Appendices July 2016 – Route Study 89

Appendix 1 - Long Term Planning Process 90 Appendix 2 - Scotland Market Study 95 Appendix 3 - Freight Market Study Conditional Outputs 153 Appendix 4 - Long Distance Market Study Conditional 155 Outputs Appendix 5 - Cross-Boundary Analysis 158 Appendix 6 - 2043 Option Identification and Development 159 Appendix 7 - Appraisals - CP6/CP7 Choices for Funders 199 Appendix 8 - Glossary 206 Appendix 01 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 90

The Long Term Planning Process Background to the development of the Long Term Planning • the conclusions from the ‘Rail Value for Money’ report by Sir Roy Process McNulty in May 2011. In June 2005 the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR)1 modified Network The need was clear for the industry to consider network-wide long Rail’s network licence to require the establishment and term infrastructure development, rather than ‘as now plus isolated maintenance of Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs), for the use and enhancements’, to the rail network. Network Rail and the industry development of the network consistent with the funding that is, or is worked together to develop a revised methodology to the RUS likely to become, available. process to take the changes set out above into account, to continue to develop the long term strategic direction of the rail network. This modification to the Network Rail network licence followed the rail review in 2004 and the Railways Act 2005. This successor programme, the ‘Long Term Planning Process’ (LTPP) was endorsed by the ORR in April 2012. The RUS programme, led by Network Rail on behalf of the industry, started in late 2004 and culminated with the publication of the The LTPP will consider such changes and is designed to enable the establishment of the RUS in August 2011. As industry to take account, and advantage, of long term strategic the network licence requires the maintenance of RUSs, the investment being made in Great Britain’s rail network. The planning completion of the initial programme of geographic RUSs gave the horizon for the LTPP is over a 30-year context. This clearly involves opportunity to review how best to discharge this requirement in the uncertainties, however, the approach is intended to adapt to future. potential structural changes in the economy, and the approach to social and environmental responsibility, so that the rail industry can The review took into account: respond to change over the long-term life of the assets used to • changes in administrations in England, Wales, and Scotland, operate the rail network. together with very significant changes in planning policy Due to the uncertainties of a 30-year horizon, the LTPP will be • long term strategic investments in the rail network, examples iterative; future planning cycles will enable an updated view to take include the development of a high speed line between into account the changing context and requirements of the industry and and beyond to Leeds and Manchester (HS2) and economy. An objective of the LTPP is to understand the longer-term context whilst creating a prioritised view of • decisions to install electrification on significant route mileage of requirements for the next Control Periods (2019- 2029), in order to the rail network present a clear strategy for funding as part of the industry process. • changes to signalling technology through deployment of the This commences with the submission of the Industry Advice later in European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and 2016. Future iterations of the LTPP will evolve, identifying progression of the Network Rail Operating Strategy requirements for future Control Periods as part of this on-going process. • a need to inform maintenance and renewal strategies for the rail network • changes to funders’ objectives in the light of the significantly tighter fiscal environment, including a clear policy shift towards revenue generation and making best use of the existing railway

1 The Office of Rail Regulation changed its’ name from 1st April 2015 to the Office of Rail and Road Appendix 01 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 91

LTPP Governance Arrangements Market Studies The Long Term Planning Process is designed to be as inclusive as In October 2013, Network Rail published four Market Studies: Long possible with contributions encouraged both from the rail industry Distance passenger, London & South East passenger, Regional and wider stakeholders. Overall governance responsibility for the Urban passenger and Freight. All four have been established by the process lies with the Rail Industry Planning Group (RIPG) whose ORR and are available on the Network Rail website. membership comprises: The three passenger Market Studies have clear connections to the • Transport Scotland three ‘sectors’ in which passenger train services are often divided. It is important to emphasise that each Market Study considers a Freight Operators • particular market, rather than a particular set of train services. Network Rail • The passenger Market Studies have three key outputs: • Office of Rail and Road • identification of the long term strategic goals which define the • Transport Focus successful provision of rail services to each of the three market sectors. These are based on the aspirations of current and likely Passenger Transport Executive Group • future industry funders • Rail Delivery Group • Demand forecasts for the sector, over a 10 and 30-year planning • Rail Freight Group horizon. Scenarios are used to reflect key uncertainties, where appropriate • Railway Industry Association “conditional outputs” for the sector. The conditional outputs are Rail Freight Operators Association • • aspirational levels of service (in terms of, for example, frequency • Rolling Stock Leasing Companies journey time and/or passenger capacity on key flows in the sector). The conditional outputs reflect stakeholder views of how • rail can support delivery of their strategic goals, and • London Travel Watch opportunities created by planned investments, as well as reflecting current service levels and forecast future demand. The Transport for London • aim of the Market Studies is to provide demand forecasts, and • Welsh Government. conditional outputs, that are consistent across the Route Studies. RIPG meets once every two months and provides strategic direction For freight the conditional outputs are intended to meet the and endorsement of the constituent publications of the LTPP forecast level of freight set out in the Freight Market Study in process. 2023/24 and 2043. The Freight Market Study produced demand forecasts over a 10 and 30 year planning horizon, with preferred The LTPP consists of a number of different elements, which, when routeing of services and the implied requirements in terms of taken together, seek to define the future capability of the rail network capacity and capability. Scenarios were used to reflect key network. These elements: - Market Studies, Route Studies, Cross- uncertainties in particular markets. Boundary Analysis and the Network RUS are considered in more detail. Conditional outputs should be viewed as aspirations for the future rather than recommended investment decisions. Appendix 01 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 92

It is also important to state that the conditional outputs shown are Route Study Governance Arrangements dependent on affordability, fundability, and a value for money A three tier structure for rail industry and wider stakeholder business case for current and potential future rail industry funders dialogue has been established to oversee and help produce this being made for any interventions that this, and subsequent Route Scotland Route Study. Studies, in the LTPP may consider as a way to deliver them. Equally the conditional outputs will need to be technologically, First, a Route Study Board, chaired by Network Rail with senior level operationally and physically deliverable. representation from passenger and freight train operating companies, Rail Delivery Group, Transport Scotland and the Office Route Studies of Rail and Road provides a high level review and a forum to resolve There is generally one Route Study for each of Network Rail’s any significant issues which the Working Group wish to remit to the devolved routes. The full Route Study programme setting out board for decision. current timescales for each of the forthcoming Route Studies can be Second, a Working Group, chaired by Network Rail had a mandate found on the Network Rail website . to discuss the study on behalf of the rail industry with other The Scotland Route Study has undertaken a Market Study for stakeholders and a review of the ongoing work to develop them. passenger demand wholly within Scotland and incorporates The Working Group is where stakeholders met to determine how the relevant outputs from the Long Distance Market Study and Freight conditional outputs from the Market Studies could be Market Study. accommodated, including identification of service specifications and options with the aim of developing choices to funders for A Route Study develops and assesses choices for the long term use Control Period 6/7 and for 2043 through publication of the Route and development of the network. Its starting point is to determine Study. whether the conditional outputs from the relevant Market Studies can be accommodated on the existing network, with committed The Working Group comprises representatives from the current enhancements. It then develops train service options, Train Operating Companies (both passenger and freight) who corresponding to different uses of the network, (and hence to operate on the route, Rail Delivery Group, Transport Scotland, different trade-offs between stakeholders strategic goals. Only then Network Rail, and the Office of Rail and Road as an observer. will consideration be given to choices involving infrastructure Thirdly, a Regional Working Group convened and chaired by investment. These choices were assessed against funders’ decision Network Rail, provided location specific oversight as well as an making criteria. This includes quantitative assessment as in the opportunity to collaborate in the production of the Route Study previous RUS process. with wider stakeholders. The Regional Working Group membership It will also, where appropriate, include a wider assessment against comprised Regional Transport Partnerships and some Local factors such as strategic fit, wider economic impacts and Authorities. affordability. ‘Choices for Funders’ identified within this and other Network Rail managed the development of the work through an route studies, are intended to inform the development of proposals internal ‘Technical Working Group’ to deliver the information to consider within rail industry funding discussions for Control necessary to support the deliberations of the Working Group. Where Period 6/7. Equally, other potential rail industry funders, for instance industry input has been required, this has been augmented by Local Authorities, may wish to consider the information this Route attendance or discussions with rail industry stakeholders. Study contains, when taking forward their own plans and proposals which may impact upon the rail network. Appendix 01 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 93

Cross-Boundary Analysis • strategic rail freight interchanges and terminals Services that run across more than one Route Study area are • axle load considered in a separate “cross-boundary” workstream. This freight train journey time and maximum speed. workstream led by a cross-boundary working group has developed • and assessed options for cross-boundary services (passenger and When considering capacity the Network RUS: Freight will primarily freight) to deliver the connectivity conditional outputs articulated focus on capacity for cross-boundary freight flows. Where different in the Market Studies. The output from the cross-boundary analysis commodities on a corridor have specific requirements this will be is a cross-boundary indicative train service specification which identified. It will bring together Route Study strategies on major provides a set of common assumptions that Route Studies should cross-boundary freight programmes, for example: adopt regarding cross-boundary services. • Anglo Scottish traffic Network RUSs • Felixstowe to Nuneaton In addition Network Rail facilitates the production of Network RUSs. These strategies look at network-wide issues and look to future • Southampton to the West Coast Main Line capacity and technology related issues for the railway. Current • Northern Ports and Trans Pennine Freight Study studies being undertaken under the auspices of the Network RUS include:- • South West and Wales to the Midlands. Scotland’s Route Study Governance Arrangements Route specific capacity issues are being considered by the individual Network RUS: Electrification: An Electrification Route Utilisation Strategy was established in 2009 and had a number of the Route Studies. electrification schemes proposed within that have been funded for Network RUS: Interoperability: the Department for Transport Route Study Board delivery. In the future, Network Rail aims to issue a new (DfT) has requested Network Rail to lead a cross-industry review of Electrifictation Study to consider future options for electrfication in Interoperability on the UK rail network. The outcome of this review the longer term following the completion of publiciy committed is expected to be the publication of the Network RUS: schemes. The study will look at the case for further opportunities to Interoperability in 2016. The aim is to establish this RUS in sufficient Route Study Working Group develop the electrified network in Control Period 6/7 and beyond. time to inform the Initial Industry Advice in late 2016. The content Network RUS: Freight: The Freight RUS was established in 2007 of the RUS will complement the Scotland and other Route Studies. and a number of its recommendations to develop the Strategic The Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 and associated Freight Network have been implemented. The Network RUS: Freight Route Study Technical Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI) apply to the entire Regional Working Group is looking at the future capability requirements of the network to Working Group UK rail network with the exception of the exclusions defined on the accommodate freight growth and will consider: DfT web-site1. • longer and heavier trains Network Rail, along with other Infrastructure Managers in the UK, is • efficient operating characteristics and freight network legally obliged to comply with the Interoperability Regulations Cross-Boundary Working Group when the nature of the works being undertaken so requires. • performance • 7-day and 24-hour capability – including diversionary routes and Wider Stakeholders resilience • 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exclusions-from-the- Figure 1.1 - shows the governance arrangements. railways-interoperability-regulations-2011 Appendix 01 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 94

European and UK legislation defining objectives for Interoperability Further information on the Long Term Planning Process, can be and the Trans European Transport Network (TEN-T) will be taken found on Network Rail’s website. into account in the development of this Route Study. Network Rail and the wider rail industry have sound practical experience in applying the respective regulations and associated TSIs. The experience has been used to good effect to: • demonstrate legal compliance with the requirements and provide feedback to government and the European Railway Agency on practical issues of application • leveraging the benefits associated with the Interoperability principles • developing plans to assess the full potential of an interoperable network, including connectivity with continental Europe. There are a number of established Network RUSs that are considered as part of the development of this Route Study, these include: Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock: This strategy explores the potential for greater efficiency in the purchase of new rolling stock to replace the existing fleet and accommodate growth in demand. The RUS identified the potential for significant economies of scale through procuring a smaller, standardised range of stock types targeted at specific market sectors. Network RUS: Stations: This strategy provides guidance about potential interventions to relieve congestion at stations. Network RUS: Alternative Solutions: This strategy describes the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to consider the operation of alternative forms of public transport than conventional diesel or electric heavy rail. This includes the use of tram trains, the conversion of sections of the network for use by trams, the use of battery powered vehicles, hybrid light vehicles, personal rapid transit (such as the pods which serve business car parks from Terminal 5 at Heathrow), bus rapid transit and guided bus. It also considers the circumstances in which discontinuous electrification and ‘coasting’ could reduce the cost of electrification schemes, and when the designation of a route or service to ‘community rail status’ could increase patronage on the railway in a cost effective manner. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 95

Scotland Market Study Background to Scotland Market Study and Definition of Markets programme. As a result of this, a Scotland Market Study has been produced to provide the demand forecasting evidence to support Modelling Documentation - Background The Long Term Planning Process (LTPP), described in Appendix 1, is the Scotland Route Study. The passenger markets considered are: the rail industry’s planning cycle, of which the Scotland Route Study is an important element. The Route Study programme is the • Morning Peak Commuter successor to the programme of Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs) Interurban that informed the enhancement programme up to and including • Control Period 5 (CP5). • Rural. In regulatory terms, the Route Studies contribute to satisfying This document describes the methodology employed to produce Network Rail’s obligation under the Network Management and demand forecasts for these markets, including: Planning terms of its Network Licence to: • assumptions made ”plan the means by which it will […] over the short, medium and sources of data long term […] meet reasonably foreseeable future demand for • railway services”. • processes used to validate the forecasts. The key difference between the LTPP and the RUS programmes is that the LTPP covers a far longer (30 year) timeframe than the Scotland Market Study Demand Forecasting Outputs RUSs. The purpose of the Route Study programme is to provide options to The reason for this extended forecasting window is that an funders in order to inform and influence the content of both the incremental approach to infrastructure planning is unlikely to Industry Advice and the High Level Output Specifications (HLOSs) deliver the network that long term passenger growth may require in issued by the Department for Transport and Transport Scotland. an efficient way given the strong growth that has been experienced since the mid-1990s. The LTPP takes the view that taking a longer, The remit for the Scotland Market Study is to develop demand 30-year window - which is consistent with infrastructure asset lives forecasts for the final year of CP6 (2023/24) and for twenty years - is the appropriate way to plan investment in railway infrastructure. beyond this (2043). The remit agreed by the Working Group was as follows: The initial outputs of the LTPP so far have been four Market Studies covering the key market served by the GB rail network, together with • Establish an estimate of actual rail demand for 2014 the Route Studies. The Market Studies published to date are as Develop baseline forecasts for 2012 and 2018, reflecting current follows: • rail investment plans for CP5 committed obligations for the new • Regional Urban Market Study ScotRail franchise and Transport Scotland’s road investment plans • Long Distance Market Study Produce scenario-based forecasts for 2023/24 and 2043 drawing London and South East Market Study • • on the framework and evidence developed for the Regional • Freight Market Study Urban Market Study. The Scotland Route Study draws upon evidence from the Long The forecasts were developed to (a) set capacity-related Distance and Freight Market Studies. Conditional Outputs where network capability is unlikely to meet the requirements of the market and (b) inform the appraisal of Domestic demand in Scotland was not covered by the Market Study schemes developed to meet these Conditional Outputs. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 96

• - via and Perth Morning Peak Commuter Markets • -Inverness via Perth The market where train capacity is likely to be most constrained is • Edinburgh-Aberdeen via Dundee the Morning Peak Commuter market. This section sets out the approach to forecasting demand in the Morning Peak Commuter • Aberdeen-Inverness market. The scope of the Morning Peak Commuter market demand study For the purposes of the Route Study, the Morning Peak Commuter means that there is a potential overlap with the Interurban market. markets are defined as existing in and around cities where there are It is important to note, however, that the purpose of the Morning significant commuting flows. The Working Group agreed that for Peak Commuter market demand forecast is to identify routes where the purposes of the Scotland Market Study the Morning Peak capacity is constrained in the morning peak because of commuting Commuter market should be defined as consisting of: demand. With the Interurban market, demand is less peaked and the factors • Glasgow that are likely to influence investment are broader in scope than • Edinburgh they are in the Morning Peak Commuter market. So, while on-train capacity is an issue in the Interuban market, other factors such as • Aberdeen. journey times and opportunities to travel may be equally important. Using Figure 2.1 as an example, commuter demand tends to be Some corridors serve both the Interurban and Morning Peak more concentrated in the morning peak than in the evening peak, Commuter markets. Where this is the case, both demand forecasts the morning peak is therefore where any capacity constraint is likely will be applied based on the balance of 2014 revenue. to initially apply. It is for this reason that demand in the morning

20000 peak has been modelled.

18000 One output of the Morning Peak Commuter market element of the Rural markets Scotland Route Study is the identification of current and future The markets where capacity is most likely to be most constrained in 16000 capacity constraints on the key routes into city centres. It therefore terms of infrastructure capacity are the Morning Peak Commuter needs to know which services are likely to become capacity 14000 and the Interurban markets. However, although demand in Rural constrained and which year the crowding constraint is likely to first markets tends to be significantly lower than in other markets, it can 12000 apply. also be subject to significant variation depending on the time of 10000 day, week or season that the service is operating. Passengers 8000 Interurban Markets Localised demand can also be significant – for instance schools traffic or localised employment – while capacity is often constrained 6000 For the purposes of the Route Study, Interurban markets are defined by asset capability. 4000 as the demand for travel between the seven cities in Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Inverness, Perth, Dundee and In terms of journey purpose, leisure travel is the primary driver of rail 2000 Stirling). The key journey purposes in this market are business and use but commuting will also be important in some markets.

0 leisure travel, but commuting will also be important. The routes Extended journey times on many rural routes mean that rail often 16789101112131415161718192021222324 covered will be as follows reference Figure 2.2: cannot compete with road on journey times and car ownership Weekday Passengers Saturday Passengers Sunday Passengers tends to be higher in rural markets than it is in urban markets. These • Glasgow-Aberdeen via Stirling, Perth and Dundee Figure 2.1 – Profile of demand throughout the day at Glasgow Central factors point towards a bespoke approach being suitable for rural Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 97

routes than for Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban Markets. For the purposes of the Route Study, rural markets are defined as the following routes: • Glasgow to /Fort William/ • Glasgow to • Glasgow to via • Inverness to Kyle of /Wick/. It was originally intended to treat the between Edinburgh and as a Rural Market, but this has instead been considered as part of the Morning Peak Commuter Market in Inverness Aberdeen order to reflect the passenger numbers experienced to date.

Perth Dundee

Glasgow Edinburgh

Figure 2.2 – Diagram of the Interurban network in Scotland Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 98

Establishing a picture of actual demand in 2014 As with the other Route Studies carried out throughout CP5, the • MOIRA does not reflect demand resulting from some types of most recent demand year at the date the study commenced (2014) operator-specific ticket sales, principally the multi-journey Flexi has been used as the point at which base demand is estimated. Pass sold on the Edinburgh-Glasgow via High route. In order to estimate base year demand, three potential approaches Ticket gateline count data were identified each with advantages and disadvantages: Transport Scotland has funded the installation of ticket gatelines at • MOIRA1 demand forecasts for 2014 (based on 2014 LENNON most of the key stations on the network in Scotland, primarily for 2ticket sales data) revenue protection purposes. As it stands, approximately 80 per cent of journeys within Scotland have a gatelined station at one end Ticket gateline count data • of the journey, and this is likely to be far higher in the urban markets. On-train count data. • The ticket gatelines capture a breadth of travel data including the MOIRA demand forecasts journey origin, destination, time at gateline and ticket type (peak, off-peak, season). They do not assign any of these journeys to MOIRA is the industry demand forecasting model, the base data of individual trains. which is derived from the LENNON ticket sales database. LENNON records nearly all tickets sold on the rail network in Great Britain Nearly all stations defined as city centre stations in and around with the exception of certain operator-specific tickets and some Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen have had gatelines installed. The types of promotional fares . Given these are low in volume, the exceptions to this are High Street, and South Gyle. Edinburgh LENNON database can be treated as being a valid representation of is partially gated: the long distance platforms are not origins and destinations across the network, albeit at an extremely gated, but most platforms served by ‘domestic’ traffic are. Table 2.1 aggregate level. lists the gated stations within each of the city centres. The advantage of using MOIRA is that it has universal coverage by Gateline data has four principal limitations as far as estimating City Gatelined City Centre Stations route and by train. It is also based on actual ticket sales so it should base demand is concerned. They are: be accurate at a population level. Glasgow Glasgow Central (High Level and Low Level) • Gatelines will only record limited origin data on ‘other’ ticket The disadvantages of using MOIRA are as follows: types (e.g. Partnership for Transport (SPT) Zone Cards) and, with regard to season tickets, there may be some Glasgow Queen Street (High Level and Low MOIRA is not a primary data source. It is itself a model based on • instances (particularly in Glasgow), where origin stations being Level) LENNON ticket sales. As such, it is subject to modelling error located close to one another may mean that a season ticket at Argyle Street • The size of the London and South East commuter market (where, one station may well be used frequently on other services. for reasons of crowding, demand is pushed into the shoulder Gatelines will not pick up origins where the destination is not a Charing Cross peak) arguably distorts the results that MOIRA predicts for • city centre station (e.g. South Gyle to the west of Edinburgh). services outside the South East. Demand in Scotland tends to be Edinburgh Waverley ‘peakier’ than MOIRA predicts • In addition, gateline data does not pick up failures with the ticket or with the gateline equipment. However, these failures are not Haymarket thought to be correlated with the journey taken, and can potentially be either stripped out completely or repaired using 1 MOIRA is an industry demand forecasting tool which applies LENNON the data that does exist. Aberdeen Aberdeen base data to individual train services. 2 LENNON is the rail industry ticket sales database, which reflects most Table 2.1 – Gated stations in key urban areas journeys that are made on the GB rail network. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 99

• At Edinburgh Waverley the ‘long distance’ platforms are not Adjustments to baseline demand gated but are staffed. This is problematic as suburban services The consultation process identified two areas for improving the also use these platforms during peak periods and long distance base data. The first area was that rail journeys undertaken on services are an important source of passenger capacity during multi-modal Zonecard tickets promoted by (SPT) are not included in peak periods. the LENNON database. An exercise was therefore undertaken On-Train count data based on assigning the total number of rail journeys to corridors using SPT travel diaries. On-train count data provides exactly the right type of data for this study. On-train counts record passenger loadings on specific trains The second area of improvement relates to the Edinburgh-Glasgow at specific points on their journey. ScotRail carries out on-train via Falkirk route, where MOIRA differed significantly from the count passenger counts using the following two methodologies: data. LENNON does not include the ScotRail Flexipass ticket that is a popular product on that route. Because the count data was strong Automatic counts, which are carried out on the Class 380 trains. • on this particular route, it was preferred to the MOIRA estimate on The only route where these trains are diagrammed 100 per cent this corridor. of the time is the Edinburgh-North Berwick service and may also be useful for many (but not all) Coast services • Manual on-train counts, which are carried out on an annual or biannual basis. These counts are relevant for all services. However, across most of the network on-train counts are only carried out periodically (once or twice a year), so they cannot be considered to be statistically robust. Some automatic train counts are carried out, recording loads on every train, but the coverage of these counts is poor at present. Approach followed The coverage and quality of both the on-train count data and the gateline were adjudged to be of insufficient quality to form the basis of base demand for all corridors. Therefore, the decision was made to use MOIRA/LENNON as the primary source of data for estimating baseline (2014) demand. Where the quality of on-train counts and gateline data was deemed to be good, these data sources have been used to validate MOIRA/ LENNON results, particularly in profiling the peak– an area where MOIRA is known to have limitations – and to capture the full range of tickets issued on the Scottish network. This has enabled the 2014 baseline to be validated by ScotRail. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 100

Modelling demand growth High level modelling approach • Market size model – This estimates the size of the total market for travel in Scotland based on the key drivers for growth that After considering a number of potential alternatives, the Working were identified in the Regional Urban Market Study(RUMS). For Group supported the development of a specific model to examine the Morning Peak Commuter market, the RUMS identified city the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban Markets in Scotland centre employment growth as being the principal driver of the and to use the ScotRail demand forecast as the basis of the Rural overall demand for travel into city centres in the morning peak. Market forecast. In the Interurban market, the evidence in the Long Distance The decision to construct bespoke models to estimate demand in Market Study (LDMS) identified population growth as being the the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban markets reflected: principal driver of overall demand for travel. Total market size is estimated for each origin-destination pair (although in the • Consistency of approach across Market Studies: The aim of the Morning Peak Commuter model, only city centre destinations are Market Studies has been to present evidence on demand as selected). consistently as possible across the network independent of the identity of the primary funder • Market share model – The market share model estimates rail market share for each origin and destination pair based on the • Transparency - As the Market Study is part of an industry relative ‘attractiveness’ of rail relative to other modes. process, the modelling that informs it has to be transparent in Generalised cost is used as a proxy for the perceived terms of the assumptions made so that it has credibility within ‘attractiveness’ of each mode. Market shares are estimated the industry. All models require careful interpretation, and using a hierarchical logit approach transparency of what assumptions have and have not been made is important in enabling this Due to the size of the TMfS/CSTM data sets approximately 0.5 million lines of data in TMfS and 1.1 million lines of data in CSTM), • Flexibility – The 30-year time frame of the Market Study means the model could not be constructed in Excel. It was instead that the forecasting approach is scenario based. The modelling constructed in Access 2010. had to be flexible enough to allow for carrying out a large number of scenario runs Key Assumptions • Using the best data available to reflect a rail-specific demand The main data source for the Morning Peak Commuter and forecasting requirement. This has utilised the wealth of Interurban models is TMfS and CSTM respectively. Cost and information contained within TMfS1/CSTM2 whilst deviating demand ‘skims’ were supplied by Transport Scotland’s consultants from it in certain areas where it was necessary to do so (e.g. city (Jacobs) for 2012 and 2018. centre parking). Forecasts were completed for 2012 and 2018 based on this data, The modelling framework adopted follows a market size/market with scenarios being applied thereafter. share approach developed for the Regional Urban Market Study The data received from Jacobs reflected a number of infrastructure (RUMS). The key features of this approach are as follows: and policy assumptions.

1 TMfS is a multimodal transport model covering most of Scotland 2 CSTM is a multimodal transport model covering the Central Belt of Scotland Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 101

The infrastructure assumptions are as follows: Assumed Infrastructure Assumed Car Use Costs Committed Road schemes are: Generalised Journey Times (GJTs), Car distances, and rail/bus fares were provided by Transport Scotland/Jacobs from CSTM and TMfS. M8 completion • Rail and bus GJTs and fares were estimated by Jacobs. Rail and bus • A9 Upgrade GJTs included in-vehicle time and access/interchange times. • A90 Balmeddie to Tipperty Dualling All other explicit assumptions are derived from the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG) Technical Database Economy Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route (AWPR) • Spreadsheet (http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/stag/) (Forth Replacement Crossing) • These consist of: M74 Raith Interchange • • Vehicle Operating Costs (VOC) Inveramsey Bridge Improvement. • • Fuel-related car costs: Average Vehicle Fuel / Energy Cost Committed Rail schemes are: Formulae Parameter Values (p, 2010 prices): Work/Non-Work (Excluding VAT) • Borders Rail – completed 2015 • Non-Fuel car costs: Forecast Non-Fuel Resource Vehicle Aberdeen to Inverness Phase 1 • Operating Costs (2010 prices) Main Line Phase 2 • • Values of time (Perceived cost values, £ per hour (2010 prices)). • EGIP (Key outputs 1, 2, 3 and 4) As per TMfS, car driver values of time are assumed. • Glasgow to Paisley service improvements. Parking Cost Assumptions Rail Fare Assumptions Parking costs are derived from TMfS for 2012, but separate assumptions have been developed for 2018. The reason for this is The rail policy assumptions relate to fares, as per the ScotRail that TMfS assumes no real-term increase in parking costs, which franchise agreement. They are: doesn’t reflect the limited evidence we have available. The following • Peak fares: increase in line with inflation as measured by the assumptions have been made with respect to parking: Retail Price Index (RPI) • In-work parking costs are assumed to be zero, reflecting an • Off-peak fares: increase in line with inflation, minus one per cent assumption that employees can claim costs back and will (RPI-1 per cent). therefore not perceive the full cost of parking Bus Fare and Journey Time Assumptions • Parking costs are applied in defined city centre zones. The mapping set out in TMfS is out of date, but it is understood that Bus fare and journey times are as per TMfS/CSTM for 2012 and the zones assumed to be parking zones approximately match the 2018. parking zones defined in TMfS. • Parking costs are assumed for non-work commute and non-work other trips. In the Morning Peak Commuter model the TMfS assumption that 15 per cent of trips do not result in a car being Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 102

parked (i.e. the purpose of the journey is to drop someone off) and that another 40 per cent of trips result in private, non- Population and Employment Assumptions residential parking at zero cost is followed. Parking costs are therefore spread over all trips at the rate of 45 per cent. Population and employment forecasts are derived from TELMoS3 up to 2018, with the 2018 data being interpolated from 2017 and 2022 • In the Interurban model (which uses inter-peak data), it is data. assumed that short stay parking is used. It is assumed (following TMfS) that 80 per cent of trips will incur parking charges and so No assumptions have been made to attempt to disaggregate the cost of parking is applied at this rate. forecast employment into different employment types (which may have different propensities to travel by rail). However, scenario • TMfS assumes no real term growth in the cost of parking, employment growth rates are based on employment types that are however the model does not include this assumption because it associated with city centre employment activities. does not reflect the evidence (from City Parking detailed 10 per cent increases in parking costs in FY2013/14). It is recognised Market size model that the evidence base for parking is poor, and highly reliant on The market size model sums the total demand for travel for 2012 anecdotal evidence. To reflect this, a real terms growth rate in and 2018. Post-2018 demand is estimated by applying growth to the cost of parking of 3 per cent per annum has been applied the 2018 total demand based on the key drivers identified for each between 2012 and 2018, with different growth rates applied market under consideration, following RUMS and the LDMS. The thereafter depending on which scenario is assumed. This factors are: divergence from TMfS reflects: • City centre employment growth as the driver of the Morning –– The requirement on local councils to reduce vehicle emissions Peak Commuter Market in line with European Law. It is understood that much of the policy response to this is likely to focus on buses and Heavy • Population growth as the driver of the Interurban market. Goods Vehicles. However, it is understood that a reduction in These assumptions are based on the findings of the Regional Urban overall traffic levels is likely to be pursued in Glasgow Decision Level 1 Market Study and the Long Distance Market Study which found that –– The increasing importance of parking charges as a source of modelling for other potential demand drivers (demographics and revenue for local councils. It may be that charges are capped car ownership) did not materially affect the forecasts given the to marginal cost of providing parking, but where free parking additional complexity they introduce into the modelling. is currently provided (e.g. at stations) it is understood that Car PT Total transport demand estimates were taken from TMfS/CSTM many councils are looking at charging at previously forecasts for 2012 and 2018 and growth factors for both variables uncharged locations were contained in the scenarios developed for 2023 and 2043. –– Increased competition for development land in city centre Total demand is estimated at a zone-to-zone level of granularity. Decision Level 2 locations will inevitably increase the return on capital required from private car parks. No explicit assumption is made for Market Share model parking search time. Parking search time is included in the Overview assumptions made for GJT. Bus Rail 3 TELMoS (Transport and Economic Land-use Model of Scotland), provides independant demographic planning and economic forecasts which form the basis for future travel demands. It underpins many of the Figure 2.3 – Market Share model structure assumptions on which both CSTM and TMfS are based. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 103

The market share element of the model considers two decisions on Total Rail Demand Forecast the part of transport users. The first (Level 1) decision is the decision Total rail demand is estimated by multiplying the modelled between car and public transport (PT). The second (Level 2) decision estimate of rail market share by the modelled estimate of total is, for PT users, between rail and bus. transport demand for each forecast year. Rail market share is estimated by multiplying level 1 market share For the Interurban market, all station origin-destination (O-D) pairs (car versus PT) by the level 2 market share (rail versus bus). PT costs were utilised for the forecast; for the Morning Peak Commuter in the level 1 market share model were estimated based on implied market, the dataset was filters so that only those O-D pairs where market shares from the level 1 decision. the destination zone was in a defined city centre zone were The model structure is displayed in Figure 2.6. considered. Functional Form City centre zones were defined as follows: The functional form of the market share-αGCi model is as follows: • For Aberdeen and Edinburgh, a 2km cordon was drawn around e ii the main stations (Aberdeen, Waverley and Haymarket) and i = major rail-served development areas outside these cordons MS -αGCij (Dyce/South Gyle/Edinburgh Park/Edinburgh Gateway) were ∑e ii also included • For Glasgow, where there are more stations in and around the city centre core, a cordon was drawn linking those stations where Where: current (2014) demand on trains is at its peak. For instance, loads on North Electric services accessing Glasgow Queen Street Low MSi is the market share of mode i • Level from the west tend to be at their peak loading at Partick or • GCi is the generalised cost of a journey by mode i consisting of: Charing Cross. –– In vehicle time / access time Assigning demand to corridors –– Interchange time The model forecasts demand for station pairs. It does not assign Total Market Rail Market demand to corridors. Assigning demand to corridors is essential as it –– Ticket price/marginal cost of motoring Size X Share is only then that demand can be compared to on-train capacity. • α is the degree of responsiveness to differences in generalised Assignment of zones to stations is carried out on the basis of cost (known as the Mode Share Parameter or MSP). As Figure 2.4 geographical proximity. illustrates, the value of the Mode Share Parameter is important for determining rail market share: a higher α value suggests that This part of the process was spreadsheet-based and utilised the the market is more responsive to cost variances than a lower α data tables prepared for developing the connectivity-based value. conditional outputs. Forecast Rail The model is calibrated by adjusting the Level 1 and Level 2 MSPs. Demand

Figure 2.4 – Deriving Forecast Rail Demand Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 104

Once a station O-D pair has been assigned to a corridor, a corridor TMfS and CSTM include an allowance for parking costs in city growth factor was then applied to a MOIRA download for May 2014 centre zones, but both TMfS/CSTM assume that the supply of in the Capacity Analysis Spreadsheet Tool (adjusted from the parking is infinitely elastic – i.e. that parking costs remain the same 2012-based growth rates), to which rolling stock capacities had in real terms in future years. This assumption has been amended in been applied. This enabled the identification of which corridors are our modelling because the evidence strongly suggests that this may likely to become capacity constrained in different time bands. not be realistic. The evidence base on parking, however, is recognised to be weak. Limitations of the Market Share / Market Size Approach The use of a single driver to grow overall market size simplifies the The approach to modelling that was ratified by the Working Group reasons people travel where and when they do – i.e. accessing represents a significant step forward for forecasting rail demand in employment not the only source of commuting (studying, access to Scotland. The models for the Morning Peak Commuter and services etc). Interurban markets are able to forecast demand on a corridor-by- corridor basis – something which has not been feasible before. TMfS/CSTM zoning issues: TMfS and CSTM are both built up from trip matrices between origin and destination zones. The size and It needs to be recognised, though, that the approach selected has shape of these zones, together with the nodes that sit within them, limitations of its own. These can be categorised as follows: can have an impact on the model results and require careful Limitations of scope interpretation. This is particularly the case where the zones are large (e.g. around Aberdeen and Inverness). Cost data is estimated from The models have been developed to be as parsimonious as possible the node, and this can lead to demand being assigned that does not (i.e. to explain as much variation as possible with the minimum reflect the reality of where people live. number of explanatory variables). This is generally good modelling practice, but it increases the risk of omitting variables that could Modelling limitations explain some variation in demand. Potential omitted variables The model uses two mode share parameters. The Rail vs Bus include car ownership, demographics and destination choice. • Mode Share Parameter is -0.6 and the car vs Public Transport In each of the markets that it covers, the model focuses on either parameter has been set to -0.25 following the calibration the origin (in the case of the Interurban market) or the destination exercise. This implies (a) that people are more sensitive to cost (in the case of the Morning Peak Commuter markets) but not both. variability in rail vs bus decision than they are when deciding For instance (using the Morning Peak Commuter model for whether the drive or use public transport and (b) that their Long Interurban into Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00) Aberdeen), the model will grow the number of trips according to sensitivity to cost is independent of their journey purpose. Both employment growth at the destination. What it won’t do is capture of these are simplifying assumptions, but both could be easily Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 3500 any changes in the distribution of population at the origin: the 219% amended given how the model is structured

3000 distribution of trip originations is held constant. • The model includes all journey purposes in its estimate of total 166% 2500 The model does not include data for tram or subway use. The model market size. This could be amended to filter out non-applicable 2000 129% 125% 116% 114% was constructed to allow for these modes, but the dataset for them journey purposes 105% 1500 92% was not complete so they were ‘switched off’ in the model. Future 67% It is important to note that the models intentionally make no versions of the model could include these if the database is • 1000 allowance for crowding. The reason for this is that the purpose of amended. 500 the Route Study is to start with an unconstrained vision of 0 Weak assumptions/data conditional outputs (including demand) which have further Aberdeen/Dundee/Perth to Glasgow assumptions applied (including crowding) at the appraisal stage Figure 2.5 – Sample output from Capacity Analysis Spreadsheet Tool The model takes account of parking charges in city centres. Both Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 105

• This assignment of origin and destination zones is potentially Mode share parameter problematic (a) when zones are large and (b) when there is a high The MSP is the key element to LOGIT modelling. The MSP amplifies concentration of stations user responses to difference in overall (generalised) costs. A high • The Interurban forecasts are based on single leg journeys. In MSP (approaching -1) implies highly responsive markets; a low MSP principle, the decision to travel will factor in the return leg. This (approaching zero) implies highly unresponsive markets. In general, could be factored in to the analysis by adding costs for the two MSPs for choices between PT modes are higher than MSPs for journey legs together and then applying the market share choices between PT and car. decisions to the costs. In principle, different MSPs can be applied for different times of day and different journey purposes. They are also likely to be higher Model Calibration where costs explain a high level of demand variability. The purpose of the model is to estimate the growth in rail demand TMfS/CSTM has a suite of MSPs, but for reasons of simplicity two given changes in the explanatory variables identified in the values have been used in our models – one for PT versus Car and one Regional Urban Market Study. for Rail versus Bus. Because of this, although the growth factors produced are applied PT Captive Market to actual data (LENNON or on-train counts), the overall rail demand In practice, mode choice is not only driven by marginal transport forecasts cannot be calibrated to these. The reasons are that: costs. Investment in a car is a major cost for households and car • The mode choice decision does not factor in qualitative aspects ownership is likely to vary significantly depending on parking availability, household income, residential density and other • The mode choice decision does not factor in mode choice inertia factors. All these factors mean that PT demand from some zones is (i.e. habit). likely to be far higher than would be implied by cost alone. For this reason, the model has been calibrated against TMfS/CSTM TMfS/CSTM attempts to capture this by taking a certain proportion which make broadly similar assumptions (although TMfS/CSTM are of journeys out of the car vs PT mode choice model. This process is considerably more complex models). These have been compared to not done within the model, and this explains some of the difference ScotRail forecasts and to MOIRA as a sense check. between them. Having compared the model forecast with forecast rail demand Destination Choice from CSTM/TMfS, an exercise was carried out to explain the For some journey purposes (for instance commuting) journey differences between the model forecast and the rail forecast in destinations are fixed in the short run. For other journey purposes, TMfS/CSTM however, this is not necessarily the case, and changes in journey The principal differences related to times may lead to different destinations being selected if it takes longer to get to their preferred destination. This has not been • The mode share parameter values modelled. • The extent to which certain parts of the market are captive to Overall Results public transport The overall calibration process suggested that model forecast • The extent to which people change their choice of destination on approximately 10 per cent more rail demand in both 2012 and 2018 the basis of the transport offer. than TMfS/CSTM. This is acceptable because the purpose of the calibration exercise was to achieve consistency of outcome rather than to estimate actual flows. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 106

Interpreting forecasts Caveats on modelling Rural Market Forecasts The models described here are designed to estimate rates of growth in demand at a corridor level and at given time intervals. The Approach used to model Rural Market Morning Peak Commuter model reflects conditions in a peak hour The Working Group agreed that demand in Rural markets should be between 07:00 and 10:00; the Interurban model reflects conditions estimated using the forecast supporting the ScotRail franchise as in an average hour between 10:00 and 16:00. this only runs to 2027, trend growth has been applied to this to Models such as these are potentially open to misinterpretation, and reflect background growth. great care must be taken to ensure that this does not occur. Why does the approach used to forecast growth in Rural Markets The growth rates derived from these models are suitable for differ from that used to forecast growth in Commuter and appraisal purposes, but because the forecasts are scenario based, Interurban Markets? care should be taken to ensure that an appropriate scenario is Rural markets tend to have high levels of tourist-related traffic and applied and that a range of scenarios is considered. low levels of business travel. Demand is often extremely variable The modelling permits a consistent comparison between potential depending on the season. For this reason, the modelling framework rail schemes that reflect market conditions at a high level. However, used to estimate demand in the Morning Peak Commuter and reference should still be made to scenarios as some assumptions are Interurban markets is not appropriate. market-specific. TMfS zones in rural areas are large, and this could potentially distort What should be made clear is that the models are not suitable for demand as populations in rural areas are by definition dispersed. revenue forecasts or to estimate crowding. The ScotRail demand model is more likely to pick up qualitative They lack the flexibility to model the impact of additional services, aspects which other modelling is unable to do. and are sensitive to issues relating to TMfS/CSTM zone sizes. Key Assumptions These factors should be reflected when discussing model outputs. The Rural market model follows the ScotRail bid model, including How do the forecasts inform project appraisals? the fares assumption for off-peak journeys of RPI-1 per cent1. Scheme appraisals have been carried out using a Discounted Cash The ScotRail model is predicated on the operator filling seats in the Flow (DCF) Model, developed by Network Rail. The baseline off-peak. Applying a growth trend post-2027 assumes that this fares demand data for the DCF model is derived from MOIRA – either policy continues. using MOIRA Arc data or – where specific services are being added – MOIRA Timetable Manager. Future demand in the appraisals will use the outputs of this model. Where a corridor has been modelled in both the Morning Peak Commuter and the Interurban models, growth will be weighted according to 2014 ticket splits (with Morning Peak Commuter being assigned to Full and Season tickets and Interurban demand to Reduced tickets.). 1 The Retail Price Index (RPI) is an index that is used to reflect the change in price over time of a representative basket of goods. The ’s policy for the current ScotRail franchise is to apply RPI minus 1% to all off-peak fares issued by the francise. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 107

Scotland Market Study – Scenario Introduction and Background It is worth noting that although the highest growth scenario has been used to inform the Capacity-related Conditional Outputs, the As discussed earlier in this section, the purpose of the Scotland Development scheme appraisals will take account of the full range of the Route Study is to provide funders with investment choices for both Background scenarios developed. the medium (2019-2029) and the long term (2043). The purpose of demand forecasting is to inform these choices so that they take account of uncertain future demand and thus reduce (but not eliminate) planning risks. The nature of these risks can be categorised on the upside as crowded trains and on the downside as underused (or “stranded”) assets. The world in 2043 is likely to be very different to the world today, in ways that cannot be fully anticipated. Forecasting over this timeframe is therefore inherently problematic, which is why a scenario-based approach has been adopted for the forecasts. These scenarios draw on (a) the scenarios developed for the RUMS (b) the modelling assumptions used in Transport Scotland’s models and STAG1 and (c) include relevant evidence collected from stakeholders. The aim of the scenarios is not to predict the future; it is to develop future visions of the markets that are consistent with (a) the current state of Scotland (i.e. “where are we?”) and (b) while being consistent with a set of broad economic and social outcomes (i.e. “where we are going?”) by developing a credible (albeit stylised) social and economic narrative (i.e. “how will we get there?”). One key aspect to the scenarios is that they are developed expressly to reflect extreme positions and that no “central case” scenario has been developed. The reason for this is for the scenarios to work well, no one scenario should be viewed as being any more likely than the others. How the scenarios (and the forecasts that they underpin) are interpreted is a key challenge of this approach. The forecasts produced as a result of this exercise have been used to inform the Capacity-related Conditional Outputs and to inform the appraisal of schemes produced by the Technical Working Group and throughout CP6.

1 STAG is Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 108

Overall Modelling Framework Overall Framework Market Share Factors Although there are a large number of factors that could potentially The supply side of the model relates to the costs facing users of influence the market for rail travel, the modelling approach has transport. These costs include the financial costs of motoring (fuel been to narrow these demand drivers down to eight key costs, non-fuel costs) the financial cost of travelling by rail or bus assumptions. (fare costs) and the perceived costs of travel time, expressed as a financial value of time. All of these factors will be affected by overall These assumptions are: levels of demand in the economy. Values of Time for rail and car users • Values of time are related to the demand side of the model: in the • Population and employment growth long run, economic growth as expressed in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is taken to be a function of increased Road-based generalised journey times • productivity. In turn, productivity can be expressed as an increase in • Rail-based generalised journey times the value of time (as increased productivity increases the opportunity cost of non-productive time). • Car fuel costs Clearly, the underlying value of time will vary across the economy, Car non-fuel costs • with productivity increasing more in some locations, occupations • Rail fares and industries than in others. • The cost of parking in city centres. Factors which might lead to increased productivity are: This section describes how these scenario assumptions have been • A more capital-intensive economy derived by analysing the key economic linkages that drive them, A higher skilled workforce and presenting a set of assumptions that are broadly logically • consistent with the overall premise of each scenario. • Reduced costs of production (including transport costs). The overall framework consists of: Evidence to date suggests that rail markets tend to support the output of relatively high productivity occupations, so rail users tend Wider economic factors • to have a higher value of time than users of other modes of surface • Government and political factors transport. However, rail passengers’ on-train travel time tends to be more productive (in terms of work) than other modes which partially Population geography and demographic factors. • offsets these higher values of time. Wider Economic Factors The scenarios therefore reflect (a) the sensitivity of costs to the A simple way to categorise economic drivers of demand is to overall level of economic activity, (b) how productivity at a macro separate them into so-called supply-side factors and demand-side level is likely to grow, (c) the extent to which rail user and non-rail factors. In practice, it is difficult to define a clear delineation user productivities are likely to converge or diverge and (d) the between the two sides of the market, as impacts on the demand- extent to which travel time can be used productively on rail and side of the market for transport (e.g. congestion) clearly affect other modes. (supply-side) costs (i.e. the time it takes to get to work). In the model Market Size Factors the supply side generally relates to the market share model whilst the demand side relates to the market size model. All other things remaining equal, higher rates of economic growth will tend to be associated with higher levels of consumption and Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 109

aggregate demand. Because transport is a so-called ‘derived’ The scenarios reflect potential differences in both the overall level of demand, an increase in aggregate demand will increase the size of motoring taxation and the balance between marginal and flat rate the overall transport market. As discussed, it will also feed back into motoring taxes (including charging reflecting the societal costs of the supply side of the market as parking costs, congestion, fuel and congestion). non-fuel costs. While taxes are important from the point of view of meeting The extent to which overall transport demand is likely to respond to economic and fiscal objectives, other non-economic measures can an increase in aggregate demand is likely to depend in part on how be applied to ensure that environmental objectives are met, income is distributed across society, with more even income including low emission zones and statutory limits on car emissions. distributions tending to be associated with consumption (and Government can also influence the overall perceived cost of therefore transport demand) being more responsive to an increase motoring by investing to increase the capacity of the road network in income. or to reduce end-to-end journey times, both of which will feed The scenarios therefore need to consider a range of possible through to reduced perceived generalised journey times for growth-related factors including (a) what the global economic motorists. environment is likely to be, (b) how open the economy is likely to be The scenarios reflect the extent to which governments are likely to (in terms of capital, trade and labour), (c) what the income tighten environmental regulations as well as the circumstances in distribution is likely to be, and (d) what the monetary and exchange which governments are likely to prioritise investment in roads. rate policy environment is likely to be. Rail User Costs Government and Political Factors Governmental influence on rail markets generally takes the form of Governments play an active role in influencing transport markets, altering incentives to travel by rail – primarily by altering subsidies, so political factors can be an important driver of rail demand. either by varying the level of capital investment in rail to increase Government influence is brought to bear through a combination of capacity or reduce journey times (for example, by funding the taxation, subsidy and regulation. The overall approach to the construction of new infrastructure or new trains) or by varying rail taxation and subsidy of transport activities is assumed to be a operating subsidies by subsidising ticketing. Where the balance lies combination of (a) the desire to influence the balance of between between operating subsidy and fares is an important driver of rail different transport modes in a way that is consistent with meeting demand and a key policy option for governments aiming to balance the economic, environmental and social objectives related to their broader transport and fiscal objectives. government transport policies, and (b) the requirement to manage public funds in order to meet the government’s overall position on The scenarios reflect how different constraints and different public finances related to its fiscal policy. objectives are likely to affect both the overall level of subsidy and the balance of government funding between operating subsidy and Motoring Costs capital funding. Motoring costs are a combination of road-related infrastructure costs, car-related fuel and non-fuel costs and congestion-related Land use planning policies costs, only some of which are currently borne by motorists. Vehicle Land use policies in Scotland are currently set by the Scottish use is taxed, and taxation is generally levied either at a flat rate Government, and are implemented by Local Authorities. Over time, (vehicle excise duty) or in ways that reflect usage (fuel duty). Apart changes to land use planning policy can significantly influence the from in London, no attempt is currently made to tax congestion demand for rail, particularly policies relating to the balance of externalities. development between urban and out-of-town developments. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 110

Policies favouring city centre development will increase the With public transport, smart ticketing has the potential to improve employment capacity of city centre locations, and therefore – integrated public transport. However, a potential obstruction to assuming that overall employment increases, also assumes an integrated public transport is that planning and regulation of public increase in the market for rail. transport modes tend to exist in isolation of one another. Development policies relating to parking can also have a marked The scenarios consider how technological change is likely to impact on the costs of commuting by car. Planning policy that influence the overall demand for travel as well as mode choice restricts (or encourages) on-street parking is therefore important. decisions, as well as considering how improved integration of Likewise, as off-street parking sites are progressively infilled by planning and regulation could drive increased public transport developments, the total number of off-street parking sites in city market shares. centres is likely to reduce, increasing both the price of off-street Figure 2.6 illustrates how the issues in this section flow down into parking and the parking search times. the scenario assumptions. The scenarios therefore consider the range of policy stances on land use policy, as well as market conditions that are likely to restrict access to car users (i.e. parking). Population Geography and Demographic factors Where people live is a key driver of (a) their need to travel and (b) the mode choice options that they have, while population density around stations is also an important driver of the demand for rail travel. Historically, post-war residential patterns have tended towards reduced density developments (as people moved out of cities to the suburbs). However, reduced household sizes, urban regeneration and other economic and social factors have the potential to reverse this long term trend. The scenarios reflect a range of outcomes for the population geography of key towns and cities, both in terms of government policy and the overall economic and social conditions. Technological Change The ability and willingness of society to accept and adapt to technological change will influence the extent to which motoring becomes less environmentally intrusive and public transport becomes competitive for an increased number of journeys. For instance, improved automobile engineering and electric cars are likely to reduce the operating costs of motoring. Likewise, both in-car guidance systems and road pricing could reduce congestion in urban areas, but both of these are likely to be subject to public acceptability issues. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 111

High Skill / Open / Financial Level of Low Skill Closed Equality Demographics Environment Position Investment Jobs Economy

Increase GDP Aggregate Government Productivity Growth Demand Policy

Increased Overall Congestion- Capital Value of Transport Related Land Value Spending Tax Policy Fares Policy Time Demand Costs

Non-Fuel Fuel Costs Costs

Non-GT Value of Value of Value of Value of Car Fuel Car Rail Costs Time Time Time Time Scenario Non-Fuel Fares Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario Scenario

Figure 2.6 – Overall scenario modelling structure Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 112

Structure of Scenarios The central case is based on the TELMoS modelling assumptions for stage which suffers from an absence of trade with other Developing a Central Case population and employment up to 2018, with growth factors countries applied beyond that are based on four scenarios. –– Passive, technologically limited. Great Britain society and The first two forecast years (2012 and 2018) are a central case governments are passive in their approach to social inequality forecast based on population, employment and transport cost and carbon emissions, and technology offers little solution to assumptions drawn from a variety of sources including TELMoS, these problems. TMfS, CSTM and STAG. The forecasts for 2023/24 and 2043 incorporate scenario-based assumptions. Developing a Central Case Four core scenarios have been prepared. These are based on economic factors and social/political factors The starting point for applying the scenarios is to develop a ‘central case’ around which the scenarios can be overlaid. For the market Prospering in Global Stability (PGS) • size variables, the starting assumptions will reflect the Scottish –– Strong, global. A strong economy on the global stage which Government’s stated long term objectives for Gross Domestic prospers from its integration with the rest of the world Product, employment and population growth. For the market share variables, the starting assumptions will be based on STAG wherever Active, technologically enabled. Great Britain society and –– possible. Governments actively seek to reduce social inequality and carbon emissions, with technology limiting the requirement for this to be achieved through taxation. • Struggling in Global Turmoil (SGT) –– Mid-ranking, global. A mid ranking economy on the global stage which suffers from its integration and trading position with other national economies –– Active, technologically limited. Great Britain society and Governments actively seek to reduce social inequality and carbon emissions, although limited assistance from technology requires taxation to achieve this. • Prospering in Isolation (PI) –– Strong, insular. A strong economy on the global stage which prospers from its self-sufficient nature –– Passive, technologically enabled. Great Britain society and Governments are passive in their approach to social inequality and carbon emissions, although technological advancements allow some problems to be addressed. • Struggling in Isolation (SI) –– Mid-ranking, insular. A mid ranking economy on the global Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 113

Scenario Descriptions Prospering in Global Stability (PGS) Prospering in Isolation (PI) In this scenario, Scotland’s economy remains open with regard to In this scenario, increased barriers to trade combined with trade and the movement of capital and labour, with the economy independent monetary policy have the effect of reducing the benefitting from a largely benign and stable regional and global impact of shocks on the UK economy. Employment levels are high environment. Investment in physical and human capital improves thanks to flexible labour markets, but the benefits of high overall productivity, with high productivity employment continuing employment do not feed through to those on lower incomes being located in city centre locations. because of an uneven income distribution. Government policy is geared to addressing environmental and Planning policy does not favour city centre developments, so distributional issues, which has fed through to a transport policy employment growth is spread over city centre and out of town where cars are increasingly electrically powered, congestion locations. Lack of investment in electric car infrastructure means charged for and taxation increasingly being levied at the margin that cars are still reliant on hydrocarbon fuels. Dispersed patterns of rather than through flat-rate taxes. employment mean that congestion impacts are somewhat ameliorated, despite the higher car ownership incentivised by low Because of the increased focus on city centres as engines of growth, marginal taxation rates on car travel. rail is increasingly seen by governments as a worthwhile social and economic investment – both in terms of capital investment and Rail travel continues to be competitive on interurban routes where operating subsidy – as part of an integrated transport system. travel time used productively and rail products well matched to consumers’ needs. Struggling in Global Turmoil (SGT) Struggling in Isolation (SI) In this scenario increased barriers to trade and an unstable global economy result in low rates of economic growth. Underemployment In this scenario, low levels of employment and productivity reduce and employment insecurity combined with low levels of investment aggregate demand and therefore the demand for travel. Because of lead to employment being concentrated in low productivity this, in-migration is low leading to an increasingly ageing activities. Although employment is increasingly concentrated in population and concentrated social networks. towns and cities, the uneven distribution of income means that Poor economic performance mean that concerns about income growth for most people remains low. Restrictions on environmental pollution and global warming are relatively low migration combined with higher rates of growth elsewhere lead to political priorities, while the power of the motoring lobby combined reduced in-migration over time. This in turn leads to an increasingly dispersed patterns of employment lead to low rates of taxation on aged population while social networks become more concentrated cars. Because of this and because of the low level of rail subsidies over time. implied by the poor state of the public finances, rail is a relatively Low rates of economic growth lead to historically low levels of car expensive mode of travel that does not meet the needs of ownership, but pressure on public finances leads to both high rates commuters well. of tax on motoring and low levels of subsidy for public transport. Lack of investment in office development within city centres While road taxes continue to be levied at a flat rate, with no attempt restricts employment capacity and both on-street and off-street to reduce congestion through charging or technological means, low parking is relatively plentiful. levels of capital investment and reduced levels of revenue support for train operators lead to rail being relatively expensive mode. Increasingly productive usage of travel time leads to the differential between rail and road values of time decreasing. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 114

Local variations on scenarios A problem with national level scenarios is that they fail to recognise Edinburgh). Where a city was assumed to enjoy a comparative real constraints that will be more challenging to overcome in some advantage in an industry (for instance energy in Aberdeen and locations than in others. This is a particular challenge for market finance in Edinburgh), the growth rates were tweaked to reflect this. size-related factors (employment and population), but also applies The overall impact of this approach was to provide a coherent to market share factors such as parking costs and road congestion. narrative based on each city’s economic structure on which the overall growth rate was plotted for each scenario. In Scotland, the principal source of variation is the difference in performance between the west of Scotland, which can be Population Scenarios categorised as still adjusting to the consequences of de- The population scenarios are used to develop a forecast of market industrialisation over the last fifty years, and cities such as size in the Interurban markets. The scenarios are based on National Aberdeen and Edinburgh which have tended to perform well above Records of Scotland data and forecasts from 1981 up to 2018. the UK average in economic terms. Scenarios have been developed for: The population and employment scenarios therefore needed to • Births take account of these differences to be credible. • Deaths The approach taken was, firstly, to try to understand the nature of these differences – essentially consider the question of “where are • International migration to Scotland we now?”, how they manifested themselves across a number of • Migration from other parts of the UK to/from Scotland. indicators (including sectoral employment, labour participation rates, educational attainment, migration trends) The scenarios were applied at a Regional Transport Partnership (RTP) level, with the same methodology being applied as in the city The second part of the exercise was answer the question of “where centre employment scenarios. do we want to get to?”. This was done by interpreting the scenarios and the high level scenario model described earlier, with a view to Market Share Scenarios establishing an outcome consistent with the overall theme of the Unlike the market size scenarios (where differential growth rates are scenarios. applied for city centre employment and for residential population) The final part was the question of “how do we get there?” or the presumption with the market share scenarios is that they should narrative. A considerable amount of effort was dedicated to be applied on a uniform basis throughout the model. The ensuring that the narrative developed was credible and defendable. exceptions to this principle is the scenarios for parking costs and Generalised Journey Time (GJT) growth (congestion), which are Employment Scenarios applied at a city centre and RTP level respectively. The scenarios for city centre employment were developed using The growth scenarios applied for market share factors are: Experian employment data between 1997 and 2014, and the Where are we now? Historic analysis Experian forecast for 2015 to 2018. • Fuel price The employment data is broken down by occupation with • GJT (congestion) Where do we want to get to? Scenarios employment activities selected on the basis of how likely they were • Train fares to occur within the city centre (for example, office-based How do we get there? Narrative employment types). • Non-fuel price Growth rates for each employment were then applied on a • Parking costs. Figure 2.7 – Scenario development consistent basis across each city centre (Glasgow, Aberdeen, Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 115

60

Extracon & Mining 50 Ulies Construcon of Buildings Civil Engineering Specialised Construcon Acvies 40 Retail

) Land Transport, Storage & Post Accommodaon & Food Services Recreaon 30 Media Acvies Telecoms ployment (thousands Compung & Informaon Services Em Finance 20 Insurance & Pensions Real Estate Professional Services Other Private Services 10 Public Administraon & Defence Educaon Health

0 1997 2002 2007 2012 2017 2022 2027 2032 2037 2042 Year Figure 2.8 – Example of employment growth scenario in Glasgow to 2043 (PGS scenario) Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 116

Scotland Market Study - Demand Analysis This section provides a summary of the key findings from the growth scenarios (though lower than in Aberdeen and Edinburgh) is Scotland Market Study and provides a commentary on these likely to represent a key challenge for the railway, given the current findings. The forecasts draw on, and build upon, the approach used volume of passengers already travelling into the city and the current Producing choices for funders based on the future to develop forecasts for the Regional Urban Market Study (RUMS). level of service provision. They complement the forecasting outputs of the Long Distance challenges for the railway is the key output of the In Interurban and Rural markets, there is again a great deal of Market Study (LDMS) and the Freight Market Study (FMS), which Scotland Route Study. The demand forecasts variability between different corridors. Whilst in many cases high also feed into the Scotland Route Study. produced as part of the Scotland Market Study levels of growth are unlikely to lead to capacity problems, they may enable the prediction, firstly of which parts of the The findings of the Scotland Market Study are presented in the form support measures to improve connectivity. of demand forecasts for rail corridors, set against the assumed The purpose of scenario-based planning is to inform funder’s network are likely to become capacity constrained capacity on these corridors at the end of Control Period 5 (2018/19). in future years and, secondly, to predict where the decision making, and the forecasts illustrate how different scenario The demand forecasts produced as part of the Scotland Market assumptions can influence the type of schemes that are likely to social return on investments is likely to be the Study will inform: have strong business cases. greatest. These predictions are based on changes • Capacity-related Conditional Outputs The forecasts presented here are derived from the most wide- in where people are likely to live, where people are ranging and robust demand forecasting exercise that Network Rail • The economic appraisal of options to meet both the capacity- likely to work and on how attractive rail is likely to has carried out to date in Scotland. It should be noted that the related and connectivity-related conditional outputs. be to travellers compared to other modes of forecasts could not have been developed in the way they have been The Scotland Market Study considers three broad market areas. without the collaborative approach taken by Transport Scotland, transport. These markets are: particularly in making cost and demand data from both the Transport Model for Scotland (TMfS) and Central Scotland Morning Peak Commuter • Transport Model (CSTM) available to Network Rail. • Interurban • Rural. For the Morning Peak Commuter and Interurban markets, modelled growth is a result of a combination of market size factors (i.e. growth in population or employment) and market share factors (how attractive rail is relative to other transport modes). For rural markets, the forecasts for the recent ScotRail refranchising were used, with post-franchise growth applied on the basis of rolling this trend forward over the remaining forecast years. The forecasts highlight the variability in conditions both between the different rail markets in Scotland, but also significant differences between corridors within each rail market. In the Morning Peak Commuter markets, the forecasts in the stronger growth scenarios are for growth to be strongest in those markets where the rail offer has – or is likely to – significantly improve relative to the road offer. Growth in Glasgow in the higher Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 117

Demand Analysis: Headline Results Edinburgh Morning Peak Commuter Markets Glasgow Morning Peak Commuter Markets Compound Compound Compound Compound Growth Growth Growth Growth Annual Annual Annual Annual Scenario factor factor Scenario factor factor Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate 2012-23 2012-43 2012-23 2012-43 2012-23 2023-43 2012-23 2023-43 Prospering in Prospering in 51% 3.8% 115% 1.8% 39% 3.0% 128% 2.5% Global Stability Global Stability Prospering in Prospering in 49% 3.7% 135% 2.3% 26% 2 .1% 74% 1.6% Isolation Isolation Struggling in Struggling in 40% 3 .1% 52% 0.4% 21% 1.8% 28% 0.3% Global Turmoil Global Turmoil Struggling in Struggling in 32% 2.6% 12% -0.8% 15% 1.2% -4% -0.9% Isolation Isolation

Aberdeen Morning Peak Commuter Markets Interurban Markets Rural Markets Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Compound Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Scenario factor factor Scenario factor factor Scenario factor factor Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate Growth Rate 2012-23 2012-43 2012-23 2012-43 2012-23 2012-43 2012-23 2023-43 2012-23 2023-43 2012-23 2023-43 Prospering in Prospering in Prospering in 54% 4.0% 226% 3.8% 49% 3.7% 197% 3.5% 61% 4.4% 158% 2.4% Global Stability Global Stability Global Stability Prospering in Prospering in Prospering in 47% 3.5% 163% 3.0% 43% 3.3% 111% 2.0% 61% 4.4% 137% 2.0% Isolation Isolation Isolation Struggling in Struggling in Struggling in 24% 1.9% 21% - 0 .1% 39% 3 .1% 57% 0.6% 61% 4.4% 97% 1.0% Global Turmoil Global Turmoil Global Turmoil Struggling in Struggling in Struggling in 20% 1.7% 3% -0.8% 38% 2.9% 30% -0.3% 61% 4.4% 72% 0.3% Isolation Isolation Isolation Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 118

Introduction The objective of the forecasts was to estimate the number of • Rolling stock characteristics: These are based on the end of domestic passenger trips (i.e. rail trips beginning and ending in Control Period 5 Train Service Specification which was agreed Scotland) for the forecast years to inform the development of with the Route Study Working Group. It should be noted that Capacity-related Conditional Outputs and scheme appraisals. capacity is defined as seating capacity rather than basing it on a percentage of total seating plus standing capacity. This The results described in this document therefore complement the assumption reflects the ScotRail performance regime and is forecasts contained within the LDMS and the FMS, both of which broadly consisted with the assumptions used in other Route were established in 2013. Summaries of the LDMS and FMS Studies (where a certain percentage of total theoretical standing Conditional Outputs (as they affect Scotland) are contained in plus seating capacity has been used). Appendix 3 and 4. Interpretation of forecasts Format of demand forecasts The forecasts presented here reflect Network Rail’s view of future The demand forecasts are presented at a corridor level. They use demand under a certain set of circumstances. They are not a vision 2013/14 demand as estimated in MOIRA (modified to take account of what Network Rail thinks will happen; they are a vision of what of known limitations of MOIRA/LENNON), with modelled growth could happen if any one scenario occurred. rates applied for all four scenarios. The forecast demand is then compared to the seating capacity that is expected to be provided at In addition, like any model, the modelling presented is a the end of the current Control Period. simplification of reality based on a relatively small number of assumptions. Details of the key limitations of the modelling Baseline demand approach are detailed at the end of this section. Baseline demand has been estimated using 2013/14 MOIRA data. The results must therefore be seen as being illustrative, and require Each service has been assigned to a corridor so that demand from careful interpretation as part of the process of developing options the model can be applied at a route level. Morning Peak commuter to meet the Conditional Outputs. demand has been analysed for the whole of the morning peak (07:00 -10:00), and for the high peak (08:00-09:00), while Interurban demand has been forecast for an interpeak hour (between 10:00 and 16:00). It is known that MOIRA tends to understate demand peaks in cities outside London. Count data has been used to assess the extent of this problem. 2014 demand was then compared to 2014 rolling stock to gauge the ‘current’ demand position. Baseline capacity The capacity forecasts consist of: • Train frequencies: These are based on the 2013/14 timetable in MOIRA, suitably adjusted where appropriate to take account of new services Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 119

Morning Peak Commuting Markets Methodology Used potential for urban regeneration, combined the PGS view of a future where governments explicitly promote regional growth in order to The RUMS identified changes in city centre employment as being Glasgow balance economic, equity and environmental outcomes at a the primary driver of growth in the morning peak commuter national level, that is driving both the city centre employment and markets. On the basis of this, the scenarios were used to develop congestion scenarios in the PGS scenario employment growth scenarios for Glasgow and to develop car, rail and bus cost growth factors for the Glasgow market for 2023/24 On the basis of the PGS scenario, the headline forecasts for and 2043. commuter rail demand into Glasgow in the morning peak are for demand to grow by 39 per cent between 2012 and 2023/24 and by Costs and total transport demand for 2012 and 2018 were derived 128 per cent between 2012 and 2043. from CSTM morning peak dataset for Glasgow. By contrast, Glasgow’s economy is more dependent on relatively The Glasgow/Edinburgh model has been calibrated to CSTM rail low skilled service sector jobs in retail services, so employment is demand for 2012 and 2018 and checked for consistency against more vulnerable than in those cities – such as Edinburgh – to historical rail demand. unfavourable economic circumstances. This is despite the city Key findings - Glasgow centre employment base being marginally more diverse than Edinburgh’s. In addition, because post-2023/24 road congestion is Glasgow is a mature commuter market with a well-developed rail assumed to be less of a problem in the low employment growth network. As such, rail already has a relatively high market share on scenarios, the overall volume of rail demand is estimated to fall 4 many of the routes into the city centre because most major per cent by 2043 in the lowest growth (Struggling in Isolation) residential areas already benefit from relatively high frequency scenario. services and competitive journey times by rail. Unlike in Control Period 4, where Airdrie- significantly expanded the reach of the Glasgow commuter network, no significant network extensions are due to be delivered during Control Period 5. The principal enhancement to the network in and around Glasgow – is the Edinburgh to Glasgow Improvement Programme (EGIP) – developed to reduce end-to-end journey times and to increase capacity per train. Because of this relative stability in the rail ‘offer’ comparable to other transport modes (and bearing in mind that the improvements to the M8 will increase competitiveness of car on some rail corridors to the east of the city), growth in the morning peak up to 2023/24 is likely to be driven more by growth in city centre employment than by an increase in rail’s market share. Thereafter, it is the combination of road congestion and employment growth that drives growth in the highest growth scenario, Prospering in Global Stability (PGS). is by far the biggest city centre in Scotland, and a significant proportion has redevelopment potential. It is this Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 120

Long Interurban into Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Results by Corridor- Glasgow Glasgow Queen Street Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 3500 The locations where peak demand is experienced are 219% predominantly Glasgow Queen Street and neighbouring city centre stations on corridors into Glasgow Queen Street. The analysis 3000 compares demand for 2023/24 and 2043 against the train capacity 166% that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on each of the corridors. 2500 Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from Aberdeen/ 2000 129% 125% Dundee/Perth (See Figure 2.9) in all four scenarios up to 2023/24. 116% 114% Further analysis suggests that peak loading is in the Greater 105% 1500 92% Glasgow area (Croy/Lenzie/). When Highland Main 67% Line Phase 2 is taken into account, amending the timetable would accommodate forecast demand. This option is being progressed by 1000 Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018. 500

0 Short Interurban Aberdeen/Dundee/Perthinto Glasgow Queen Street to in Glasgo the morningw Peak (07:00 - 10:00) Figure 2.9 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Queen Street High Level Station

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 8000 Data Passengers 2014 116% 7000 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability 6000 90% Scenario Passengers 2043 S 5000 69% Prospering in 66% P Passengers 2023-24 64% 61% Isolation 4000 143% 58% I Scenario Passengers 2043 51% 3000 108%% 44% 84% 81%% S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 76% 75% 2000 71% 62% G Global Turmoil 52% Scenario Passengers 2043 T 1000 Struggling in S Passengers 2023-24 0 Isolation /Stirling /Alloa to GlasgowEdinburgh to Glasgow (via Falkirk) I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.10 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Queen Street High Level Station Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 121

Suburban to Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Glasgow Queen Street continued Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from 1600 in all four scenarios up to 2023/24 (see Figure 2.12). Trains are most crowded into Glasgow Queen Street and this route should be viewed 1400 as part of the wider Strathclyde commuter network. Therefore proposed train lengthening on Glasgow Low Level routes could 1200 alleviate crowding (see Chapter 5 – Choices for Funders page 73). 1000 68%%

800 52% 69% 600 40% 37% 38%% 53% 35% 34% 29%% 400 37%% 40%% 23%% 30%% 23% 21% 200 20% 19%

0 Low Levels through Glasgow Queen Street in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00) to GlasgowFalkirk Grahamston to Glasgow Figure 2.11 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Queen Street High Level Station

Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Baseline 12000 150% Data Passengers 2014 10000 160% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 115% G Global Stability 8000 122% 91% 95% Scenario Passengers 2043 S 83% 878 % 96% 88% 92% 787 % 6000 73% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 86% 818 % 68% Isolation 69% 67% I Scenario Passengers 2043 4000 216%% 165%% S Struggling in 2000 126%1 122% 106%1 Passengers 2023-24 116%1 112%1 G Global Turmoil 72% 92% Passengers 2043 T Scenario 0 Cumbernauld to GlasgowEdinburgh /Airdrie to / Milngavie/ S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 Glasgow (via Bathgate) Balloch/ Isolation to Glasgow I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.12 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Queen Street High Level Station Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 122

Ayrshire/Inverclyde Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Glasgow Central The locations where peak demand is experienced are Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats predominantly Glasgow Central and neighbouring city centre 18,000 stations. The analysis compares forecast demand 2023/24 and 16,000 192% 2043 against the seating capacity that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on each of the corridors. 14,000 149% Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from , , 12,000 , and Wemyss Bay up to 2023/24 across all 10,000 113%1 110% scenarios (see Figure 2.13). Further analysis suggests that while 103% 1100% 95% trains may be overcrowded in the peak hour this is not true over the 8,000 84%% 219% whole morning peak. Therefore options have been proposed for 75% lengthening some trains and amending the timetable/stopping 6,000 169%% patterns (see Chapter 5, page 74). 1129% 125% 4,000 119% 1114% 108% 85% 95% Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity from in 100%% 77%% 56% 43% three scenarios up to 2023/24. Enhancement options have been 2,000 50% 64% 58% 56% 54% proposed to accommodate forecast demand (see Chapter 5, page - Kilmarnock / East Kilbride to Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00) 75). Ayr/Largs /Ardrossan to GlasgowGourock /Wemyss Bay to GlasgowPaisley Canal to Glasgow Figure 2.13 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 6,000 Data Passengers 2014 180%

5,000 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability 139% Scenario Passengers 2043 4,000 S 1113% 120% 104% 104%% Prospering in 1100% P Passengers 2023-24 3,000 95% Isolation 92% 86% 78% I Scenario Passengers 2043 73% 69% 2,000 66% 64% 61% 52%% S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 52% G Global Turmoil 1,000 T Scenario Passengers 2043 - S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 Isolation /Kilmarnock to GlasgowEast Kilbride to Glasgow I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.14 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 123

Edinburgh to Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Glasgow Central Continued The highest growth scenario forecasts that demand may exceed Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats seating capacity between Edinburgh and Glasgow via Shotts by 2,500 2023/24 (see Figure 2.15). Passenger numbers are greatest toward central Glasgow and should be taking in the wider context of 165%% services from and Edinburgh via Carstairs which use the 2,000 same route into Glasgow Central. Consequently crowding could be alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and 128% stopping patterns. 1,500 118% 100% 92% 89%94% 92% 84% 1,000 75% 72%% 72% 67% 66% 64% 61% 49% 52% 500

- EdinburghLanark/C toathc Glasgowart to Glasgow(via Carstairs) Central in the morningEdinburgh Peak to Glasgow (07:00 - (via10:00) Shotts) Figure 2.15 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Central Station

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 10,000 Data Passengers 2014 104% 9,000 P 8,000 Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 80%% G Global Stability 7,000 Passengers 2043 S Scenario 65% 6,000 59% 60%% Prospering in 558% 55% P Passengers 2023-24 5,000 50% Isolation 46% I Scenario Passengers 2043 4,000 148% 3,000 114% 85%% S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 90% 82% 79% 75% G Global Turmoil 2,000 Passengers 2043 62% 64% T Scenario 1,000 - S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 Isolation Lanark to Glasgow / Newton/ Circle to Glasgow I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.16 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Central Station Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 124

Low Levels through Glasgow Central in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Glasgow Central continued The highest growth scenario forecasts that demand may exceed seating capacity on all routes into Glasgow Central Low Level Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 10,000 station with trains being most crowded in the city centre (see Figure 2.17). These routes are part of the wider Strathclyde commuter 9,000 173%% network as discussed on page 121. Proposed train lengthening on 8,000 Glasgow Low Level routes could alleviate crowding (see Chapter 5 7,000 132% – Choices for Funders page 73). 178%% 6,000 187% 105% 95% 888 %95% 87% 5,000 144% 137% 79% 75% 4,000 113% 107% 107% 101%% 103% 100%1 94%9 81% 98% 95% 90% 3,000 81% 72% 77%% 2,000 1,000 - / Milngavie/ Dalmuir Motherwell /Whiet/ to Glasgow to Glasgow Cumbernauld to Glasgow Figure 2.17 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Glasgow Central Station

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Data Passengers 2014

P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability S Scenario Passengers 2043 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043

S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Turmoil T Scenario Passengers 2043

Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043 Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 125

Morning Peak Commuting Markets Methodology Used Prospering in Isolation (PI) scenario there is assumed to be more flexibility in this area post-2023/24. Edinburgh The RUMS identified changes in city centre employment as being the primary driver of growth in the Morning Peak Commuter This employment growth rate in Edinburgh is assumed to increase Markets. On the basis of this, the scenarios were used to develop by 1.6% per annum between 2018 and 2023/24, and by 1.5% per employment growth scenarios for Edinburgh and to develop car, rail annum between 2023/24 and 2043 in the highest growth (PI) and bus cost growth factors for the Edinburgh market for 2023/24 scenario assumes that there will be some market-led redevelopment and 2043. response to demand in Edinburgh. Costs and total transport demand for 2012 and 2018 were derived However, the main source of rail demand growth in Edinburgh is from CSTM morning peak dataset for Edinburgh. market share-led: once market share factors (rail capacity, low road network capacity and limited parking space in the city centre) are The Glasgow/Edinburgh model has been calibrated to CSTM rail added in, this translates into demand growth of 3.7% per annum up demand for 2012 and 2018 and checked for consistency against to 2023/24 and 2.3% per annum between 2023/24 and 2043. historical rail demand. Edinburgh has a diverse employment market that has been Key findings – Edinburgh developed around high value professional and financial services. To The rail commuter market into Edinburgh is less mature than the some extent this makes the market for rail less vulnerable in the low equivalent market in Glasgow: The inner suburban market in growth scenarios. Edinburgh is dominated by bus and the commuter rail market is Even in the lowest growth scenario (Struggling in Isolation), 12% much more focussed on connecting outer suburbs with the city more trips are forecast in 2043 than in 2012. centre and with major employment centres to the west of Edinburgh. It should be noted that no one scenario is considered to be more likely than any other. The Airdrie-Bathgate project significantly increased service frequencies into Edinburgh from and beyond during Control Period 4, whilst the opening of the Borders Railway during Control Period 5 has opened up a commuter market to the south of the city. There is a shortage of development land in central Edinburgh, with most potential sites (located around Haymarket) already having been developed. The Edinburgh Park and Gyle areas are rail served and are significant employment zones, but these are now mature developments and have limited capacity to accommodate significant future employment growth. It is the treatment of the potential for rail accessible employment sites to be redeveloped to provide higher intensity employment capacity uses that drives significant differences in the two high employment growth forecasts. Under the PGS scenario, environmental constraints prevent significant redevelopment of rail accessible sites whereas in the Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 126

Long Distance to Edinburgh in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Results by Corridor- Edinburgh Edinburgh Waverley Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 3000 The locations where peak demand is experienced are predominantly Edinburgh Waverley and neighbouring city centre stations. The analysis compares demand 2023/24 and 2043 2500 138%% against the train capacity that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on 127%% each of the corridors 135% 2000 123% 91% 88% 86% 1500 82% 77% 88% 69% 67% 86% 84% 80% 76% 65% 1000 63%

500

0 Aberdeen/ Dundee to Edinburgh Inverness /Perth to Edinburgh Figure 2.18 Available SeatsGlasgow vs Passenger to Growth Edinbur Morninggh FPeakast (07:00 in the – 10:00) morning Edinburgh Peak Waverley (07:00 Station - 10:00)

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Data Passengers 2014 7000 96% P 6000 Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 88% G Global Stability 117%% S Scenario Passengers 2043 5000 106%%

4000 61% 62% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 60% 56% Isolation 76% 75% 76% 53% 71% 67% 50% I Passengers 2043 3000 46% Scenario 61% 56%

S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 2000 G Global Turmoil Passengers 2043 T Scenario 1000 Struggling in S Passengers 2023-24 0 Isolation Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Bathgate) Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Falkirk) I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.19 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Edinburgh Waverley Station July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 127

Glasgow to Edinburgh Slow in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Edinburgh Waverley continued Demand is forecast to approach seating capacity from the Fife Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Circle up to 2023/24 across three scenarios (see Figure 2.21). 1800 Proposed lengthening trains on this service to provide more seats 1600 90% could alleviate crowding (see Chapter 5 – Choices for Funders page 83% 62). This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through 1400 90% the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2018. 85% 1200 59% 1000 55% 54% 51% 56% 59%% 48% 55% 52% 800 41% 43% 50% 44% 43% 600

400

200

0 Edinburgh Local North in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00) Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Carstairs)Glasgow to Edinburgh (via Shos) Figure 2.20 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Edinburgh Waverley Station

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 3500 Data Passengers 2014 149%% 136% 3000 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability Passengers 2043 2500 S Scenario 97% 95% 90% 98% 2000 85% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 84% 77% Isolation 77% 72% I Scenario Passengers 2043 1500 53% 52% 54% 50% 47% 1000 44% S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 40% G Global Turmoil T Scenario Passengers 2043 500 S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 0 Isolation Dunblane/Srling /Alloa to Edinburgh Fife Circle to Edinburgh I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.21 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Edinburgh Waverley Station July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 128

Edinburgh Local South in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00)

Edinburgh Waverley continued Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity North Berwick/ Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Dunbar up to 2023/24 across three scenarios (see Figure 2.22). 4500 Further analysis suggests this crowding is anticipated in the 4000 181% Edinburgh area and does not exceed the ScotRail franchise 165% commitment of passengers standing for not more than 10 minutes. 3500 A number of choices are available to help meet forecast demand and these are discussed in Chapter 5, page 57. 3000 116% 2500 112% 110% Demand is forecast to approach seating capacity from the Borders 104% 99% route by 2023/24 across three scenarios (see Figure 2.22). Proposed 2000 86% lengthening trains on this service to provide more seats could 69% alleviate crowding. This option is being progressed by Transport 1500 156% 167% Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 1000 97% 111% 2018. 71% 95% 91% 87% 82% It should be noted that 2014 data is between Edinburgh Waverley 500 and only. 0 Borders to EdinburghNorth Berwick /Dunbar to Edinburgh Figure 2.22 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Edinburgh Waverley Station

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Data Passengers 2014

P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability S Scenario Passengers 2043 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043

S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Turmoil T Scenario Passengers 2043

Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043 Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 129

Morning Peak Commuting Markets Methodology Used choosing rail into the city centre. Aberdeen The RUMS identified changes in city centre employment as being However, the rail offer from the north west of the city is due to the primary driver of growth in the Morning Peak Commuter improve during Control Period 5. The AWPR and A96 improvements Markets. On the basis of this, the scenarios were used to develop are unlikely to substantially improve journey times into the city employment growth scenarios for Aberdeen and to develop car, rail centre and to Dyce/Aberdeen Airport for those commuting from and bus cost growth factors for the Aberdeen market for 2023/24 Inverurie, a corridor which has experienced significant rail growth in and 2043. recent years (MOIRA estimates recent growth regularly exceeding 10 per cent per annum since 2010). Costs and total transport demand for 2012 and 2018 were derived from TMfS morning peak dataset for Aberdeen. In terms of the employment forecast, Aberdeen has the least diverse economy of the three cities considered with a heavy The Aberdeen model has been calibrated to TMfS rail demand for dependence on the energy sector. This is reflected with a high 2012 and 2018 and checked for consistency against historical rail growth rate (3.3% per annum between 2018 and 2023/24; 2.7% demand. per annum between 2023/24 and 2043) in the highest growth Key findings – Aberdeen scenario (PGS). However, in the lowest growth scenario (Struggling in Isolation) employment growth is -0.7% per annum between 2018 Aberdeen has some similarities to Edinburgh. Both cities have a and 2023/24 and -0.9% between 2023/24 and 2043. well-developed, rail connected employment zone outside the city centre (in Aberdeen’s case, Dyce). However, the market for rail into It is worth noting, therefore that despite these results, the overall Aberdeen has unique characteristics within commuter markets in demand forecasts are surprisingly robust to assumptions made Scotland. about employment growth: although rail demand reduces post- 2023/24 in the two lower growth scenarios, demand grows This means that the forecast is subject to more volatility (and significantly between 2012 and 2043 in the top three scenarios, and therefore more risk) than either the Glasgow and Edinburgh this increased demand is as much a function of market share as of forecasts for the morning peak. The fact that the city only has one market size. rail corridor, and that to the south of the city the railway line follows the coast, means that rail is peripheral for many commuter trips from the west and the north east. The size of the TMfS zones (relative to CSTM) means that the model is highly aggregated compared to the CSTM-based models for Edinburgh and Glasgow. Therefore relatively small changes to assumptions can have comparatively significant impacts on forecast demand. This is complicated by the volume of infrastructure investment due for delivery by 2018/19: Road connectivity into Aberdeen is due to be improved by Aberdeen Western Peripheral Road (AWPR), while improvements to both the A90 and A96 are also likely to be negative checks on rail demand. Aberdeen has a number of non-rail connected out of town employment centres, such as Altens, Cove and Westhill. The AWPR will service some of these directly, reducing the likelihood of people Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 130

Into Aberdeen in the morning Peak (07:00 - 10:00) Results by Corridor- Aberdeen Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats The locations where peak demand is experienced are 5,000 predominantly Aberdeen and neighbouring city centre stations. The analysis compares demand 2023/24 and 2043 against the train 4,500 238% capacity that is likely to be available in 2018/19 on each of the 4,000 corridors. 3,500 180% 180% 3,000

2,500 139%

2,000 89% 85% 78% 1,500 71% 70% 63% 65% 69% 66% 64% 56% 54% 1,000 49% 54%

500

- From the North From the South Figure 2.23 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Morning Peak (07:00 – 10:00) Aberdeen

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Data Passengers 2014

P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability S Scenario Passengers 2043 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043

S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Turmoil T Scenario Passengers 2043

Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043 Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 131

Interurban Markets Methodology Used appraisal this tends to reduce the value of journey time reductions delivered by rail schemes. However, in purely demand terms it In the Interurban model, population change is the principal driver of amplifies the impact of increasing road journey times relative to rail. the size of the overall travel market. Scenarios have been used to derive assumptions for both population and travel costs factors The market size element of the Interurban model is driven by post-2018. population growth. TELMoS forecasts were used up to 2018, with scenario growth being applied at a regional level for 2023/24 and Rail, road and bus costs – together with overall travel demand – for 2043 forecast years. A key requirement was to ensure that 2012 and 2018 are based on the TMfS inter-peak data. The model is population growth was consistent in each scenario with the calibrated to TMfS rail demand for 2012 and 2018. employment scenarios that informed the Morning Peak forecasts. Forecasts from the model have been produced for corridors into the It is for this reason that the forecast growth rates used in the Draft following destinations: for Consultation have been reduced, resulting in growth being • Glasgow pushed back from 2023/24 to 2043. • Edinburgh In the highest growth PGS scenario, the assumptions take account of the Scottish Government’s stated objective to grow the • Aberdeen population of Scotland, but does not take account of the • Inverness. distributional impact of any such increase (i.e. the likelihood that, if this growth is to be achieved, there may be a bias towards urban Stirling, Perth and Dundee are located within these corridors and areas). This slightly offsets the overall impact of the population are factored into these forecasts, although they are located in the growth assumption. On this basis, the overall Interurban forecast in middle of longer corridors. the PGS scenario is for the demand to grow at a rate of 3.7% Key Findings between 2012 and 2023/24 and 3.5% by 2043. Interurban demand has been forecast using inter-peak data from TMfS, and reflects Transport Scotland’s policy (as expressed in the ScotRail franchise agreement) to apply an RPI-1% growth to off-peak ticket prices over the course of the current ScotRail franchise. The scenarios make different assumptions on the extent to which public policy continues to incentivise modal shift from road to rail. In the high growth scenarios, this is despite a significant investment in roads up to 2018/19 (Queensferry Crossing, M8 upgrade and A90/A96/AWPR), and city centre-to-city centre journey times by road are anticipated to increase over time as a result of road congestion in some regions. Short stay parking costs are assumed to increase in real terms, although not at the same rate as all day parking. A key assumption the model makes with regard to market share is that rail users are able to use their travel time productively. In rail Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 132

Edinburgh - Aberdeen Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

Interurban Results In Interurban markets, connectivity rather than capacity is the key Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats issue. For this reason, the analysis focusses on growth rates in each 3500 corridor as this will influence the case for improving connectivity on 206% the key interurban corridors. 3000 Results are summarised at a corridor level for both 2023/24 and 169% 2043. 2500

Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Glasgow 2000 127% and Aberdeen/Dundee in both directions up to 2023/24 across two 60% 51% scenarios (see Figure 2.25). Further analysis reveals that this is 96% 89% 87% 86%101% 1500 45% 41% predominantly in the Glasgow area and that options for amending 38% 38% 38% 40% stopping patterns and timetable changes on these services should 1000 31% be considered. This option is being progressed by Transport 47% Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 500 2018. 0 EdinburghGlasgow to -Aberdeen Aberdeen Route InterpeakDundee/Aberdeen (10:00 - 16:00) to Edinburgh Figure 2.24 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban route Aberdeen- Edinburgh (10:00 – 16:00)

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 4500 Data Passengers 2014 204%% 4000 212%% 183%% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 3500 169% G Global Stability 144% Scenario Passengers 2043 3000 S 122% 2500 131% 112%1 1109% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 98% 97% 2000 104% Isolation 98% 91% 89% 88% I Scenario Passengers 2043 1500

S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 1000 48% 43% G Global Turmoil T Scenario Passengers 2043 500 0 Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation Glasgow to Aberdeen Dundee/Aberdeen to Glasgow I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.25 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban route Aberdeen-Glasgow (10:00 – 16:00) Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 133

Inverness - Aberdeen Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

Interurban Results continued Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Inverness Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats and Aberdeen in both directions up to 2023/24 across two scenarios 7000 (see Figure 2.26). Options have been proposed to enhance the 325% corridor to accommodate this demand (see Chapter 5, page 82) 6000

Demand is also forecast to exceed seating capacity from Edinburgh 5000 245%% to Inverness (see Figure 2.26). This is predominantly in the 512% Edinburgh and Fife areas. Consequently crowding could be 4000 alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and 179% stopping patterns. This option is being progressed by Transport 3000 139% 142% 129% 1127% Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 1126% 249% 2018 2000 157% 160%% 54% 116% 1000 64% 88% 85% 83%

0 InvernessInverness to Aberdeen- Edinburgh Route InterpeakAberdeen (10:00 to- 16:00) Inverness Figure 2.26 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Inverness - Aberdeen (10:00 – 16:00)

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 2500 Data Passengers 2014

329% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 2000 G Global Stability 279% Scenario Passengers 2043 S 1500 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 200% Isolation 166% I Scenario Passengers 2043 1000 120% 102% 60% 97% 94% S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 53% 500 42% 39% 39% 46% 38% 40% G Global Turmoil 37% 44% T Scenario Passengers 2043 0 Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation Inverness to EdinburghEdinburgh to Inverness I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.27 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Inverness – Edinburgh (10:00 – 16:00) Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 134

Inverness - Glasgow Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00) Interurban Results continued Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Glasgow Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats and Inverness up to 2023/24 (see Figure 2.28). This crowding occurs 3000 310%% around the Glasgow area. Consequently crowding could be alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and 2500 258% stopping patterns. This option is being progressed by Transport Scotland through the ScotRail franchise for delivery in December 2000 2018. Please note that available seats do not reflect the 2 hourly service between the cities which will be in place by April 2019. 178% 1500 Demand is forecast to exceed seating capacity between Edinburgh 148% and Glasgow via Falkirk up to 2023/24 (see Figure 2.29). Seating 109% capacity is based on running 4-car trains, lengthening some of 1000 94% 91% 88% these trains to 6 or 8-cars (as at peak times) would provide sufficient 142%% capacity. 500 122% 38% 73% 71% 63% 92%% 62%77% 30% 0 Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00) Inverness to GlasgowGlasgow to Inverness Figure 2.28 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban route Inverness - Glasgow Central (10:00 – 16:00)

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 14000 194% Data Passengers 2014 12000 171%% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability 10000 141%% S Scenario Passengers 2043 123% 115%% 112% 8000 105% 110% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 94% 1100% 99% Isolation 82% 85% 6000 77% 76% 75% I Scenario Passengers 2043 4000 S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 39% 40% G Global Turmoil 2000 T Scenario Passengers 2043 0 Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation Glasgow to Edinburgh via FalkirkEdinburgh to Glasgow via Falkirk I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.29 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk route (10:00 – 16:00) Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 135

Edinburgh - Glasgow via Bathgate Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

Interurban Results continued Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 58% 5000 47% 4000 37% 36% 33% 30% 32% 31% 31% 3000 28% 26% 26% 26%2 28% 28% 28% 21% 2000 19% 1000 0 GlasgowEdinburgh to -Edinburgh Glasgow viavia ShottsBathgate Route InterpeakEdinburgh to(10:00 Glasgow - 16:00) via Bathgate Figure 2.30 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Glasgow –Edinburgh via Bathgate (10:00 – 16:00)

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats 3000 Data Passengers 2014 2500 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability S Scenario Passengers 2043 2000 54% P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 1500 Isolation 46% 45% 39% I Scenario Passengers 2043 40% 35% 35% 1000 37% 34% 32% 31% 32% 31% 30% 30% 33% S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 23% 35% G Global Turmoil 500 T Scenario Passengers 2043 0 Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation Glasgow to Edinburgh via Shos Edinburgh to Glasgow via Shos I Scenario Passengers 2043 Figure 2.31 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Glasgow –Edinburgh via Shotts (10:00 – 16:00) Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 136

Edinburgh - Glasgow via Carstairs Route Interpeak (10:00 - 16:00)

Interurban Results continued Demand is also forecast to exceed seating capacity from Edinburgh Passenger Growth vs Available Seats Passenger Growth vs Available Seats to Glasgow (see Figure 2.32). This is predominantly in the Glasgow 1800 area at Motherwell and Glasgow Central. Consequently crowding 190%% 1600 could be alleviated across these services by amending the timetable and stopping patterns of other trains serving these stations. 1400 154%% 1200 86% 125% 1000 74% 107% 105% 112% 66% 96% 96% 800 57% 58% 54% 53% 52% 600 40% 400 24% 200 0 Glasgow to Edinburgh via CarstairsEdinburgh to Glasgow via Carstairs Figure 2.32 Available Seats vs Passenger Growth Interurban Glasgow –Edinburgh via Carstairs (10:00 – 16:00)

Baseline Available Seats 2018 Data Passengers 2014

P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability S Scenario Passengers 2043 P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043

S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Turmoil T Scenario Passengers 2043

Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043 Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 137

Rural Markets Methodology Used population growth. Rural Market forecasts were based on the passenger forecast Gross Domestic Product growth and ‘soft’ factors. Post-franchise outputs from Abellio’s successful bid for the ScotRail franchise. The growth is trend-based. markets considered were: Applying post-franchise growth trend to a franchise forecast which • West Highland & Oban is largely policy-led risks overstating the growth that is likely to occur in practice. The G&SW corridor exhibits a mixture of characteristics • Kyle & the Far North with some “commuter” flows (e.g. Auchinleck) and some • Glasgow & South West (G&SW) “interurban” (e.g. Dumfries/Glasgow). • Stranraer. As figure 2.33 below illustrates, demand on some rural routes is seasonal in nature, with the between Glasgow The model reflects Transport Scotland’s policy that ScotRail should and Fort William/Mallaig/Oban being significant in this regard. seek to fill spare capacity on rural routes throughout the period of the franchise. Unlike the Morning Peak Commuter and the Interurban models (which were choice models), the model is elasticity-based up to 2026/27 with allowances made for

14%

12%

10%

8%

of passenger s 6% age 4% percent 2%

0% JanFeb Mar Apr May Jun JulAug Sep OctNov Dec

Glasgow - Fort William / Mallaig / Oban Glasgow - Stranraer Glasgow - Carlisle via Dumfries Inverness - Wick / Thurso / Kyle

Figure 2.33 Seasonal passenger journeys on Rural lines - trend 2004/05 to 2014/15 Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 138

Rural Markets Kyle/Far North: Baseline Available Seats 2018 Passenger demand forecasts for rural routes are based on annual Passenger numbers on these corridors are seasonal with tourism Data Passengers 2014 forecast figures from ScotRail. As passenger numbers on these increasing demand during the summer. routes can vary seasonally, passengers numbers compared to the In 2014, 31 per cent of available seats were used in January and 51 P Prospering in number of seats available by the end of Control Period 5 have been Passengers 2023-24 per cent in August. G Global Stability shown month by month. Passengers 2043 S Scenario As the ScotRail forecast figures have been used to 2026/27 the By 2023/24 it is forecast to increase from between 51 per cent in passenger growth to 2023/24 is the same for all four scenarios. The January to 83 per cent in August across all scenarios. Prospering in P Passengers 2023-24 scenarios are used to forecast passenger growth after 2026/27 and Isolation By 2043 it is forecast to increase from between 82 per cent in therefore the 2043 forecasts show variation across the scenarios. I Scenario Passengers 2043 January to 133 per cent in August in the highest growth scenario. Conditional Outputs RCO1, RCO2 and RCO3 propose additional S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 services on these lines by 2043 and Choices for Funders have been G Global Turmoil suggested to facilitate enhanced services (see Chapter 5, page 83) T Scenario PassengersPassenger 2043 Growth vs Available Seats on Kyle and Far North lines 2023-2043

Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 JanFeb MarApr MayJun JulAug SepOct NovDec Figure 2.34 Annual passenger growth vs available seats on Far North Lines July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 139

Key Findings Baseline Available Seats 2018 Glasgow and South Western Route to Dumfries and Carlisle Data Passengers 2014 Historic passenger numbers on this corridor do not show a seasonal tourism pattern such as seen on other rural routes. This may reflect P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 that the route serves a number of different markets. G Global Stability S Scenario Passengers 2043 In 2014, between 49 and 63 per cent of available seats were used, with the peak in December and lowest in February. P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 Isolation By 2023/24 demand is forecast to increase from between 67 per cent and 86 per cent across all scenarios. I Scenario Passengers 2043 By 2043 demand is forecast to increase from between 103 per cent S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 in January to 133 per cent in the highest growth scenario. G Global Turmoil Scenario Passengers 2043 Conditional Outputs RCO9, RCO10 and GCO10 propose additional T Passenger Growth vsservices Available on this route Seats by 2043 withon particular G&SW emphasis 2023-2043 on serving Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 commuting and leisure markets towards Glasgow and towards S Isolation Dumfries/Carlisle. I Scenario Passengers 2043

300000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0 JanFeb MarApr MayJun JulAug Sep OctNov Dec

Figure 2.35 Annual passenger growth vs available seats Glasgow and South West Lines July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 140

Key Findings Available Seats 2018 Baseline Stranraer Line Data Passengers 2014 Historic passenger numbers on this corridor do not show a seasonal pattern. P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability In 2014, between 10 per cent and 12 per cent of available seats S Scenario Passengers 2043 were used. By 2023/24 demand is forecast to increase from between 13 per Prospering in P Passengers 2023-24 cent and 16 per cent across all scenarios. Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043 By 2043 demand is forecast to increase from between 19 per and 23 per cent in the highest growth scenario. S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Turmoil Passenger Growth vs Available Seats on Stranraer Line T Scenario Passengers 2043

Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 JanFeb MarApr MayJun JulAug Sep OctNov Dec Figure 2.36 Annual passenger growth vs available seats on Stranraer Line July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 141

Key Findings Available Seats 2018 Baseline West Highland/Oban: Data Passengers 2014 Passenger numbers on these routes are the most seasonal of any rural lines with tourism increasing numbers during the summer. P Prospering in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Stability In 2014, between 17 per cent of available seats were used in S Scenario Passengers 2043 January and 46 per cent in August. By 2023/24 demand is forecast to increase from between 30 per Prospering in P Passengers 2023-24 cent in January and to 79 per cent in August across all scenarios. Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043 By 2043 demand forecast to increase from between 48 per cent in January to 127 per cent in August in the highest growth scenario. S Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 G Global Turmoil Conditional Outputs RCO7 and RCO8 propose additional services on Scenario Passengers 2043Passenger Growth vsthese Av linesailable by 2043 Seats to improved on passenger West connectivityHighland on theselines 2023-2043 T routes, this would also meet forecast growth in passenger demand. Struggling in Passengers 2023-24 S Isolation I Scenario Passengers 2043

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0 JanFeb MarApr MayJun JulAug SepOct NovDec

Figure 2.37 Annual passenger growth vs available seats on West Highland Lines Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 142

Conclusions The models developed to support the Scotland Market Study are relatively simple, and require careful interpretation. The key message from the modelling is that the strongest growth in rail demand is likely to be in those rail markets where the rail offer has – or is due to improve substantially. Aberdeen, and to a lesser extent Edinburgh, are both forecast to experience strong growth in rail demand, and most of this growth is forecast to be a result of changes in the rail offer relative to other modes: either positive impacts (improvements to rail services) or negative impacts (increased road congestion). Growth in Glasgow is forecast to be lower, and to be mainly employment driven. However, the existing size of the market for rail into Glasgow is more than double the size of the combined domestic demand into Edinburgh and Aberdeen. This means that the overall increase in the number of passengers forecast to be carried is significantly larger than the changes in passenger volumes forecast for both Edinburgh and Aberdeen. In the Interurban market, strong growth is likely to improve the business case for frequency or journey time improvements, particularly when this is combined with strong growth in the morning peak. It should be noted that the strong growth forecast for both the Interurban and Rural markets is in part policy-led with the objective of filling existing capacity. Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 143

Further work The modelling undertaken to support the Scotland Market Study is UK is highest in and around London. Outside of the south east, more extensive and detailed than that undertaken previously for the capacity constraint currently applies on fewer trains, so both the 2007 Route Utilisation Strategy and the 2011 Generation demand profiles tend to be ‘peakier’ (this is true for Scottish 2 Route Utilisation Strategy. In part this is because the Long Term cities, possibly with the exception of Edinburgh). MOIRA Planning Process has increased the size of the forecasting window therefore appears to understate peak hour demand (and to 30 years, but it is also due to the willingness of Transport Scotland therefore the capacity-related conditional outputs) but doesn’t to share model data and made a more ambitious and detailed affect growth. This is because as demand increases, it should be forecasting approach to be feasible. expected that the additional demand will be concentrated on the shoulders of the peak rather than on the high peak. The models have been developed specifically for infrastructure planning and – like all models – have limitations in the way that they • Interurban forecasts are based on individual journey legs rather work which should be reflected in their interpretation. This section than a combined journey. This is the reason why, for example, sets out the known limitations, assesses the materiality of each of demand on services from Aberdeen to Edinburgh is forecast to these limitations and sets out a plan for addressing them (should be higher than demand on services from Edinburgh to Aberdeen. that be deemed necessary). The extent to which this is likely to affect the results of the analysis is not clear, but is unlikely to materially change the The modelling is designed to inform strategic choices and is • inferences drawn. therefore at a relatively high level. For this reason it does not include certain variables that are known to influence rail demand (which are included in TMfS and CSTM), including destination choice and car ownership caps. When the model was being calibrated this did not have a material effect, although these are areas that could be considered as part of further modelling developments. • The TMfS and CSTM rail and bus data was disaggregated by Transport Scotland’s consultants from a combined Public Transport mode market share. This was the first time this exercise had been carried out and is important, as the purpose of the exercise was to forecast rail demand. • In order to assign zonal demand to stations, they have been assigned on the basis of geographical proximity. This works well in most cases, but may not be able to take into account specific local demand and station choice decisions. Where this is material it could be addressed on a case-by-case basis in the Route Study. • MOIRA demand profiles are based on a GB-wide dataset. It has been noted that demand profiles in MOIRA appear to be biased towards London and South East patterns of demand where on-train crowding forces demand into the shoulders of the peak and leads to a ‘flatter’ peak. This is because rail demand in the Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 144

Complete list of Conditional Outputs identified Table 2.2 Scotland passenger capacity conditional outputs for 2023 and 2043 in the Scotland Market Study

Capacity Conditional Outputs Reference Conditional Output

To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Edinburgh during peak hours on the local and interurban services in CCO1 2043 To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and interurban services in CCO2 2043 To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Aberdeen during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2043 CCO3 2043

CCO4 To provide sufficient capacity over the day for passengers travelling on rural services in Scotland in 2043

To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling on the interurban services between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, CCO5 Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness in 2043 To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Edinburgh during peak hours on the local and interurban services in CCO6 2023/24 To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and interurban services in CCO7 2023/24 To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Aberdeen during peak hours on the local and interurban services in 2023/24 CCO8 2023/24

CCO9 To provide sufficient capacity over the day for passengers travelling on rural services in Scotland in 2023/24

To provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling on the interurban services between Glasgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, Perth, CCO10 Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness in 2023/24 Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 145

Edinburgh Conurbation Connectivity Conditional Outputs Table 2.3 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for the Edinburgh Conurbation area

Reference Origin to destination (flow) Conditional Output

3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour ECO1 Edinburgh Waverley - Tweedbank Reduce journey time

ECO2 Edinburgh Waverley - Berwick-upon-Tweed/Newcastle 1 opportunity to travel per hour

2 opportunities to travel per hour ECO3 Edinburgh Waverley - North Berwick Reduce journey time 2 opportunities to travel per hour ECO4 Edinburgh Waverley - Dunbar Reduce journey time Edinburgh Waverley - Falkirk Grahamston 2 to 4 opportunities to travel per hour ECO5 Edinburgh Waverley - Dunblane Reduce journey time

ECO6 Edinburgh Waverley - Fife Circle 4 to 6 opportunities to travel per hour

ECO7 Edinburgh Waverley - Livingston South 1 to 3 opportunities to travel per hour

ECO8 Edinburgh Waverley - Bathgate 2 opportunities to travel per hour Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 146

Interurban Connectivity Conditional Outputs Table 2.4 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for interurban routes Reference Origin to destination (flow) Conditional Output

GCO29 Stirling - Carlisle via 1 opportunity to travel per hour

1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour ICO1 Glasgow Queen Street - Aberdeen Reduce journey time

ICO2 Dundee - Aberdeen 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

ICO3 Glasgow - Perth/ Dundee/ Glasgow - Arbroath 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour ICO4 Glasgow Queen Street - Inverness Reduce journey time

ICO5 Perth - Inverness 1 or 2 opportunities to travel every 2 hour

1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour ICO6 Edinburgh Waverley - Aberdeen Reduce journey time

ICO7 Edinburgh Waverley - Dundee 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour ICO8 Edinburgh Waverley - Inverness Reduce journey time

ICO9 Edinburgh Waverley - Perth 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

4 to 6 opportunities to travel per hour ICO10 Glasgow Queen Street - Edinburgh Waverley (via Falkirk High) Reduce journey time 2 or 3 opportunities to travel per hour ICO11 Glasgow Central - Edinburgh Waverley (via Shotts) Reduce journey time 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour ICO12 Glasgow Central - Edinburgh Waverley (via Carstairs) Reduce journey time 4 to 6 opportunities to travel per hour ICO13 Glasgow Queen Street - Edinburgh Waverley (via Bathgate) Reduce journey time 1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hour RCO4 Inverness - Aberdeen Reduce journey time 1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hour RCO5 Inverness - Elgin Reduce journey time 3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour RCO6 Inverurie - Aberdeen Reduce journey time Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 147

Rural Connectivity Conditional Outputs Table 2.5 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for Rural routes

Reference Origin to destination (flow) Conditional Output

RCO1 Inverness - Wick/Thurso 1 opportunity to travel every other hour

RCO2 Inverness - Invergordon 1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hour

RCO3 Inverness - Kyle 1 opportunity to travel every 3 hours

RCO7 Glasgow Queen Street - Oban 1 opportunity to travel every 2 to 3 hours

RCO8 Glasgow Queen Street- Mallaig 1 opportunity to travel every 2 to 3 hours

RCO9 Kilmarnock - Dumfries 1 opportunity to travel per hour

RCO10 Dumfries - Carlisle 2 opportunities to travel per hour

RCO11 Ayr - 1 opportunity to travel per hour

RCO12 Girvan - Stranraer 1 opportunity to travel every other hour Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 148

Glasgow Conurbation Connectivity Conditional Outputs Table 2.6 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for Glasgow Conurbation area

Reference Origin to destination (flow) Conditional Output

GCO1 Glasgow Queen Street – Larbert / Stirling / Alloa 2 to 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO2 Glasgow Queen Street - Anniesland (North Glasgow Circle) 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO3 Glasgow Queen Street - Falkirk Grahamston 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

Up to 6 opportunities to travel per hour GCO4 Glasgow Central – Ayr / / Ardrossan Harbour Journey time reduction

GCO5 Glasgow Central - Largs 1 to 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO6 Glasgow Central - Gourock Retain existing service frequency

GCO7 Glasgow Central - Wemyss Bay Retain existing service frequency

GCO8 Glasgow Central - Paisley Canal Retain existing service frequency

GCO9 Glasgow Central - Barrhead Retain existing service frequency

GCO10 Glasgow Central – Kilmarnock / Ayr / New Cumnock / Carlisle 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO11 Glasgow Central - East Kilbride 3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO12 Glasgow Central - Neilston 3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO13 Glasgow Central - Newton 3 or 4 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO14 Glasgow Central - Glasgow Central (Cathcart Circle) Retain existing service frequency

Retain existing service frequency GCO15 Glasgow Central - Lanark Journey time reduction Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 149

Table 2.6 Scotland connectivity conditional outputs for Glasgow Conurbation area (continued)

Reference Origin to destination (flow) Conditional Output

GCO16 Glasgow Central - Milngavie Retain existing service frequency

GCO17 Glasgow Queen Street - Milngavie Retain existing service frequency

GCO18 Glasgow Central - Helensburgh Retain existing service frequency

GCO19 Glasgow Queen Street - Balloch Retain existing service frequency

GCO20 Glasgow Queen Street - Dalmuir Retain existing service frequency

GCO21 Glasgow Queen Street - Dalmuir via / Central Retain existing service frequency

GCO22 Glasgow Central - Dalmuir via Singer Retain existing service frequency

GCO23 Glasgow Central - Airdrie / Bathgate Retain existing service frequency

GCO24 Glasgow Queen Street - Cumbernauld Retain existing service frequency

GCO25 Glasgow Central - Cumbernauld 1 or 2 opportunities to travel per hour

GCO26 Glasgow Central - / Retain existing service frequency

Glasgow Central – Glasgow Central (via Motherwell / / GCO27 Retain existing service frequency Newton)

GCO28 Glasgow Central - Larkhall Retain existing service frequency

GCO30 Glasgow Central - Shotts 1 opportunity to travel per hour Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 150

2043 Indicative Train Service Specification Analysing the Connectivity Conditional Outputs The Connectivity Conditional Outputs which have been developed are represented in the 2043 Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) . This is one way in which the Connectivity Conditional Outputs could be delivered and it is the method with which the current network is tested. In the west of Scotland, the service frequency of the suburban commuter market is relatively high already; therefore the Connectivity Conditional Outputs do not provide a step change in connectivity. However, even a small increase on a number of corridors into Glasgow Central can have a significant impact on the capacity of the terminal station. In contrast, the 2043 ITSS proposes a step change in connectivity on the Interurban market in Scotland East. – Scotland Route Study Appendix 02 July 2016Appendix 2 December 2015 Scotland Market Study - Scotland Route Study Drafy for ConsultNetworkastion 129 Rail 151 Scotland (East) Route Study Map 2043 ITSS THURSO Scotscalder Georgemas Jn Forsinard RRCCO1O1 WICK Altnabreac Georgemas Kinbrace Junction

Kildonan

Helmsdale

Brora

Dunrobin Castle

Golspie

Rogart

Lairg Lairg BP Oil Scotland (East) Route Study Map 2043 ITSS Invershin 11C x Cll4ass 4 Culraia n or ClassC 6

AdArdgay

Tain

Fearn

Invergordon Attadale Achnashellach Achanalt Garve Duncraig Alness Strathcarron Achnasheen Lochluichart Dingwall Jn Roseisle-United Duirinish Distillers DINGWALL Welsh's Bridge Harbour Muir of Ord Jn Nairn Forres Elgin Keith Beauly 1 x Class 4 Conon Bridge Dalcross Alves Jn HtHuntlllyy or ClassC 6 Jn INVERNESS

Carrbridge Inverurie Kintore Dyce Kittybrewster Jn Aviemore Waterloo Quay Goods (Croxton & Garry)

ABERDEEN Craiginches Yard Kingussie Portlethen Stonehaven 1 x Class 4 Newtonnm Laurencekirk DB Schenker or Class 6 Montrose Arbroath Dalwhhinniie Carnoustie 1 x Class 4

Blair Atholl 6 Golf Streett or Class 6

4 ss Barry Linkkss

Pitlochry

or Class Class or

a 1 x Cl x 1 Monifiefiethh Dunkeeld Balmossiei & Birnamm BroughtyB Ferry

Innverrggoowwrie DUNDEE Dundee Central Jn PERTTHH Tay Bridge Perth South Jn Linkswood (St Fort) Hilton Jn Leuchars

Cupar Springfield Gleneagles 4 banank JnJn ass 6 Ladybank lass 1 x ClasC WWeesssttfiefield Markinch or C Methil 1 x Class 4 DBBSS SScScotottish hoorrntntononon CCoal or Class Earl's Seat Disposal Point CaC rdenden YYaarrdd ss Clunlunybrib dgdge Redford GLENROTHES WITH THORNTON 6 Jn Jn Loocchhgggelly Thornton Jns KIIRKCALDY Dunblane COWOWWDEDENENNBEAB TTHH Key Cross Boundary Dunfermlliinee Kinghg orn Queen Margareett Interurban BurBurntislandn Glasgow Conurban Dunfeerrmlm ine 1 Edinburgh Conurban x C Charlestown AbeAbeerdou or Cl C Jn Town la Rural lass 6ss Non Hourly Service Dalgety Bayy as 4 ALLLLOAO Longannet Rosyth Class 4 and Class 6 refers STIRLINGG 1 x Class 4 and Power Station tofreight tra c 1 x Class 6 INVERKEITHING 29

CO29 CO Rosyth

LarbererrtrtGCO2 9 nd Dockyard

1 North Queensfensferrerryy

6

4 6 Larbert JnJ GC O GCO1 Caammeloele on Greenhill Lower Jn FAFALLKKIIRRK GRAHAMSTON

CCarmuirsuiGCO33 l 4 s s Clas x Jns GRGRANGEMOUTH Dalmeny Jn

FRFREF EIIGHHT TERMINALS

Class Class x 1 1 C Grangangeemouthe h Edinburgay Class x 1 Leith

Jn PoP lmmoonnt Linlithgow

1 an Docks and Croy Winchburgh South Gyle Poowwwdderhaall NNoortthh Berwick Greenhill FALKIRRK Polmonntt BBo'NessN Jn Dunbar Rail Upper Jn Jn Jnn EDDINBBUURRGH BBrana ch 3 Lenzie 3 HIGHH (Winchburgh) Newbridge Haymarket Portobello Monktonhall Terminal Jn Jns WWAVERLEEY Jns Jn Prestonpannpanss DDreme Bishopbriggs GCO3 Edinburgh Haymarket PPowderhall Musselburgh Wallyford Longnidddry (East Dunbar Livingston Branchc Jn Park Gorgie Linton) (Reston) Blackridge Armadale North Brunstane Jn Berwickk Craiglockhart Jn NNiddrie West Carmondean Jn Jn Upon Tweed BATHGATE Slateford Jns Jn Millerhill Sighthill Jns NewcrN aighallg Yard Wester Hailes

GLASGOWWGCO3 Millerhill GCO1 G Jns QUEEN STREET 1 x

Curriehill or EEskkbank GCO23GCOO23

ClassC

Class 4 DRUMGELLOCH C Bellgrove Jn Kirknewton eewwttooonngrange

6 GGooreebbridge GLASGOW CENTRAL Midcalder Jn Stow and 4 x C GGaalashiels C 1 lass 4 x Tweeddbank CClass 6 CARSTAIRS Appendix 02 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 152

Scotland (West)Appendix Route 2 Study Map 2043 ITSS December 2015 Scotland Market Study - Scotland Route Study Drafy for Consultastion 130 Scotland (West) Route Study Map 2043 ITSS

MALLAIG

6 Class x 1 Arisaig 6 tpdGlenfinnan Locheilside CorpacCorppach Key Spean Cross Boundary BeasdaleLochailort Loch Eil Arjoo WigginsWiigginns Bridge 8 tpd Outward Bound Roy Bridge Interurban Banavieanaavie Glasgow Conurban Tullocloch Edinburgh Conurban British Alcan Rural FORT Foort William Jn Corrourrro 1 x Class 6 Non Hourly Service WILLIAM RannochRannno Class 4 and Class 6 refers Tyndrudrum BridgeBriddge ofof OrchOrrchy tofreight tra c Taynuilt 8 tpd Loweowerr UpperUUppppeer Tyyndrunddrur m OBAN Connel Falls of CRIANLARICANLARICCHH Jn Carmuirs Jns Ferry Cruachan Ardlui Greenhill Lower Jn MILNGAVIE Arrochar & Tarbet Glenn Douglas MOD EDINBURGH Garelochhead WAVERLEY BALLOCHCH Helensburgh Upper Greenhill Jn HHillfoot HELENSBURGH Craigendoran Alexandrilexand a

CENTRAL Craigendoran Jn RentRenton 1 x Class 6 6 Class x 1 GOUROCK Dalreoch Jnn DUMBARDUMMBBARA TOON CENTRACENTRAL BeBearsden CUCUMBERNAULMBERNAULDD 1 x Class 4 and

Fort Matilda Dalreocch DuDumbartonmmbbarrton EaEastst 6

1 x Class Class x 1 1 x Class 6 6 Princes Pier BoBowlingowwling Class x 1 Clyde Port Authority DDrumchapelrumcchaappel WeW sterton Jn KiKilpatricklpatlp trik GGreenfauldreenfaauldds DaDDalmuialm r Westerton West Drumryry NorthNorthh JnJ Cowlairs DDalmmuir Singer Jns Steppss Gartcosh Jn GREENOCK PPark Jn Maryhilll GGilshochillillsshochill Ashfield Jn Garnqueeen Nortthh JJn CENTRAL Dalmuir Riverside GaGGartcoshartco 1 x Classss 4 anandd Summerstoston PPossilpark Robroystonn Gartsherre iee Cartsdyke Clydebank Sighthill Jns 1 x Class 6 & Parkhouse COC ATBRIDGEGE GunnieGu Alexandra FRFREIGHTLINEEIG ER YaY rd Barnhill TTERMINALNAL Yoker Clydebank GLASGOW Parade Bogston Dock Jn QUEEN CCoCoatbridgeatatbbridge High Bellgrove Duke Garscaddenrscadden STREET Street Shettlestoneston EEaEasterhousaste use SuSunnysidennyside AIAIRDRIR E Drumfrochar Whinhill Wemyss Bay Jn Anniesland Charing Street Jn

1 x Class 4

Port Glasgow or Class 6 Cross Containerbase High BellgrovlgroveeCCaarntynrntynee Sunnyside Jn ScotstounhillSc nhhilill North Jn Street Jn GGarrowhilarrowhill Blairhill Jn Coatdyke DRUMGELLOCH Woodhall Hyndland WWeesestst JJnn 1 x Class 6 Hyndland East Coatbridge Jordanhillorrddaanh Jns Jn AArgylergyyle 1 x Class 6 1 x Class 4 and IBM LaLangbanknggbank Central HHyndland StStreetrreeet BBrBridgetonidgeg ton 1 x Class 6 Inverkip 1 x Class 4 or ClassBishoptoshs 6 opo ton PARTICK Exhibition GLASGOW Hillingtongtoonn HiHillingtonlliinggton Deanside Paisley St JJamesama es Terminal Centre CENTRAL Bridge Coatbrididgge Jn WEMYSS BAY Westt EaEaststs Street Jn BBargeddiargeddie Jn DaDalmarnockck Langloan Jn Midcalder Jn PAISLESLEY GIGGILMOURIL R SSTSTREETTRREEET Wallneukk Jn KKirkwoodirkwood Livingston South Cardonald Shieldss WWhifh flet North Jn JohnJJohnstone Jns Eglingtoningto 1 x Class 6 WWeestst CCalderalder StrStreeteee t JJn BaBBailliestonailliiesto Hawkhead Terminus 1 x Class 6WhWWhiifffflleett Whifflet South Jn AdAddieweldiiewell MMillikenilliken Park Jns LARGSARGS 1 x Class 6 RuRRutherglen MMountount BrBreiceiichch HoHHowwoowww ood PAPAIISLESLEY Crookston Muirhouse CANAL Jns VeVernonrnonn MOMOSSENDSSEND Fairlieairlie RoRoche MOSSENENEND EUEUROTERMINAL5 x Class 4 and FaFauldhouseauldhd o 1 x Class 4 HUNTERSTON LLochwinnocochhwiw nnoocch PProductro s West Pollokshieldsokshieldds LarkfilielddJ Jns RutherRutherglenrrggglegllee Carmylarmmylle YAARDRRDSDDSS or Class 6 LOW LEVEL HUNTERSHUNUNTTEE TON Jns 1 x Class 6 SHOTTSHOTTTSTS CLYDEPORT HIGHIGHH LLEVELEVE GGlengarnocklengarnock East 1 x Class 6 COAL TTERMINAERERRM AL Maxwell Mossend Holytowny wn HaHartwoodartwoood Park BBeBellshilllllshs ill JJns Jn Hunterstonunterston JnJn DDalry Queens Park ClelandCClelanda DubbsDuDubbs Kilwinnning Jn JnJn CCarfinarfin WWeestst KilbKilbrideridde West Crosshill UddingstonUdding n HolytoHolytownwwn KILKILWWINNININNINGG Jn Stevenstoston ByrehillByrehill Jn UdUddingstodingngsts onn 4 x Class 4 and 2 x Class 6 & LesmahagowLes Jn 1 x Class 6 Ardrossan Town Newtoon Busby CATHCART IrIrvinvine Newton West Jn East JJn BARRHEAD Jn Cathcart Jns MOTHERMOTH WELL Shieldmuirieedldmmuuir ARDROSSAN Ardrossan SSaltcoatsaltcoats Newton Kirkhill Jn Newton MeadowheadMMeaddoowhead Shhielddmuim ir HARBOUR South Beach CaledonianCaledonian PaperPaper Dunlop Hamilton JnJn WiWishawshhaaw CentralCentral JnJn Kings Noorrth BiBarassie Pollokshaws Burnside Kirkhill NEWTONN BlantyreBlantyyre Jn WiWishawshaw Stewarton East Park SHIELDMUIR Barassie Jn HaHamiltonmilton ROYAL MAIL Kilmaurs WtWest TERMINAL Watson Head TROON EG Steele HJ Banks Coal NEILSTON Whitecraigs Haughhead Gariongill Jn Wagonagon Repairs Jn Law Jn HAMIHA LTON Patterton Williamwood Chatelherault CARSTAIRS INTERNATIONAL Kilmarnock Jn Busby CCENTRAL Carluke Prestwick BP Oil Terminal AIRPORT Clarkston EAST KILMARNOCK KILBRIDE Merryton Lanark Jn Carstairs DB Schenker Prestwick Town Riccarton BP Oil RAVENSTRUTHER Jns FALKLAND YARD LANARK COAL

Falkland Jn

6 Class or

ATH Mining 4 Class x 1 LARKHALL Newton-on-Ayr Annbank Jn Mauchline Jn Bank Jn Kirkconnel Ayr Harbour Newton Jn Auchinleck Greenburn New Cumnock Jn AYR GREENBURN COAL Gretna Killoch Washery TERMINAL DUMFRIESDU ANNAN Green Dalrymple Jn Chalmerston KNOCKSHINNOCH 0.5 tph Disposal Point DISPOSAL POINT Sanquhar Maxwweellttown Harbour Jn GGoooods Gretna Jn Maxwelltown Eastriggs MOD Yard STRANRAER GIRVAN JJnn Barrhill Stranraer Town Appendix 03 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 153

Freight Market Study Background to the development of the Freight Market Study For rail to make this structural change it had to convert itself from a mode dominated by the bulk haul of relatively low value goods to a The Freight Market Study looked at the overall freight market in market increasingly influenced by fast moving consumer goods Great Britain and has produced demand forecasts for freight over a (FMCG). In order to penetrate the FMCG market, rail has had to seek 10, 20 and 30 year planning horizon, which will enable the freight lower margin business in strong competition with road hauliers. This market to be considered in the same planning timescales, and at has required step changes to productivity and service standards the same level of detail, as the passenger market. The study – which rail has negotiated successfully, gaining market share includes preferred routeing of services and the implied requirements against road. in terms of network capacity and capability. Scenarios are used to reflect market uncertainties. The Freight Market Study provide forecasts for 2023, 2033 and 2043 for all sectors, including Intermodal, Electricity Supply The Freight Market Study was published as a Draft for Consultation Industry, Biomass, Construction materials, Metals, Petroleum, in April 2013 with the final document published in October 2013. Chemicals, Industrial minerals, Automotive, Iron ore, Non-power The story of rail freight since privatisation is one of success. Since station coal and Domestic Waste. the mid-1990s, rail freight, measured in terms of tonne kilometres, Overall forecast freight growth is for an increase in total tonne has increased at about 2.5 per cent per annum. Rail freight has also kilometres of 2.9 per cent annual growth to 2043. In terms of total performed well following the recent recession, with both tonnes and tonnes lifted, the forecast is for 2.0 per cent annual growth to 2043, tonne kilometres increasing between 2009 and 2012. Recent years compared with the recent trend of broadly stable tonnage. The have seen a continuation of structural change in the growth rate in terms of tonnes is lower than that for tonne rail freight market which first became evident just over a decade kilometres as a result of changes in the composition of traffic, such ago. Great Britain’s manufacturing industry is in long term decline as the reduction in coal flows and the increase in longer distance – in common with many other Western nations – and Great Britain intermodal flows. has become an economy which imports a wide range of goods. Further information on the Freight Market Study can be found on This has affected rail freight in two ways over the last decade: the Network Rail website. • traditional bulk markets for rail, such as domestically based coal and steel production, have diminished substantially • the import of goods through major ports, particularly involving freight from the Far East, has increased greatly, and the handling of these goods has been dominated by growth in the trend towards containerisation. The net effect of these changes in production, consumption and logistics has been that containerised (that is, deep sea intermodal) freight, mainly consisting of consumer goods, has become the single largest commodity conveyed on rail. Domestic flows of consumer goods to and from major terminals like Daventry have contributed to the predominance of intermodal rail freight. Appendix 03 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 154

2043 FREIGHT DEMAND FORCAST 2043 Conditional Outputs

KYLE OF LOCHALSH THURSO

INVERNESS 1or1 1or1 MALLAIG WICK Building on the outputs from the Freight Market Study, established Needlefield DINGWALL Lairg Oil Yard Terminal in 2013, and working in conjunction with the freight industry, the 0/1 or Corpach 1 1 Sidings B.Alcan following 2043 Conditional Outputs, shown as paths per hour, were Waterloo Terminal Raiths developed (in addition to one class one service per hour were FORT WILLIAM AVIEMORE Farm ABERDEEN MILNGAVIE 0 / 1 1 developed on the West Coast Main Line). Craiginches Yard or

BALLOCH 1

OBAN 1 or CRIANLARICH Glen Douglas 1 MOD 1or1 DUNDEE 0/1 0/1 CROY Freight Conditional Output Scenarios PERTH DUMBARTON or HELENSBURGH 1 1 CENTRAL 0/1 Due to some uncertainty within the Freight Market, scenarios were STIRLING CUMBERNAULD 1or1 developed for the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the East Coast ANNIESLAND SPRINGBURN 1/1 GLENROTHES WITH GOUROCK 0/1 THORNTON Longannet DUNFERMLINE Main Line (ECML). 1/1 Power Station GLASGOW Coatbridge FLT 0/1 1 / Grangemouth QUEEN STREET FALKIRK HIGH or 0/1 Freight Terminal 1 1 Scenario 1 KIRKCALDY COATBRIDGE AIRDRIE 1 INVERKEITHING GLASGOW CENTRAL 0/ Rosyth Base case: 20% Felixstowe traffic routes on ECML instead of WCML Deanside CENTRAL Dockyard 1 / PAISLEY Terminal Forth GILMOUR ST or Bridge 1 1 1 Scenario: All Felixstowe and traffic routes on WEMYSS BAY or WHIFFLET Dalry Roche1 0/1 KILWINNING BATHGATE ECML instead of WCML 0/1 Mossend EDINBURGH PAISLEY Yard WAVERLEY CANAL Powderhall 0/1 5 / 1 1or1 Leith Docks Scenario 2 LARGS 1 Hunterston 0/ Coal Terminal 1 SHOTTS 0/ Cockenzie Power Station (3) Base case: 4 x class 4 + 1 x class 6 on WCML and 1 x class 4 or 6 on 0 / 2 MOTHERWELL 1or1 Glasgow & South Western (G&SW) 4 / 1 1 NORTH ARDROSSAN Irvine CPP CATHCART NEWTON TWEEDBANK BERWICK Shieldmuir or HARBOUR 0/1 Royal Mail 1 Scenario: 3 x class 4 on WCML and 1 x class 4 + 1 x class 6 on G&SW (1) KILMARNOCK 0/0 BERWICK EAST KILBRIDE HAMILTON UPON TWEED NEILSTON CENTRAL (3) CARSTAIRS LNE Route (1 via Ayr and 1 via Mauchline) Prestwick Riccarton International Oil Terminal Airport Ravenstruther (1)(2) Falkland LANARK Coal 1 Scenario 3 Ayr Harbour Yard 0/1 LARKHALL Terminal 4/ Key Killoch New Cumnock Coal Terminal Passenger Routes AYR Coal Terminal Base case: all services between Law Junction and Mossend are via DUMFRIES Freight Only Class 4 Holytown Greenburn Class 6 Coal Terminal 1or1(2) Figures reflect trains per hour Chalmerston LNW Route Scenario: mix of services via Motherwell and via Holytown between STRANRAER Coal Terminal Law Junction and Mossend. Figure 3.1 – Scotland Freight Conditional Outputs for 2043 Appendix 04 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 155

Long Distance Market Study Background to the development of the Long Distance Market A three stage approach was used to develop the long term demand Study projections: The majority of long distance travel is typically made for the • a review of the factors which influence the demand for travel by purposes of business on behalf of an employer, and leisure. rail Although long distance commuting is increasingly popular it still development of four alternative futures for Great Britain’s accounts for a small proportion of the total number of long distance • economy and social and environmental planning, to examine journeys. Long distance services have therefore, over time, been how the factors which influence the demand for travel by rail tailored to suit the needs of business and leisure passengers, and for could change the purposes of the study the long distance passenger market sector was defined as a combination of distance and journey • production of a projected range of future passenger demand purpose: based on these four scenarios. • the market for rail travel over distances of greater than 50 miles, A set of conditional outputs for the long distance passenger market excluding journeys which are predominately for commuting were developed as a statement of the long term aspirations for the purposes and are made entirely within one of the other Market level of service provided and are required to inform future Study areas investment decisions. They should be viewed as aspirations for the future rather than recommended investment decisions. It is also • the market for rail travel between large towns and cities of at important to state that the conditional outputs shown are least 30 miles apart, again excluding journeys made entirely conditional on both affordability, fundability, and a value for money within one of the City Regions considered in the other Market business case being made for any interventions that subsequent Study areas. Route Studies in the Long Term Planning Process may consider as a This definition was intended to attach a geographic construction to way to deliver them. Equally the conditional outputs will need to be the types of travel by journey purpose which comprise the majority deliverable both technologically, operationally and physically. of the long distance sector, namely business travel and leisure Find further information on the Long Distance Market Study on the travel. It is recognised that this is a simplification of the role Network Rail website. performed currently by rail services particularly where long distance services also facilitate commuting. The Long Distance Market Study was published as a Draft for Consultation in March 2013 with the final document published in October 2013. Since 1994 passenger demand in the long distance sector has grown robustly at an average rate of over three per cent per year. This growth was strongest in the years immediately preceding the recession when passenger kilometres travelled by rail grew by 25 per cent between 2004/05 and 2007/08. Since then, demand has continued to grow, albeit at a lower rate, before returning to a higher rate of growth in 2010/11 with a six per cent increase in demand. Appendix 04 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 156

Long Distance Market Study 2043 Conditional Outputs Table 4.1 Long Distance Passenger Connectivity Conditional Outputs for 2043

Reference Origin to destination (flow) End to end journey speed (mph) Opportunities to travel (per hour)

LDCO1 Edinburgh to London 160 3 or 4

LDCO2 Glasgow to London 160 3 or 4

LDCO3 Edinburgh to Birmingham 100 2 or 3

LDCO4 Edinburgh to Leeds 100 2 or 3

LDCO5 Edinburgh to Liverpool 100 2 or 3

LDCO6 Edinburgh to Manchester 100 2 or 3

LDCO7 Edinburgh to Newcastle 100 2 or 3

LDCO8 Glasgow to Birmingham 100 2 or 3

LDCO9 Glasgow to Leeds 100 2 or 3

LDCO10 Glasgow to Liverpool 100 2 or 3

LDCO11 Glasgow to Manchester 100 2 or 3

LDCO12 Glasgow to Newcastle 80 1 or 2

LDCO13 Aberdeen to Newcastle 80 1 or 2 Appendix 04 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 157

Table 4.2 Long Distance Capacity Conditional Outputs for 2043

Reference Origin to destination (flow) Accommodate number of daily passenger journeys

LDCO14 Edinburgh to London 12400

LDCO15 Glasgow to London 6700

LDCO16 Edinburgh to Birmingham 800

LDCO17 Edinburgh to Leeds 900

LDCO18 Edinburgh to Liverpool 400

LDCO19 Edinburgh to Manchester 1600

LDCO20 Edinburgh to Newcastle 2400

LDCO21 Glasgow to Birmingham 700

LDCO22 Glasgow to Leeds 500

LDCO23 Glasgow to Liverpool 400

LDCO24 Glasgow to Manchester 1200

LDCO25 Glasgow to Newcastle 1000

LDCO26 Edinburgh to Nottingham 100

LDCO27 Edinburgh to Sheffield 300 Appendix 05 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 158

Cross-Boundary Analysis This section outlines the approach that has been taken when alongside passenger. The information has then been rounded considering passenger and freight services which cross the within the relevant route study area to the nearest whole number, boundary of the Scotland Route Study area and describes the but remains the precise figure at the route study boundary. This process for identifying cross-boundary services which can meet the ensures that Route Studies, that are adjacent to the Scotland Route conditional outputs. Study area, do not incrementally round up, and result in over provision of paths for freight services. The Route Study boundaries broadly follow those of the Network Rail devolved Routes. Due to this division of rail network geography, The Cross-Boundary Working Group continues to meet to receive it is necessary to co-ordinate the treatment of passenger and and approve proposals from the Route Studies to amend the freight trains which traverse Route Study boundaries, hence the cross-boundary specification (for either passenger or freight trains), cross-boundary process. The Scotland Route Study area has and to advise on resolving capacity issues affecting more than one boundaries with other Route Study areas at Berwick-upon-Tweed Route Study. The Route Studies do not all run in parallel, so the and Gretna Junction. These are shown in the map in Chapter 2 cross-boundary process is a continuous one throughout the Long figure 1.1. Term Planning Process programme. The cross-boundary process Cross-boundary services in 2043 The cross-boundary process has been developed by the Route Study The Scotland ITSS includes broad groups of services serving a Working Group. The Cross-Boundary Working Group developed an number of different markets, as set out below. Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) for passenger services services from the North East of England, some of which are which cross any route study boundary. This specification is an • extended through from Edinburgh to serve locations to Glasgow interpretation of how the connectivity conditional outputs could be or Aberdeen delivered. The conditional outputs could be expressed in a number of ways, and the Cross-Boundary ITSS sought to minimise the • Regional service on the linking stations number of train movements over any given corridor by linking between Edinburgh and Berwick/Newcastle conditional outputs together, and where possible, by enabling a regional services between Dumfries and Carlisle, some of which number of them to be delivered by the same train service. The • are extended through to Kilmarnock Cross-Boundary ITSS does not seek to consider every passenger service that crosses a route study boundary – rather it looks at • regional service between Stirling/Carstairs and Carlisle changes to the baseline service pattern where change may be connecting Edinburgh/Glasgow and London required to deliver the conditional outputs. The services contained • in the Cross-Boundary ITSS have been incorporated into the • services connecting Edinburgh/Glasgow and Liverpool/ Scotland Route Study ITSS detailed in Appendix 2. Manchester/Birmingham For freight services, information for the Scotland Route Study has • Freight services on the East Coast Main Line and West Coast been derived from the Freight Market Study, including the preferred Main Line to Central Scotland and further north. routeing of these services. However, freight services operate to a different timetable according to the needs of their customers and are often irregular, or operate on specific days of the week. To cater for this variation, the Cross-Boundary Working Group reviewed the exact disaggregated number of freight services, and produced a consistent figure that allows the analysis of forecast freight flows Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 159

Scotland Route Study – 2043 Option identification and development Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Bi-directional signalling Improves operational flexibility – may Waverley Masterplan developments (all lines) between enable rationalisation of Switches and (Options 1.6.1 - 1.6.11) and 1.7.1 Haymarket Central Regulation 3 Crossings (S&C) / avoid the need for interventions on Fife routes (options £-££ Junction (inclusive) and further interventions in the Haymarket 5.2.5a/b/c) likely to deliver better Waverley Station. area. network outcomes. 6 track railway between To be considered if developing Only likely to progress as an HS2 1.7.2 Edinburgh Waverley & Capacity 5 Haymarket for terminating services is requirement e.g. boring new tunnel(s) ££££ Haymarket Station. not to be progressed. through to Waverley. 1.7 - Could reduce South Lines traffic running Edinburgh in to Waverley, creating capacity for Preferable to 6-tracking through to New Platform 5 turnback Waverley HS2 and / or additional West Coast Waverley, but constrained site and 1.7.3 platform at Haymarket Capacity 3 £ Station (West Main Line (WCML) services / Airdrie to passenger access issues at Haymarket Station. throat) to Bathgate (A2B) / Edinburgh to Glasgow are likely to limit scope & benefits. Haymarket (E&G) routes. Station Eases passenger movement around the Progress - worth considering / Additional passenger Station station (aligns well with Haymarket reassessing if passenger numbers 1.7.4 access at Haymarket 3 £-££ Capacity Platform 5 option, were that to increase in line with or faster than platform ends (East). progress). forecast. Assess Haymarket depot Could reduce North Lines traffic running future, after Millerhill Likely to add to the cost and difficulty in to Waverley, creating capacity on 1.7.5 depot opens - potential Capacity 3 of stabling an expanding ScotRail fleet ££ South Lines for HS2 / additional services area for additional elsewhere in the Edinburgh area. on WCML / A2B / E&G. Haymarket platforms. Relocate Edinburgh Park Improve regulation of fast vs. slow Penalty of extended journey times (c. platforms on loops, with services through Edinburgh Park - £££- 3.1.1 Regulation 4 3-4mins) for stopping services is likely non-stop fast lines in the timetable benefits between Haymarket ££££ to prove prohibitive. 3.1 - centre. and Newbridge Junction. Haymarket Improves flexibility and capacity West Junction Reinstate Saughton approaching Haymarket West to Newbridge Junction (to permit A2B / Earlier and faster South-North line Junction, for existing traffic flows, but Junction 3.1.2 E&G services to cross Regulation 3 moves than offered currently at £ not required if Almond and earlier to / from the Haymarket West Junction. Winchburgh Junctions are Grade North Lines). Separated (option 3.1.4).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 160

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options 4 track the section of route between A more comprehensive solution than Newbridge Junction and Larger scale intervention to option 3.1.2 3.1.2, but much more expensive with a 3.1.3 Regulation 4 ££££ Haymarket East (see above). significant interface with Edinburgh Junction, including Tram. 3.1 - Edinburgh Park Station. Haymarket Grade separate Reduces capacity pressure through West Junction Winchburgh Junction Newbridge Junction, streamlines the Progress - offers a substantial to Newbridge and build new Almond flow of trains through the Haymarket improvement in network flexibility and Junction Junction (also grade area to reduce crossing moves, creates capacity, and minimises the extent of £114- 3.1.4 separated) - electrify Regulation 1 opportunities for E&G services to call at other infrastructure works 286m route from Haymarket Edinburgh Gateway Station; creates a approaching and in Edinburgh Station to Winchburgh W12 E&G freight route (avoids Waverley. Junction via the new Winchburgh Tunnel) and timetable Almond Junction. improvement options. Expensive E&G option - alternatively An expensive E&G option - better Diversion- this would be achieved if Almond W12 gauge clearance on achieved if Almond Junction and 3.2.1 ary 4 Junction and Winchburgh Grade £-£££ E&G. Winchburgh Grade Separation are Capacity Separation are taken forward (plus taken forward (option 3.1.4). electrification). Improves timetable through Newbridge Grade separate Junction and in the Haymarket West See Incorporated within scope of option 3.2.2 Winchburgh Junction - Regulation 1 - Haymarket Station area (in option 3.1.4. 3.2 - duplicate of option 3.1.4. combination with Almond Junction - 3.1.4 Newbridge option 3.1.4). Junction to Install turnback signal at Polmont Improved Beneficial in the event of planned or Progress - consider undertaking in Linlithgow Station (to Junction Disruption unplanned disruption to services advance of future major works 3.2.3 permit an Edinburgh to 2 £ Manage- between Polmont Junction and between Linlithgow and Polmont Linlithgow shuttle service ment Linlithgow Station. stations e.g. option 3.2.4. to operate). Move and remodel Separates Dunblane stopping services Reassess if the E&G timetable evolves Polmont Station to 4 and through E&G services for timetable to 6 trains per hour and /or additional 3.2.4 platforms at Polmont Capacity 3 ££-£££ and potential journey time services run between Falkirk Junction (Kilwinning improvements. Grahamston and Edinburgh Waverley. format).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 161

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Rationalise Haymarket Rationali- Requires reinstatement of Saughton Jn Not viable as a standalone project i.e. 5.1.1 West Junction to a single 3 £ sation - see option 3.1.2. without option 3.1.2. ladder. Consider risks relating to low flying Undertake electrification Progress - initial engagement with the Con- aircraft and emergency landing design for the Fife Line in Airport was undertaken for EGIP, and 5.1.2 structabil- 2 procedures - for Haymarket - Dalmeny - £ the vicinity of Edinburgh GRIP Stage 4 designs produced for key ity Winchburgh Junction electrification - Airport. structures. part of option 3.1.4. Remodel Dalmeny Station - move on to Creates a turnback facility and an Penalty of extended journey times (c. existing loops, and 5.1.3 Regulation 4 opportunity for faster through services 3-4mins) for stopping services is likely £-££ relocate the loop entry to overtake trains stopping at Dalmeny. to prove prohibitive. connections closer to the Forth Bridge. To minimise costs and level of disruption Not possible due to cantilevered Improve linespeeds over Journey undertake prior to electrification - 5.1 - 5.1.4a 5 design without significant changes to £-££ the Forth Bridge. Times potential benefits for timetabling and Haymarket the structure. West to freight. Dunfermline Undertake several years prior to Achieve electrification Progress - timing will be determined by Town Journey electrification to de-risk the OLE 5.1.4b clearances across the 2 traffic levels and timescales for Fife ££-£££ Times programme critical path - potential Forth Bridge. electrification. freight gauge benefit. Review speed constraints Limited benefits anticipated for between Forth Bridge Make any infrastructure interventions Journey existing timetable, but this aligns with 5.1.5 and Inverkeithing Jn - 4 prior to electrification. Possible link with £ Times the Dunfermline bypass and related including the benefits of option 5.2.5a/b/c and 5.2.6. schemes. ERTMS. To minimise costs and level of disruption Con- Progress - make any infrastructure Clear North Queensferry undertake prior to electrification - 5.1.6a structabil- 2 interventions prior to electrification - £ Tunnel for electrification. potential for freight gauge ity assumes slabtrack solution. improvement. To minimise costs and level of disruption Clear Inverkeithing Con- Progress - make any infrastructure undertake prior to electrification - 5.1.6b Tunnels for structabil- 2 interventions prior to electrification - £ potential for freight gauge electrification. ity assumes slabtrack solution. improvement. Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 162

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Create separate Limited benefits if options 5.2.5a/b/c Inverkeithing Station Separates Inverkeithing stopping and related schemes progress, as the 5.1.7 platforms on the Fife Regulation 3 services vs fast through services running £-££ timetable would be less constrained as lines and Cowdenbeath either side of the Fife Circle. a result. lines. Turnback option if service levels require Addition of a new bay Re-assess business case if options it - alongside platform, to utilise the 5.1.8 platform at Dunfermline Regulation 4 5.2.5a/b/c etc. do not proceed, and £ 5.1 - existing Charlestown Junction Town. additional Fife services are proposed. Haymarket crossover. West to Closure would align with Scotland Dunfermline Beneficial if Fife service frequencies Closure of Halbeath level Journey Level Crossings policy / local plans to Town 5.1.9 3 increase, possible linespeed benefit and £8-18m crossing. Times improve safety at this tie in with option 5.2.3. location. Creates opportunities for faster through 4-track South Gyle to services to overtake trains stopping at Not required if options 3.1.4 and 5.1.10 Edinburgh Gateway with Regulation 4 South Gyle and Edinburgh Gateway ££££ 5.2.5a/b/c progress. platforms on loops. stations, thereby improving Fife timetable and journey times. 2 routes already exist between Inverkeithing and Thornton North For freight regulation, including Junction - business case for this and engineering haulage trains - lengthen Extend Dalgety Bay Up other freight loops to be assessed for 5.2.1 Regulation 3 to match future facilities towards £ Passenger Loop. diesel-hauled vs. electrified traffic to 5.2 - Aberdeen. Undertake prior to Fife determine what interventions are Inverkeithing electrification. to Dundee (via optimal between the Central Belt of Dalgety Bay) Scotland and Aberdeen. Business case is poor if options Strengthen Burntisland Undertake prior to Fife electrification. Journey 5.2.5a/b/c etc. proceed. Fewer limited Viaduct (for Linespeed 3 Combine with scope of weatherproofing £ 5.2.2a Times stop services would use this route to Improvements). works. Dundee and Perth. Burntisland flood Undertake prior to Fife electrification. Long-term view required, similar to resilience - taking into Journey 4 Incorporate option 5.2.2a scope within option 5.2.14 (Dock St Tunnel), to ££-£££ 5.2.2b account likely future Times this design. confirm scope and timing of works. weather conditions.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 163

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Bypass current Fife coastal route - new fast Addresses longer term projected route between Journey increase in sea-levels, improves Fife Options 5.2.5b, 5.2.5c and 5.2.6 are ££££- 5.2.3 Inverkeithing and 4 Times timetable and journey times for limited likely to have a better business case. £££££ Glenrothes - costed as stop services to Perth and Dundee. electrified, 140mph and maximum 4% gradients. Clear Kinghorn Tunnel for Con- Undertake prior to electrification - Progress - assess potential linespeed 5.2.4 electrification (potential structabil- 2 potential freight gauging and line and gauging benefits to evaluate £ slabtrack). ity speed benefits. standalone business case. Inland side of Fife Circle becomes Cowdenbeath area track mainline to Dundee / Aberdeen / Perth realignment - removes Journey Progress - see option 5.2.5c 3 - timetable and journey time £-££ 5.2.5a slow reverse curves at Times conclusions. improvements if undertaken with Cowdenbeath. options 5.2.5b/c and 5.2.6. 5.2 - Clunybridge track Inverkeithing realignment - removes Journey Progress - see option 5.2.5c 3 Aligns well with 5.2.5a, 5.2.5c and 5.2.6. £-££ to Dundee 5.2.5b slow curves near Times conclusions. (via Dalgety Thornton Yard. Bay) Addresses longer term projected Dunfermline bypass increase in sea-levels, improves Fife Progress - when combined with option creates new fast line timetable and journey times for limited 3.1.4 (Winchburgh + Almond along M90 corridor Journey stop services to Perth and Dundee. May Junctions), this transforms Scottish rail 5.2.5c between Inverkeithing 1 ££-£££ Times ease Haymarket Waverley corridor network capabilities for many Central and Hill of Beath - avoids capacity pressure and makes Belt routes and stations, as well as slow curves through electrification of the Fife Circle less journey time improvements. Dunfermline. disruptive. Re-model Thornton Aligns with options 5.2.5 a/b/c for faster Progress if Cowdenbeath side of the North Junction as a journey times to / from Perth and 5.2.6 Regulation 3 Fife Circle becomes the faster route i.e. £ higher speed double Dundee. Undertake prior to Fife options 5.2.5a/b/c + 5/2/6. junction. electrification. Aligns with options 5.2.3 or 5.2.5 a/b/c + Determine scope, costs and business Markinch Viaduct Journey 5.2.6 for faster journey times to / from case in relation to Aberdeen to 5.2.7 Linespeed Improvements 3 £ Times Perth and Dundee. Undertake prior to Edinburgh and Inverness to Edinburgh - slabtrack type solution. Fife electrification. journey time benefits.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 164

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options £3-7m Possible Removal of duplicate S&C - undertake CP7 Remove one crossover Rationalisa- Assess as part of Scotland crossover 5.2.8 4 as part of normal renewals programme ring- around Markinch station. tion strategy reviews. / prior to Fife electrification. fenced funds scheme Remodel Ladybank Option 5.2.16 provides a better Station - extend Allows Up direction trains from Perth to regulating facility. Concerns raised platforms to the south / call at Ladybank Up platform, rather regarding the underpass to the south 5.2.9 Regulation 4 £ relocate crossover on the than occupying the Down platform. of existing platforms + interface with Fife lines to the North of Undertake prior to electrification. Heatherinch User Worked Crossing the platforms. (UWC). £7-16m Possible Closure would align with Scotland Closure of level crossings CP7 Journey Potential linespeed increases / journey Level Crossings policy / local plans to 5.2.10 between Heatherinch 3 ring- Times time improvements and safety benefits. improve Level Crossing safety at this and Seggiehill. fenced location. funds scheme Improves freight pathing, and creates a Progress - business case for this and facility to manage slow running other loops to be assessed for passenger services and engineering Increase length of Down diesel-hauled vs. electrified traffic to 5.2.11 Regulation 3 trains etc. - lengthen as part of freight £ Fife Loop at Ladybank. determine what interventions are looping strategy between Central Belt optimal between the Central Belt of and Aberdeen. Undertake prior to Fife Scotland and Aberdeen. electrification. Journey time improvements and Consider increasing option 5.2.12b Increase linespeeds over £££- Capacity 4 increase in capacity - undertake prior to scope to optimise outputs / business 5.2.12a the Tay Bridge. ££££ Fife electrification. case. Significant renewals + strengthening Remove high girder works - best undertaken prior to Progress - assess structural works section restrictions on electrification. Doubling of Tay viaduct required, costs and likely disruptive the Tay Bridge to enable Capacity 2 (Perth) to be considered in advance to ££-£££ 5.2.12b impact, to determine timing and 2-way diesel-hauled provide diversionary capacity for whether option 6.5.1 is required. traffic flows. Dundee / Aberdeen services to / from Edinburgh (option 6.5.1). Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 165

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Almost all trains stop at Dundee - Remodel Dundee station Larger S&C units could improve journey Journey reconsider when the S&C is due for 5.2.13 throat and signalling for 3 times and / or generate timetable £-££ Times renewal, or prior to electrification faster approach speeds. benefits. (whichever comes first). Take into account rising sea levels - Clear Dock Street Tunnel forecast is for 0.5-0.9m increase by the Progress - solution may involve Con- for electrification (track year 2100. Invert beneath Dock St track creating a mass concrete waterproof 5.2.14 structabil- 2 £-££ lower - noting sea level already affected by high tides. trough through the low lying section of ity issues + drainage). Undertake prior to Dundee - Aberdeen railway at Dundee. 5.2 - electrification. Inverkeithing Progress - as part of rolling programme to Dundee (via Electrification of Fife of electrification in Scotland, noting Further phase of rolling programme of Dalgety Bay) routes - Haymarket West that electrification clearance works Journey Scotland electrification - rolling stock 5.2.15 Junction to Dundee (see 2 and other enhancement projects ££££ Times utilisation, journey time and timetable option 5.3.3 re. Ladybank typically need to be undertaken during benefits. to Hilton Junction route). the 3-5 years prior to OLE wiring being installed. Ladybank station Reconsider if options 5.2.5a/b/c etc. relocation - separate Separates Perth stopping services from are not progressed and timetable 5.2.16 platforms for Dundee Regulation 3 fast through services to / from Dundee £ benefits justify reconfiguration of the and Perth lines – 4 (and vice versa). station. platforms option. Project has complex interfaces including level crossings, an Pathing and timetable pathing underbridge and land availability. Also improvements - lengthen to match need to assess future benefits if freight 5.3.1 Extend Anniesmuir loop. Regulation 3 £ future facilities towards Inverness - using the route were to be electrically undertake prior to Fife electrification. hauled. Option 5.3.2 and / or a Down 5.3 - Ladybank loop to the South of Perth Station are to Hilton likely to have better business cases. Double track straight sections of Ladybank Potential to minimise constraints for the Progress - assess potential linespeed Single, including line 5.3.2 Regulation 1 Edinburgh - Perth / Inverness timetable, and timetable benefits to evaluate ££-£££ speed improvements - and improve journey times. business case. potentially a 10km dynamic loop. Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 166

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Progress - as part of rolling programme of electrification in Scotland, noting Further phase of rolling programme of that electrification clearance works 5.3 - Ladybank Electrification of Hilton - Journey Scotland electrification - rolling stock 5.3.3 2 and other enhancement projects ££-£££ to Hilton Ladybank. Time utilisation, journey time and timetable typically need to be undertaken during benefits. the 3-5 years prior to OLE wiring being installed. Not progressed - maximum loop length limited to ~600m if loop entry Improved regulation of ECML freight. and exit S&C are to be located on Extend Down Passenger Not required if Grantshouse dynamic 1.1.1 Regulation 4 straight track, and adjacent culvert £ Loop at Grantshouse. loops / crawler lanes proceed (option and A1 overbridge avoided. 1.1.2). Insufficient length for 775m freight trains. Potential to enable ECML freight paths while the route caters for more 1.1 - Berwick- long-distance and local passenger Progress - assess costs, given likely upon Tweed services. Timetable assessment interfaces with rocky terrain, multiple 3-track on uphill £89- to Drem indicates inter-dependencies with overbridges, underbridges, cuttings 1.1.2 gradients South of Regulation 1 £221 options 1.5.1, 1.5.3 and 1.5.6, and and embankments. Business case to Grantshouse. million signalling headways approaching include scenario of running electric- Waverley, which could reduce scope of hauled freight. this option by creating capacity elsewhere on the ECML. Create an Up loop at Complimentary to option 1.1.1 - but not Not progressed - only reconsider if Reston - equivalent to 1.1.3 Regulation 4 required if Grantshouse dynamic loops / option 1.1.2 business case is £ the Grantshouse Down crawler lanes proceed (option 1.1.2). unattractive. facility (see option 1.1.1). North Berwick services stopping at Timetabling work indicates limited Drem would no longer do so on the main benefits from this option, and better Relocate Drem Up 1.2.1a Capacity 1 lines - potential ECML capacity increase capacity / timetabling outcome if this £ 1.2 - Drem to platform on the loop. Monktonhall / opportunity for timetable scope is incorporated in to option Junction and improvements. 1.2.3. to/from See option 1.2.1a above. Also this would Not progressed - Down platform trains Relocate Drem Up and Millerhill Yard permit Dunbar to Edinburgh services to would likely incur a 3-4 minute 1.2.1b Down platforms on Capacity 3 £-££ stop at Drem and non-stop trains to increase in journey times while waiting loops. overtake them for through trains to pass. Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 167

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Not progressed - likely to increase Local services stopping Prestonpans Relocate Prestonpans journey times for stopping services on would no longer do so on the main lines. 1.2.2 Station (platforms off Regulation 3 the ECML by c. 3-4mins, if used to £-££ Option 1.2.3 may offer a more main lines, on loops). enable long-distance services to pass comprehensive solution. trains stopped in the loops. Progress - assess timetable / capacity Services calling at Wallyford and Drem benefits when combined with option would no longer stop on the main lines 4-track between 1.1.2 (Grantshouse crawler loops). - potential ECML capacity increase and Wallyford and Drem, Potential extension towards £69- 1.2.3 Capacity 1 opportunity for timetable locating these stations Prestonpans using the old solum 199m improvements. Also would provide off the ECML main lines. through Dolphinstone area, but this improved freight pathing on ECML to / would need to take the A199 interface from Millerhill and the WCML. 1.2 - Drem to into account. Monktonhall Junction and The S&C was renewed in CP3. Limited to/from Junction improvements Incremental capability and straight track available, potentially Millerhill Yard 1.2.4 at Monktonhall (move Capacity 4 performance benefits that align well limited benefit to be gained here as £ S&C on to straight). with option 1.2.5. junction assets still likely to be on shallow curve. Progress - existing route capacity is limited due to single line section and Capacity benefits for freight, Millerhill lack of signalling / motorised S&C. Empty Coaching Stock moves (to / from Upgrading this route will improve Upgrade Signalling and Diversion- the ECML), and diverted ECML diversionary capacity for ECML traffic £17- 1.2.5 Track through the ary 2 passenger services. Undertake prior to running via the Edinburgh Suburban 41m Millerhill Yard route. Capacity Calton North Tunnel redoubling - option Line (option 1.8.1) to Haymarket / 1.5.1. Waverley during Waverley East end enhancements (options 1.5.1 and 1.5.3).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 168

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Upgrade / re-model Addresses increasing pressure on ECML Progress - undertake capability Portobello Junction capacity while improving the resilience analysis of Portobello Junction single connection layout of the Borders timetable and capacity for normal service levels and £20- 1.3.1 between the East Coast Capacity 1 opportunity to run ECS to / from for diverted WCML traffic. Develop 50m Main Line (ECML) and Millerhill Depot. Links with options 1.8.1 design and assess business case for Borders / Edinburgh and 1.8.2 to upgrade and electrify the delivery in late CP5 or early CP6. Suburban lines. Edinburgh Suburban Line. Create a freight route Creates an alternative route to the Reassess if option 1.2.5 (Millerhill Yard between Musselburgh Edinburgh Suburban line for ECML Diversion- through route) business case is poor. and Niddrie West freight and diverted ECML passenger 1.3 - 1.3.2 ary 2 N.B. some historic structures remain / £-££ Junction on the traffic. Aligns with options 1.8.1 and Monktonhall Capacity though the A6095 underbridge has Edinburgh Suburban line 1.8.2 to upgrade and electrify the Junction to been removed recently. Craigentinny - avoiding Millerhill area. Edinburgh Suburban Line. Junction and Increase capacity to handle more traffic Assessed as part of Portobello Niddrie South - ECML freight running to / from WCML Junction re-modelling – land and Re-model Niddrie South Junction via Edinburgh Suburban Lines, Millerhill structural considerations will add 1.3.3 Junction as a double Regulation 3 £ ECS, NSC haulage and High Output significantly more cost than junction. Track Renewals plant depot traffic, and anticipated – no longer good value to diverted ECML traffic. progress. Ties in with upgrade of Edinburgh Suburban Line including electrification Progress - assess benefits for diverted Re-model Niddrie West - options 1.8.1, 1.8.2 and 1.3.1 - to WCML traffic running via the 1.3.4 Junction for 40mph Regulation 3 £6-14m handle WCML diverted passenger Edinburgh Suburban Line. Strong link (currently 15mph). traffic. Undertake prior to Edinburgh with option 1.3.1 business case. Suburban Line electrification. For WCML and ECML passenger traffic 1.8 - diversions to Waverley, plus benefits for Edinburgh ECS moves back to Millerhill (avoiding Progress - strategically important for Suburban Line Portobello) and providing a route for Electrify and re-signal Diversion- ECML - WCML electrified freight and (including the ECML-WCML electrified freight. Links £34- 1.8.1 the Edinburgh Suburban ary 1 therefore beneficial to Anglo Scottish Craiglockhart with options 1.3.1, 1.3.4 and 1.8.2 84m Line. Capacity timetables and increasing freight Loop), and minimises disruption to customers when capacity on the network. Borders works are undertaken at Waverley Railway (re-modelling and platform works e.g. option1.5.1).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 169

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Lower cost and less disruptive if undertaken prior to electrification 1.8 - Remodel Slateford (option 1.8.1). Enables Edinburgh Progress - will also benefit diversionary Junction for higher speed Suburban line freight to join the WCML timetable for WCML passenger £12- Edinburgh 1.8.2 Regulation 2 Suburban Line connection on / off at a higher speed ahead of the climb up services running to Edinburgh 30m (including the WCML. Cobbinshaw to Midcalder Junction Waverley via the Suburban Lines. Craiglockhart - generates WCML capacity and Loop), and timetable benefits. Borders Review business case, when required to Additional loops and Railway To enable more trains to run between meet forecast demand, noting that 1.8.3 related infrastructure Capacity 4 ££-£££ Tweedbank and Edinburgh Waverley train lengthening may provide interventions sufficient capacity through to 2043 Increase capacity approaching Progress - timetable assessment Calton North Tunnel Edinburgh Waverley ahead of required and consideration of double tracking + phase anticipated growth in ECML long Waverley East throat / other capacity £113- 1.5.1 Capacity 2 1 East throat re- distance and local services. Consider in interventions between Criagentinny 283m modelling. conjunction with options 1.1.2, 1.5.4, and Waverley. Track lower required to 1.5.6 and 1.5.7. facilitate doubling through the Tunnel. Bi-directional signalling Could benefit docking in Waverley / on the ECML Down Line Consider with option 1.5.1 scope, as it 1.5.2 Regulation 3 reduce platform works required / assist £ 1.5 - between Craigentinny & could be a lower cost partial solution. ECS movements. Craigentinny Abbeyhill Junction. Junction to Edinburgh Revised layout on approaches to Waverley Contributes to increase in Edinburgh Waverley Optimise option 1.5.1 to incorporate East - additional Waverley capacity / flexibility – Station 1.5.3 Capacity 2 elements of this scope where £ connection between together with options 1.1.2, 1.5.1, 1.5.4, necessary. south platforms and 1.5.6 and 1.5.7. Calton North Tunnel. Consider when this might be beneficial Re-bore Calton South Increase capacity approaching if option 1.5.1 goes ahead. Track lower Tunnel to increase the Edinburgh Waverley - supports future 1.5.4 Capacity 3 and substantial civils works required to ££-£££ gauge for double growth in ECML long distance and local strengthen tunnel prior to Tunnel tracking. services. doubling.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 170

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Install bi-directional Increase capacity approaching Assess business case if option 1.5.1 signalling between Edinburgh Waverley to enable future goes ahead, to quantify benefits and 1.5.5 Regulation 3 ££-£££ Craigentinny Junction growth forecast for ECML long distance determine the strategic necessity for and Waverley - all lines. and local services. this enhancement. Increases capacity approaching Progress - improves timetable and 1.5 - 3-4 track Powderhall Waverley - supports future growth in performance for ECML traffic flows, £££- Craigentinny 1.5.6 Junction to Portobello Regulation 2 ECML long distance and local services. and capacity for ECS moves to / from ££££ Jn to Junction. Aligns with options 1.1.2, 1.5.1 and 1.5.3. Craigentinny and Millerhill. Edinburgh Waverley Progress - minimises ECML capacity Enables Empty Coaching Stock to used for ECS moves between Millerhill / Create Empty Coaching vacate Edinburgh Waverley, improving Craigentinny and Edinburgh Waverley. £16- 1.5.7 Stock (ECS) turnback Capacity 2 platform availability / reducing station Review in relation to Edinburgh 38m facility at Abbeyhill. dwell times. Suburban enhancements and ECML strategy to determine business case. Enables 11-car Cl390 (Pendolino) rolling This option is being assessed as part of Extend Edinburgh Diversion- stock to use these platforms - increases CP5 works for the introduction of IEP CP5 1.6.1 Waverley platforms 5 & 6 ary 2 capacity / flexibility, particularly for (Inter City Express) services. works to 266m. Capacity diverted WCML services routed to Operating procedures solution likely, Waverley East platforms. rather than platform lengthening. Extend Edinburgh Benefits docking options in perturbed Waverley platform 10 to Operating procedures solution likely, 1.6.2 Capacity 2 working scenarios for 10-car IEP and £3-7m 266m (noting access / rather than platform lengthening. 11-car Cl390's. ped-flow issues). 1.6 - Improves capacity and flexibility for Edinburgh Extend Edinburgh managing longer through trains at Progress as part of Edinburgh Waverley Waverley platforms 1 & 1.6.3 Capacity 2 Waverley, reduces potential for Waverley masterplan, when required £4-9m Station 20 (noting access / additional platform works elsewhere in to meet forecast demand. ped-flow issues). the station. Increases Waverley East bay platform capacity - if required for a higher Extend Edinburgh number of terminating services. Progress as part of Edinburgh 1.6.4 Waverley platform 3 to Capacity 4 Options 1.6.6, 1.6.8 and / or 1.6.9 are Waverley masterplan, when required £ create 2 bay platforms. alternatives to provide capacity for a to meet forecast demand. higher number of through Waverley services.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 171

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Extend Edinburgh Increases Waverley West bay platform Progress as part of Edinburgh Waverley platforms 14 to 1.6.5 Capacity 2 capacity - for 8-car EMU's (c.192m in Waverley masterplan, when required £ 17 to create longer bay length). to meet forecast demand. platforms. Increases Waverley capacity for through services on the South Lines - aligns with option 1.6.9. Alternatives Make Edinburgh Consider as alternative to option 1.6.8 include option 1.6.8 for additional 1.6.6 Waverley Platforms 6 & Capacity 3 if more through services are planned £ North Lines through capacity, and 12 through platforms. to run via the South lines at Waverley. option 1.6.4 for additional Waverley East bay capacity if more trains require to terminate at that side of the Station. Extend Edinburgh Waverley Platform 18 to Improves platform 18 capacity and Disbenefits of shortening platform 19 220m and shorten 1.6.7 Capacity 4 enables parallel moves in / out of likely to exceed benefits of a longer £ Platform 19 (to enable 1.6 - platforms 19 & 20. platform 18 and more flexible layout. Edinburgh parallel moves to/from Waverley Line Z). Station Make Edinburgh Improves capacity and flexibility for Waverley Platform 18 a managing longer through trains at Progress as part of Edinburgh 1.6.8 through platform - Capacity 2 Waverley, reduces potential for Waverley masterplan, when required ££-£££ including demolition of additional platform works elsewhere in to meet forecast demand. North ramp. the station. Increases Waverley capacity for through services on the South Lines - Likely to involve significant structural Make Edinburgh aligns with option 1.6.6. Alternatives modifications and the removal of the Waverley Platforms 5 & include option 1.6.8 for additional South ramp - consider in conjunction 1.6.9 Capacity 4 ££-£££ 13 through platforms - North Lines through capacity, and with option 1.6.6 if more through demolish South ramp. option 1.6.4 for additional Waverley services are planned to run via the East bay capacity if more trains require South lines at Waverley. to terminate at that end of the Station. New Edinburgh Waverley Likely that only a short platform could 1.6.10 platform at New St Car Capacity 3 Additional Waverley station capacity. be added, Review option if Edinburgh £-££ Park on new loop. Signalling Centre is relocated.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 172

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Ref No. Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Waverley station will become increasing 1.6 - New passenger overhead congested due to growth in passenger Passenger Progress as part of Edinburgh Edinburgh walkways and numbers. Relocation of retail and £££- 1.6.11 Access / 2 Waverley masterplan, when Waverley throughout Edinburgh operational facilities and revised ££££ Platforms required to meet forecast demand. Station Waverley. passenger access will improve customer experience / station safety. Retains existing station footprint, but Progress as part of Glasgow Central Extend Glasgow Central impact on Glasgow Central Low Level / masterplan, when required to meet platforms 12 & 13 over Argyle St stations is likely to be £51- 2.10.1 Capacity 2 forecast demand. Interface with Argyle St for 8-car EMU significant - take into account as part of 115m Low Level station and likely to be usage. the Glasgow Central masterplan significant / expensive. process. Demolish car park for Progress as part of Glasgow Central new Glasgow Central Creates additional station capacity masterplan, when required to meet £22- 2.10.2a platforms West (16 & 17 Capacity 1 without significant disruption to forecast demand. Option 2.10.5 52m High Level) - 4 or 6-car ongoing operations. could be a viable alternative. EMU capacity. Demolish car park for 2.10 - Glasgow Creates additional station capacity new platforms Glasgow May be reconsidered if 8-car EMU Central and without significant disruption to 2.10.2b Central West (16 & 17 Capacity 2 formations become the norm in ££-£££ approaches ongoing operations. See related options High Level) – 8-car future at Glasgow Central. (to Bridge 2.11.1 and 2.11.2. option. Street Junction) Creates additional station capacity for HS2 without significant disruption to New Glasgow Central Progress as part of Glasgow Central ongoing operations. The increase in the platforms 1 & 2 East vs. masterplan, when required to meet 2.10.3 Capacity 2 number of lines approaching Central £££££ new Glasgow terminal forecast demand, and with HS2 to Station may allow rationalisation of the station provide suitable platform capacity. approach S&C and higher linespeeds - see option 2.10.6. Creates longer platforms 3&6 and more circulating space for passengers, after Infill Glasgow Central Progress as part of Glasgow Central additional platforms and / or 2.10.4 platforms 4 & 5; extend Capacity 2 masterplan, when required to meet £ lengthening works have been carried platforms 3 & 6. forecast demand. out (to compensate for loss of shorter platforms 4&5).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 173

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Progress as part of Glasgow Central Extend Glasgow Central masterplan, when required to meet platforms 6 to 9 (towards Creates additional station capacity £29- 2.10.5 Capacity 2 forecast demand. Platforms were Bridge St and in to - ideally for 8-car EMU rolling stock. 71m 2.10 - Glasgow previously longer in this part of the concourse). Central and station. approaches (to Bridge Progress as part of Glasgow Central Simplify throat layout on masterplan. The timing and scope of Street Rationalise throat S&C and raise approaches to Glasgow these works will depend on what £££- Junction) 2.10.6 Regulation 2 linespeeds for improved journey times. Central and raise platform modifications are ££££ Relates to options 2.10.1 to 2.10.5. linespeeds. undertaken, as that will determine the space available for layout changes. ERTMS implementation To realise full East Junction Progress - provision for this outcome on WCML between re-modelling benefits of higher has been included in the CP5 PARR / 2.9.1 Cambuslang and Regulation 2 linespeeds through all crossovers - £ Rutherglen signalling renewals & Rutherglen Central potential timetable and journey time remodelling project. Junction. benefits. ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) is unlikely to be implemented on the approaches to Implement bi-directional major terminal stations or in the vicinity Consider only if other interventions working between of depot / stabling facilities as the cost don’t improve traffic regulation on the 2.9.2 Rutherglen Central Regulation 3 of replicating existing signalling ££-£££ 2.9 - Bridge lines approaching Central Station e.g. Junction and Glasgow equipment capabilities will be very high. Street options 2.10.3 and 2.10.6. Junction to Central Station. The main ERTMS benefit would be Rutherglen bi-directional signalling - this approach Central offers a route to delivering an Junction equivalent outcome earlier. Increased line speeds Progress - implement ERTMS on WCML between Rutherglen as far as if possible, and Journey time improvements for WCML Central Junction & Journey upgrade track componentry for 2.9.3 2 long distance and local (fast) ScotRail £-££ Larkfield Junction, and Times 95mph running to support higher services. Rutherglen Junction to linespeeds / journey time Eglinton Street Tunnels. improvements. Separates freight moves between the Reconsider if new freight traffic utilises Grade separate Larkfield Clydesdale Lines - Rutherglen &Carmyle 2.9.5 Regulation 4 what were previously hourly paths for ££-£££ Junction. Line, with passenger trains running on Hunterston - Longannet coal trains. the WCML Fast + Slow Lines. Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 174

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Potential timetable and journey time 2.9 - Bridge benefits, if linespeeds can be increased Street Replacement of Eglinton from 30mph to 40-50mph. Good Junction to Journey Reconsider if options 2.10.3 and / or 2.9.6 St Tunnels to enable 3 synergy with options 2.10.3 and 2.10.6 ££-£££ Rutherglen Times 2.10.6 are progressed. higher linespeeds. (High Speed platforms and re- Central modelling of Glasgow Central throat / Junction approaches). Remodelling of Likely to increase journey times for Cambuslang and local WCML stopping services by c. Beneficial for HS2 and WCML 2.6.1 Stations Capacity 4 4-8mins, if used to enable long- ££-£££ timetabling - aligns with option 2.9.4. (platforms off main distance services to pass trains lines). stopped in the loops. 2.6 - WCML capacity improvement - to Rutherglen See Grade separation of enable more long distance and local Central 2.6.2 Capacity 3 See option 2.5.3 option Uddingston Junction. services to run via this location. Junction to 2.5.3 Duplicate of option 2.5.3. Uddingston Junction WCML capacity improvement - to This depends on the strategy for increase capability for more long Glasgow Central High Level / platform Newton - Carmyle Line distance and local services, and £££- 2.6.3 Capacity 3 capacity / accommodation of High grade separation. minimise platform works at Glasgow ££££ Speed services - options 2.10.3 and Central High level by re-routing some 2.10.6. local services on to the Argyle Lines. Depends on traffic split evenly Beneficial for Freight and timetabling of between WCML and Holytown routes Grade separate Shotts services and local WCML services 2.8.1 Capacity 3 vs. majority run via one route or the ££-£££ Holytown Junction. - aligns with options 2.9.4, 2.6.2 and other. Reassess in light of HS2 2.8.2. 2.8 - requirements. Uddingston Timetable analysis of ECML and Junction to WCML routes in Scotland will be Beneficial for ECML freight pathing and Midcalder required to inform the business case. Grade separate may help WCML / HS2 timetable to Junction This junction was re-doubled during 2.8.2 Midcalder Junction - Regulation 3 work by improving capacity and ££-£££ CP4 and the nearby Kirknewton Level duplicate of option 2.1.3. regulation on the Cobbinshaw Line to Crossing was also upgraded to improve Edinburgh. capacity and train regulation at this location.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 175

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options 2.8 - Costs are likely to be significant and Loops and station Timetable and journey time Uddingston could result in longer journey times for remodelling between Journey improvements as a result of better Junction to 2.8.3 4 stopping services (unless this section ££-£££ Uddingston and Times traffic regulation on the Midcalder of route is 4-tracked with station Midcalder Junctions. - links to option 2.6.2, 2.8.1 and 2.8.2. Junction platforms off the main lines). Run long distance WCML Assumes WCML freight runs via Not progressed - will be informed by passenger services via Motherwell to / from Mossend, and timetable analysis assessment of Holytown Junction - some 4-tracking with stations on loops scenarios where traffic splits evenly 2.5.1 upgrade Wishaw - Regulation 3 £££££ between Law Junction and Uddingston between WCML and Holytown routes Holytown - Uddingston to deliver a better timetable for WCML vs. the majority of services running via route to improve journey long distance and HS2 services. one route or the other. times. Forecast increase in passenger and Closure would align with Scotland Close Logans Road Level freight traffic could extend barrier down Level Crossings policy / local plans to £45- 2.5.2 Capacity 4 Crossing. times - depends on routing via WCML vs improve Level Crossing safety at this 76m 2.5 - Holytown. location. Uddingston Progress - will be informed by Junction to timetable analysis assessment of Law Junction WCML capacity improvement - to scenarios where traffic splits evenly Grade separate increase capability for more long between WCML and Holytown routes £££- 2.5.3 Capacity 3 Uddingston Junction. distance and local services, and de-risk vs. the majority of services running via ££££ the timetable. one route or the other. Test whether Law Junction grade separation would be more beneficial - option 2.4.2. Not progressed - realignment could be prohibitively costly, due to Garriongill area Journey Faster WCML journey times - links to ££££- 2.5.4 4 embankments and old mine workings. linespeed improvements. Times options 2.4.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4 and 2.8.1. £££££ May not be required if options 2.5.1, 2.4.1 or 2.2.2 go ahead. Faster WCML journey times and better 2.4 - Law timetable due to segregation of WCML Costs are likely to be significant - 4 Track between Junction to long distance services from local consider incorporating elements of ££££- 2.4.1 Carstairs & Law Capacity 4 Carstairs stopping trains and freight - links to this capacity improvement as part of £££££ Junctions. Junctions options 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.4.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4 option 2.4.2. and 2.8.1.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 176

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Progress - Law Junction is a key constraint for combined WCML Grade separate Law Capacity and timetable / performance 2.4.2 Capacity 2 passenger and freight traffic currently, ££-£££ Junction. improvements for all WCML operators. and future growth will make this more restrictive over time unless addressed. 2.4 - Law Closure would align with Scotland Enables higher linespeeds between Junction to Close Cleghorn Level Journey Level Crossings policy / local plans to 2.4.3 3 Carstairs and Law Junction. Aligns with £6-14m Carstairs Crossing. Times improve Level Crossing safety at this option 2.2.1. Junctions location. Timetable and journey time Expensive, and unless 4-tracking to Remodel Carluke Station improvements as a result of better move platforms off the main lines, 2.4.4 (platforms off main Capacity 3 traffic regulation between Law Junction £-£££ journey times for stopping services lines). and Carstairs - links to option 2.4.1, likely to be extended by c 3-4minutes. 2.4.2 and 2.2.1. Beneficial for long distance passenger Stopping services likely to extend Remodel Lockerbie services (including HS2) and freight journey times by 3-4 minutes, and 2.3.1 Station (platforms off Capacity 3 ££-£££ timetabling (if loops long enough for freight routing strategy required to main lines). 2.3 - Carstairs combined usage). confirm loop requirements. Junctions to Beneficial for all WCML Operators and Progress - uphill climbs for freight Kingmoor G&SW timetables - separates G&SW traffic are an issue currently for WCML 4-track for 30 miles over (excl.) and WCML services, and improves pathing and timetable. Assess as part 2.3.3 + Capacity 2 £££££ freight regulation / pathing with WCML of options to enable future HS2 passing loops. passenger services. Aligns with options timetable and forecast freight traffic 2.3.2 and 2.2.2. growth. Progress - provides more flexibility and Beneficial for all WCML operators in the capacity, without significant 2.2 - Carstairs Carstairs Renewal & medium term, with higher linespeeds on additional land being required. £77- 2.2.1 Regulation 1 Junctions Remodelling. all routes plus freight regulating Timescales align with planned track 193m facilities on the WCML. and signalling renewals on the WCML in the Carstairs area.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 177

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Add flank platforms Reduces WCML interface with Options to lengthen trains (rather than either side of the WCML Haymarket South Lines traffic, thereby run more services to meet forecast approaching Haymarket improving available capacity demand), Dunfermline bypass (fast Central Junction - with approaching Waverley - relates to Fife Line) and adding grade separated ££££- 2.1.1 direct links for Capacity 4 options 1.7.1 and 1.7.2 (Haymarket to junctions at Winchburgh and Almond £££££ passengers to create an Waverley 6-tracking, and bi-directional are expected to improve WCML / interchange with the signalling), but also options 3.1.4 and Haymarket capacity without requiring existing Haymarket 5.2.5c. this intervention. Station. Edinburgh Suburban Line electrification and Slateford Junction remodelling are expected to improve Beneficial for ECML freight pathing and pathing for electrified freight and the Crawler lane between may help the future WCML timetable by WCML timetable for all operators ££££- 2.1.2 Slateford Junction and Capacity 3 improving capacity and regulation on without requiring this intervention. £££££ Cobbinshaw Summit. the Cobbinshaw Line to Edinburgh. Options 1.8.1 and 1.8.2 may deliver 2.1 - similar capacity benefits between Haymarket to Slateford and Carstairs more cost Carstairs effectively. Timetable analysis study of ECML and Beneficial for ECML freight pathing and WCML routes in Scotland will be Grade separate may help the future WCML timetable by required to inform the business case. 2.1.3 Capacity 3 ££-£££ Midcalder Junction. improving capacity and regulation on Option 1.8.2 may deliver similar the Cobbinshaw Line to Edinburgh. capacity benefits between Slateford and Carstairs at a lower cost. Add platform 5 at Could reduce South Lines traffic running Preferable to 6-tracking through to Haymarket Station (with in to Waverley, creating capacity for Waverley, but constrained site and 2.1.4 Capacity 3 £ connection to/from additional services on WCML / A2B / passenger access issues likely to limit Cobbinshaw Line). E&G. Duplicate of option 1.7.3. scope & benefits. Network resilience will fall below New 25kV OLE feeder Required to support more electric traffic acceptable levels and OLE network will £16- 2.1.5 station in the Capacity 1 on the network and across newly not be adequately future proofed if 30m area electrified routes. additional power capacity is not provided in CP6

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 178

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Double track through Timetable and performance Barncluith Tunnel Reassess if the service frequency on 2.7 - Newton 2.7.1 Regulation 4 improvement through Motherwell and £-££ (previously singled for the Hamilton Circle route is to increase. to Greenhill for Glasgow North Electric services. Lower electrification). Junction Remove unused assets at Simplifies any future re-modelling Address as advance works for option 2.7.2 Regulation 5 £ Lesmahagow Junction. projects e.g. 2.7.3. 2.7.3. Higher linespeeds through S&C - Reassess if long distance passenger timetable and performance Remodel Lesmahagow traffic increases through Motherwell, improvement through Motherwell and 2.7.3 Junction off curves / on Regulation 4 and this location becomes more of a ££-£££ for Glasgow North Electric services - to straighter track. constraint - depends also on options links to options 2.5.3 and 2.4.2 (at Law noted and HS2 routing. and Uddingston Junctions). Potential synergy with enabling freight Lengthen Braidhurst train capacity to Mossend and other Progress - assess as part of increasing 2.7.4 loops to 775m for freight Regulation 3 freight destinations in Scotland - see £ Anglo Scottish freight capacity. regulation. related options - 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.5.1 and 2.7.10. £3-7m 2.7 - Newton Progress - infill electrification that Possible to Greenhill Assess with respect to volumes of should help traffic regulation, CP7 Electrify Gartsherrie Lower 2.7.5 Regulation 3 electrified freight running to / from particularly when running diverted ring- South Junction loop. Junction Grangemouth & likelihood of usage. WCML or Queen St passenger services fenced on this route. funds scheme Assess feasibility of Does not align with the 2043 ITSS - no bringing third platform Turnback option for Motherwell 2.7.6 Regulation 5 additional passenger services forecast £ at Coatbridge Central services. for Coatbridge. into service. Line speed improvements in the Potential journey time and timetable Limited benefits anticipated for Coatbridge area - Journey 2.7.7 4 benefits, including for diverted WCML normal traffic on this route (stopping £ consider bridge Times traffic. passenger services). strengthening and S&C issues.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 179

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Install new crossover for Beneficial for Coatbridge Terminal No clear requirement for this 2.7.8 better access to Regulation 5 £ access from the North. capability in the 2043 ITSS. Coatbridge terminal. Closure aligns with Scotland Level Close Greenfoot Level Aligns with option 2.7.10 - longer freight Crossings policy / local plans to 2.7.9 Crossing (if extending Capacity 3 £8-20m loops in this area. improve Level Crossing safety at this Garnqueen Loop). location. £5-12m Potential synergy with enabling freight Progress - assess as part of increasing Possible Extend loop North of train capacity to Mossend and other Anglo-Scottish freight capacity. CP7 Garnqueen North 2.7.10 Capacity 3 freight destinations in Scotland - see Consider funding from ring-fenced ring- Junction for 775m related options - 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.5.1 and funds, rather than as part of the main fenced freight traffic. 2.7.4. determination. funds scheme 2.7 - Newton Potential journey time and timetable Raise line speeds to to Greenhill benefits, including for diverted WCML Incorporate within Greenhill Junction 75mph between Journey Lower 2.7.11 3 traffic - links with CP5 EGIP grade separation to optimise the £ Cumbernauld to Times Junction electrification and options 3.7.13 and overall business case. Greenhill Upper Junction. 6.2.2. No clear requirement in 2043 ITSS, and trains turning back at Relocate current Improves flexibility for turning Cumbernauld would use Platform 2 vs 2.7.12 crossover to South of Regulation 4 £ Cumbernauld terminating services. trains from Falkirk Grahamston would Cumbernauld Station. use Platform 1, which could confuse passengers. W10/12 clearance - Assume this capability is already Mossend - Grangemouth Freight Improved freight gauge for electrified delivered by the end of CP5, as a + Cl350 & Cl390 Gauge & Anglo Scottish freight to Grangemouth ring-fenced funds project. If not, CP5 2.7.13 clearance via Falkirk Diversion- 2 + diversionary route for long distance consider funding from CP6 ring-fenced works Grahamston to ary WCML passenger services to Edinburgh funds, rather than as part of the Haymarket East Capacity Waverley. determination. Junction.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 180

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Electrification of the route + 2 platforms Progress - as part of the rolling East Kilbride Line at East Kilbride - helps minimise Glasgow programme of electrification – Electrification (from Central platform occupancy issues. timetable assessment confirms this £61- 2.12.1 Capacity 2 Busby Junction) + Faster trains and more homogeneous to be beneficial re. Glasgow Central 148m 2.12 - Glasgow additional double track train fleet also of benefit re. timetables platform capacity and rolling stock Central to and performance. utilisation. Barrhead Beneficial for longer trains, whether Progress - assumes higher forecast Lengthen Barrhead bay electric or diesel multiple units (EMU or 2.12.2 Capacity 3 demand will be addressed through £5-12m platform. DMU) on this route. Undertake before increasing train lengths. electrification works on this route. Barrhead Line Faster trains and more homogeneous Electrification (from Duplicated scope – see options 2.12.1 £63- Capacity 4 train fleet also of benefit re. timetables 2.12.3a Muirhouse Junction to and 2.12.3b 150m and performance. Busby Junction). Electrification to Barrhead from Busby Faster trains and more homogeneous Progress - provided further 2.12 - Glasgow £22- Junction (assumes East Capacity 3 train fleet also of benefit re. timetables electrification of Glasgow Central Central to 2.12.3b 54m Kilbride Line already and performance. commuter routes Barrhead electrified). Capacity and timetable improvements Timetable assessment indicates Double track South of to facilitate more frequent services, double track not required, as Barrhead to Kilmarnock, £10- 2.12.4 Capacity 4 diversionary route capacity to Ayr (via additional signal sections would or improve signalling 25m Barassie), and WCML diverted passenger deliver sufficient capacity and headways. services. timetable benefits. For improved regulation of traffic i.e. Progress - improves streaming of earlier de-confliction of Paisley Canal / Ayrshire traffic through Glasgow 3-track Ayrshire Lines Ayrshire services. Creates additional Central approaches to platforms, 2.11.1 (Tank Road) on approach Regulation 2 £ capacity for growth in Ayrshire with minimal crossing moves - 2.11 - Bridge to Bridge Street Junction. Street passenger services forecast by 2043. See reduces performance risks / Junction to related options - 2.11.2 and 2.10.2b. maximises available capacity. Kilwinning 3-track Ayrshire Lines Further regulation improvement - to between improve flexibility and capacity for Reconsider if option 2.11.1 doesn’t 2.11.2 Regulation 3 £-££ and Bridge Street services running to / from Glasgow deliver sufficient capacity. Junction. Central.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 181

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Assess possibility of increasing wrong road Improved flexibility / performance during SLW not used frequently currently / line speed to 50mph vs. planned and unplanned disruption 2.11.4 Regulation 5 ERTMS should deliver bi-directional £ expand single line working between Johnstone and signalling in future as standard. working capabilities on Kilwinning. this section of route. Brownhill and Arkleston loops are likely to Consider as part of option 2.11.6. Remove Up Goods Loop be sufficient for future Ayrshire freight Otherwise consider rationalisation of 2.11.5 North of Glengarnock Regulation 5 traffic i.e. assuming coal train paths are £-££ assets when they are due for Station. not retained for other freight traffic in the renewal. future. Relocate Glengarnock Likely to extend stopping service 2.11.6 Regulation 4 Allows passing moves at Glengarnock. £-££ 2.11 - Bridge Station on loops. journey times by c. 3-4mins. Street Extend Brownhill Loops Enables longer freight trains to run in Junction to 2.11.7 Regulation 5 Loops already exceed 775m length. £ Kilwinning to 775m. Ayrshire in the future. Enables better timetabling of stopping and freight service vs. fast Ayrshire 4-track between Dalry passenger services to / from Glasgow and Glengarnock with 2043 ITSS doesn’t support an £££- 2.11.8 Capacity 3 Central. Addresses 2.11.6 journey time platforms off the main intervention on this scale in Ayrshire. ££££ increase issue, as 2 stops on a 4 track lines. section is less likely to extend stopping service journey times. Similar to bi-directional signalling Implement bi-directional Improves traffic regulation / capacity options around Edinburgh Waverley signalling between through this busy section of route 2.11.9 Regulation 3 - options 2.11.1 and 2.11.2 appear £-££ Shields Junction and approaching Glasgow Central without better value to improve network Glasgow Central. additional track infrastructure. flexibility. Build an E&G flyover at Removes Anniesland services from Capacity of Queen St station and 3.4 - Queen Cowlairs West Junction, Queen St High Level station, improving approaches expected to be Street Station for services between platform availability for longer distance adequate for 2043 if train (High level) to 3.4.1 Regulation 5 ££-£££ Springburn and Ashfield, services. Aligns with option 4.5.4 and lengthening is selected, rather than Cowlairs West replacing the existing flat 2043 ITSS indications for service more frequent services to meet Junction junction layout. changes. forecast demand.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 182

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Connect the Eastfield Assists with ECS moves and other traffic Progress - assess capacity benefits re. and Cowlairs Passenger regulation approaching Queen St ECS moves between the morning and 3.4.2 loops via a flat junction Regulation 2 £ Tunnel and station - potential synergy evening peaks, if more runs-offs result over the Springburn with 3.4.3. from longer / more frequent trains. Lines. Likely to improve regulation in / out of 3-track between Queen Assess on a standalone basis and in Queen St HL, particularly re. Anniesland 3.4.3 St Tunnel and Cowlairs Regulation 3 conjunction with Eastfield Loop £-££ and West Highland Line services - aligns West Jn. extension. well with option 3.4.2 3.4 - Queen Train lengthening and changing Street Station Increase in terminal station platform Build platform 8 at stopping patterns address forecast (High level) to 3.4.4 Capacity 4 capacity - for additional services (if £ Queen Street Station. growth, and this option would shorten Cowlairs West required). platform 7. Junction The position of the tunnel S&C and Timetable and performance benefits as Relocate Queen St throat throat layout has been optimised 3.4.5 Regulation 5 a result of a longer run out between the £ S&C nearer the tunnel. through EGIP for speeds / switch size platform ends and the throat S&C. and whole life costs. Platform lengths at the end of CP5 and Maximises the number of 8-car trains Increase number of 8-car station layout optimised through EGIP. using Queen St - beneficial for rolling 3.4.6 platforms at Queen St Capacity 4 Further lengthening is likely to be very £ stock utilisation and Central Belt High Level Station. disruptive and expensive, and would network capacity. reduce concourse space. Relieves timetable constraints for Progress – timetable analysis indicates Aberdeen and Inverness to Queen St this will increase capacity for Grade separate Greenhill £50m- 3.3.1a Regulation 1 services vs. E&G services, due to the Larbert-Stirling-Perth services by 20%, Upper Junction. 126m reduction in crossing moves over the and supports a 6tph E&G timetable 3.3 - Cowlairs E&G. See also option 3.3.1b and improved journey times. West Junction Grade separate Greenhill to Greenhill Consider vs. 3.3.1a business case as Upper Junction, Relieves timetable constraints for Upper this option could be preferred in a including a new chord Aberdeen and Inverness to Queen St Junction scenario where levels of freight traffic 3.3.1b between the Edinburgh Regulation 2 services vs. E&G services, due to the £££ to Grangemouth and frequency of to Glasgow Line and reduction in crossing moves over the passenger services on these routes is Cumbernauld Line E&G. Expanded version of option 3.3.1a. increased. (Scottish Central Route).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 183

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Provides freight turnback option for Possible Install a crossover to the Grangemouth traffic if route to Progress -, consider funding from CP7 CP7 East of Gartshore Loops, Mossend / Coatbridge / WCML is 3.3.2 Regulation 3 ring-fenced funds, rather than as part Ring to create a turnback blocked. Enables rationalisation of of the determination. fenced facility in the Up Loop. Greenhill Upper Junction. Aligns well fund 3.3 - Cowlairs with option 3.1.4 for freight diversions. West Junction Possible alternative freight turnback to Greenhill Assess business case vs. other Upgrade Yard facility for Grangemouth traffic, and the Upper 3.3.3 Regulation 4 Grangemouth related turnback £ capabilities / flexibility. yard could be used as a Maintenance or Junction options, including option 3.3.2. High Output depot. Flyover E&G lines at Removes Anniesland services from See Cowlairs West Jn, for Queen St High Level station, improving 3.3.4 Regulation 5 Duplicate of option 3.4.1. option services between platform availability for longer distance 3.4.1 Springburn and Ashfield. services. £2-5m Possible Increase linespeeds Progress - undertake 3rd Way analysis / CP6 Journey 6.2.1 between Polmont and 3 Potential journey time improvements. identify opportunities to deliver with ring- Time Carmuirs West Junction. track renewals if appropriate. fenced funds scheme 6.2 - Greenhill Assume undertaken during CP5 Upper following planned 2016/17 works at Junction to Increase linespeeds Journey time and timetabling benefits Carmuirs West Junction and nearby Polmont between Greenhill Upper Journey for Glasgow Queen Street services to underbridge renewal - helps maximise CP5 6.2.2 3 Junction (via Junction and Carmuirs Time Perth and Dundee - synergies with benefits from Greenhill Junction grade works Carmuirs) East Junction. options 3.3.1 a/b. separation. If not, consider funding from CP6 ring-fenced funds, rather than as part of the determination. Creates a freight turnback facility close Assess vs. other freight turnback Install a freight loop to to the Grangemouth Branch. An options if routes to Mossend / Freight 6.2.3 the East of Falkirk 4 alternative option to others being Coatbridge / WCML are unavailable. £ Regulation Grahamston station. considered to the West of Falkirk N.B. waybeam bridge to be factored in Grahamston i.e. 3.3.1b, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3. to cost and deliverability assessments.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 184

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Potential linespeed improvements / Assess scope / benefits case for each Larbert Jcn to Hilton Jcn lower future maintenance and renewal location and optimise re. signalling - removal of redundant Rationali- 6.4.1 3 costs - aligns well with options 6.4.2, upgrade / linespeed improvement £ sidings / S&C / signalling sation 6.4.4 and 6.4.13 - need to be optimised opportunities (elements of option equipment. collectively. 6.4.2). Raise linespeeds Assess attainable linespeeds and Journey Journey time improvements - aligns 6.4.2 between Dunblane and 3 alignment with options 6.4.4, 6.4.14 £££ Time with options 6.4.1 and 6.4.4. Auchterarder to 100mph. and 6.4.18 to optimise. Reduces Fife connectivity to / from Run Edinburgh to Perth / Edinburgh / Inverness, and Highland Mainline timetable and Inverness trains via increases Central Belt traffic flows, journey time improvements. Aligns with Larbert, (if the Perth to Journey particularly on the E&G and routes £££- 6.4.3 4 options 6.4.18 and 6.6.23 - Inverness route is Time through to Stirling. Likely to cause ££££ electrification of the route between electrified before timetable and performance issues Dunblane and Inverness. Dundee to Aberdeen). between Winchburgh Junction and Stirling. 6.4 - Stirling to Timetable analysis has identified that Perth improving Greenloaning – Kinbuck Removes timetable constraints caused area signal headways will increase by 7-8min signalling headways on this capacity on this section and ease Improve signalling section of route - these determine the operating constraints south of Stirling. £83- 6.4.4 headways between Regulation 3 timing of train arrivals at Greenhill This route requires modernisation prior 196m Dunblane and Perth. Upper Junction through to Queen to being electrified, including the Street station. Aligns with options 6.4.1, removal of manual signal boxes at 6.4.2 and 6.4.13. Auchterarder, Blackford and Greenloaning, South-facing Stirling bay platforms are short and not signalled for passenger Timetable assessment indicates that service use. This remodelling could freight loops would be better located Stirling Station - convert permit longer distance services to between Stirling and Perth. North- 6.4.5 bay platforms 4 & 5 into Capacity 3 overtake stopping or terminating bound freight crossing moves at £ through platforms. services at Stirling. Aligns with Perth Stirling would use significant capacity / remodelling / enabling freight paths to conflict with Dunblane / Perth Aberdeen and Inverness - options 6.4.6 passenger timetables. and 6.4.16.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 185

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Ref No. Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Install a double junction Improved regulation of freight and Timetable assessment indicates that layout on the main lines through services overtaking stopping / 6.4.6 Capacity 3 freight loops would be better located £ at North end of Stirling terminating services at Stirling. Aligns between Stirling and Perth. Station. with options 6.4.5 and 6.4.16. New bay platform on Reassess if plans emerge for long South side of Stirling Depends on demand for long distance distance services to start from 6.4.7 Capacity 3 £ Station (266m Platform services starting from Stirling. Stirling vs. available station platform 1). capacity. Improve Stirling Station Shorter walking route / easier access to / flexibility, so Alloa Reassess if this is not undertaken or from Alloa trains for passengers. passenger services all if DDA to platform 9 is not installed Passenger Requires additional track S&C and 6.4.8 stop at platform 6 (rather 3 during CP5, taking into account £ Access signalling equipment for through trains than Glasgow services reduced freight traffic due to to run via the Up Line while stopping using platform 9 as Longannet power station closure. services call at Platform 6. currently). 6.4 - Stirling to Potential journey time and performance Perth benefits, and an Improvement in the Assume delivered during CP5 in road / rail interface at this location - conjunction with Stirling Council and Close Level Journey CP5 6.4.9 2 barrier downtime likely to increase in their local development plans - and Crossings. Time works response to more frequent train services. to align with electrification of this Reduces risk of road vehicle incursion / route by December 2018. trespass at these locations. Trains terminating at Dunblane today do so at platform 3. To return to Edinburgh or make a complex set of Reassess if there is any planned moves across the main lines to Platform Relocate Dunblane increase in train frequency between 1, which take c.10mins per train. This crossover to the South of Regulation 3 Stirling - Perth lines, or the number of £ 6.4.10a enhancement permits them to pick up Dunblane Station. trains turning back at Dunblane passengers from Platform 3 and depart increases. to Glasgow or Edinburgh using the relocated crossover to access the Up line directly.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 186

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Ref No. Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Re-model Dunblane Trains terminating at Dunblane do so at station track layout to Reassess with option 6.4.10a if there platform 3. To return to Edinburgh or permit trains terminating is any planned increase in train Glasgow trains exit the Down Siding on 6.4.10b at Platform 3 to access Regulation 4 frequency between Stirling - Perth £ to the Down line, change ends and cross Platform 1 (from the lines, or the number of trains turning to Platform 1 on the Up line - moves North) without changing back at Dunblane increases. taking c.10mins per train. ends on the main lines. Potential linespeed improvement and CP6 ring asset rationalisation (lower maintenance Reassess options when key assets Remove Greenloaning Rationali- fenced 6.4.11a 3 and renewals costs). Options 6.4.5, 6.4.6 are due for renewal at this location sidings. sation funds and 6.4.16 may synergise with this one, (if option 6.4.11b is not progressed). scheme or make it unattractive. Progress – Greenloaning looplocation is unsuitable due to adverse gradient and space to Potential improvement in freight Extend Greenloaning extend. Timetable assessment capacity - options 6.4.5, 6.4.6 and 6.4.16 sidings to create a 640m Freight indicates an Up loop is required to 6.4.11b 3 may offer synergies, or make it £6-14m 6.4 - Stirling to Dn freight loop / install at Regulation enable hourly freight paths on this unnecessary - more likely if freight Perth a more suitable location. route – further analysis required to haulage switches to electric traction. identify suitable location and install prior to Dunblane to Perth electrification (option 6.4.18). Performance improvement and whole £4-9m Remove crossover at life cost benefits. The current Progress - assess crossover strategy Possible Auchterarder / replace functionality is duplicated c. 5 miles between Stirling and Perth / Rationali- CP6 ring 6.4.12 with facing crossover 2 away at Blackford. The Gleneagles business case to optimise - in sation fenced South of Gleneagles option would improve the management conjunction with asset funds station. of services during disruption. This aligns rationalisation options on this route. scheme with options 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and 6.4.4. Closure would align with Scotland Level Crossings policy / local plans to Potential linespeed improvements - Assess LCs between improve Level Crossing safety at this Journey option aligns well with 6.4.1, 6.4.2 and £25- 6.4.13 Stirling & Perth for 3 location. If closures are supported Time 6.4.4 which need to be optimised as a 59m closure. assess benefits at a corridor level for programme of works. LC closures + signalling headways / linespeed improvements.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 187

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options £1-3m More efficient to undertake prior to Progress - assess in conjunction with Possible Review one train working electrification. Aligns with linespeed related options to determine business CP6 ring on Earn Viaduct - Regulation 2 increase aspirations and signalling case in preparation for ERTMS. Also 6.4.14a fenced Signalling only. headway improvements - options determine if this constraint applies to funds 6.4.2, 6.4.4 and 6.4.13. EMU rolling stock. scheme More efficient to undertake prior to Not preferred - assess business case for Review one train working electrification. Aligns with linespeed bridge strengthening options.

on Earn Viaduct - Bridge Regulation 3 increase aspirations and signalling Determine if this constraint applies to £-££ 6.4.14b Strengthening. headway improvements - options non-EMU rolling stock. Likely to be best 6.4.2, 6.4.4 and 6.4.13. addressed at time of viaduct renewal. More efficient to undertake prior to Review one train working electrification. Aligns with linespeed Not progressed - as above - likely to be 6.4 - Stirling to on Earn Viaduct - New Regulation 4 increase aspirations and signalling best addressed at time of viaduct ££-£££ Perth 6.4.14c viaduct and flood headway improvements - options renewal. mitigation. 6.4.2, 6.4.4 and 6.4.13. Clear Moncrieffe Tunnel Progress - determine whether slabtrack for electrification and Electrification and freight W12 solution (costed) is required - may be Journey £49- 6.4.15 freight gauge (slabtrack 2 clearance - may offer high linespeeds, optimal to progress in conjunction with Time 121m solution + W12 gauge tying in with option 6.4.17. Perth stabling works and associated clearance). layout changes. Timetable assessment indicates a Freight pathing enablement / Down line Freight loop Down loop is required to enable hourly timetable improvements. CP5 Perth (for 640m trains) freight paths on this route – further £10- 6.4.16 Regulation 2 depot development rules out the between Perth and analysis required to identify suitable 23m Dundee Lines site just South at Perth Stirling. location and install prior to Dunblane Station. to Perth electrification (option 6.4.18)..

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 188

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Perth Station re- modelling - close platforms 3&4 to One-off opportunity to modernise the improve passenger station and its approaches before the access; create new existing layout is re-signalled for Progress - given synergies with CP5 Platform 8 as an electrification, after which future stabling works, journey time £96- 6.4.17 Inverness through line, Regulation 1 enhancements will be more difficult aspirations and cost efficiencies prior 228m and an Inverness Up loop and expensive to undertake. Benefits to electrification. for freight / charter for passenger access / interchange 6.4 - Stirling to trains; optimise station between trains, journey times, traffic Perth approaches for higher regulation and timetables. linespeeds and re-signal prior to electrification. Progress - as part of rolling programme of electrification in Scotland, noting Potential journey time benefits, that electrification clearance works Dunblane to Perth Journey £150- 6.4.18 2 improved timetable and rolling stock and other enhancement projects electrification. Time 375m utilisation efficiencies. typically need to be undertaken during the 3-5 years prior to OLE wiring being installed. Removes a single line section for Double the Tay Viaduct Aberdeen to Glasgow Queen St (North of Perth) to services. This is most likely to become Only likely to be viable when significant address the single line a timetable constraint if the Tay Bridge works are required on existing 6.5.1 constraint and speed Regulation 4 ££-£££ (Dundee) ever requires major life structure, or if it becomes a significant restriction - currently extension / strengthening works, and capacity constraint in the future. 6.5 - Perth to 30mph for passenger Dundee to Edinburgh trains have to Dundee trains. run via Perth. Reduces the single track section North Extend double tracking Consider in conjunction with option of Perth Station, but benefits are not 6.5.2 between Perth Station Regulation 4 6.5.1 to optimise business case for £ regarded as significant unless the Tay and Tay Viaduct. Perth Station re-modelling. Viaduct is doubled.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 189

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Closure would align with Scotland Level Crossings policy / local plans to Linespeed and journey time Review level crossings improve Level Crossing safety at this Journey improvements, also safety and £10- 6.5.3 between Perth & Dundee 3 location. If closures are supported Time maintenance benefits. Aligns with 25m for closure. assess benefits at a corridor level for LC option 6.5.4. closures + signalling headways / linespeed improvements. Assess opportunities linked to Scotland Review for LSI between Journey Linespeed and journey time Route future level crossing closures or 6.5.4 3 £ Barnhill & Invergowrie. Time improvements - aligns with option 6.5.3. upgrades, and track renewals on this section of route. 6.5 - Perth to Platform capacity at Dundee likely to Dundee Service Change - Review become an issue if long distance and Not progressed - assess timetable / stabling options for the interurban service levels increase as pathing options and other capacity 6.5.5 Capacity 4 £ Royal Scotsman charter forecast. May align with freight schemes to determine the need for train at Dundee Station. capacity improvements e.g. option additional interventions of this type. 5.4.1. at Camperdown. Progress - as part of rolling programme of electrification in Scotland, noting Potential journey time benefits, that electrification clearance works Perth to Dundee Journey £69- 6.5.6 2 improved timetable and rolling stock and other enhancement projects electrification. Time 171m utilisation efficiencies. typically need to be undertaken during the 3-5 years prior to OLE wiring being installed. Create an Up Freight loop at Camperdown Progress - assess for a future electrified (North of Dundee); freight environment i.e. one that Freight capacity increase / pathing, and 5.4 - Dundee remove existing Freight requires minimum looping facilities on 5.4.1 2 potential timetable benefits for £-££ to Montrose crossovers and extend Regulation routes between Aberdeen and Central passenger services. bi-directional working Scotland. Timetable development between new loop and work is ongoing. Dock Street Tunnel.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 190

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options £5-13m Possible Closure would align with Scotland Linespeed and journey time CP6 Close Broughty Ferry Journey Level Crossings policy / local plans to 5.4.2 3 improvements, also safety and ring- level crossing Time improve Level Crossing safety at this maintenance benefits. fenced location. funds scheme Progress – continue with timetable analysis to confirm the benefits of the Depending on solution selected, single various enhancement options on this Double tracking between Journey section removed from timetabling section of route. This may remove a £152- 5.4.3 Usan Junction and 2 Time process, possibly leave existing single timetable constraint for passenger £366m Montrose Station. line for freight regulation. and freight traffic between Aberdeen 5.4 - Dundee and destinations in the Central Belt of to Montrose Scotland. Progress - assess for a future electrified Looping strategy for Freight capacity increase / pathing, and freight environment i.e. one that freight paths / Freight potential timetable benefits for requires minimum looping facilities 5.4.4 engineering haulage 2 ££-£££ Regulation passenger / freight and engineering - will this satisfy engineering haulage trains between Dundee & haulage traffic. needs? Take Camperdown and Aberdeen. Usan-Montrose into consideration. Progress - as part of rolling programme of electrification in Scotland, noting Potential journey time and timetable that electrification clearance works Dundee to Aberdeen Journey benefits plus rolling stock utilisation 5.4.5 2 and other enhancement projects ££££ electrification. Time efficiencies. Links with options 5.4.4, typically need to be undertaken during 6.4.18 and 6.5.6. the 3-5 years prior to OLE wiring being installed. Capacity and timetable benefits - Relocate Craiginches eliminates freight moves towards 5.5 - Montrose Yard, but create a south Freight CP5 5.5.1 4 Aberdeen from Craiginches Yard and Assume delivered in CP5. to Inverurie facing crossover from Dn Capacity work change of ends, before trains can run yard. towards Dundee.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 191

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Add new through route & Additional platform and through lines Assess re. future rolling stock changes Platform 8 at Aberdeen capacity. Aligns well with 5.5.4 and forecast service frequencies to 5.5.2 Station (including move Regulation 3 £ re-doubling Aberdeen to Ferryhill - if determine if / when the business case of the existing wash road service levels require this. for this option is positive. and facilities). Releases capacity at Aberdeen station Relocation of HST Depot - enabling step for option 5.5.2. Best 5.5.3 (on to old Deeside Line or Regulation 3 done in conjunction with electrification Reassess if option 5.5.2 proceeds. £ to Ferryhill). when there will also be a change of 5.5 - Montrose rolling stock. to Inverurie Assess if forecast demand for Capacity and timetable improvements Aberdeen local services (running Track lower, slabtrack for additional Aberdeen local services. North) would justify these 5.5.4 and re-double Aberdeen Regulation 4 Undertake prior to electrification ££-£££ interventions by 2043. Doubling the to Kittybrewster. between Aberdeen and Inverurie - track may restrict freight gauge for option 5.5.4. traffic between Aberdeen and Elgin. Business case unclear at this time, as Aberdeen to Inverurie Journey May offer rolling stock utilisation / 5.5.5 4 an extension of Dundee to Aberdeen ££-£££ electrification. Time journey time improvements. electrification. £3-7m Enables a linespeed increase / potential May be progressed as part of CP5 Possible Remodel Stanley journey time improvement - opens up Highland Mainline phase 2 - assess CP6 Junction - shorten double Journey 6.6.1 1 further linespeed improvement timetable benefits from higher ring- track to relocate S&C on Time opportunities between Stanley Junction linespeeds vs. dis-benefits of fenced straight section. and Perth. shortening the double track section. funds scheme 6.6 - Perth to Double track Stanley Not progressed - assess vs. option Capacity and timetable improvements Dingwall Junction to Dunkeld - Journey 6.6.2b, noting this is a longer lower 5 - undertake prior to electrification - ££££ 6.6.2a option to follow existing Time speed route which will be disruptive to option 6.6.23. route. double track. Capacity and timetable improvements Double track Stanley Assess timetable and capacity benefits - existing track could be retained as Junction to Dunkeld - Journey for business case - retaining existing 4 freight regulating / diversionary facility ££££ 6.6.2b option to follow Time route would mean additional future - undertake prior to electrification - shortened route. electrification costs. option 6.6.23.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 192

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Assess capacity and timetable benefits Create a dynamic loop to determine business case, noting south of Capacity and timetable improvements that land will be required, and the £££- 6.6.4 Inchmagranachan level Regulation 3 - undertake prior to electrification - project is likely to bear the majority of ££££ crossing / Pitlochry option 6.6.23. costs for flood defence measures on Station. this section as a result. 100mph double tracking from Spey Viaduct to Assess capacity and timetable benefits Capacity and timetable improvements Kincraig loop (noting to determine business case - in Journey - undertake prior to electrification - £££- 6.6.5 waybeams and flooding 3 principle this could be a useful loop as Time option 6.6.23. Consider in combination ££££ issues at Kingussie - it incorporates Newtonmore and with options 6.6.6, 6.6.22 and 6.6.8. earthworks + new Tay Kingussie stations. Viaduct at Dalguise) Extend Aviemore loop & upgrade signalling for Timetable improvements and more CP5 Progress – being developed by simultaneous operational flexibility during perturbed HML 6.6 - Perth to 6.6.6 Regulation 2 Highland Mainline Phase 2 Project, for acceptance into working. Aligns with options 6.6.22 and Phase 2 Dingwall CP5 delivery. platforms from both 6.6.8. works directions. £6-14m Possible Install a motorised Improves regulation / passing moves at Progress - assess capacity and CP6 higher speed crossover to Journey Blair Atholl - Down direction through 6.6.7 2 timetable benefits to determine ring- the North of Blair Atholl Time trains wouldn’t need to slow to run via business case. fenced Station. the current S&C (adjoining Tilt Viaduct). fund scheme Carrbridge Station Enhancements Not identified as beneficial for Journey time and timetable - Including signal Highland Mainline Phase 2 Project. improvements (as a result of capacity 6.6.8 remodelling, line speed Regulation 2 Re-assess journey time and timetable £ increase). Aligns with options 6.6.6 and improvements, and benefits in relation to other HML 6.6.22. double tracking to the options to determine business case. North.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 193

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Improves freight regulation, and Assess benefits in combination with Increase length of Slochd therefore (potentially) freight capacity other options to determine business Regulation 4 £ 6.6.9a freight loop (to 640m). and the HML timetable for passenger case - also consider value if this route is services. electrified. Improves freight regulation, and Assess benefits in combination with Increase length of therefore (potentially) freight capacity other options to determine business Tomatin freight loop (to Regulation 4 £ 6.6.9b and the HML timetable for passenger case - also consider value if this route is 640m). services. electrified. Double track the section Capacity and timetable improvements Consider in combination with options 6.6.10 between Moy loop and Regulation 3 - undertake prior to electrification - 6.6.9a and 6.6.9b. - or as alternative £££ Culloden. option 6.6.23. options. Closure would align with Scotland Linespeed and journey time Level Crossings policy / local plans to Close Raigmore level £30- 6.6.11 Capacity 3 improvements, also safety and improve Level Crossing safety at this crossing. 70m maintenance benefits. location. Note potential interface with planned A96 enhancements. 6.6 - Perth to Dingwall Relocate / reconfigure Will ease station operations as more IEP CP5 refuelling facilities at Will be resolved during CP5 prior to 5+2 6.6.12 Regulation 2 frequent longer trains will use the funded Inverness Station for HST HST introduction. station and require refuelling. works / IEP needs. Platform Lengthening / remodelling of Inverness Station - lengthen Progress - requires an Inverness platform 7 (or remove Increase station platform capacity and Station masterplan to assess and 6.6.13 Regulation 3 £ platform 7 and lengthen flexibility to handle more / longer trains. combine options for the most platform 6 - such that appropriate outcome. platforms 5&6 only serve Dingwall services. Longer HST sets (vs. current CL170/158 Optimise stabling units) likely to need revised stabling Requires an Inverness station 6.6.14 capabilities Inverness Capacity 2 facilities / routes between the station masterplan to assess and combine £-££ Station. and stabling - aligns with Perth stabling options for most appropriate outcome. (option 6.4.17).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 194

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options £2-4m Remove ground frame Improves station layout flexibility, Possible Progress - assess rolling stock restriction between enabling Dingwall rolling stock and CP6 ring 6.6.15 Regulation 3 utilisation benefits, station Platform 5 and routes to trains on HML or A2I to interchange fenced operational resilience. Perth / Aberdeen. more easily. fund scheme Install crossover between Platform 6 & 7 exit roads Need an Inverness station masterplan Require an Inverness station to improve operational 6.6.16 Regulation 3 to assess and combine options for most masterplan to assess and combine £ flexibility for trains appropriate outcome. options for most appropriate outcome. running to / from Dingwall. Upgrade the lines North Further development of scope and Freight Freight capacity and shift of traffic from 6.6.17 of Inverness for RA8 4 costs of works required to inform the ££-£££ Capacity road to rail. freight. business case. Closure would align with Scotland Selective closure of Level Linespeed and journey time Journey Level Crossings policy / local plans to 6.6 - Perth to 6.6.18 Crossings between 2 improvements, also safety and £3-8m Time improve Level Crossing safety at this Dingwall Inverness and Dingwall. maintenance benefits. location. Timetable assessment indicates conventional signalling and a passing Install conventional Capacity, timetable and performance facility between Inverness and £10- 6.6.19 signalling between Timetable 3 improvements. Dingwall would significantly improve 25m Inverness and Dingwall. capacity and performance on this section of route. Conventional signalling appears to Install ERTMS between Capacity, timetable and performance have a better business case than Timetable 3 ££-£££ 6.6.20 Inverness and Dingwall. improvements. ERTMS for CP6 – see option 6.6.19 above. Timetable assessment indicates that Install additional installing double-track to the North of infrastructure between Capacity, timetable and performance Dingwall and South of Invergordon £20- Capacity 4 6.6.21 Inverness and improvements. would enable more frequent and 50m Invergordon Stations. reliable Inverness to Invergordon services.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 195

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Extend Kingussie loop & Not identified as beneficial for upgrade signalling for Timetable improvements and more Highland Mainline Phase 2 Project. simultaneous operational flexibility during perturbed Regulation 2 Re-assess capacity and timetable £ 6.6.22 acceptance into working. Aligns with options 6.6.6 and benefits in relation to other HML platforms from both 6.6.8. options to determine business case. directions. 6.6 - Perth to Progress - as part of rolling programme Dingwall Potential journey time and timetable of electrification in Scotland, noting benefits plus rolling stock utilisation that electrification clearance works Perth to Inverness Journey efficiencies. Options 6.6.1 to 6.6.15 all and other enhancement projects 3 ££££ 6.6.23 electrification. Time relate to this enhancement and typically need to be undertaken during business cases should take the possible the 3-5 years (possibly longer in this electrification of the route into account. case) prior to OLE wiring being installed. Increase in platform occupancy and Forecast demand growth likely to lead Install mid-platform 4.2 - Queen St service capacity - best undertaken prior to more 6-car formation trains on the 4.2.1 signalling at Queen St Capacity 4 £ Low Level to A2B service increase to 6tph - see North Electrics i.e. diminishing benefits Low Level Station. option 4.1.1. before 2043. Assess vs other turnback options at Create a turnback facility Need to assess vs other options for Exhibition Centre (2.6.2) and Charing at Hyndland (similar to Exhibition Centre and Finnieston etc. to 4.3.1 Regulation 3 Cross etc. to determine optimal £ the previous EGIP GRIP 4 determine optimal strategy - noting strategy - noting potential synergy option). potential synergy with 4.3.2. with / or alternative of option 4.3.2. Minimises the 2-track section between 4.3 - Hyndland Partick and Hyndland - may be Progress - consider metro style Assess possible 4 advantageous ahead of 6tph on A2B signalling for high frequency through tracking Hyndland East (option 4.1.1). More likely to proceed if the remaining 2-track section - which 4.3.2 Regulation 3 ££-£££ to former Glasgow Central Low Level is could require a lower linespeed station. remodelled with flank platforms (option through area to 4.6.1 or 4.6.4) to reduce re-modelling of increase overall capacity. the High Level station Train lengthening a more appropriate 4.4 - Hyndland Westerton Jn / Milngavie Capacity increase if Milngavie trains response to forecast demand growth, 4.4.1 Capacity 4 £ to Westerton Branch double tracking. were to increase to 4 trains per hour. as this would have minimal capacity impact.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 196

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Progress - assess business case if Capacity increase and performance undertaken when S&C renewal is due Dupli- improvement for Airdrie to Bathgate Redouble Bellgrove - may need to create a new interlocking cate of 4.5.1 Capacity 2 and Springburn / Cumbernauld services. Junction. area - could offer turnback capability option Duplicate of 4.1.7 - renewal of the vs. in the medium to 4.1.7 4.5 - junction likely in CP7. long-term. Anniesland - North Remodel Bellgrove Removes Bellgrove stops on the Up Glasgow Circle station - Up platform Airdrie Line, allowing Bathgate trains to Capacity 3 Assess business case vs option 4.5.1. £ via Queen St 4.5.2a relocated off the main pass - for improved regulation / journey LL . times and capacity at this location. Remodel Bellgrove Removes Bellgrove stops on the Up Higher cost option with potential station - Up and Down Airdrie Line, allowing trains to Partick to journey time increase for stopping 4.5.2b Capacity 4 £ platforms relocated off pass - for improved regulation and services / no plans for express services the main Argyle Lines. capacity at this location. not calling at Bellgrove station. Removal of some local services from Extend Bellgrove Down Glasgow Central (High Level), to platform loop to connect increase capacity there for longer / long Business case will depend on 4.5.3 with the Capacity 4 distance services without major masterplan for Glasgow Central (High £-££ 4.5 - - includes doubling High expansion of the station footprint. Level) Anniesland St Junction. Other options include 4.6.1 or 4.6.4 - North combined with 2.6.3. Glasgow Circle via Queen St Improves consistency of rolling stock LL Glasgow North Suburban performance on the Queen St Tunnel Line electrification - incline i.e. timetable, performance and Progress - as part of Scotland rolling £34- 4.5.4 Capacity 2 Cowlairs to Anniesland rolling stock utilisation benefits, plus an programme of electrification. 86m and Westerton. electrified diversionary route to Queen St Low Level station. Upgrades passenger access / egress capacity to handle more Argyle Line Add flank platforms at Flank platform widths would be Passenger services, by enabling passenger to exit 4.6 - Glasgow Glasgow Central Low non-compliant with standards, so £££- 4.6.1 Access / 5 from one side of the train e.g. on to the Central LL Level station i.e. create a compare viability / business case v. ££££ Circulation central platform, while new passengers 2-track 4 platform layout. option 4.6.4. enter from the other side i.e a flank platform.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 197

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Creates a turnback facility for Build a 3rd platform / additional Argyle Line services without Assess if option 4.6.4 is developed, to 4.6.2 turnback at Exhibition Regulation 4 increasing the number of trains per hour minimise total intervention costs e.g. £ Centre station. running through the Partick-Hyndland option 4.3.2. 2-track section of the route. Needs to be assessed vs. Glasgow 4.6 - Glasgow Central High level masterplan. Very disruptive to implement within tight Central LL Reconfigure Low Level Improves pedestrian flow / mitigates underground city centre location - site platforms - replace Passenger congestion issues - wider concourse is constrained by location underneath £££- 4.6.4 centre platform with 2 Access / 3 walkways, better staircases, escalators Argyle Street and Central High Level ££££ wide platforms at the Circulation and lifts to wider platforms. station.. Increases capacity of station sides. to accommodate more frequent trains in the medium term but does not enable longer trains to operate. Bathgate station centre Progress - terminating services at Enables a flexible commuter train road turnback - with a Bathgate station from East & West on service tailored to distinct Edinburgh station loop round a stop-start basis to permit skip stop 4.1.1 Capacity 2 and Glasgow market demand. £-££ platform 2 and services to pass. Best done prior to Moderates number of trains through additional crossover at introducing additional services - high Queen Street Low Level station. the West end. growth projected for this route Rebuild intermediate Assess against forecast growth across Loops must extend through a minimum 4.1 - stations on loops to all lines between Edinburgh and of 2 stations, ideally 3 to provide robust Newbridge facilitate overtaking and Glasgow. May require capacity 4.1.3 Regulation 3 overtaking window for non-stop ££-£££ Junction to non-stop services with enhancements in Edinburgh and services. Potential synergy with Bellgrove faster end to end journey Glasgow areas to accommodate 4.1.2a/b. Junction times. additional services. Might have been beneficial in CP5 for Improve loading gauge Motherwell commissionings in 2017 capability and track Diversion- Enables tall international shipping and 2018, but would be superseded if 4.1.4 between Airdrie and ary 3 containers (to W10 gauge) to use route Winchburgh Jcn and Almond Jcn go £ Shettleston for larger Capacity from ECML via Bathgate to Mossend ahead (providing a W12 electrified freight container traffic. diversionary route for ECML and WCML freight traffic).

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 06 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 198

Option Commentary – rational for CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 Est. Ref Intervention title / Rating intervention, anticipated benefits, Not Route Section Driver Route Study Conclusions Funded (2019- (2024- (2029- (2034- (2039- cost No. description 1(High) relationship with other enhancement Progressed Works 24) 29) 34) 39) 44) range – 5 (Low) options Signalling upgrade Assess business case in conjunction Improves management of trains along between Newbridge with option 4.1.3 - this may be a better 4.1.5 Capacity 3 route to allow more trains to run closer £-££ Junction and Bellgrove value solution to increasing capacity together. Junction. on this route. Might have been beneficial in CP5 for Motherwell commissionings in 2017 Increase Shettleston and 2018, but would be superseded if 4.1 - loop to 705m (110 SLU's Diversion- Provides turnback facility to enable Winchburgh Jcn and Almond Jcn go Newbridge 4.1.6 - Standard Length units), ary 4 freight trains from ECML via Bathgate £ ahead (providing a W12 electrified Junction to and motorise the ground Capacity to reach Mossend if WCML is closed. diversionary route for ECML and Bellgrove frame. WCML freight traffic) to / from Junction Mossend and Coatbridge terminals. Progress - assess business case if Doubling Bellgrove Capacity increase and performance undertaken when S&C renewal is due Junction for additional improvement for Airdrie to Bathgate - may need to create a new interlocking 4.1.7 train paths and Capacity 2 and Springburn / Cumbernauld services. £-££ area - could offer turnback capability timetable resilience on Duplicates option 4.5.1 - renewal of the vs. Shettleston in the medium to North Electric Mainline. junction likely in CP7. long-term.

Estimated cost range key:- £ = less than £50m; ££ = £50-100m; £££ = £100-250m; ££££ = more than £250m Appendix 07 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 199

Appraisal results The choices identified for Control Period 6 and 7 (CP6 and CP7) have been analysed from a financial and socio-economic perspective. From a financial perspective, the choices will be categorised into those that: • worsen the rail industry’s net operating position (in other words, the additional operating costs exceed the value of revenue generated) • choices which improve the industry’s net operating position. For these schemes, the Route Study also indicates the extent to which this improvement is able to cover the capital cost of the initial investment. The choices will be appraised from a wider ‘socio-economic’ perspective, which compares the value of benefits to users and non-users to the net financial cost to funders. The appraisals will be conducted in line with funders’ guidelines, in particular STAG; Scotland Transport Appraisal Guidance. Further details of appraisals including assumptions will be provided to the Office of Rail and Road. The purpose of the appraisals is to illustrate the relative value-for- money of accommodating the Conditional Outputs defined in the Market Studies (including the Scotland Market Study). It is important to state that the appraisal results are only one indicator of the potential value-for-money. The analysis carried out only reflects the transport-related impacts of a scheme. In some cases funders may also be interested in pursuing significant improvements in connectivity to enable the change in Scotland’s economic geography. Where this is the case, a wider ranging view of the economic case for investment is required, and the ‘first order’ transport-related impacts presented can only be viewed as an important – though not the only relevant – indicator of value-for- money. Further appraisals will be undertaken once additional timetable and technical development work has been complete, or when choices for the remainder of the corridor, for example on the East Coast Main Line are published in London North East Route Study documents. Appendix 07 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 200

Fife to Edinburgh Waverley train lengthening (Lengthen three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak) Summary TEE (Transport Economic Efficiency) table

£m (2010 Option Train lengthen Fife services into Edinburgh Waverley 30 year appraisal PV) Contributes towards CCO6 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Edinburgh during peak hours on the local and Conditional Output Costs (Present Value) interurban services in 2023/24

Timeframe To meet the forecast demand to 2023/24 Investment Cost 0.00

The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth Purpose Operating Cost 19.15 scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on Fife services operating into Edinburgh Waverley. Revenue -3.15 Description All services in the morning peak to be six-car.

Infrastructure Other Government Impacts (road infrastructure costs) -0.01 Minimal infrastructure work required as platforms already suitable for six-car trains. requirement Operational Total costs 15.99 Six additional cars to lengthen services. requirement Benefits (Present Value) Passenger impact To accommodate forecast growth and meet ScotRail franchise for passengers to be standing for not more than 10 minutes. Rail user benefits 12.36 Freight impact No impact on freight Non user benefits 1.18 Relates to other None options Current TOCs revenue 0.00 Rail industry financial Scheme increases operating subsidies Current TOCs/ NR opex -3.14 categorisation

Note Other Government Impacts (indirect taxation) -0.91

Total Quantified Benefits 9.49

NPV -6.51

Quantified BCR 0.59 Appendix 07 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 201

Carstairs Area Enhancement Summary TEE (Transport Economic Efficiency) table

This option rationalises and remodels the junction, providing higher linespeeds for long distance passenger services and improves £m (2010 Option 30 year appraisal freight regulation and network performance. PV) Contributes towards IC012, LDC01, LDC02, LDC03, LDC04, LDC05, LDC06, LDC08, LDC09, LDC010, LDC011, LDC 012, LDC014, Conditional Output Costs (Present Value) LDC015, LDC016, LDC018, LDC019, LDC021, LDC022, LDC023, LDC024, LDC025 and 4 class 4 and 1 class 6 freight paths per hour

Timeframe Asset condition is driving the like-for-like renewal of the junction in CP6. Investment Cost 118.26

Purpose Enhancing this junction will improve performance and freight regulation, reduce journey times and whole life costs. Operating Cost -4.14

It will require the renewal of all track, signalling and assets in the Carstairs Junction area. Works will involve Revenue -58.51 Description substantial re-alignment of the track, larger junctions for higher speeds, new drainage, and temporary running lines to minimise overall levels of disruption to customers. Other Government Impacts (road infrastructure costs) -0.17 Infrastructure As above. requirement Total costs 55.44 Operational N/A requirement Benefits (Present Value)

Passenger impact Reduced journey times and improved punctuality Rail user benefits 52.54

Freight impact Improved freight regulation Non user benefits 18.77

Relates to other None Current TOCs revenue 0.00 options

Rail industry Current TOCs/ NR opex 0.00 financial Scheme increases operating subsidies categorisation Other Government Impacts (indirect taxation) -11.58 Note Total Quantified Benefits 59.73

NPV 4.29

Quantified BCR 1.08 Appendix 07 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 202

Balloch to Airdrie via Glasgow Queen Street train lengthening (Lengthen some three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak) Summary TEE (Transport Economic Efficiency) table

£m (2010 Option Train lengthen Balloch services to Airdrie via Glasgow Queen Street 30 year appraisal PV) Contributes towards CCO7 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and Conditional Output Costs (Present Value) interurban services in 2023/24

Timeframe To meet the forecast demand to 2023/24 Investment Cost 0.00

The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth Purpose Operating Cost 21.06 scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on Balloch services operating to Airdrie. Revenue -4.33 Description All services in the morning peak to be six-car.

Infrastructure Other Government Impacts (road infrastructure costs) -0.02 Minimal infrastructure work required as platforms already suitable for six-car trains. requirement Operational Total costs 16.71 Nine additional cars to lengthen services. requirement Benefits (Present Value) Passenger impact To accommodate forecast growth and meet ScotRail franchise for passengers to be standing for not more than 10 minutes. Rail user benefits 30.48 Freight impact No impact on freight Non user benefits 2.00 Relates to other None options Current TOCs revenue 1.05 Rail industry financial Scheme increases operating subsidies Current TOCs/ NR opex -4.00 categorisation

Note Other Government Impacts (indirect taxation) -1.79

Total Quantified Benefits 27.73

NPV 11.02

Quantified BCR 1.66 Appendix 07 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 203

Motherwell to Milngavie via Glasgow Central train lengthening (Lengthen some three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak) Summary TEE (Transport Economic Efficiency) table

£m (2010 Option Train lengthen Motherwell to Milngavie services via Glasgow Central 30 year appraisal PV) Contributes towards CCO7 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and Conditional Output Costs (Present Value) interurban services in 2023/24

Timeframe To meet the forecast demand to 2023/24 Investment Cost 0.00

The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth Purpose Operating Cost 12.64 scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on services operating between Motherwell and Mingavie. Revenue -5.19 Description All services in the morning peak to be six-car.

Infrastructure Other Government Impacts (road infrastructure costs) -0.01 Minimal infrastructure work required as platforms already suitable for six-car trains. requirement Operational Total costs 7.44 Six additional cars to lengthen services. requirement Benefits (Present Value) Passenger impact To accommodate forecast growth and meet ScotRail franchise for passengers to be standing for not more than 10 minutes. Rail user benefits 23.20 Freight impact No impact on freight Non user benefits 1.37 Relates to other None options Current TOCs revenue 0.00 Rail industry financial Scheme increases operating subsidies Current TOCs/ NR opex -2.45 categorisation

Note Other Government Impacts (indirect taxation) -1.26

Total Quantified Benefits 20.86

NPV 13.42

Quantified BCR 2.80 Appendix 07 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 204

Gourock to Glasgow Central train lengthening (Lengthen some three-car trains to six-car trains in the morning peak) Summary TEE (Transport Economic Efficiency) table

£m (2010 Option Train lengthen Gourock services into Glasgow Central 30 year appraisal PV) Contributes towards CCO7 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow Central during peak hours on the Conditional Output Costs (Present Value) local and interurban services in 2023/24

Timeframe To meet the forecast demand to 2023/24 Investment Cost 0.00

The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. Both high growth Purpose Operating Cost 24.84 scenarios forecast passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on services operating into Glasgow Central. Revenue -6.53 Description All services in the morning peak to be six-car.

Infrastructure Other Government Impacts (road infrastructure costs) -0.02 Minimal infrastructure work required as platforms already suitable for six-car trains. requirement Operational Total costs 18.28 11 additional cars to lengthen services. requirement Benefits (Present Value) Passenger impact To accommodate forecast growth and meet ScotRail franchise for passengers to be standing for not more than 10 minutes. Rail user benefits 23.81 Freight impact No impact on freight Non user benefits 3.15 Relates to other None options Current TOCs revenue 0.00 Rail industry financial Scheme increases operating subsidies Current TOCs/ NR opex -4.75 categorisation

Note Other Government Impacts (indirect taxation) -2.16

Total Quantified Benefits 20.05

NPV 1.77

Quantified BCR 1.10 Appendix 07 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 205

Ayrshire to Glasgow Central (Lengthen some seven-car trains to eight-car trains in the morning peak) Summary TEE (Transport Economic Efficiency) table

£m (2010 Option Train lengthen Ayr services into Glasgow Central 30 year appraisal PV) Contributes towards CCO7 to provide sufficient capacity for passengers travelling into Glasgow during peak hours on the local and Conditional Output Costs (Present Value) interurban services in 2023/24

Timeframe To meet the forecast demand to 2023/24 Investment Cost 0.00

The purpose of this scheme is to reduce crowding on these services from 2023/24 through train lengthening. All scenarios forecast Purpose Operating Cost 18.24 passengers standing for more than 10 minutes on Ayrshire services operating into Glasgow. Revenue -9.61 Description All services in the morning peak to be eight-car.

Infrastructure Other Government Impacts (road infrastructure costs) -0.03 Minimal infrastructure work required as selective door opening to be utilised. requirement Operational Total costs 8.60 Seven additional cars to lengthen services. requirement Benefits (Present Value) Passenger impact To accommodate forecast growth and meet ScotRail franchise for passengers to be standing for not more than 10 minutes. Rail user benefits 27.29 Freight impact No impact on freight Non user benefits 4.47 Relates to other None options Current TOCs revenue 0.00 Rail industry financial Scheme increases operating subsidies Current TOCs/ NR opex -3.40 categorisation

Note Other Government Impacts (indirect taxation) -3.10

Total Quantified Benefits 25.26

NPV 16.65

Quantified BCR 2.94 Appendix 08 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 206

Scotland Route Study - Glossary

Term Meaning

Airdrie-Bathgate (A2B) New railway line completed in 2010 which reinstates the former Bathgate and Coatbridge Railway and provides an additional direct railway link between Glasgow and Edinburgh

Anglo Scottish The train services between Scotland and England

Argyle Line Section of line between Rutherglen and Partick via Glasgow Central low level

AWPR Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route

Baseline The baseline is formed of the present railway infrastructure and committed enhancements from the Scottish Government’s CP5 High Level Output Specification

BCR Benefit Cost Ratio, a measure of the value for money presented by an option

Bi-directional Bi-directional signalling is the provision of signalling that allows one or more tracks on a multiple track railway to be operated in either direction, whether for planned or unplanned use

Borders Railway New railway line between Newcraighall and Tweedbank

Chord Line Short track connection between existing railway lines to allow a new direction of travel at junction

Class 4 A classification of freight train timetabled to operate at up to 75mph

Class 6 A classification of freight train timetabled to operate at up to 60mph, typically heavier than a Class 4 train due to the goods carried

Climbing / passing loops Track infrastructure to allow fast services to pass slower services

Committed Enhancement Infrastructure investment schemes which have been identified for funding from the Scottish Government’s High Level Output Specification

Conditional Output A proposed future service specification, conditional on value for money and affordability

Connectivity Opportunity to travel between two locations and associated journey time

Control Period 4 (CP4) Network Rail is funded in five yearly periods. Control Period 4 is the funding period from April 2009 to March 2014 Appendix 08 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 207

Term Meaning

Control Period 5 (CP5) Network Rail is funded in five year periods. Control Period 5 is the funding period from April 2014 to March 2019

Control Period 6 (CP6) Network Rail is funded in five year periods. Control Period 6 is the funding period from April 2019 to March 2024

Control Period 7 (CP7) Network Rail is funded in five year periods. Control Period 7 is the funding period from April 2024 to March 2029

Cross Boundary Analysis Considers train service specifications and assumptions across Network Rail Route boundaries to enable consistent assumptions for each of the Route Studies

CSTM Central Scotland Transport Model

Digital Railway The Digital Railway is a rail industry-wide programme designed to benefit Britain’s economy by accelerating the use of modern technology in several key rail areas.

Diversionary An alternative route for train services during times of planned or unplanned disruption

DMU Diesel Multiple Unit

Down line In most of Scotland, with the exception of the West and East Coast Main Lines (where the Down line direction is away from London), the Down line direction is away from the major station

Dwell time The time a train is stationary at a station

Dynamic Loop A passing place on a single line long enough for trains to pass without stopping

E&G Edinburgh to Glasgow line via Falkirk High

ECML East Coast Main Line

ECS Empty Coaching Stock

Edinburgh Suburban Line The Edinburgh Suburban Line is a predominately diesel line that runs from Haymarket West Junction to Monktonhall Junction via Gorgie Junction

EGIP Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme

EMU Appendix 08 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 208

Term Meaning

Enabling Early planned works to allow for a more efficient delivery of final scope

Engineering Access The time on the rail network when no trains operate when maintenance/renewals and enhancement works are undertaken

European Rail Traffic Management System. A system for managing train movements using ETCS (European Train Control System) to signal trains and GSMR (Global System for Mobile ERTMS Communications – Railway: an international wireless communications standard for railway communication and applications) to communicate with trains

ETCS European Train Control System. A new and train protection system

The route runs from Thornton Junction via Cowdenbeath to Inverkeithing and via Kirkcaldy to Inverkeithing, south to Forth Bridge and splits at Dalmeny to Haymarket West Junction and to Fife Circle Winchburgh Junction

Flat Junction An at grade (level) track junction

FOC Freight Operating Company

G&SW Glasgow and South Western Line (Glasgow to Carlisle via Dumfries)

Gauge The ability of the infrastructure to move a railway vehicle and its load on a particular part of the network

Generalised Cost The sum of the monetary and non-monetary (time) costs of a journey. This enables costs for different transport modes to be compared on an objective basis

Generalised Journey Time A measure of the attractiveness of a rail service which takes into account the train journey time, frequency of service and whether the journey requires an interchange

Grade Separated Junction A track junction where the diverging, or converging, connections are height separated to avoid any conflicts with other train movements

GRIP “Governance for Railway Investment Projects”, a Network Rail standard for project managing changes to the infrastructure

Headway The minimum safe interval between trains on a particular section of track

Highland Main Line Route between Perth and Inverness

HLOS High Level Output Specification, the Scottish Government’s statement of what it wishes to buy from the industry over a five year period

HS2 Proposed High Speed link between London, Birmingham, and beyond to Manchester and Leeds Appendix 08 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 209

Term Meaning

HS2 Phase 1 First phase of High Speed 2 to provide a high speed line from London to Birmingham

HS2 Phase 2 Extension of High Speed 2 Phase 1 network, it includes a high speed line from Birmingham to Manchester and from Birmingham to the , Sheffield and Leeds

Immunisation Works required to ensure that railway infrastructure assets are not compromised by electrical interference from overhead power systems

Infrastructure This includes signalling, track, structures, geotechnical and telecom assets associated with the rail network

Initial Industry Advice The rail industry's advice for funding for the next Control Period

Intermodal trains Freight trains which convey traffic which could be moved by road, rail or sea (e.g. container traffic)

Interurban Train services between the seven cities of Scotland in the interpeak period between 1000 and 1600

Intervention Planned works to deliver the desired infrastructure or operational improvement to the railway

IP Infrastructure Projects

IPEMU Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit

The 2043 Indicative Train Service Specification reflects one possible way in which the Conditional Outputs from the Market Studies could be met within Scotland, and it is used to test the current 2043 ITSS network to determine if it can accommodate these outputs

LENNON Latest Earnings Networked Nationally Over Night. The Rail Industry's ticket sales database

Linespeed The maximum permitted speed of any train over a section of track

Load factor The amount of seats occupied on a train service expressed as a percentage of total seats available

Long Term Planning Process, the programme of Market and Route Studies which together define the capacity and capability required of the Great Britain railway network over a 30-year time LTPP horizon.

MOIRA Rail industry demand forecasting software

MPH Miles Per Hour Appendix 08 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 210

Term Meaning

North Electrics A route that runs from Drumgelloch/Rutherglen in the east and traverses north Glasgow to Helensburgh Central in the west with spurs to Balloch, Milngavie and Springburn.

NPV The Net Present Value of an investment’s future net benefits minus the cost to Government.

OLE Overhead Line Equipment

Operating Licence Conditions under which Network Rail must operate, set by Government

Opportunities to travel This is the number of occasions a passenger can travel between two specified locations, including where a passenger is required to change trains.

ORR Office of Rail and Road, the safety and economic regulator for the rail industry in Great Britain.

Path The infrastructure capacity required for the passage of a train between two places in a certain period of time

PGS Prospering in Global Stability

PI Prospering in Isolation

Qualitative Quality, or characteristic, based measurement technique

Quantitative Data, or information, based measurement technique

RAM Route Asset Management

Regulation The pathing of trains required to achieve a given timetable, such as a non-stopping service passing a stopping service

Remodel The reconfiguration of railway infrastructure assets to deliver the enhanced outputs, such as alterations to a track junction to increase the permitted speed

Resilient The ability of the railway network to cope with unplanned disruption including faults, severe adverse weather, and acts of vandalism

RETB Radio Electronic Token Block

Route A railway line between two places Appendix 08 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 211

Term Meaning

The system which determines which types of locomotive and rolling stock can travel over any particular route. The main criteria for establishing RA usually concerns the strength of underline Route Availability bridges in relation to axle loads and speed

Route Clearance A series of works to increase the gauge of a railway line

Route Study An evidence base for the rail industry and its funders to inform investment choices over the next 10 years, as well as proposals to meet forecast growth through to 2043.

Route Utilisation Strategy, a report which considers the future development of the railway in a particular area (geographic RUS), or one aspect of its development in depth (Network RUS). RUS Geographic RUSs are being superseded by Market Studies and Route Studies in the Long Term Planning Process.

S&C Switches and crossings

SB Signal Box

SBP Strategic Business Plan

Scotland Market Study A review of the rail market for passenger flows wholly within Scotland

ScotRail Rail franchise for passenger services within Scotland (and to Carlisle)

Service frequency The periodicity of a train service in a particular timetable configuration

Service pattern The train service calling points in a particular timetable configuration

SGT Struggling in Global Turmoil

SI Struggling in Isolation

Skip-stopping A limited stop train service pattern

Socio-economic Appraisal “Socio-economic” costs and benefits are those which are not monetised, e.g. improved journey times for existing passengers

SoFA Statement of Funds Available

Stabling An infrastructure facility to allow the storage and/or servicing of trains Appendix 08 July 2016 Network Rail – Scotland Route Study 212

Term Meaning

STAG Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance

The Transport Economic Efficiency analysis provides guidance on how to assess the contribution which a transport option may have on economic welfare through consideration of the resultant TEE transport costs and benefits

TELMoS Transport and Economic Land-use Model of Scotland

Throat A series of multiple converging/diverging track connections such as on the approach to major stations

TMfS Transport Model for Scotland

TOC Train Operating Company

TPD Trains per Day

TPH Trains per Hour

Transport Scotland The national transport agency of Scotland, accountable to Scottish Ministers

Turnaround times The time required for train service to terminate and commence as a new service

Turnback A bay platform that provides the functionality for terminating services to turn round ready to depart from the platform

Up line In most of Scotland, with the exception of the West and East Coast Main Lines (where the Up line direction is towards London), the Up line direction is towards the major station

W10 The loading gauge which enables 9’ 6” containers to be conveyed on conventional wagons.

W12 Allows a 9’6 high container to be carried on a standard container wagon, including refrigerated containers up to 2,600mm wide. This is the recommended height for renewed structures

WCML West Coast Main Line

West Highland Line Rural line that runs from Craigendoran Junction to Fort William and Mallaig with a branch to Oban from Crianlarich

WTT Working Timetable