Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coastal Railway Capacity Study
Final | October 2010
This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. Ove Arup & Partners Scotland Ltd It is not intended for and should not be relied 225 Bath Street upon by any third party and no responsibility is Glasgow undertaken to any third party. G2 4GZ Scotland www.arup.com Job number 214161-00
Document Verification
Job title Cumbrian Coast al Railway Job number 214161-00 Document title Capacity Study File reference
Document ref CC-Cap Revision Date Filename Skeleton Report_v1.docx Draft 1 21/07/10 Description First draft
Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name R Owen D Leeming R Dyer
Signature Draft 2 23/08/10 Filename Cumbrian Report_v2.docx Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name R Owen D Leeming R Dyer
Signature Draft 3 Filename Cumbrian Report_v3.docx Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name
Signature R Owen D Leeming R Dyer
Final 18/10/10 Filename Cumbrian Report Version4.docx Description
Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name
Signature Richard Owen Douglas Leeming Rupert Dyer
Issue Document Verification with Document
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 RREPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Contents
Page
Executive Summary i
1 Introduction 4
2 Background to Study 5 2.1 History of Route 5 2.2 Route Configuration 6 2.3 Civil Engineering 7 2.4 Permanent Way 9 2.5 Signalling 9 2.6 Level Crossings 9 2.7 Signal Box Opening Hours 10 2.8 Passenger Services 11
3 Rail Market Assessment 14 3.1 Current Markets 14 3.2 Potential Future Markets 15
4 Analysis Methodology 17 4.1 Introduction 17 4.2 Approach 17 4.3 Capacity Analysis 18 4.4 Capability Analysis 22 4.5 Assumptions 23
5 Results of the Analysis 25 5.1 Introduction 25 5.2 Current Condition 25 5.3 Actual Usage 26 5.4 Currently Available Paths 27 5.5 Practical Paths 28 5.6 Intervention 1: Extended Signal Box Opening 30 5.7 Intervention 2: Opening the Route At Weekends 32 5.8 Intervention 3: Provide Looping Capacity at Whitehaven 36 5.9 Intervention 4: Lengthening St Bees Loop 42 5.10 Interventions Considered but not Developed 46
6 Study Outcome 48 6.1 Introduction 48 6.2 Conclusions 48
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
6.3 Looking Forward 48
Appendix A Train Planning Graph Note
Appendix B Technical Note on Scope Activities
Appendix C Currently Timetabled Services
Appendix D “Stressed” Train Plan
Appendix E “Practical” Train Plan
Appendix F “Extended” Train Plan
Appendix G Cost Estimates
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 2
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Executive Summary
Introduction The purpose of this study is to identify what actions might be required in order to allow the Cumbrian Coastal railway to meet the needs of the proposed Nuclear New Build programme. The requirements of the programme are currently undefined, however it is likely that there will be increased demands placed upon the railway network associated with the construction of the new power plants and in particular the delivery of construction material and removal of spoil. In addition, the movement of the workforce during the construction and operational phases of the project are likely to be significant. Based on the project brief it is taken that any new facilities are likely to be in the area of the current works at Sellafield. As a result, the rail planning which has been undertaken in this study has focussed on trains operating to and from this location. This has been a high-level study of the rail capacity in Cumbria based on available information from Network Rail and a desktop analysis of current and potential operations. No detailed modelling work has been undertaken and as such the results should be considered as indicative at this stage, albeit based on a significant degree of analysis and informed by our experience of rail operations. The technical development of the proposed railway works is based on a limited number of site visits and input from Network Rail.
Methodology As mentioned above, the study was based on available information and a desktop analysis of the current railway operations. In practice this has involved the plotting of the current train planning graphs and then overlaying additional paths to build up a picture of what capacity could be made available for a given series of intervention measures. This ranged from simple extensions of the route opening hours to consideration of capital expenditure interventions to bring about further benefits to the network capacity and capability. In all cases the outputs were plotted on the train planning graph and results tabulated.
Outcomes The results from the study show that there is a significant level of latent capacity on the route which could be utilised in serving the Nuclear New Build programme. This is split between access to and from the north, and to and from the south of Sellafield. The number of paths possible are higher from the south than from the north. This is solely due to the lengthy single line section which exists immediately north of Sellafield. Further low-cost paths can be gained through the extension of the opening hours of certain signal boxes along the line. Given the number of readily available
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | i
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
paths, only a limited extension of the signal box hours has been considered along with a view of the benefits to be gained through longer duration extensions. Enhancement to the infrastructure is also considered and this has focussed on making the train plans more robust and improving the capability of the route. This latter point in particular takes account of the need to maximise the value of the available paths by allowing longer freight services to be operated. The interface with the wider rail network has been difficult to predict. Current utilisation of routes, particularly freight traffic on the West Coast Main Line, is highly volatile given the current economic climate. The current view is that it will be difficult to increase the general volume of traffic at the southern end without affecting overall performance. However, at both Carlisle and Carnforth direct access onto the route south to Settle would appear to be possible. The worth of any such routing will be dependent on the origin and volumes of traffic generated by the programme.
Results The following tabulation shows the train paths used by the currently timetabled services on the route. The paths which can be reasonably added on to the route with no capital investment or extended opening hours are also shown – described as ‘Practical Paths’. Finally the impact of extending the opening hours of certain signal boxes is shown (Extended Opening Paths). Table 1: Analysis of Paths
Carnforth Carnforth in Furness Barrow Sellafield Whitehaven Workington Carlisle
Up 22 23 16 22 21 Weekdays Down 22 25 16 22 21 Current Up 20 18 13 18 19 Saturday Services Down 14 15 10 15 17 Up 7 0 0 2 2 Sunday Down 8 0 0 4 4 Up +16 +12 +7 +7 +6 Weekdays Down +17 +16 +7 +7 +7 Practical Up +14 +14 +14 +12 +12 Saturday Paths Down +9 +9 +15 +15 +15 Up +21 +0 +0 +0 +21 Sunday Down +27 +0 +0 +26 +29 Up +19 +17 +12 +12 +11 Weekdays Down +19 +21 +12 +12 +12 Extended Up +2 0 0 0 0 Opening Saturday Down +2 0 0 0 0 Paths Up +21 +20 +28 +27 +27 Sunday Down +27 +26 +29 +29 +29
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | ii
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
The number of paths quoted in the lower two sections show the number of paths which could be used by the Nuclear New Build services on a daily basis. It is considered that the number of possible additional paths identified here is likely to be at a level such that it would satisfy the traffic requirements of the programme. In order to make the network more resilient to perturbations and allow greater flexibility it is proposed that the route configuration be altered at Whitehaven. This is largely driven by the fact that it is located at one end of the single line section and may require to ‘hold’ trains awaiting paths. The work will see the creation of a loop facility which will allow main line services to pass a stationary freight train held on the main line. The second enhancement takes place at St Bees where there is a loop to allow trains to pass on the single line. The greater intensity of the proposed service pattern means that it will be necessary to pass lengthy freight trains at St Bees. As such the currently restricted loop (218m) will require extension such that longer freight services can be passed safely. Again this, in itself, does not increase the number of paths but it does allow long freight trains to use the available paths and thus increase the overall volumes conveyed on the route.
Recommendations As stated above, this is a high level study designed to provide an indication of the current capacity and capability of the Cumbrian Coastal route against a background of an, as yet, undetermined volume or routing of traffic to Sellafield. As such this report recommends that once further definition is available regarding the likely traffic (or various scenarios identified) then a further more detailed examination of the route is undertaken. This would extend to off-route lines where capacity constraints are likely to be a bigger issue than on the Cumbrian Coastal line.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | iii
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
1 Introduction
The nuclear industry has been an important source of employment in Cumbria since the early 1950’s and continues to be a major source of employment today at the reprocessing plants at Sellafield and the low level waste facility at Drigg. Following a period of retrenchment in nuclear power capacity in the UK after the decommissioning of the of the magnox reactor-powered stations, public policy towards nuclear power has become more positive as the UK takes steps to move towards a low carbon economy. The policy of both the previous and current UK administrations has been that investment in a new generation of nuclear power stations is supported in principle, so long they are operated on a commercial basis. In November 2009 the previous UK government identified several possible sites for future new nuclear plants. Some of the locations that were identified are on sites close to the existing nuclear facilities in Cumbria. Attracting new investment to the nuclear industry in Cumbria is one of the key economic objectives of Cumbria County Council, and it has set in train a number of initiatives to ensure that the Sellafield and Drigg sites have the strongest possible business case for future development. One of these initiatives is the creation of the Nuclear New Build Transport Group (NNBTG). The purpose of the NNBTG is to assess the capability of the current transport infrastructure in the region to meet the construction and operational requirements of any nuclear new build in Cumbria. This includes consideration of the capacity of the rail network to support any development. As a result, in July 2010 Cumbria County Council (CCC) commissioned Arup to undertake an assessment of capacity on the Cumbrian Coastal railway line between Carnforth and Carlisle on behalf of the NNBTG. The purpose of the study is to evaluate: • How the rail infrastructure in Cumbria is utilised at present; • The Network’s spare capacity; and • The impact that appropriate interventions could have. All of the foregoing are required to support the demands of the proposed construction and operation of new nuclear industry facilities.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 4
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
2 Background to Study
2.1 History of Route The Cumbrian Coastal railway was constructed in stages between 1844 and 1866. Much of the initial development of the route was centred on the iron and steel industries based in Workington, the north Cumbria coal field, and shipbuilding at Barrow. As the Lake District developed as a tourist destination in the late nineteenth century, the southern section of railway was expanded and resorts such as Arnside and Grange-over-Sands developed to serve the nascent tourist demand. In addition, branch lines were constructed to both Coniston and Lakeside. The current main line consists of: • The Furness Railway between Carnforth on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and Barrow-in-Furness; • A middle section between Barrow and Whitehaven (including Sellafield); and • A northern section between Whitehaven and Carlisle (again linked to the WCML) and also to the Settle and Carlisle line and the Newcastle to Carlisle railway. Figure 2.1: Schematic Route Map
Carlisle
Workington
Whitehaven
West Coast Main Line
Sellafield
Barrow-in-Furness Carnforth
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 5
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Since the rationalisation of the British Railway network in the early 1960s, and the more recent run down of heavy industry in northern Cumbria, all of the branch lines have been removed, with the exception of the Dalton Loop – an avoiding line that by-passes Barrow between Park South and Dalton Junctions. There are, however, a number of sidings serving industrial installations. These include: • Barrow Docks; • Sellafield; • Drigg; • Workington Docks; and • Dalston Oil Terminal. With regard to freight traffic on the route, the decline of the coal, iron and steel industries in the region coincided with the development of nuclear industry sites at Sellafield and these have been vital in supporting freight traffic levels on the route. Since 2007, when the Corus steel plant at Workington closed, nuclear flask traffic to Sellafield has been the only significant freight traffic on the western section of the route, with oil traffic to Dalston, and traffic generated by the Port of Workington being the only regular sources of freight on the northern section. Considering passenger traffic, the route can be described as being mainly rural in character but is punctuated by several significant towns (Ulverston, Barrow, Whitehaven, Workington and Maryport) along its one hundred and ten mile length. Both the passenger train services and station facilities reflect this mixture of markets. The southern section of route has approximately one ‘semi-fast’ service every two hours between Barrow-in-Furness and Manchester Airport, and a local passenger service every two hours between Barrow and Lancaster (increased to hourly in the peak). The northern section of the route between Whitehaven and Carlisle has hourly local passenger services, with some of these extended south to Sellafield, Millom and Barrow.
2.2 Route Configuration The route is mainly a double track railway, with a single line section between Sellafield and Whitehaven (there is a passing loop at St Bees). At Parton, coastal erosion and landslips have led to the railway being reduced to a single line, whilst track rationalisation has taken place at Maryport (see below) and Park South Junction. The line nomenclature is that southbound is the Up direction and northbound the Down direction. Line speeds on the route are generally between 30mph and 60mph on plain line sections away from stations, with lower speeds (as low as 10mph) where track curvature is severe (for instance on the approaches to Carlisle Station). At Parton, there is a 15mph permanent speed restriction (PSR) in place due to coastal erosion. There are a number of temporary speed restrictions (TSRs) at other locations along the route.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 6
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Figure 2.2: Track Layout at Maryport Station
Down Through Up Through Line Line
Up and Down Platform Line
2.3 Civil Engineering The route mainly follows the coastal plain around Cumbria with most of the major civil engineering works being viaducts over the numerous estuaries, and sea defences between Sellafield and Workington. Between Dalton Junction and South Park Junction Network Rail has advised that there may be embankment works required which could be overcome by ‘singling’ this stretch of line. Such works would have a significant impact on the capacity in this area but would be subject to the formal Network Change process where objections could be raised.
2.3.1 Route Formation The majority of the route is engineered to double track standards, the exceptions to this are as follows: • Sellafield and Whitehaven which was constructed as a single track railway with a passing loop at St. Bees; • Barrow to Park South Junction which was constructed as double track, but which has been reduced to a single track; and • Parton to Harrington which was originally constructed as a double track formation but has since been singled in response to coastal erosion.
2.3.2 Viaducts The line crosses several significant viaducts particularly along the southern extent of the route. The major viaducts are as follows:
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 7
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
• Arnside Viaduct: 463m long, adjacent to Arnside station (mileage, 6 miles 49 chains to 6 miles 72 chains); • Plumpton Viaduct: 483m long, between Ulverston and Cark stations (mileage, 16 miles 57 chains to 17 miles 1 chain); • Foxfield Viaduct: 644m long, adjacent to Foxfield station (mileage, 40 miles 70 chains to 41 miles 27 chains); • Eskmeals Viaduct: 302m long, between Bootle and Ravenglass stations (mileage, 56 miles 43 chains to 56 miles 58 chains); and • Harrington Viaduct: 302m long, adjacent to Harrington station (mileage, 4 miles 30 chains to 4 miles 45 chains). In discussions with Network Rail, it has been confirmed that no further major remedial work is planned on any of these structures. This follows the recent completion of the works on the Plumpton Viaduct and the anticipated works on the Arnside Viaduct.
2.3.3 Sea Wall Defences The route runs along sea walls in the following locations: • Silverdale; • Cark and Cartmel; • Kirkby-in-Furness; • Ravenglass; • Sellafield; • Between Braystones and Nethertown; and • Between Parton and Harrington. In discussions with Network Rail, it has been confirmed that none of these structures are likely to be in need of major structural work in the foreseeable future.
2.3.4 Tunnels There are a number of tunnels on the route, these are: • Lindal Tunnel: 401m long, between Ulverston and Dalton Stations (mileage 22 miles 53 chains to 22 miles 73 chains); • Dalton Tunnel: 206m long, adjacent to Dalton station (mileage 24 miles 1 chain to 24 miles 11 chains); • Furness Abbey Tunnel: 69m long, between Askam and Roose Stations (mileage 25 miles 41 chains to 25 miles 44 chains); • Whitehaven Tunnel: 1,173m long, between Corkickle and Whitehaven Stations (mileage 74 miles 3 chains to 74 miles 61 chains); and
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 8
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
• Aspatria Tunnel: 51m long, between Aspatria and Wigton stations (mileage 8 miles 37 chains to 8 miles 40 chains). In discussions with Network Rail, none of the foregoing tunnels are likely to be in need of major structural work in the foreseeable future.
2.4 Permanent Way From observations along the line, the permanent way consists of a mixture of jointed and continuous welded flat-bottomed rail. Notably, jointed track is utilised on the sharp curves where the route follows the coast line and is hemmed- in between cliffs and the sea. The permanent way construction is entirely consistent with the current levels of traffic.
2.5 Signalling The signalling systems along the route are as follows: Table 2.1: Route Signalling Systems
Route Section Signalling System
Carnforth North Junction to Barrow in Furness Absolute Block
Barrow in Furness to Sellafield Absolute Block
Sellafield to Bransty (Whitehaven) Token Block
Bransty (Whitehaven) to Wigton Absolute Block
Wigton to Carlisle South Junction Multi-Aspect Signalling
In the areas with Absolute Block signalling the infrastructure varies between semaphore and colour light signals. These are controlled from signal boxes located at:
• Carnforth North • Park South • Bransty (Whitehaven)
• Arnside • Foxfield • Workington Main No. 2
• Grange-over-Sands • Millom • Workington Main No.3
• Ulverston • Drigg • Maryport; and
• Dalton Junction • Sellafield • Wigton
• Barrow-in-Furness • St Bees
2.6 Level Crossings The route has over thirty level crossings, nineteen of which are operated by Network Rail with the remainder being user-operated level crossings. The Network Rail operated crossings are a mixture of colour light and barrier or gated crossings.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 9
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
2.7 Signal Box Opening Hours Route opening hours vary significantly, with the section between Millom and Whitehaven having the most restricted opening hours of operation. This reflects the current levels of traffic on the route. These opening hours are set by the times when signalling control is available. The Network Rail Sectional Appendix states that the opening hours for the various signalboxes are as follows: Table 2.2: Signal Box Opening Hours
Monday to Route Section Saturday Sunday Friday
Carnforth North to Barrow-in-Furness Continuously Continuously Continuously
Barrow-in-Furness to Millom 05:20 - 23:20 05:20 - 23:20 Closed
Millom to Bootle 06:00 - 20:24 06:00 - 20:24 Closed
Bootle to Whitehaven 06:00 - 20:48 06:00 - 20:48 Closed
Whitehaven to Workington 05:30 - 23:30 05:30 - 23:30 12:10 - 23:15
Workington to Carlisle South Junction 05:30 - 23:30 05:30 - 23:30 12:35 - 23:00
As a result of the variation in traffic levels along the route, some signal boxes have been modified to enable them to be ‘switched out’ when traffic is light - particularly at weekends. According to the Rules of the Plan, the following signal boxes are currently ‘switched out’ at weekends:
Table 2.3: Signal Box Opening Hours (when not ‘Switched Out’)
Signal Box Monday to Friday Saturday Sunday
Grange-over-Sands 06:00 - 20:24 Closed Closed
Dalton Junction 06:00 - 20:24 Closed Closed
Workington Main No. 2 07:00 - 23:00 07:00 - 15:00 Closed
Workington Main No. 3 05:30 - 23:30 05:30 - 23:30 12:00 - 23:40
The impact of ‘switching out’ signal boxes is to lengthen the distance between active signal boxes and with it the ‘block section’ within which only one train can be present at any one time. This necessarily increases minimum headways between trains and therefore reduces line capacity. Switching out of signal boxes has the greatest impact where signalling sections are longest. On the Cumbrian Coastal Route a headway of 18 minutes during normal operation is increased to a 26 minute headway when Grange-over-Sands in switched out.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 10
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
2.8 Passenger Services
2.8.1 Passenger Train Services At present, passenger services are operated by Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs). Most stations along the route are unstaffed with the exceptions of the stations serving the largest population centres. The type of rolling stock employed and the formations in which it operates are a function of: • The loading gauge of the line which restricts the size profile of trains; • The performance requirements for services; and • The demand profile along the route. Passenger trains on the route comprise of the rolling stock types shown in Table 2.4. Peak service to Sellafield generally comprise of three-car trains composed of a Class 153 and 156 running together. Class 185 (Trans-Pennine Express) units only operate between Carnforth and Barrow in Furness. Table 2.4: Passenger Rolling Stock Types in Use
Rolling Stock Cars per Unit Unit Length
142 2 30.9m
153 1 23.2m
156 2 46.1m
185 3 71.3m
Much of the route infrastructure was originally constructed to handle much longer trains than currently operate. As a consequence, in order to avoid the need to remove redundant platforms and to benefit from reduced maintenance costs the operational lengths of a number of platforms has been reduced to that required for the trains currently operating on the route. This means that it is only the operational portion of the platforms which are maintained. Figure 2.3: Example of Platforms with Limited Operational Length
Non-operational Operational Area Length
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 11
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
The platform lengths quoted in the Network Rail Sectional Appendix represent the current operational platform lengths. These are summarised in Figure 2.4. Figure 2.4: Platform Lengths
The graph highlights that at present much of the route north of Barrow in Furness will be unable to support a train lengthening programme in the absence of investment in extending the usable length of platforms. One possible solution to the issue of short platforms is to operate selective door opening when train strengthening occurs. This already occurs at some stations on the route (e.g. Nethertown and Aspatria). However, this is unlikely to be a feasible solution for the whole route since it can lead to increased dwell times at stations and therefore lengthen the overall route journey times.
2.8.2 Platform Height A further issue at certain stations on the central section of the route between Barrow and Whitehaven is the low height of platforms which makes embarking and disembarking trains difficult for some passengers. As Figure 2.5 below shows, bespoke solutions exist at some stations, but any significant investment in operational platform lengths will most likely have to be matched by investment in raising platform surfaces at these stations.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 12
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Figure 2.5: Steps Used at Low Height Platforms
2.8.3 Rolling Stock As per Table 2.4 above, p assenger traffic is largely provided by Class 142, 153, 156 and 185 DMU’s. As a result of the restrictive loading gauge on sections of the route certain classes of passenger roll ing stock are prohibited . A summary of these are shown in Table 2.5 below which has been derived from the Network Rail Sectional Appendix .
Table 2.5: Rolling Stock Prohibitions
Rolling Stock Current Prohibition
Heritage DMU Prohibited between Maryport and Carlisle
150 Prohibited between Maryport and Carlisle
158 Prohibited between Barrow and Carlisle
175 Prohibited between Millom and Carlisle
185 Prohibited between Millom and Carlisle
In addition, some loco-hauled rolling stock is permitted along t he route provided passenger opened drop -light carriage windows are stewarded when passing certain locations.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 13
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 RREPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
3 Rail Market Assessment
3.1 Current Markets
3.1.1 Passenger Traffic According to the Network Rail Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), produced in 2008, approximately 5,800 passengers use the Cumbrian Coast route on a daily basis, with 36% of these trips being classifiable as ‘local passenger traffic’. For other passengers, the route is the starting or finishing point of longer journeys, including 29% originating or completing their journeys outside the north west of England. Passenger traffic on the line is concentrated on the section between Whitehaven and Carlisle, and the southern section of the route between Barrow and Carnforth. In addition, there are also significant commuter flows at certain times of day between Sellafield and Barrow. However, the essentially rural nature of the route and the limited number of services result in low levels of passenger demand. In the RUS, two out of the three least used stations in North West England were identified on the central route section – these were Nethertown and Braystones. The RUS states that passenger traffic between Barrow and Sellafield peaks around the shift patterns at Sellafield. The nuclear installations at Sellafield are significant employers in West Cumbria, employing approximately 10,000 people in the area. Commuter traffic serving the site therefore forms a very significant part of the passenger rail market on the line although it is recognised that the current service pattern doesn’t coincide with all shift changes.
3.1.2 Freight Traffic Freight traffic on the line has, until recent years, served three major businesses – steel making at Workington (including the Corus plant at Workington that closed in 2007), ship building at Barrow, and the concentration of nuclear industry activity around Sellafield and Drigg. Workington Docks is rail connected with rail transporting some 75,000 tonnes of freight to and from the docks per year 1. The oil terminal at Dalston, at the northern end of the route, is responsible for approximately fourteen freight trains per week. The primary driver of freight activity on the majority of the line however, is the nuclear industry centred on Sellafield and Drigg. This traffic originates at the following sites across the UK: • Berkeley (Gloucestershire); • Dungeness (Kent); • Hartlepool (Teeside); • Heysham (Lancashire); • Hinckley Point (Somerset); • Hunterston (North Ayrshire); • Sizewell A and B (Suffolk);
1 http://www.portofworkington.co.uk
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 14
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
• Torness (East Lothian); and • Wylfa (Anglesey). In addition to reprocessing domestic nuclear waste, the THORP plant at Sellafield also handles waste from abroad, which is imported through Barrow Docks and is then transhipped by rail to Sellafield.
3.2 Potential Future Markets The future developments at Sellafield and Drigg will intensify the demands that are currently placed on the railway, both in terms of greater numbers of passengers and more particularly increased freight traffic. The UK policy guidance on the siting of new nuclear installations 2 highlights the need for adequate transportation facilities during both the construction and operational phases of new plants.
3.2.1 Freight Services In the construction phase of a nuclear power station, large quantities of aggregate, cement and reinforcement are normally required to construct the plant’s superstructure. Removal of large quantities of spoil from the site may also be required. The Nuclear Waste Trains Investigative Committee (NWTIC) 3, acting on behalf of the Greater London Authority in 2001, estimated that each operational nuclear power station in south east England generated one wagon’s worth (2 tonnes) of rail-borne nuclear waste per week. If this is extrapolated across the whole of the UK nuclear industry, it implies that at least ten return wagon loads require domestic shipping per week in addition to any rail movements of non-UK materials from Barrow Docks. By the time the final magnox station at Wylfa closes in 2015, the number of flask trains needing to access the site will be approximately five per week, plus one movement per day to Drigg. The UK Government has confirmed its commitment to the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations in the UK. Sellafield is one of eleven sites identified in the Government’s 2010 White Paper. The site is expected to generate up to five thousand new jobs during the construction phase, and will create approximately 300 new jobs when operational 4. It is noted that these jobs are likely to offset some of the anticipated losses elsewhere in the nuclear industry at Sellafield. The Nuclear New Build Transport Group (NNBTG), of which Cumbria County Council are members, is in the early stages of planning its response to the proposals to site new facilities in the Sellafield area. At this early stage it is prudent to form a view of the capability of the transport infrastructure to handle the impact of the new facilities. This despite having yet to draw up detailed plans of how materials will be brought to and from the site in the event of the project going ahead.
2 The siting of nuclear power stations in the UK, ACSNI, HM Nuclear Installations Inspectorate Safety Assessment Principles for Nuclear Plants, 1992 3 Nuclear Waste Trains Investigative Committee Scrutiny of the transportation of nuclear waste By train through London, Greater London Authority, October 2001 4 Based on estimates for Hinkley and Sizewell new build sites, Source: NNBTG
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 15
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Should a new nuclear power station be constructed at the Sellafield site, it is expected that the materials that could be delivered by rail would include: • Aggregate; • Cement; • Modular elements of the plant; and • Steel (both structural and reinforcement). Depending on the type of reactor producing irradiated fuel, the flasks used to transport them from site to the reprocessing plant at Sellafield are likely to weigh between 47 and 120 tonnes 5. If other new nuclear power stations are brought on- stream as part of a wider expansion of the UK’s nuclear power generating capacity, the spent fuel from these plants will also require paths to Sellafield. It is expected that the new nuclear capacity will be brought on-stream as current capacity comes out of service.
3.2.2 Passenger Services Sellafield is likely to continue to be one of the major generators of passenger traffic on the line, and the construction of one or more new power stations at, or near, Sellafield could lead to a new and sizeable (if temporary) source of passenger traffic depending on decisions regarding the location of the construction workforce. Network Rail’s RUS highlighted the crowding on trains between Barrow and Sellafield as being an issue. This is supported by site visits to Sellafield station during the course of the study. Cumbria County Council and the other NNBTG stakeholders are keen to promote sustainable modes of transport to any new nuclear site. Thus, it is recognised that providing the requisite passenger capacity to meet this demand will require action to ensure that potential users are not ‘crowded-off’ services. This could be achieved through either the strengthening of trains (putting on more carriages) or providing additional services. The nature of the shift patterns both during construction and the operation of the plant are likely to lead to very sharp demand peaks which will need to be specifically addressed by the train operator in consultation with the contractors.
5 Risks & Hazards Arising in the Transportation of Irradiated Fuel and Nuclear Fuel Materials in the United Kingdom, Large & Associates, 2006
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 16
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
4 Analysis Methodology
4.1 Introduction The purpose of this study is to identify the ability of the Cumbrian Coast railway to handle additional traffic in support of the Nuclear New Build programme in the County, in particular, centred on Sellafield. For this initial high level study it was agreed that a detailed modelling exercise of the route would not be appropriate but rather that a desk-top assessment would be made of the route along with the associated enhancement impacts. Throughout the analysis it has been necessary to come to a view on a realistic cut- off both for the delivery of more capacity and equally to enhance the route capability. These cut-off points are recognised as being potentially subjective judgements however, experience of similar construction projects and their associated rail access requirements have been used as guidance.
4.2 Approach The basis of our methodology has been to consider the potential timetable paths that are available on the route given a varying set of circumstances. This has been based on an analysis of the train planning graph. The logical starting point is to consider the current infrastructure and operational rules but then introduce variations (interventions) to build up a matrix of available paths corresponding to each of the identified enhancements. This process is illustrated in Figure 4.1. Figure 4:1 Methodology
Condition Action Result
Existing Analyse Current Identify Currently Infrastructure and Train Graphs Available Paths Operational Rules
Identify Additional Implement Analyse Impact of Pathing Intervention Intervention Opportunities
Report Findings
Whilst the focus has been on determining the numbers of paths – which has a general relationship with the capacity of the route – consideration has also been given to the capability of the route, that is, the current limits on train weight, length and profile (gauge clearance).
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 17
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
4.3 Capacity Analysis At the core of the train pathing analysis has been the recreation of the current train planning graphs which are a visual representation of the route and the train movements on it. (An explanation of train planning graphs is included in Appendix A.) Based on the current freight and passenger timetables a plot of the currently booked timetable paths was established. This representation of the utilised capacity was taken as the Base Case in the further analysis. However, whilst passenger services will generally use all of their booked paths on a daily basis, it is not uncommon for freight services to be run to satisfy the traffic and customer requirements. This is also particularly true for services associated with Sellafield where a range of pathing options is retained for security purposes. In order to understand the utilisation of the booked freight paths a four week sample of actual trains run was obtained from Network Rail. This confirmed the view that not all booked freight paths are used. The results of this analysis are shown in Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Sample of Path Utilisation
30 Unused Freight Paths Used Freight Paths 25 Passenger Paths
20
15
10
5
0 Carnforth to Barrow Barrow to Sellafield Sellafield to Whitehaven to Workington to Carlisle Whitehaven Workington
However, in recognition of the fact that these paths are in the current timetable and could be utilised for their prescribed services (even where ‘dummy’ paths are quoted) it was assumed that the booked paths, and not the actual services run, would be taken as the Base Case on which to build the on-going analysis. This was considered a conservative but prudent assumption given the need to maintain some unused paths. To establish the available capacity for additional services a set of train timings were established which would then be superimposed on the graph where there was a sufficient time interval. These timings were based on average freight train running times. The regular calling pattern of passenger services on the core route means that, as a proxy, this typical freight path could be used to model a passenger as well as a freight train. This became our ‘Standard Path’ in the
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 18
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
analysis. The timings that created this Standard Path are shown in Tables 4.1(a) and (b). Note that the path took account of the direction of travel. Table 4.1(a): Applied ‘Standard’ Sectional Running Times – Up Direction
Route Section Running Time (Up)
Carlisle (Currock Junction) to Workington 50 minutes Workington to Whitehaven 16 minutes
Whitehaven to St Bees 8 minutes
St Bees to Sellafield 12 minutes
Sellafield to Park South Junction 58 minutes
Park South Junction to Dalton Junction (avoiding line) 3 minutes
Park South to Barrow in Furness 11 minutes Barrow in Furness to Dalton Junction 10 minutes Dalton Junction to Carnforth 38 minutes Table 4.1(b): Applied ‘Standard’ Sectional Running Times – Down Direction
Route Section Running Time (Down) Carnforth to Dalton Junction 42 minutes Dalton Junction to Park South Junction (avoiding line) 3 minutes
Dalton Junction to Barrow in Furness 11 minutes
Barrow in Furness to Park South Junction 7 minutes
Park South Junction to Sellafield 50 minutes
Sellafield to St Bees 12 minutes
St Bees to Whitehaven 8 minutes
Whitehaven to Workington 15 minutes
Workington to Carlisle (Currock Junction) 47 minutes
In addition, analysis was undertaken of the headway between trains to identify how closely trains could follow each other into a given section of the route. As described elsewhere, the route is largely controlled under the Absolute Block principle. As a result, train headways are based on the transit times through the various block sections plus a further allowance for signalman’s actions. The headways adopted in the analysis are listed in Table 4.2.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 19
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Table 4.2: Adopted Route Section Headways
Route Section Headway Carnforth to Arnside 12 ½ minutes
Arnside to Grange over Sands 8 minutes
Grange over Sands to Ulverston 18 minutes
Ulverston to Dalton Junction 11 ½ minutes
Dalton Junction to Park South 6 minutes
Dalton Junction to Barrow in Furness 14 minutes
Barrow in Furness to Park South Junction 8½ minutes
Park South Junction to Askam 5½ minutes
Askam to Foxfield 10 ½ minutes
Foxfield to Millom 12 minutes
Millom to Silecroft 7 minutes
Silecroft to Bootle 9 minutes
Bootle to Drigg 11 ½ minutes
Drigg to Sellafield 10 ½ minutes
Sellafield to St Bees 12 minutes
St Bees to Bransty (Whitehaven) 10 minutes
Bransty to Workington 18 minutes
Workington to Maryport 10 minutes
Maryport to Wigton 21 ½ minutes
Wigton to Dalston 4 minutes
Dalston to Carlisle 4 minutes
Having established the Standard Path (and the associated safe headway behind the path) this profile was applied to the train graph to fill up as much of the available capacity as possible. Trains were added such that the minimum headway distance was adopted. This produced a “stressed” train plan which, whilst providing the maximum number of paths under the current arrangements and infrastructure, in practical terms would be unsustainable and lead to significant risk when any disruptions occurred. This is because there is no ‘slack’ in the system to absorb service variations meaning that any deviation from the booked path would inevitably cascade onto following services. Figure 4.3 provides a sample of the findings from this exercise showing the degree to which the stressed service pattern provided increased capacity on the route.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 20
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Figure 4.3: A Sample of Impact of Stressed Service Pattern
70
60
50
40
Stressed 30 Current Paths
20
10
0 Carnforth to Barrow to Sellafield Sellafield to Whitehaven to Workington to Barrow Whitehaven Workington Carlisle
In order to come to a more realistic assessment of the available capacity this “stressed” plan was “relaxed” such that additional margins were applied between trains and only those paths which provided demonstrable value in running services either to or from Sellafield were included. This meant that the aim was to provide continuous paths to or from Sellafield from either end of the route. Some relaxation of this rule was permitted between Sellafield and Barrow. The degree to which slack was put back into the timetable was based on the operational experience and judgement of the team. Figure 4.4 provides a sample of the findings of the outcome of the ‘relaxation’ process. Figure 4.4: Sample of the Impact of the Practical Service Pattern
70
60
50
40 Stressed Practical 30 Current Paths
20
10
0 Carnforth to Barrow to Sellafield Sellafield to Whitehaven to Workington to Barrow Whitehaven Workington Carlisle
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 21
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
During this exercise account was taken of the opening hours of the signal boxes along the route. The resulting assessment of what was called the “practical” paths available was then taken as the basis for the development of the intervention options. As the starting point for the analysis it was assumed that there are no limitations on the available rolling stock and that the design of the terminal at Sellafield (excluded from the scope of this commission) would not be such that it posed a constraint to the arrivals and departures from the site. These assumptions were made on the basis of high level nature of the study, and the current uncertainty over the traffic details. It will be noted from Figure 4.4 that the degree to which slack was introduced on the various route sections varied. In particular the reduction from the ‘stressed’ level between Whitehaven and Sellafield was only slight. It was clear that approaching Sellafield from the north the bottle-neck, in terms of capacity, is this single line section. Thus, in order to maximise the throughput of traffic services were concentrated on the single line and an assumption made that the greater levels of slack on either side would facilitate punctual passage on the constrained section. Having established the practical service pattern based on the current operating and infrastructure arrangements a series of interventions were then considered. These ranged from low capital cost measures, such as extending the opening hours of the signal boxes, to significant investment on enhanced infrastructure. A summary of the interventions considered is provided in Table 4.3 Table 4.3: List of Applied Interventions
Intervention Description
1 Extend the opening hours of selected signal boxes midweek
2 Open the route at the weekend
3 Providing the ability to loop trains at Whitehaven
4 Lengthen the loop at St. Bees
In each case the effect, in terms of train paths and any route capability benefit, was evaluated along with any associated assumptions.
4.4 Capability Analysis As has been stated previously the principle focus of the study has been concerned with identifying additional paths on the line however, benefit can also be derived from an examination of the route capability, that is the permitted axle weight, train length and gauge clearance. For each of these parameters information was gathered from Network Rail sources to identify current limits; this then became the capability benchmark. This was then assessed to determine if it was likely to be adequate for the future traffic needs, or if a realistic level of investment could deliver a ‘value for money’ benefit.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 22
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Only one of the interventions listed in Table 4.3 (number four) directly benefited a capability measure on the route. Other interventions that were considered were found to deliver poor value for money. In addition, measures were considered where there could be a benefit to the resilience of the train plan - intervention 3 falls into that category.
4.5 Assumptions During the course of the development of the study it has been necessary to make a number of assumptions regarding the traffic patterns and capability of the route. The programme of works for the new build, including the proposed start date, is unknown at present. Nevertheless, in our discussions with the local rail industry stakeholders we feel that the following assumptions reflect the likely operating characteristics of the route in the medium term.
4.5.1 Passenger Operations It has been assumed that the current timetable is maintained throughout the period under consideration. Network Rail has advised that following the upcoming work on the Arnside Viaduct no significant infrastructure works are planned that are likely to significantly affect journey times along the route. The only exception to this is the planned closure of the temporary station at Workington North. This took place in late 2010 however, in terms of the high level analysis undertaken, it is not considered to have a significant effect on the study outcomes. There have recently been discussions about the possibility of an open access operator providing services from Carlisle to London via the Cumbrian Coast route. It is known that at present, no bids have been submitted to the ORR for paths along the route. It has therefore been assumed that any open access passenger services would bid for paths along the route in much the same way as a freight operator which would have an impact based on the number of new services proposed. In the analysis which follows these additional services have been ignored since their impact will depend of the proposed open-access service pattern, the use made of currently under-utilised freight paths, and the more detailed requirements of the NNB works. We have further assumed that passenger traffic along the route will continue to consist of the following rolling stock classes 142, 153, 156 and 185 (Carnforth to Barrow only).
4.5.2 Infrastructure Our core assumption regarding the infrastructure is that the status quo is maintained. Parton signal box was recently closed, and its operations have been transferred to Bransty box near Whitehaven. Network Rail has indicated that any resignalling of the route will not take place in the current Control Period (2009 - 2014). However, it is currently formulating its signalling and renewals programme for the next Control Period and beyond. The current programme (which is dependent on funding and on the appropriate technology being available) is as follows:
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 23
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
• Cumbrian Coast North in 2018 (Bransty to Wigton); • Cumbrian Coast South in 2019 (Carnforth Station Junction to Askam); and • Cumbrian Coast Central in 2020 (Foxfield to St. Bees). However, the indication received from Network Rail was to the effect that in the current funding climate replacement of non-life expired assets is unlikely to be a priority where operating expenditure savings do not justify the capital outlay and thus these dates are subject to change. However, in the case of a significant expansion of traffic on the route, as would be the case with the NNB programme, it is possible that this investment could be justified. Given the timescales for the resignalling of the route no specification for the system functionality has yet been agreed and as such it is not possible to evaluate the impact any of the upgrades mentioned above will have on the route’s capacity. It is likely that the upgrade will be driven by moves to eliminate a number of the current signal boxes and concentrate control on a limited number of locations. It is expected that the switch to more modern technology will afford the opportunity to improve capacity to some degree. It should, however, be noted that the constraining factor for traffic into Sellafield from the north is the single line section south of Whitehaven and it is unlikely that any enhancement to the route will wholly eliminate this restriction. Any enhancement work to ameliorate this bottleneck would most likely be by the provision of further loops on the section between Corkickle and St. Bees.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 24
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
5 Results of the Analysis
5.1 Introduction This Section of the report provides the results obtained from the analysis as previously described. These are generally shown in the tabular format described in the Technical Note of 9 th August 2010, which is attached as Appendix B. These tables are supported with a commentary describing the findings and highlighting any particular issues identified in the analysis.
5.2 Current Condition The following base data is taken for the current Network Rail Working Timetables covering both freight and passenger services. Table 5.1 provides a summary of the current operations on the route as well as the route capability statistics.
on Route gt ven in e d rk lisl Section el ar C arrow lafi o Wo B l Whiteha t Scenario to o n to Down o Se t ven t d a gto el n Direction teh nforth rrow lafi rki ar a l C B Se Whi Wo Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 20 1 15+ 9* 10 6 16 6 14 7* Tues 20 2 15+ 10* 10 5 16 5 14 6* Wed 20 2 15+ 10* 10 6 16 6 14 7* Paths Thurs 20 2 15+ 10* 10 6 16 6 14 7* Current Fri 20 2 15+ 10* 10 5 16 6 14 7* Booked Sat 14 0 12+ 3* 9 1 13 2 13 4* Sun 7000004030 Clearance W6 W6 W6 W8 W8 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
* includes services which do not cover the full distance between node points + includes services between Barrow and Millom
en av Route n o th Section ow r Whiteh rr to Ba arnfo Scenario C Up o to Workingt gton aven to Sellafield ld to t n eh Direction afie orki hit l rrow Carlisle W W Sel Ba Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 14 4* 16 4 10 4 15+ 8* 20 2 Tues 14 6* 16 5 10 5 15+ 8* 20 2 Wed 14 7* 16 6 10 6 15+ 8* 20 2 Paths Thurs 14 7* 16 6 10 6 15+ 8* 20 2 Current Fri 14 8* 16 6 10 6 15+ 8* 20 2 Booked Sat 14 5* 15 3 10 3 15+ 4 18 2 Sun 2020000070 Clearance W8 W8 W6 W6 W6 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m Table 5.1: Summary of Current Services
The table shows the variations in the level of freight and passenger traffic along the route, by day of the week. It is noticeable that the level of freight traffic changes throughout the week to a limited extent. This reflects varying customer
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 25
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
requirements. The table also shows the dip in the level of passenger service provision between Sellafield and Whitehaven. This is, of course, the single line section on the route.
5.3 Actual Usage Whilst passenger service provision is generally robust in terms of providing all the timetabled services, it is not unusual for freight paths not to be used. This can be because there is no demand for the traffic or, in some cases, because historic pathing rights have been retained in the timetable. Information was received from Network Rail providing a sample of path utilisation for a recent four week period (Period 5 2010/11). It is recognised that this is a small sample and that there could be seasonal factors at play in the figures, but it is provided here to give a broad indication of usage and to identify if this could be a useful source of available space in the train plan into which new traffic flows could be run. The following table shows weekly the average booked and actual usage of the freight paths in each direction. Table 5.2: Sample of Freight Path Utilisation
Route Carnforth to Barrow to Sellafield to Whitehaven to Workington Section Barrow Sellafield Whitehaven Workington to Carlisle
Booked Paths 10 51 30 30 39
Utilised Paths 6.25 7 3.5 3.5 19.5
Utilisation % 62% 14% 12% 12% 50%
Route Barrow to Sellafield to Whitehaven Workington to Carlisle to Section Carnforth Barrow to Sellafield Whitehaven Workington
Booked Paths 11 42 30 30 38
Utilised Paths 6.75 7.5 4.5 4.5 20.5
Utilisation % 61% 18% 15% 15% 54%
The table shows that it is at either ends of the route where there is a concentration of path usage. However, between Workington and Barrow there is generally poor use made of the available paths. It is suspected that a proportion of this is associated with the security associated with the movement of nuclear traffic and the short runs between Sellafield and Drigg. For this high-level study it is believed that it is sufficient to have identified that there would appear to be the potential to review the current paths and to determine if some of them could be used for construction traffic. A further study could be used to determine if certain paths were never used and were merely relics of former traffic which could be extinguished to afford access to other traffic. For the purposes of this analysis it has been assumed that the currently booked paths could be used by their owners and are thus not available for additional traffic purposes. This has provided a conservative view of the route’s ability to handle the additional traffic however, should further information become
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 26
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
available regarding the use made of these paths and details of the forecast traffic for the new build become available then this may require to be revisited. The train planning graph produced for the current timetable is included in Appendix C.
5.4 Currently Available Paths Having established the current pattern of services it is clear that there is available capacity between the existing train services to operate trains associated with the Nuclear New Build Programme. By exploiting every possible opportunity to add new paths within the current rules and infrastructure constraints it has been possible to establish that a number of additional paths could be gained. The paths imposed on the route conform to the ‘Standard Path’ which was established in the early analysis. Particular account was taken of the single line section between Whitehaven and Sellafield when plotting the new paths as well as the short stretch of single line at Parton - although this latter section is easier to accommodate given its relatively short length.
Stressed Timetable : This takes the current timetable and then fits as many additional ‘Standard Paths’ onto the graph as is possible given the current operating rules and infrastructure constraints. The result is a pattern of services which whilst theoretically possible would be highly unreliable due to the lack of ‘slack’ to recover from incidents or perturbations.
The purpose of this exercise was to ‘stress’ the graph to confirm where the pinch points are and thus identify the interventions that should be considered in order to provide enhanced capacity and a robust timetable. In developing the Standard Path it has been assumed that unless required to do so, all services will use the avoiding line at Barrow in Furness between Dalton Junction and Park South Junction. Circumstances where it may be necessary to run via Barrow would include the use of the path by a passenger service or to avoid blocking the main line with a freight train when one was already standing on the avoiding line. It should be noted that the stressed pattern of services should not be considered as a practical means of operating services since there is little room for recovery in the event of perturbations, and as such Network Rail and the train operators would consider the timetable risky and not robust. The train graph derived from this exercise is attached in Appendix D. The additional paths identified in this extreme example are shown in Table 5.3.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 27
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
n Route n gto in le rk is have o rl Section te a C lafield hi Barrow el W to W to Scenario Down S to n n ve to to ld a g w ie eh Direction f it rkin rro lla h o
Additional Paths Additional a Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Carnforth to B Se W W Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 20 1 28 15+ 9* 37 10 6 8 16 6 21 14 7* 13 Tues 20 2 28 15+ 10* 36 10 5 9 16 5 21 14 6* 14 Wed 20 2 28 15+ 10* 36 10 6 8 16 6 21 14 7* 13 Paths Thurs 20 2 28 15+ 10* 36 10 6 8 16 6 21 14 7* 13 Fri 20 2 28 15+ 10* 36 10 5 9 16 6 21 14 7* 13 Stressed Sat 14 0 23 12+ 3* 33 9 1 18 13 2 22 13 4* 23 Sun 7 1 44 0 0 35 0 0 32 4 0 38 4 0 35 Clearance W6 W6 W6 W8 W8 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
* included services which do not cover the full distance between node points + includes services between Barrow and Millom
n e Route av d n h iel gto ite llaf w Section n h e i W rk arro o to to S B Scenario Up W n en to v to to g a ld le in h e Direction s rk ite afi o ll
arli Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional C W Wh Se Barrow to Carnforth Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 14 4* 19 16 4 23 10 4 9 15+ 8* 32 20 2 28 Tues 14 6* 17 16 5 22 10 5 8 15+ 8* 32 20 2 28 Wed 14 7* 16 16 6 21 10 6 7 15+ 8* 32 20 2 28 Paths Thurs 14 7* 16 16 6 21 10 6 7 15+ 8* 32 20 2 28 Fri 14 8* 15 16 6 21 10 6 7 15+ 8* 32 20 2 28 Stressed Sat 14 5* 26 15 3 26 10 3 14 15+ 3* 28 18 2 18 Sun 2 0 35 2 0 35 0 0 38 0 0 31 7 0 44 Clearance W8 W8 W6 W6 W6 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m Table 5.3: ‘Stressed’ Pathing Potential
The results of this analysis confirm that the single line section is the most constricting in terms of providing additional paths without investment. Whilst pathing north of Whitehaven is generally easy to achieve, beyond Workington the number of pathing opportunities drops again. This is principally due to the lengthy signalling blocks south of Carlisle. However, the analysis does tend to show that the route capacity to and from Sellafield from the south appears to be generally good.
5.5 Practical Paths A realistic assessment can be made of the currently available paths through the relaxation of the intensity of the ‘stressed’ plan based on providing a generally robust timetable which could deliver an increase in the available paths to Sellafield. From the ‘stressed’ analysis it was immediately clear that the single line section will limit the paths into Sellafield from the north. Thus, when considering the available paths no additional paths beyond the number available on the single line were applied between Whitehaven and Carlisle. If this approach were not taken then it is clear that trains would build up at Whitehaven. South of Sellafield, taking account of the number of additional paths that were identified in the ‘stressed’ timetable it was felt likely that a significant number of additional paths would be possible. The limit applied to the number of paths was based on an assessment of what could practically be delivered taking performance risk into account. The level of slack which Network Rail and a train operator would be comfortable with is recognised as being a judgement based on our operational experience.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 28
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Practical Timetable : This takes the current timetable and then adds a number of additional ‘Standard Paths’ onto the graph such that there is appropriate ‘slack’ in the system and the paths are conjoined such that they link north and south of Sellafield to the WCML. The level to which the new paths are added is derived from what is believed to be operationally robust based on past experience.
Appendix E shows the resulting train graph with the new paths. The results of the analysis are also shown in Table 5.4. Table 5.4: Practical Path Assessment
n to Route ng ki lisle Section ow or rr W ar a o C Scenario o B t to Down t en n th av gto or h n Direction ite rki nf h o
ar Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional C Barrow to Sellafield Sellafield to Whitehaven W W Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 20 1 18 15+ 9* 17 10 6 7 16 6 7 14 7* 7 Tues 20 2 17 15+ 10* 16 10 5 8 16 5 8 14 6* 8 Wed 20 2 17 15+ 10* 16 10 6 7 16 6 7 14 7* 7 Paths Thurs 20 2 17 15+ 10* 16 10 6 7 16 6 7 14 7* 7 Fri 20 2 17 15+ 10* 16 10 5 8 16 6 7 14 7* 7 Practical Sat 14 0 9 12+ 3* 9 9 1 15 13 2 15 13 4* 15 Sun 7 1 27 0 0 26 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 29 Clearance W6 W6 W6 W8 W8 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
* included services which do not cover the full distance between node points + includes services between Barrow and Millom
n e Route av d n h fiel to ite a Section ng h ell ow ki W S rr to to Ba Scenario Up n n o Wor to ve to t a ld ing w to Carnforth Direction sle k iteh fie o rli or la
Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional arr Paths Additional Ca W Wh Sel B Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 14 4* 9 16 4 9 10 4 9 15+ 8* 12 20 2 16 Tues 14 6* 7 16 5 8 10 5 8 15+ 8* 12 20 2 16 Wed 14 7* 6 16 6 7 10 6 7 15+ 8* 12 20 2 16 Paths Thurs 14 7* 6 16 6 7 10 6 7 15+ 8* 12 20 2 16 Fri 14 8* 6 16 6 7 10 6 7 15+ 8* 12 20 2 16 Practical Sat 14 0 15 12+ 3* 15 9 1 14 13 2 12 13 4* 12 Sun 7 1 27 0 0 26 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 29 Clearance W8 W8 W6 W6 W6 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
The tables show a variation in the number of weekday paths. This is because the existing paths are not booked to be utilised everyday and thus advantage has been taken of these available paths in developing the overall number of possible additional trains per day. The result of the analysis shows that, with no changes to the current operational rules and no infrastructure enhancement, it would be possible to add a further 23 paths per weekday centred on Sellafield. These paths could be used for either freight or passenger trains. Assuming that all of these paths were utilised by freight services this could equate to 25kt6 per day of aggregates arriving at the site. This is considered to be a
6 This is based on 7 paths from the north of 13 wagons and 16 paths from the south of 18 wagons. Wagons are aggregate hoppers of 66t product capacity 13.9m long. Limits on trains are hauling capacity (1855t for class 66) in the south, and the length limit at St Bees (218m) in the north.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 29
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
substantial volume of material and demonstrates the level of latent capacity there is available in the current network. The analysis that has been undertaken to reach the above conclusion is solely based on the examination of the line between Carlisle (Currock Junction) and Carnforth. The source of any material being brought to Sellafield is likely to lie beyond these locations and thus consideration would require to be taken of the network capacity beyond the Cumbrian Coastal route to provide a complete analysis of the rail network’s ability to handle the traffic. As such it is difficult to establish the impact any off-route constraints may have on the ability to operate additional traffic to Sellafield. However, based on information available in the Network Rail Route Utilisation Strategy for the West Coast Main Line and the Carlisle to Settle route, it has been established that there are capacity issues on the WCML particularly at the northern end. Access to the WCML at Carnforth would see the new traffic joining an already heavily utilised section of the line where Network Rail state that “growth may be difficult to accommodate without affecting performance”. However, it is known that a number of the current paths are booked for Anglo-Scottish coal traffic and that the volumes of these services may be lower in the future. There does, however, appear to be capacity available on the Carlisle to Settle line and by avoiding the WCML at Carlisle it will be possible to utilise spare capacity on that line (currently shown as being 60% - 70% utilised) to reach West Yorkshire, or the north east via Hexham. It is also possible to access the Settle to Carlisle line at Carnforth by use of the direct line via Wennington. What is clear is that the future levels of route utilisation and thus capacity on the major trunk routes is difficult to predict, particularly with regards to freight traffic. Even a detailed analysis of the current train paths can only establish the view today and it may well be very different once development and planning for the works are complete.
5.6 Intervention 1: Extended Signal Box Opening As described in the study methodology, having established the latent practical capacity which is available on the route the next step is to identify and evaluate the impact of a series of interventions aimed at further increasing the capacity. In this regard the approach that has been adopted initially is to avoid any capital investment and to rely instead on an increase in operating costs through the extension of signal box opening hours at key locations. It will be noted that the route is not open continuously during the day with some signal boxes closing when last services run. The opening hours of the signal boxes were described in Table 2.2 earlier in this report. The approach adopted has been to build on the ‘practical’ timetable by extending the opening hours during weekdays at both the start and end of the current periods of operation. This will be used to leverage the maximum number of additional services during these times whilst minimising the increased manning times.
Extended Timetable : This takes the previously developed ‘practical’ timetable and looks at the benefits to be obtained from extending the opening hours of the signal boxes and as a result the times when the route is open. The resulting train plan contains the extra paths which can be obtained through the additional route opening hours.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 30
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Given the significant number of latent paths which have been identified, the consideration of the extension of box opening has been confined to relatively limited periods only. However, it is recognised that the opening hours could be extended quite significantly to operate even more traffic. In this regard it is considered that for every additional hour the route is open a further two paths could be developed to and from Sellafield in the north and a further three paths from the south. The increased period of operation could however raise environmental concerns in certain locations along the route. It would also significantly affect Network Rail’s ability to maintain the route. This will be particularly acute should there be a significant level of tonnage increase. The following tabulation details the revised level of paths which could be made available given a modest level of extended signal box opening. Appendix F shows the additional paths. Table 5.5: Additional Paths Taking Account of Extended Hours of Route Opening
Route e d isl Section tehaven Workington Carl o llafiel Whi to Scenario o Down t on to Se d w iel ingt o ehaven t Direction r laf t Carnforth to Barrow Paths Additional Bar Paths Additional Sel Paths Additional Whi Paths Additional Work Paths Additional Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 20 1 20 15+ 9* 22 10 6 12 16 6 12 14 7* 12 Tues 20 2 19 15+ 10* 21 10 5 13 16 5 13 14 6* 13 Wed 20 2 19 15+ 10* 21 10 6 12 16 6 12 14 7* 12 Paths Thurs 20 2 19 15+ 10* 21 10 6 12 16 6 12 14 7* 12 Fri 20 2 19 15+ 10* 21 10 5 13 16 6 12 14 7* 12 Extended Sat Sun Clearance W6 W6 W6 W8 W8 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
* included services which do not cover the full distance between node points + includes services between Barrow and Millom
Route ld n e o i itehaven af Section h l W Sel row rkingt ar o to arnforth Scenario n to n C Up W o to B ve d le to eha iel Direction lis t
Car Paths Additional Workingt Paths Additional Whi Paths Additional Sellaf Paths Additional Barrow to Paths Additional Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 14 4* 14 16 4 14 10 4 14 15+ 8* 17 20 2 19 Tues 14 6* 12 16 5 13 10 5 13 15+ 8* 17 20 2 19 Wed 14 7* 11 16 6 12 10 6 12 15+ 8* 17 20 2 19 Paths Thurs 14 7* 11 16 6 12 10 6 12 15+ 8* 17 20 2 19 Fri 14 8* 11 16 6 12 10 6 12 15+ 8* 17 20 2 19 Extended Sat Sun Clearance W8 W8 W6 W6 W6 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
The foregoing route opening extensions are estimated to have the ability to deliver up to 9.5kt of aggregate based on a similar set of trains to that used for the evaluation of the practical paths (see footnote on page 25). This represents an increased tonnage of over a third. The foregoing is premised on the following increases in signal box opening hours.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 31
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Table 5.6: Assumed Variations to Weekday Signal Box Opening Hours
Current Hours of Revised Hours of Signal Box Variation Operation Operation
Grange over Sands 06:00 - 20:24 04:15 - 23:15 +276 minutes Dalton Junction 06:00 - 20:24 04:45 - 23:30 +291 minutes Askham 05:20 - 23:20 04:55 - 23:20 +25 minutes Foxfield 05:20 - 23:20 05:05 - 23:20 + 15 minutes Millom 05:20 - 23:20 05:10 - 23:20 + 10 minutes Silecroft 06:00 - 20:24 05:15 - 21:45 + 126 minutes Bootle 06:00 - 20:48 05:25 - 22:45 +153 minutes Drigg 06:00 - 20:48 05:35 - 22:45 + 153 minutes Sellafield 06:00 - 20:48 04:50 - 22:45 + 153 minutes St Bees 06:00 - 20:48 05:00 - 22:45 + 177 minutes Whitehaven 05:30 - 23:30 05:10 - 23:30 + 20 minutes Workington No 2 05:30 - 23:30 05:00 - 23:30 + 30 minutes Workington No 3 07:00 - 23:00 07:00 - 23:00 0 minutes Maryport 05:30 - 23:30 04:50 - 23:30 + 40 minutes Wigton 05:30 - 23:30 04:25 - 23:30 + 65 minutes
Based on a rate per hour accepted by Network Rail it is estimated that this would cost an additional £300k per annum. This estimate is based on a rate per hour for staff and takes no account of any additional recruitment and training. See Appendix G for the breakdown on the costs.
5.7 Intervention 2: Opening the Route At Weekends The focus of the analysis has been to seek to identify and then increase the number of paths available during the week. The opening of the route is currently restricted to some degree on Saturdays and greatly on Sundays. This second intervention to be considered seeks to improve the number of available paths during the weekends. On Saturdays, the signal boxes at Grange-over-Sands and Dalton Junction are ‘switched out’, extending headways on the Arnside to Ulverston and Ulverston to Barrow sections of the route. On Sundays, as well as these boxes being ‘switched- out’ the section of route between Barrow-in-Furness and Whitehaven is currently closed to all traffic. This intervention focuses on opening signal boxes along the route such that an effective ‘seven-day railway’ could service the site from both the northern and the southern ends of the route. Addressing weekend capacity through this intervention will significantly increase the number of trains that can access the site and means that materials can be delivered as they are required rather than being delivered in advance. It will also provide a degree of flexibility in off-loading and allow for a more consistent flow of material to the construction site, assuming seven day a week site work.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 32
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
There are three main issues with this type of intervention. Firstly, opening the route beyond its current operating hours will increase Network Rail’s staffing costs for the route. It is likely that additional signalling staff will be required due to the duration of any construction project, and there may be significant lead times in training new signalling staff. In addition, increasing the operating hours on the route will reduce the so-called ‘white period’ where Network Rail can carry out maintenance on the line. Network Rail will therefore incur extra costs of maintaining the railway through overnight possessions compared with a weekly Sunday closure. The maintenance work associated with the route is also likely to increase in any case given the projected tonnage growth as a result of the works. The third issue is that the extent to which the extra spare capacity can be utilised will be dependent on how easy it is to path trains on the rest of the Network at weekends. Table 5.7: Assumed Variations to Signal Box Opening Hours on Saturday
Current Hours of Revised Hours of Signal Box Variation Operation Operation
Grange over Sands closed 06:00 - 20:24 + 864 minutes Dalton Junction closed 06:00 - 20:24 + 864 minutes Askam 05:20 - 23:20 05:20 - 23:20 nil Foxfield 05:20 - 23:20 05:20 - 23:20 nil Millom 05:20 - 23:20 05:20 - 23:20 nil Silecroft 06:00 - 20:24 06:00 - 20:24 nil Bootle 06:00 - 20:24 06:00 - 20:48 nil Drigg 06:00 - 20:48 06:00 - 20:48 nil Sellafield 06:00 - 20:48 06:00 - 20:48 nil St Bees 06:00 - 20:48 06:00 - 20:48 nil Whitehaven 05:30 - 23:30 05:30 - 23:30 nil Workington No 2 05:30 - 15:00 05:30 - 23:30 +510 minutes Workington No 3 07:00 - 15:00 07:00 - 23:00 +480 minutes Maryport 05:30 - 23:30 05:30 - 23:30 nil Wigton 05:30 - 23:30 05:30 - 23:30 nil
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 33
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Table 5.8: Additional Paths Taking Account of Extended Hours of Route Opening
Route n isle Section d rl fiel Ca a o t Scenario Sell Down on rth to Barrow gt in Direction afield to Whitehave rk l o Carnfo Paths Additional Barrow to Paths Additional Sel Paths Additional Whitehaven to Workington Paths Additional W Paths Additional Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Extended Sat 14 0 2 12+ 3* 0 9 1 0 13 2 0 13 4* 0 Sun Clearance W6 W6 W6 W8 W8 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
* included services which do not cover the full distance between node points + includes services between Barrow and Millom
Route aven ld n h fie ite gto h lla w th Section n o or W Se rki o o nf o t ar Scenario W n t C Up o en to Barr to av to le t ing h ield w Direction s k ite f h lla ro
arli Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional ar Paths Additional C Wor W Se B Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Extended Sat 14 0 0 12+ 3* 0 9 1 0 13 2 0 13 4* 2 Sun Clearance W8 W8 W6 W6 W6 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
As Table 5.9 shows, the impact of opening switched out signal boxes on a Saturday does not significantly increasing capacity on the line as a whole as it does not allow for extra departures from site. It would, however, make the timetable south of Barrow-on-Furness more flexible in the face of perturbations which would make access from the busy WCML easier.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 34
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Table 5.9: Assumed Variations to Signal Box Opening Hours on Sunday
Current Hours of Revised Hours of Signal Box Variation Operation Operation
Grange over Sands closed 06:00 - 20:24 + 864 minutes Dalton Junction closed 06:00 - 20:24 +864 minutes Askam closed 05:20 - 23:20 +1080 minutes Foxfield closed 05:20 - 23:20 +1080 minutes Millom closed 05:20 - 23:20 +1080 minutes Silecroft closed 06:00 - 20:24 +864 minutes Bootle closed 06:00 - 20:48 +888 minutes Drigg closed 06:00 - 20:48 +888 minutes Sellafield closed 06:00 - 20:48 +888 minutes St Bees closed 06:00 - 20:48 +888 minutes Whitehaven 12:10 - 23:15 05:30 - 23:30 +415 minutes Workington No 2 12:00 - 23:40 05:30 - 23:30 +380 minutes Workington No 3 closed 07:00 - 23:00 +960 minutes Maryport 12:35 - 23:00 05:30 - 23:30 +455 minutes Wigton 12:35 - 23:00 05:30 - 23:30 +455 minutes
Table 5.10: Additional Paths Taking Account of Sunday Opening
Route w d lisle Section o el r arr afi Ca B ll o Scenario Down to Se to Whitehaven n t h o rt to w ield ingt Direction fo o llaf
arn Paths Additional arr Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional C B Se Whitehaven to Workington Work Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Extended Sat Sun 7 1 20 0 0 28 0 0 29 4 0 25 4 0 25 Clearance W6 W6 W6 W8 W8 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
* included services which do not cover the full distance between node points + includes services between Barrow and Millom
n Route ve ld n ha e te lafi hi l rth Section o rkingto W Se arrow o to to B arnf Scenario W n Up o ven to o C to d t le t ng ha Direction s ki te afiel ow or hi r
arli Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional Paths Additional C W W Sell Bar Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon 0 Tues 0 Wed 0 Paths Thurs 0 Fri 0 Extended Sat 0 Sun 4 0 21 4 0 28 0 0 29 0 0 28 7 1 20 Clearance W8 W8 W6 W6 W6 Route Availability RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 RA8 Length 404m 404m 404m 404m 404m
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 35
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
The impact of opening the route on Sunday, not surprisingly, generates significant extra capacity (representing the potential to deliver 59kt of aggregate per day in total) as the whole route between Barrow and Whitehaven would then be wholly dedicated to traffic to or from Sellafield. Whether all this capacity could be gainfully employed would be dependent on the terminal capacity at the construction site, on whether sufficient paths could be found on the network beyond Carlisle and Carnforth, and on whether such quantities could be usefully processed at the site. Based on a flat rate per hour it is estimated that the extension of opening hours over the weekend would cost an additional £550k per annum. This is a ‘shot’ estimate which takes no account of any additional recruitment and training.
5.8 Intervention 3: Provide Looping Capacity at Whitehaven The focus of the interventions thus far has been on increasing the number of paths available on the route. North of Sellafield this has focussed on efforts to maximise the use of the single line section between Whitehaven and Sellafield. At Sellafield it has been assumed that the site terminal will have the ability to hold trains until they are able to traverse the single line. This means that trains will be able to enter and exit the terminal as required such that in the event of perturbed working the situation can be managed without compromising the main line operation. However, at the northern end there is currently little capacity in the track layout to accommodate a delayed train without impacting on the operation. As an example, a south-bound freight train awaiting access to the single line would effectively block access to the station for a following passenger service. Thus, this intervention is designed to provide additional operational flexibility at Whitehaven. This is seen as an important consideration given the intensity of traffic proposed for the single line section. Two options have been developed to take account of this and provide improved operational functionality. These options have only marginal capacity impacts but their primary aim is to facilitate a more robust timetable and allow the system to recover better when disruption occurs. The following describe the engineering options available.
5.8.1 Whitehaven Loop Facility The objective of this facility would be to allow freight trains to be held outside Whitehaven station while allowing following passenger trains to access Whitehaven ahead of the freight train.
Existing Condition Whitehaven Station is situated at the north end of the single-bore, single-track Whitehaven tunnel between Parton and St Bees. The general overview of the
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 36
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
station and the line to the north is shown below and a more detailed view of the station with the existing track and platform infrastructure is shown overleaf. Figure 5.1: Overview of Whitehaven Station and associated infrastructure
Railway runs beneath 5m retaining wall supporting footpath at base of cliffs
Possible Location for New Crossover(s)
Adjacent Property Constraint
Abandoned Island Platform
Whitehaven Station
Whitehaven Tunnel Portal
The mainline from the south is a single line which serves Platform 2 and is then joined at the north end of the station platform by the line serving the bay Platform 1 before splitting into two-track railway at Bransty Junction, approximately 200m north of the station.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 37
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Figure 5.2: Aerial Photomontage of Whitehaven Station
Bransty signal box is situated immediately to the north of the station on the Down side and a token cupboard is situated on Platform 2 to allow drivers to collect and relinquish the token for the single-line section without having to go to the signal box.
Constraints Figure 5.3: Current Track Layout at Whitehaven
Down
Up
If an Up train from Parton meets an opposing Down train from St Bees, it must be held outside the station until station duties are completed and the Down train has cleared the single line section. If the Down train is departing from the bay platform, one or other train must also be held until the other has cleared the
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 38
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
single-line section north of the station. Thus there is currently no useful facility for trains to be looped at Whitehaven, unless a train can be shunted to use Platform 1 as a refuge siding. North of the station, the railway follows the coastline and is retained by the seawall over a significant length on the western side. A retaining wall over 5m high runs along the eastern side and supports a public footpath above the railway. The footpath in turn follows the base of sheer cliff faces to the east of the railway. Figure 5.4, looking towards Whitehaven, shows a Down train which has just departed the station. This gives an indication of the height of the retaining wall.
Figure 5.4: Train Passing the Sea Wall to the North of Whitehaven
.
Closer to the station, private dwellings occupy the space between the access road and the cliffs. Any widening of the railway would be likely to require the purchase of these dwellings due to the destruction of their access route. It would also require diversion or closure of the public right of way.
Figure 5.5: Housing and Industry Constrain Widening of the Railway
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 39
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Consequently, widening the railway solum to accommodate a third track for a new loop is considered impractical. As a result it is viewed that options should be considered to allow trains to be looped on the main line.
Options for Development The Up and Down Main Lines to the north of the station traverse a curve until approximately 500m north of Bransty Junction. The lines then run straight for some 500m before the next curve. It is therefore feasible from a civil engineering and permanent way perspective to install new crossover(s) on this straight section. In addition, careful consideration will need to be given to maintenance access of these crossovers. The presence of the retaining walls and sea-wall could extend the time taken for maintenance staff to access the point motors, particularly in adverse weather conditions. Protecting the equipment from the ingress of seawater during stormy conditions will also be an important consideration. Two options have been identified which seek to provide a means of providing a holding facility for trains north of the single line section.
Option 1: Single Crossover
Figure 5.6: Option 1, Single Crossover
Down
Up
New Facing Crossover
Situating one facing crossover from the Up Main to the Down Main would permit the Down main to be resignalled as a bi-directional line between the new crossover and Bransty Junction. This would permit an Up freight train to be held outside Whitehaven while following passenger trains could be run round on the Down Main onto the single line section. However, it would increase the headway time if the passenger train had to be held to allow an opposing Down train to clear the resulting extension of the single line.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 40
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Figure 5.7: Option 2, Double Crossovers
Down
Up
New Facing and Trailing Crossover s
Option 2: Two Crossovers Situating two crossovers back-to-back would permit more flexible use of the layout by enabling either main line to be used temporarily as a loop for holding freight (or passenger) trains. The main lines would continue to be referred to as “Up Main” and “Down Main”.
The photomontage in Figure 5.8 below gives an indication of where the crossovers might be situated on the section of straight track to the north of the station, subject to more detailed design of the track geometry. An indicative cost of these two options would be £4.2m for Option 1 and £8.3m for Option 2. These are ‘shot’ estimates – see Appendix G for a breakdown of these estimates.
Figure 5.8: Provisional Location of the Crossovers
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 41
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
5.9 Intervention 4: Lengthening St Bees Loop This intervention is designed to make the best possible use of the paths which exist through the single line section. In producing the most efficient timetable it is necessary for freight trains to pass each other at St. Bees. The current length limit of the loop at St Bees is 218m without obstructing the level crossing. This compares to the overall length limit on the rest of the route of 404m. Thus, at least one of the trains crossing at St. Bees would have to be approximately 210m long to allow the other to pass safely. Intervention 4 considers the potential to increase the length of the loop at St. Bees such that trains of the route maximum of 404m can pass each other. Figure 5.8: St. Bees Current Loop and Extension Options
Northern Extension
Level Crossing
Current Loop
Southern Extension
In addition, if freight trains are to be held in the extended loop, they will need to be kept clear of the level crossing at St. Bees signal box, situated approximately halfway along the existing loop. The inconvenience to road users if a train occupies the crossing for a significant period is likely to provoke an adverse response from local residents. This further constrains the available clear length and means that any extension will need to be of the order of 400m in addition to the existing loop, irrespective of whether it is taken to the north or to the south of the station.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 42
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
5.9.1 Civil Engineering Given the current location of the level crossing in the middle of the loop it is considered that there are two options for extending the loop: Northern Extension: Extending the loop to the north of the station is a simpler solution from a civil engineering perspective. The railway traverses open farmland and playing fields on a relatively low embankment. Although the geotechnical construction of the embankment has not been investigated at this stage, it is normally possible to widen embankments without undue difficulty provided that the necessary land rights can be procured. Southern Extension: Extending the loop to the south of the station appears to present significant difficulty since it is likely that the existing cutting would have to be widened. The presence of housing on the Up side indicates that it would be necessary to widen the cutting on the Down side, with associated realignment of the existing single track with possible demolition of the abandoned section of Down platform.
5.9.2 Permanent Way Ideally, the new switch and crossings should be situated on straight (tangent) track. Aerial photography suggests that in order to reach straight track at the ends of each potential extension it will be necessary to extend the loop length to meet these straights. This is likely to pay dividends either by permitting the use of a smaller switch geometry for the existing speed, or use of larger switches at increased line speed to permit faster entry / exit times for trains taking the turnout route.
5.9.3 Signalling Consideration will need to be given to the signalling arrangements at St. Bees signal box. It is assumed that the existing block working arrangements would remain unaltered, with only the station limits of St. Bees extended and new arrangements applied within the extended limits. Consequently, minimal fringe alterations are envisaged. However, this should be confirmed during further developmental work and include consideration of signal spacing and braking distances. If trains are to be held in the loops for any length of time, consideration should be given to use of axle counters, tail lamp cameras or other means to prove the train has arrived complete without having to wait for the signaller to observe the tail lamp when the train finally moves off.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 43
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Figure 5.9: View Looking North from St. Bees Level Crossing
Figure 5.10: View Looking North from St. Bees Station
Extension to the north would require the introduction of a new signal in each direction. In the Up direction signals would need to be repositioned northwards to
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 44
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
suit the new position of the S&C and a new signal would need to be introduced to allow a train to be brought to a stand in the loop north of the level crossing. In the Down direction, the existing Section signal would also need to be repositioned to give sufficient clearance in rear to the level crossing, although the Down signals could be unaffected. Figure 5.11: Southern End of Existing Loop
Extension to the south would entail repositioning of the signals at the south end of the loop, together with alterations to the ground signals controlling the shunt neck. Early consideration needs to be given to provision of adequate overlaps from the clearing points and the level crossing. As with the scheme overall, a Signalling Overrun Risk Assessment (SORA) would need to be undertaken to account for both the new layout and the proposed increase in scheduled train workings.
5.9.4 Electrical and Power Systems The absence of point rodding indicates that all point ends controlled by St. Bees signal box are motorised. If the S&C is repositioned further from the existing Principal Supply Point (PSP), it will be necessary to consider the effects of increased cable lengths on the signalling feeder. In addition, the type, operating voltage and condition of the existing point motors has not been considered at this stage and it may be necessary to replace them with modern machines in order to comply with current Network Rail standards. If the new motor requires more power, an upgrade of the feeder and / or PSP may become necessary. Other alterations would also be necessary to support the repositioning of signals and any new train-detection system(s).
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 45
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
An indicative cost for the provision of the loop options are: • Northern Loop: £4.6m • Southern Loop: £5.7m A breakdown of these estimates is included in Appendix G.
5.10 Interventions Considered but not Developed The interventions that have been considered are based on the findings of the ‘stressed’ timetable to improve capacity and dealing with the capability short comings. These are considered to be practical options for development of the route given the latent capacity which already exists. The number of trains required to serve the site are currently unknown however it is considered that the addition of up to twenty-eight trains per day to the site will satisfy the likely requirements of the construction and generated passenger traffic. Nevertheless, there is no limit to the potential interventions which could be applied to the route to increase the line capacity. The following table includes a number of the measures which were identified but later dropped from further development.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 46
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Table 5.7: Identified Interventions not Pursued
Possible Intervention Comment
Doubling the line between The main obstacle to achieving this is the tunnel between Whitehaven and Sellafield Whitehaven and Corkickle. This is a single bore tunnel and would require enlarging or the creation of a separate bore for the second line. Removal of the tunnel is not considered a sensible option given the presence of buildings on top. The likely capital cost of the works and the potential disruption to services would be extensive. It is not considered that the prospective relatively short term traffic volumes would justify these actions.
Doubling the line between Corkickle Accepting the difficulty with Whitehaven tunnel and Sellafield consideration could then be given to doubling the remainder of the line. The line in this area would not appear to have ever been double and thus there would be extensive earthworks required to complete the doubling of ten miles of track. It is considered that the capital cost of such works would not be justified.
Installing intermediate block signals There is no doubt that these lengthy sections restrict the on long signal sections between capacity of the line between Carlisle and Whitehaven and Wigton and Maryport and between the introduction of intermediate block signals would Workington and Whitehaven improve the route capacity quite considerably. However, given the limitations of the single line section it is considered that the effect would be to increase the bottleneck effect at Whitehaven ahead of the single line.
Increase route speeds It is accepted that there is potentially some gain to be achieved by removing any of the permanent speed restrictions which apply on the route as a result of weak structures (check with Network Rail) however in order to make a significant improvement to the line it would require significant works over considerable lengths of the route. For the limited benefit it is considered that this would not be justified in isolation from other projects.
Increasing turnout speeds The level of analysis of this study means that it is not possible to confirm the benefit of undertaking upgrades to relevant the turnout speeds. This would require a more detailed modelling of the timetable.
Improved route availability Information is awaited from Network Rail on causes of restrictions. It is likely that this will be a result of a number of bridges which would either require strengthening or replacement. This needs to be resolved.
Improve structure clearance Information is awaited from Network Rail but likely that a significant number of structures would require modification or rebuilding.
Improved headways between Grange The latent number of available paths means that the over Sands and Ulverston investment in an intermediate block signal on this stretch looks uneconomic.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 47
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
6 Study Outcome
6.1 Introduction This Section of the report provides a statement of the conclusions reached following the analysis which was undertaken. This is followed by a short statement providing recommendations on how the outcomes of the study should be taken forward.
6.2 Conclusions This is a high level study aimed at understanding the current capacity and capability of the Cumbrian Coastal Line and then identifying a series of measures which could increase these such that they could satisfy the needs of the additional traffic generated as a result of the Nuclear New Build programme. The analysis has been undertaken against a background of only limited information regarding the source, volume or any restrictions placed on the traffic. Nonetheless the study has demonstrated that there would appear to be a significant level of latent traffic capacity on the line (Carlisle to Carnforth). This is premised on the assumption that any new site will be located at or near Sellafield and thus traffic has been focussed on this area alone. In addition, a sample of actual trains run has shown low levels usage and this may be a lucrative source of additional paths. Going beyond the existing capacity of the network there are opportunities to increase the network’s ability to deliver paths to Sellafield. These are focussed on what are considered to be proportionate measures in keeping with the duration and possible volume of traffic and one which deliver a material betterment. The design of the receiving terminal is outside the scope of this study; however it has been assumed that it will be capable of handling traffic to and from both directions without the need for lengthy operations on the main line. Whilst the study has shown that the route itself is capable of handing an increased volume of traffic it is necessary to consider how these trains interact with the rest of the rail network. As stated above the origins and destinations of the traffic have yet to be defined however an attempt has been made to provide an overview of the likely interface opportunities based of the RUS statements and in particular the available capacity on adjacent routes. It must however be recognised that the development and planning timescales for the any new construction may mean that the other traffic on the West Coast Main Line (in particular) may be very different to what it is today. As such any statements about future paths on the main trunk routes with their variety of operators, both passenger, and freight can only be considered to be indicative at this stage.
6.3 Looking Forward The study has provided an indication of the paths that may be available on the line to some extent as an isolated exercise. It is considered that once the potential traffic is better defined then wider network issues should be considered in more
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 48
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
detail. This will also allow a better assessment of volumes based on the types of traffic required. Much of the focus in this study has been on identifying freight paths to support the Nuclear New Build project, but further work will be required to establish what the public transport requirement for the scheme is likely to be and the most efficient ways of meeting this requirement. This work will need to consider more modes than rail alone, and will be need to be completed to allow more detailed work programmes to be progressed. The greater level of specificity in the traffic requirements will also allow resource levels to be identified. In short, the findings of this study could be fine-tuned to relate to a given construction scenario. The greater detail will also allow more time to be spent on ensuring that the interventions are relevant to the project requirements and if so their development can be progressed to give more certainty over cost and timescales.
| Final | 18 October 2010 P a g e | 49
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Appendix A Train Planning Graph Note
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
A1 Train Planning Graph
A train planning graph is a visual representation of the pathing of trains on a particular line of route. The axis of the graph are time and distance. The path of a train is plotted as a series of lines between timed points as shown in the example below.
Time 12:00 12:01 12:02 12:03 12:04 12:05 12:06 12:07 12:08 12:09 12:10 12:11 12:12 12:13 12:14 12:15 12:16 12:17 12:18 12:19 12:20
Station A
Route Station B
Station C
Train leaving C at 12:06, Train leaving A at 12:01, calling at B between 12:10 calling at B between 12:05 and 12:13 and then and 12:08 and then arriving at A at 12:18. arriving at C at 12:12.
By plotting the train times it becomes immediately obvious where trains pass each other. Thus for single line sections it is necessary to time trains such that they avoid conflict on the single line – that is their respective pathing graphs do not cross between the ends of the single line. A further development of the basic graph is to make a representation of the headway associated with the trains. This allows for easy identification of when following services can be times to follow. The following illustration shows the effective ‘shadow’ behind the train path when the line is not available to handle a following service.
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page A1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Appendix B Technical Note on Scope Activities
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
B1 Purpose
The purpose of this note is to set out the approach which Arup intend to adopt in the delivery of the commission to assess the capacity of the Cumbrian Coast rail route. This note has been produced following the presentation to the NNBTG on 6 August 2010 at which current progress and the remainder of the study were discussed. B2 Current Progress
As described at the presentation, the core of the work which Arup has undertaken to date has been based on the Working Timetable and operating rules. This has allowed the study team to make an assessment of the ‘booked’ paths on the route and from that to determine the level of utilisation leading to a view on the number of additional paths it will be possible to add to the current service pattern. B3 Proposed Analysis
The following describes the analysis it is proposed to undertake over the coming weeks. We see the output from this study to be built up, on an incremental basis, to show that for a given level of intervention the corresponding number of paths created. Once further detailed work has been undertaken on the NNB programme (and the required rail contribution to its delivery determined) then the study outputs will be capable of being used to assess the required investment, or operational changes, required to meet the programme demands. The structure of the outputs is illustrated in the tabulation overleaf. Essentially we have identified from the available documentation the ‘Current Booked’ position. Based on a sample of actual trains run we will determine the ‘Current Actual’ pathing levels. The ‘Current Capacity’ will be determined by interjecting additional paths into the daily service patterns and assuming current rules and opening hours apply. This will allow us to ‘stress’ the system to its limits to determine the maximum level of traffic possible under current conditions. In an associated commentary we will highlight the risks of running the system at such a high level of utilisation. Beyond the current configuration we will then apply a series of intervention measures and determine the impact these will have on the route’s capacity and capability. (Whilst the table shows only two interventions this is only illustrative and we anticipate that far more will be tested in practice.) In each case the incremental impact of the action will be recorded along with an associated commentary. Where appropriate we will include an estimate of the cost of the intervention in terms of capital cost or additional operating costs. These will be at a high level and based on current rates.
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page B1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
n
ven e a sl ow orkingto r iteh arli ar h W C B W to to Scenario to n to ven rth to Sellafield a gto fo w field n a rkin
RouteSection l ar l o C Barro Se Whiteh W Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight Passenger Freight
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Current Sat Actual Sun Clearance Route Availability Length Pass. Capacity Frt. Tonnage
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Current Sat Booked Sun Clearance Route Availability Length Pass. Capacity Frt. Tonnage
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Current Sat Capacity Sun Clearance Route Availability Length Pass. Capacity Frt. Tonnage
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Intervention Sat 1 Sun Clearance Route Availability Length Pass. Capacity Frt. Tonnage
Mon Tues Wed Paths Thurs Fri Intervention Sat 2 Sun Clearance Route Availability Length Pass. Capacity Frt. Tonnage
The aim of the output will be to provide the client with a clear understanding of the capability of the current arrangement to handle traffic and the impact certain measures will have in enhancing the route such that it will match the requirements of the NNB project.
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page B2
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Appendix C Currently Timetabled Services
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
C1 Train Planning Graphs for the Current Timetable
.
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page C1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Appendix D “Stressed” Train Plan
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
D1 Train Planning Graphs for “Stressed” Train Plan
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page D1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Appendix E “Practical” Train Plan
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
E1 Train Planning Graphs for “Practical” Train Plan
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page E1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Appendix F “Extended” Train Plan
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
F1 Train Planning Graphs for “Extended” Train Plan
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page F1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Appendix G Cost Estimates
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
G1 Whitehaven Station (Option 1)
Scheme: Whitehaven Loops Option: 1
Element Number Unit Rate Cost Notes
Formation Excavation of Ballast 500 m2 £10 5,000 100m by 5m Disposal of Spend Material 100 m2 £45 4,500 assume 20% waste 0.3m deep over 100m Bottom Ballast 150 m3 £65 9,750 by 5m
Top Ballast 75 m3 £80 6,000 half bottom ballast Work to Track Drainage 100 m £90 9,000 over length of works
Permanent Way Removal of Exisitng Track 200 m £30 6,000 100m on both tracks Provision of Crossover 1 nr £750,000 750,000 50m of new plain line CWR 100 m £90 9,000 on each track
Restressing lines 1 n/a £25,000 25,000 assumed 200m on each side on each line Tamping Layout 1000 m £20 20,000 plus crossover
Lineside Works
Signage 1 £2,000 2,000 Safe cess pathways & 100m on each side of lights 200 m £100 20,000 formation
Signalling allowance for provision allowance 2,000,000 enhanced signalling
Overheads Design 10%
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
286,625 Project Management 25% 716,563
Total £3,869,438
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G2
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
G2 Whitehaven Station (Option 2)
Scheme: Whitehaven Loops Option: 2
Element Number Unit Rate Cost Notes
Formation Excavation of Ballast 1250 m2 £10 12,500 250m by 5m Disposal of Spend Material 250 m2 £45 11,250 assume 20% waste 0.3m deep over Bottom Ballast 375 m3 £65 24,375 250m by 5m
Top Ballast 187 m3 £80 14,960 half bottom ballast Work to Track Drainage 250 m £90 22,500 over length of works
Permanent Way Removal of Exisitng Track 500 m £30 15,000 250m on both tracks Provision of Crossover 2 nr £750,000 1,500,000 150m of new plain CWR 300 m £90 27,000 line on each track
Restressing lines 1 n/a £25,000 25,000 assumed 200m on each side on each Tamping Layout 1300 m £20 26,000 line plus crossover
Lineside Works
Signage 2 £2,000 4,000 Safe cess 250m on each side pathways & lights 500 m £100 50,000 of formation
Signalling allowance for provision allowance 4,000,000 enhanced signalling
Overheads
Design 10% 573,259 Project 25%
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G3
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Management 1,433,146
To tal £7,738,990
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G4
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
G3 St Bees Loop Extension (Northern)
Scheme: St. Bees Loop Option: 1 (Northern Extension)
Element Number Unit Rate Cost Notes
Formation assumed agricultural Land Acquisition allowance 300,000 land General Site Clearance 2000 m2 £10 20,000 assume 400m by 5m assume ave 2m high Import Soil for by 2m wide by 400m Embankment 1600 m3 £40 64,000 long Grading Embankments 1200 m2 £10 12,000 assume 400m by 3m Excavation of 100m at both old and Ballast 200 m £10 2,000 new S&C sites Disposal of Spend Material 40 m2 £45 1,800 assume 20% waste 0.3m deep over 400m Bottom Ballast 360 m3 £65 23,400 by 3m
Top Ballast 180 m3 £80 14,400 half bottom ballast Work to Track Drainage 400 m £90 36,000 over length of works
Permanent Way Removal of Exisitng Track 200 m £30 6,000 100m at both sites Relocation of turnout 1 nr £250,000 250,000 400m loop plus 50m CWR 450 m £90 40,500 for old S&C
Restressing lines 1 n/a £25,000 25,000 assumed 400m loop and 200m on each Tamping Layout 1600 m £20 32,000 side of turnouts
Lineside Works
Signage 2 £2,000 4,000
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G5
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
Safe cess pathways & 400m on one side and lights 500 m £100 50,000 100m on the other
Signalling allowance for provision allowance 2,000,000 enhanced signalling
Overheads
Design 10% 288,110 Project Management 25% 720,275
Total £3,889,485
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G6
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
G4 St Bees Loop Extension (Southern)
Scheme: St. Bees Loop Option: 2 (Southern Extension)
Formation assumed some residiential Land acquisition allowance 1,000,000 resettlement required General Site Clearance 2000 m2 £10 20,000 assume 400m by 5m assume ave 4m high Removal of Soil by 2m wide by 400m and Rock 3200 m3 £85 272,000 long Securing Cutting slopes 1600 m2 £20 32,000 assume 400m by 4m Excavation of 100m at both old and Ballast 200 m £10 2,000 new S&C sites Disposal of Spend Material 40 m2 £45 1,800 assume 20% waste 0.3m deep over 400m Bottom Ballast 360 m3 £65 23,400 by 3m
Top Ballast 180 m3 £80 14,400 half bottom ballast Work to Track Drainage 400 m £90 36,000 over length of works
Permanent Way Removal of Exisitng Track 200 m £30 6,000 100m at both sites Relocation of turnout 1 nr £200,000 200,000 400m loop plus 50m CWR 450 m £90 40,500 for old S&C
Restressing lines 1 n/a £25,000 25,000 assumed 400m loop and 200m on each Tamping Layout 1600 m £20 32,000 side of turnouts
Lineside Works
Signage 2 £2,000 4,000 Safe cess 400m on one side and pathways & 500 m £100 50,000 100m on the other
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G7
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
lights
Signalling allowance for provision allowance 2,000,000 enhanced signalling
Overheads
Design 10% 375,910 Project Management 25% 939,775
Total £5,074,785
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G8
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
G5 Signal Box Extended Hours – Midweek (Option 1)
Current Current Proposed Proposed Average Additional Signal Box Variation Notes Start Finish Start Finish Hourly Rate Daily Cost Grange-over-Sands 06:00:00 20:24:00 04:15:00 23:15:00 04:36:00 £60 £276 Dalton Junction 06:00:00 20:24:00 04:45:00 23:30:00 04:21:00 £60 £261 Askam 05:20:00 23:20:00 04:55:00 23:20:00 00:25:00 £60 £25 Foxfield 05:20:00 23:20:00 05:05:00 23:20:00 00:15:00 £60 £15 Millom 05:20:00 23:20:00 05:10:00 23:20:00 00:10:00 £60 £10 Silecroft 06:00:00 20:24:00 05:15:00 21:45:00 02:06:00 £60 £126 Bootle 06:00:00 20:48:00 05:25:00 22:45:00 02:32:00 £60 £152 Drigg 06:00:00 20:48:00 05:35:00 22:45:00 02:22:00 £60 £142 Sellafield 06:00:00 20:48:00 04:50:00 22:45:00 03:07:00 £60 £187 St. Bees 06:00:00 20:48:00 05:00:00 22:45:00 02:57:00 £60 £177 Whitehaven 05:30:00 23:30:00 05:10:00 23:30:00 00:20:00 £60 £20 Workington No. 2 05:30:00 23:30:00 05:00:00 23:30:00 00:30:00 £60 £30 Workington No. 3 07:00:00 23:00:00 07:00:00 23:00:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Maryport 05:30:00 23:30:00 04:50:00 23:30:00 00:40:00 £60 £40 Wigton 05:30:00 23:30:00 04:25:00 23:30:00 01:05:00 £60 £65 Total £1,526 Annual Cost £396,760
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G1
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
G6 Signal Box Extended Hours – Saturday (Option 2)
Average Current Current Proposed Proposed Additional Signal Box Variation Hourly Notes Start Finish Start Finish Daily Cost Rate Grange-over-Sands 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:24:00 14:24:00 £60 £864 Dalton Junction 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:24:00 14:24:00 £60 £864 Askam 05:20:00 23:20:00 05:20:00 23:20:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Foxfield 05:20:00 23:20:00 05:20:00 23:20:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Millom 05:20:00 23:20:00 05:20:00 23:20:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Silecroft 06:00:00 20:24:00 06:00:00 20:24:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Bootle 06:00:00 20:48:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Drigg 06:00:00 20:48:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Sellafield 06:00:00 20:48:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 St. Bees 06:00:00 20:48:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Whitehaven 05:30:00 23:30:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Workington No. 2 05:30:00 15:00:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 08:30:00 £60 £510 Workington No. 3 07:00:00 15:00:00 07:00:00 23:00:00 08:00:00 £60 £480 Maryport 05:30:00 23:30:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 00:00:00 £60 £0 Wigton 05:30:00 23:30:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 00:00:00 £60 £0
Total £2,718 Annual Cost £141,336
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G2
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX
Cumbria County Council Cumbrian Coast Railway Capacity Study
G7 Signal Box Extended Hours – Sunday (Option 3)
Averag Current Current Proposed Proposed e Additional Signal Box Variation Notes Start Finish Start Finish Hourly Daily Cost Rate
Grange-over-Sands 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:24:00 14:24:00 £60 £864 Dalton Junction 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:24:00 14:24:00 £60 £864 Askam 00:00:00 00:00:00 05:20:00 23:20:00 18:00:00 £60 £1,080 Foxfield 00:00:00 00:00:00 05:20:00 23:20:00 18:00:00 £60 £1,080 Millom 00:00:00 00:00:00 05:20:00 23:20:00 18:00:00 £60 £1,080 Silecroft 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:24:00 14:24:00 £60 £864 Bootle 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 14:48:00 £60 £888 Drigg 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 14:48:00 £60 £888 Sellafield 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 14:48:00 £60 £888 St. Bees 00:00:00 00:00:00 06:00:00 20:48:00 14:48:00 £60 £888 Whitehaven 12:10:00 23:15:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 06:55:00 £60 £415 Workington No. 2 12:00:00 23:40:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 06:20:00 £60 £380 Workington No. 3 00:00:00 00:00:00 07:00:00 23:00:00 16:00:00 £60 £960 Maryport 12:35:00 23:00:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 07:35:00 £60 £455 Wigton 12:35:00 23:00:00 05:30:00 23:30:00 07:35:00 £60 £455
Total £12,049 Annual Cost £626,548
| Final | 18 October 2010 Page G3
J:\210000\214161-00 (CUMBRIAN COAST CAPACITY STUDY)\04 DELIVERABLES\4-05 REPORTS\4-05-06 TRANS\CUMBRIAN REPORT FINAL.DOCX