trains through Coleshill given:

 Theoretical capability of the signalling system  Extensive grade separation planned  Unused Heathrow paths

Further investigation will be required into potential constraints elsewhere on the HS2 network including:

 Platform capacity at terminal stations such as Birmingham Curzon Street, London Euston, Manchester and Leeds.  Availability of spare capacity on the double-track sections south of Birmingham Interchange, already planned to accommodate up to 18 trains per hour in each direction.  Whether any use of the HS2 network by different types of trains is contemplated (e.g. London – Ashford section of HS1), which might increase differentials between train performance characteristics.  Planned stopping patterns at intermediate stations, and whether station layouts permit trains to be stopped clear of the main lines.