South West Main Line Route Utilisation Strategy March 2006 Foreword

I am pleased to introduce the first Route regulatory process for determining Utilisation Strategy (RUS) published by Network Rail’s income between 2009 Network Rail, which covers the South West and 2014. These longer-term improvements Main Line and includes the lines into include a requirement for significant London Waterloo. additional rolling stock to meet the growth in passenger demand. Following the Government White Paper, ‘The Future of Rail’, Network Rail was charged However, there are some improvements with developing Route Utilisation Strategies which are urgently needed and could on behalf of the rail industry, following on be delivered within the next three years. from the previous work of the Strategic Rail I am particularly pleased that amongst Authority. It is a task we have taken forward in these early improvements recommended is a consultative way, involving key stakeholders the gauge enhancement of the route from such as train and freight operators, local Southampton to Reading to carry the larger authorities and passenger groups at every step W10 containers preferred by many of our of the way. As such, this RUS for the South freight customers. This would be excellent West Main Line should be seen as the product news for the rail freight market, and allow of the rail industry, not just of Network Rail. them to build upon the considerable growth seen in recent years. This strategy was consulted upon in November 2005, and since then has been Another early improvement proposed by the subject to a period of intensive discussion RUS is the introduction of an hourly service with stakeholders. As well as this consultative between London Waterloo and Exeter, process, further study and analysis has been something much demanded by regional undertaken on each of the options set out in stakeholders in the south west. This would the Draft for Consultation. require significant infrastructure works on the line, but would mean a big improvement in Network Rail is ambitious for the South West services to passengers. Main Line. The line has witnessed considerable growth in demand in recent years, and this These improvements, amongst the many is forecast to continue in the future. The others proposed by the strategy, reflect strategy responds to this by recommending Network Rail’s ambitions to grow the South a programme of improvements which will grow West Main Line. I am proud to present this capacity on the route, seeking to meet the as the first Route Utilisation Strategy needs of both passengers and freight. developed by Network Rail.

The strategy recognises that some major improvements will take time to deliver and John Armitt these will need to be discussed with the Chief Executive Department for Transport as part of the

Correct at time of going to print

2 3 Executive summary

The South West Main Line (SWML) Route of network capacity on London peak services Measures to address overcrowding ■ The redevelopment of Waterloo station is Utilisation Strategy (RUS) is the first to be requiring correction. Other parts of the SWML in the peak period a key step towards the operation of longer published in Network Rail’s RUS programme. network also have capability and operational trains – first ten cars, later twelve – across ■ Work has begun on the development In addition to ongoing informal consultation weaknesses that, without action, would result the suburban network. It is recommended of sophisticated but practical ‘peak with a wide group of stakeholders throughout in a shortfall from the desired outputs across that the entire suburban network is management’ techniques. An opportunity the process, a formal consultation was the RUS timeframe. extended for ten-car operation by 2014, exists with the development of new undertaken between November 2005 and beginning with the Windsor and Reading A few of the measures proposed have no ticketing technology to introduce more January 2006. The resulting strategy is lines which are the most crowded. material cost; some will cover their costs flexible and sophisticated pricing in the outlined in this document and supported financially within a few years; and some high peak hour and peak shoulders. ■ Short term measures to improve the by appendices containing information on require investment that is justified by wider The strategy aims to manage both supply effectiveness and capacity of the accepted and rejected options, consultation benefits to the economy. Where appropriate, and demand to meet forecast growth concourse at Waterloo station, primarily responses and other supporting data. These the train service changes associated with efficiently rather than suppress it. gating the platforms and reducing appendices are available on the Network Rail these measures will be included in the the space reserved for retail, will be website at www.networkrail.co.uk. ■ There is no practical scope to run Department for Transport’s Invitation to Tender progressed as necessary in the run additional trains into London Waterloo A range of measures has been identified to for the South Western franchise; either in the up to the redevelopment of Waterloo in the high peak, and the existing trains make effective and efficient use of railway base specification or as priced options. station. In order to provide the operational are at their maximum permitted length. capacity and to develop additional capacity. capacity and flexibility necessary for the Over the whole peak period, some These measures have been selected on the redevelopment project, the Waterloo crowded trains in the peak shoulders can basis of their value for money and potential International Terminal (WIT) should be be lengthened. High priority cases have affordability across the ten-year period of reserved for this use when Eurostar been identified that should be lengthened the strategy. services transfer to St Pancras. as soon as practicable. Continued strong growth in both passenger ■ The proposed redevelopment of Waterloo and freight demand is predicted to be a key station, including the Waterloo International feature of the next ten years. The areas Terminal, would double the concourse that are currently most congested, such capacity and extend all platforms to as peak-time passenger services to and accommodate at least ten-car trains. from London, will get much worse unless Remodelling of the station and, eventually, growth is addressed. Unlike some other the track on its approach is recommended routes, there is no clear sub-optimal use as the cornerstone of the rail industry’s strategy for the SWML.

4 5 Measures to improve the effective Measures to develop freight Contingent projects use of capacity capability The RUS includes consideration of the ■ The timetable ‘Rules of the Plan’ will be ■ There is a strong case for enhancing the relationship between the strategy proposals continuously reviewed in the light of new rail freight route between the Southampton and three major projects: AirTrack, Thameslink rolling stock and infrastructure capabilities container terminals and Reading to provide Programme and Crossrail. in order to achieve and maintain the most W10 capability, which would enable the effective balance between performance retention and expansion of rail market The longer term and capacity. In the majority of locations share by accommodating the growing The steps proposed will close the gaps across the SWML, evidence supports proportion of large containers. The timing identified on the SWML over the ten-year the view that the current rules represent and form of the gauge enhancement is scope of the strategy. The RUS also sets out a robust balance, allowing maximum being further examined in the Freight RUS a framework for investment to address growth utilisation of capacity while establishing as the route continues beyond Reading to over the next twenty years or more, such as minimum acceptable performance the West Midlands and North of England. progressively lengthening trains and platforms standards from an operational and to twelve cars throughout the SWML suburban scheduling perspective. A limited number Measures to develop capacity in network. Integration with forthcoming major of small improvements have been identified the south west renewal schemes in the Waterloo – Clapham for implementation from the December ■ Regional stakeholders on the West of Junction area will establish the foundation for 2006 timetable. England line seek an hourly London a long-term strategy. ■ Station facilities should be developed to Waterloo to Exeter service and an improve access by appropriate modes of additional hourly Axminster to Exeter transport. As a priority, development of the service. This would require additional best-value car park expansion schemes, infrastructure and would provide an such as Southampton Airport Parkway enhanced service level in an area of and Winchfield, will be progressed by the network where capacity is heavily Network Rail in conjunction with the constrained. Network Rail is working with franchise holder. Opportunities to improve stakeholders to identify funding solutions cycle storage facilities, pedestrian access for part or all of this proposal, including and bus stops will be explored through the the possible use of the Network Rail South Western franchise competition. Discretionary Fund.

■ Service alterations in the Southampton-Salisbury-Weymouth area have been developed with the Department for Transport and the Association of Train Operating Companies. The alterations include a rebalancing of service groups and stopping patterns to better match resources to demand, with only a very minimal impact on service levels for specific stations.

■ A revised platforming strategy at Portsmouth Harbour will improve performance and should be implemented in the December 2006 timetable. This has no impact on service levels to any stations.

6 7 Contents

Document Guide 4 Strategy 20

The South West Main Line Route Utilisation The printed document contains the 4.1 Overview 20 Strategy consists of a strategy document context and scope, an overview of the 4.2 Key strategic considerations 23 and appendices. consultation responses and the Route 4.2.1 Passenger demand 23 Utilisation Strategy conclusions. This document is the Route Utilisation 4.2.2 System capacity 24 Strategy, which is also available online The web based appendices have been set out 4.2.3 Engineering access 25 at www.networkrail.co.uk relative to the list of options identified in the 4.3 Better use of current industry resources 26 Draft for Consultation, and explain the analysis Extensive supporting documentation, 4.3.1 Lengthening trains 26 and conclusions for each. as outlined in the contents list below, 4.3.2 Review of timetable principles 26 is available only on the website. 4.3.3 London Waterloo 28 4.3.4 Other stations 29 4.3.5 Change to services west of Southampton 29 Contents 4.3.6 Change to operations at Portsmouth Harbour 30 4.4 Investment to address forecast growth 31 1 Background 10 4.4.1 London Waterloo 31 2 Context and scope 12 4.4.2 Train and platform lengthening 34 4.4.3 Loading gauge for freight trains 35 2.1 Purpose 12 4.4.4 The route to Exeter 35

2.2 Stakeholders 12 4.5 Conclusions 38 2.3 Linkage to other work streams 12 4.5.1 Until March 2009 (Control Period 3) 38 2.3.1 South Western franchise replacement 12 4.5.2 April 2009 to March 2014 (Control Period 4) 40 2.3.2 Other refranchising processes 12 4.5.3 From April 2014 (Control Period 5) 40 2.3.3 The future of Waterloo International Terminal 12 4.5.4 Summary of effects 41 2.3.4 Freight Route Utilisation Strategy 13 4.5.5 Alternative growth scenarios 42 2.3.5 Interfaces with other Route Utilisation Strategies 13 4.6 Contingent projects 42 2.3.6 Regional Planning Assessments and Regional Strategies 13 4.6.1 AirTrack 42 2.3.7 Transport for London’s Rail Corridor Plans 14 4.6.2 Crossrail 43 2.3.8 Other plans and strategies 14 4.6.3 Thameslink Programme 43 2.4 Scope 14 2.4.1 Geography 14 5 Next steps 45 2.4.2 Timeframe 15 Appendices available at www.networkrail.co.uk 3 Consultation process and overview 18 ■ Draft for Consultation (published November 2005) 3.1 The Draft for Consultation 18 ■ Option analysis 3.2 Consultation responses 18 ■ Background information including: Baseline Drivers of change Committed schemes

■ Consultation responses

8 9 1 Background

The Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) process Following the Rail Review in 2004 and The “duty” referred to in the objective is relating to the programme and individual was established by the Strategic Rail Authority the Railways Act 2005, The Office of Rail Network Rail’s general duty under Licence RUSs are available at www.networkrail.co.uk. (SRA). The initial programme of RUSs was Regulation (ORR) modified Network Rail’s Condition 7 in relation to the operation, The process is designed to be inclusive. Joint focussed on areas of the network where network licence in June 2005 to require the maintenance, renewal and development work is encouraged between industry parties, there was seen to be a potential to generate establishment of Route Utilisation Strategies of the network. who share ownership of each RUS through greatest benefits, where there was seen to be across the network. Simultaneously, The ORR guidelines identify two purposes its Industry Stakeholder Management Group, a significant mix of traffic causing issues not the ORR published RUS guidelines. of RUSs, and state that Network Rail should and there is extensive informal consultation capable of resolution within a single passenger balance the need for predictability with the outside the rail industry by means of a Wider franchise specification or track access variation, need to enable innovation. Stakeholder Group. and where congestion existed with significant levels of reactionary delay. To do this the The ORR guidelines require options to be analysis and appraisal sought to capture the Such strategies should: appraised using, initially, the SRA’s (now DfT’s) impacts on all industry parties and the wider (a) enable Network Rail and appraisal criteria and, in Scotland, the Scottish societal effects. The purpose was to understand persons providing services Executive’s STAG appraisal criteria. which options maximised the net industry relating to railways better to RUSs occupy a particular place in the planning and societal benefits rather than that of any plan their businesses, and activity for the rail industry. They utilise input, individual organisation or group affected. funders better to plan their where available, from processes such as activities; and the DfT’s Regional Planning Assessments A RUS is defined in Condition 7 of the network licence as, in respect of (b) set out feasible options for (RPAs) and Wales Planning Assessment, and the network or a part of the network*, a strategy which will promote the network capacity, timetable Transport Scotland’s Planning Assessment. route utilisation objective. The route utilisation objective is defined as: outputs and network capability, The recommendations of a RUS, and the evidence of relationships and dependencies “The effective and efficient use and development of the capacity and funding implications of revealed in the work to reach them, will in turn available, consistent with funding that is, or is reasonably likely to those options for persons form an input to decisions made by industry become, available during the period of the route utilisation strategy and providing services to railways funders and suppliers, e.g. on franchise and funders. with the licence holder’s performance of the duty”. specifications, investment plans or the High Level Output Specifications (HLOSs). Network *The definition of network in Condition 7 of Network Rail’s network licence includes, where the licence holder has any estate ORR guidelines on Route Utilisation Strategies, June 2005 or interest in, or right over a station or light maintenance depot, such station or light maintenance depot. Rail will take account of RUSs when carrying The guidelines also set out principles for RUS out its activities. ORR guidelines on Route Utilisation Strategies, June 2005 development and explain how Network Rail RUSs also help to inform the allocation of should consider the position of the railway capacity on the network through application of funding authorities, the likely changes in the normal Network Code processes. The ORR demand and the potential for changes in will take account of established RUSs when supply. Network Rail has developed a RUS exercising its functions. Manual, consisting of a consultation guide and a technical guide, to explain the processes it will use to comply with the Licence Condition and the guidelines. These and other documents

10 11 2 Context and scope

2.1 Purpose alongside and informed by the RUS. The DfT 2007. This strategy considers the 2005. It is expected to publish its The development of a Route Utilisation issued a consultation document in November appropriate future use of the facility. conclusions in May 2006 2005, shortly after the SWML RUS Draft Strategy (RUS) for the South West Main Line 2.3.4 Freight Route Utilisation Strategy ■ South London RUS (led by Network Rail), for Consultation. Many of the responses to (SWML) area is required for a number of The rail industry is undertaking a Freight Route due to start in summer 2006 and conclude the RUS consultation were sent as a joint reasons. The primary drivers of the SWML Utilisation Strategy led by Network Rail. The during 2007, will interface with the SWML submission to the DfT also. Following review RUS are to: study commenced with the first stakeholder RUS at Epsom and Clapham Junction of the responses, there was again close consultation meeting in October 2005. The ■ inform the development of the liaison during the finalisation of the RUS and ■ Network RUS (led by Network Rail), due initial phase of the Freight RUS will involve Government’s specification for the the franchise specification. It is anticipated to start in the second quarter of 2006 and establishing nationwide demand forecasts and South Western franchise that the Invitation to Tender will be issued to conclude during 2007, will include long preferred routing statements for the freight prospective bidders in March this year and that distance services and cross-RUS issues. ■ inform the required outputs for industry for the next 10 years. Subsequent the franchising process will be complete by the infrastructure renewals work will then focus on key capacity, capability 2.3.6 Regional Planning Assessments and latter part of 2006. ■ inform the High Level Output Specification and gauge constraints on the network over Regional Strategies to be produced in 2007. 2.3.2 Other refranchising processes the same time period. The objective of the Regional Planning The successful bidder was announced for the Assessments (RPAs) is to develop The study is planned to be published, 2.2 Stakeholders Greater Western franchise in December 2005. understanding of the priorities for development following full consultation, in early 2007. Services within this franchise that are relevant of regional transport over the next 5-20 years in The Department for Transport (DfT), Transport However, key outputs from the work may to the SWML RUS include those at Exeter, the wider context of planning policy and strategy for London (TfL), the Association of Train be implemented before its conclusion. at the regional scale. The RPAs have a longer Operating Companies, South West Trains Salisbury – Portsmouth/Brighton, Reading – 2.3.5 Interfaces with other time horizon than RUSs and aim to establish and the freight operating companies that Basingstoke and Reading – Guildford – Redhill Route Utilisation Strategies the objectives for the railway within the wider operate on the route have been represented (the North Downs line). This franchise will ■ Great Western Main Line RUS (produced transport system in meeting regional needs. on the SWML RUS Industry Stakeholder begin in April 2006. by the Strategic Rail Authority), which Management Group throughout its A new Cross Country franchise specification is The South West Main Line scope area will interfaces with the SWML RUS at Reading development. The Office of Rail Regulation in development. This specification is expected be covered in three RPAs: the Southern and Exeter. This RUS was published in has participated in this group as an observer. to be consulted with stakeholders in summer RPA (covering South London, Surrey, part of June 2005 Berkshire, Sussex and Hampshire), the Thames A series of wider stakeholder briefings have 2006, and the franchise to start in autumn ■ Brighton Main Line RUS (published by Valley RPA (covering part of Berkshire) and the been held in London, Exeter and Southampton 2007. This will affect services that currently the Department for Transport in February South West RPA (covering Wiltshire, Somerset, to explain the context and scope and invite operate on the SWML area between Reading 2006), which interfaces with the SWML Dorset and Devon). The Southern RPA is in correspondence on local issues. and the south coast, and some services over the North Downs line. RUS at Epsom, Havant, Dorking and preparation. Work on the South West and Thames Clapham Junction Valley RPAs will commence in due course. 2.3 Linkage to other work streams The next South Central franchise is not yet in 2.3.1 South Western franchise replacement development. It will interface with the SWML The SWML RUS and the three detailed below RPAs are the interface between the railway The new South Western franchise is RUS at Epsom, Clapham Junction and Havant are part of the new programme of RUSs planning framework and the regional scheduled to commence in February 2007. and is expected to begin in 2009. developed by the rail industry following planning strategies. In the case of the SWML The replacement combines the existing South ‘The Future of Rail’ White Paper1. RUS scope area, the relevant regional 2.3.3 The future of Waterloo West Trains and Island Line franchises, both strategies are the London Plan/Mayor’s International Terminal ■ Cross London RUS (led by Network Rail), of which are currently operated by Stagecoach Transport Strategy, the South East Plan/ Waterloo International Station is to be vacated which interfaces with the SWML RUS at Group plc. The new franchise will run for Regional Transport Strategy and the South by Eurostar when the service transfers fully via Clapham Junction and Richmond, was 10 years. The specification on which the West Regional Spatial Strategy/Regional the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to St Pancras in published for consultation in November DfT is to invite tenders has been developed Transport Strategy. 1 Published by The Stationery Office July 2004.

12 13 2.3.7 Transport for London’s 2.3.8 Other plans and strategies Freight traffic from the South Coast to Bristol 2.4.2 Timeframe Rail Corridor Plans Published Local Implementation Plans, Local and Wales is transported on the route via This strategy primarily covers the anticipated Rail Corridor Plans (RCPs) are designed to Transport Plans, Regional Spatial Strategies Redbridge Junction near Southampton and duration of the South Western franchise, set out Transport for London’s strategy for the and Multi-Modal Studies have been considered Eastleigh East Junction. Clapham Junction 2007 to 2017, although it looks further development of the rail network in the Greater in the development of this strategy. to Old Kew Junction on the Hounslow loop into the future to identify the major factors London Authority area, to provide adequate is a diversionary route for freight traffic into that will influence route strategy over the 2.4 Scope capacity for passengers and freight and to North London from Kent, Sussex and the franchise period and the longer-term capacity support the spatial development objectives 2.4.1 Geography Channel Tunnel. requirements of freight. within the London Plan. The strategy covers the South West Main Line The strategy considers all services that use These objectives are to: from Waterloo (Network Rail’s Strategic Route these routes for part or all of their journeys 3), and much of the West of England Line to the extent necessary to achieve the route ■ accommodate London’s growth within (Network Rail’s Strategic Route 4). It includes utilisation objective. its boundary without encroaching on most subsidiary routes along this corridor. open spaces The SWML RUS broadly encompasses those This strategy does not include the Island Line, which is included within the list of proposed ■ make London a better city for people routes that the DfT intends to include within Community Rail lines. to live in the new South Western franchise. Figure A illustrates the scope ■ make London a more prosperous city with The area includes the main lines from of the SWML RUS strong and diverse economic growth Waterloo to Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth, Weymouth, Salisbury and ■ promote social inclusion and tackle Exeter, and the line from Waterloo to Reading. deprivation and discrimination The south west London sections form a tight ■ improve London’s accessibility network serving many busy commuter stations ■ make London a more attractive, well in the London Boroughs of Wandsworth, designed and green city. Merton, Richmond upon Thames, Kingston upon Thames, and Hounslow. TfL’s Rail Corridor Plan for London and the South West has examined in detail a range The area encompasses a number of other of options, and has concluded that the corridor routes including the line from Redhill to is best served by a significant capacity Guildford and Wokingham (where it joins the enhancement, involving lengthening suburban line from Waterloo to Reading) and the Netley trains to twelve cars, and the main line services and Botley lines, which extend the coastal to fifteen. In addition, it has developed a strategy route west of Havant. for improving interchange opportunities The routes from Reading to Basingstoke on the route, especially at Clapham Junction, and Southampton / Eastleigh to Salisbury a range of measures designed to improve the are also included. accessibility of the network and stations, and a programme of enhancements to The Southampton to Basingstoke section improve the security of stations on the is part of the strategic freight route from the South Western network. south to the midlands and the north. The major freight flows within the scope of the RUS are The RCP is an input to the DfT’s franchise those along the South West Main Line via specification and Regional Planning Basingstoke and Reading (though some traffic Assessments, and this final SWML continues on the main line through Woking and RUS document. Virginia Water into London). There has been, and will continue to be,close co-operation and information exchange between the teams responsible for the South Western refranchising, the Rail Corridor Plan and the RUS.

14 15 Figure A: The scope of the SWML RUS.

London Waterloo Windsor & Eton Riverside Isleworth Hounslow Datchet Syon LaneBrentfordKew Bridge Vauxhall Sunnymeads Chiswick Barnes Bridge Wraysbury St Wandsworth StainesAshford Feltham Whitton TwickenhamMargarets BarnesPutney Town Egham Strawberry Hill RichmondNorth SheenMortlake Clapham Queenstown Road Junction Teddington Fulwell Hampton Earlsfield Virginia Water Hampton Wick Reading Kingston Wimbledon Norbiton Longcross Shepperton Raynes Earley Sunningdale New Park Winnersh Triangle Sunbury Hampton Malden Court Thames Malden Hersham Berrylands Winnersh KemptonWalton-on- Park Esher Ditton Motspur Upper Halliford Surbiton Manor Park Wokingham Bracknell Martins HeronAscot WeybridgeThames Worcester Park

Crowthorne Tolworth Bagshot Chertsey Chessington Stoneleigh North Sandhurst Chessington Byfleet & New Haw South Ewell West Camberley Addlestone FarnboroughBlackwater West Byfleet HinchleyClaygate Wood Epsom Farnborough Frimley Woking Oxshott Fleet North Mortimer Winchfield Brookwood Leatherhead Bookham Basingstoke Effingham Junction Bramley Hook D'Abernon Cobham & StokeHorsley North Ash Vale Worplesdon Whitchurch Camp Clandon Overton Andover London Road Ludgershall (Guildford) Ash Wanborough Grateley Aldershot Guildford Yeovil Junction Templecombe Redhill Exeter Central AxminsterCrewkerne Sherborne Gillingham Micheldever Farncombe Salisbury Winchester Holybourne Farnham WhimpleFenitonHoniton Tisbury ShalfordChilworthGomshallDorking WestDorkingBetchworth Reigate Pinhoe (Deepdene) Bentley Godalming

Shawford Milford Dean Alton Exeter St Davids Dunbridge Witley Romsey Chandlers Ford Hedge End Haslemere Eastleigh Botley AirportSouthampton Parkway Liphook

Liss Swaythling Ashurst New Forest Portchester Petersfield Southampton Fareham Cosham Redbridge St Denys Beaulieu RoadTotton Rowlands Castle Brockenhurst Bournemouth Hinton Admiral Holton Heath Christchurch Hamworthy Branksome Pokesdown New Milton Wareham Parkstone BitterneWoolstonSholingNetley HambleBursledonSwanwick BedhamptonHavant Poole Millbrook Hilsea Sway Eastern Docks Fratton Western Docks PortsmouthPortsmouth Harbour & Southsea

Fawley - ESSO

WoolFurzebrook Moreton Hamworthy Goods Lymington Town

Lymington Pier Dorchester South

Upwey Weymouth

16 17 3 Consultation process and overview

3.1 The Draft for Consultation ■ The strategy should clearly identify which ■ The list of new station proposals contained as a result of our intention to capture as The South West Main Line (SWML) Route of its proposals refer to maximising the within Appendix B of the Draft for many perceived issues as possible in the

Utilisation Strategy (RUS) is the pilot for the use of existing network capacity and Consultation was seen to be incomplete. initial scope document for this pilot RUS. new process established following the rail which require the provision of additional Respondents have brought several Subsequent analysis and consultation review. The Draft for Consultation, published capacity, along with the recommended additional proposals to our attention refined the list of gaps and resulted in the

in November 2005, sets out the relevant implementation timescales for each. including Wilton, Porton, Boscombe and prioritisation of the eleven gaps addressed background information on the SWML RUS This is reflected in the structure of Hampton Hill as well as the proposed Exeter by the Draft for Consultation. section 4 of this document. freight terminal on the West of England line. area, outlining the issues that are faced currently ■ The North Downs line section of the While these points are welcomed, the list and those that are predicted in the period 2007 to ■ Support for the consultation document in its route was not addressed by the Draft for was not intended to be a comprehensive 2017. The document then outlined the options analysis of the hierarchy of constraints on Consultation. A number of respondents catalogue of stakeholder aspirations, nor to be developed within the strategy and the the route and the primacy of the terminus identified gaps concerning long-distance do we consider that the RUS should next steps that would be taken in each case. at London Waterloo. services on this route, for example address the case for individual stations, issues around access to Gatwick Airport. Issues from the Draft for Consultation were ■ The option to improve the capacity of except where a proposal meets a gap These have not been addressed because presented to stakeholders at briefing sessions certain car parks should be expanded identified within the RUS. The RUS will the main demand generators are outside held in London, Southampton and Exeter. to include other modes used to access set the strategy for the route which in the area of this RUS and options to address stations, such as cycling, bus and foot. turn will influence the feasibility and 3.2 Consultation responses such gaps would necessarily involve a The proposals have subsequently been desirability of individual new station number of complex cross-boundary issues. A total of 109 responses have been received expanded to include station facilities proposals. Consultees seeking further It is an example of an issue that may best by post and electronic mail. The responses associated with other modes of access. information on new station proposals should be addressed by the Network RUS in its have come from a variety of sources and refer to the guidance produced by the ■ A contrast emerged between London consideration of national long-distance include rail industry partners, regional and local Strategic Rail Authority2 (SRA). based respondents who felt that too much cross-route services. government, Members of Parliament, rail user emphasis was placed on long distance or ■ The Southern and South West Regional groups and members of the public. ■ Proposed major schemes could affect regional considerations and those from Planning Assessments remain works in the proposals in this RUS. Their fit with A list of consultation respondents and their outside the London area who felt that their progress. Therefore the SWML RUS had not the strategy should be considered by the responses (Appendix 15) can be viewed at local services had been neglected. The been able to draw on these assessments, as proposers of these schemes (as explained www.networkrail.co.uk. strategy seeks to balance the needs of was expected in the planning process laid in Appendix B to the Draft for Consultation). all parts of the SWML network. The final out in the White Paper of 2004. The majority of contributions were Several respondents asked questions about strategy includes a number of proposals extremely positive. All responses have been ■ Since the publication of the Draft for AirTrack, and some referred to Crossrail. outside the London area but the most acknowledged by the RUS Consultation Consultation, the rail freight industry (operators The impact of these two aspirations is significant investment required is at the Manager and reviewed by the SWML RUS and users’ representatives) has agreed a discussed in section 4.6. approaches to central London - where the team. The following summarises the key points common set of freight demand forecasts for the predicted gap between supply and demand A number of consultees included comments made by consultees: use of the Freight RUS. An updated comment is greatest. relating to proposals made only in the on freight demand can be found in Appendix ■ Considerable support for the options to Department for Transport’s (DfT) South Western ■ The West of England line is a key 13 to this strategy document published on the enhance capacity on the West of England franchise consultation document (issued shortly diversionary route for Great Western line Network Rail website. line. While most respondents expressed after the RUS Draft for Consultation), particularly services west of Yeovil. a preference for the complete double ■ A number of the issues predicted in the in regards to detailed proposed service tracking of the line, many noted that the scoping document were not addressed alterations. These comments have been provision of extra passing loops offers in the Draft for Consultation. This was drawn to the attention of the DfT. a more realistic value for money solution.

2 “New Stations: a guide for promoters” SRA, September 2004. This guide is under revision and will be reissued by Network Rail during 2006.

18 19 4 Strategy

4.1 Overview undertook to review the whole SWML rules, resulting in a notable improvement Figure B illustrates the growing number of

The South West Main Line (SWML) network network in terms of capacity usage, capacity in performance. However, the key issue people travelling into London on the South includes a variety of stations and services. availability, performance and the functionality that remains to be addressed is that of the Western routes each morning. The two rising Passengers travel to and from locations as of the network against stakeholder aspirations. popularity of the line and the sheer number of demand lines show the predicted numbers people who wish to travel by train, particularly arriving at London Waterloo and at the highest varied as Dunbridge and Clapham Junction. The SWML has over the last few years to and from London Waterloo in the morning load point (the critical point, often Clapham There are significant freight flows, including the benefited from new rolling stock, which and evening peaks. Junction) between the hours of 07:00 and strategic Southampton traffic to the midlands has greatly improved and modernised the 10:00 each weekday morning. This demand and the north. In developing this strategy, travelling experience, and (in December 2004) Clearly, this is not an issue restricted to the line assumes that growth continues without Network Rail and its industry stakeholders a new timetable which updated the operating SWML; indeed it could accurately be labelled being constrained by capacity. The horizontal an issue for the entire South East England supply line indicates current total capacity in Figure B: AM peak base capacity against area. For most commuters, there is no realistic terms of seats on trains arriving at Waterloo demand on SWML into London. alternative to the railway for the journeys they over this three-hour period. The approximate need to make at the times they need to make date at which this capacity will be exceeded Key them. The pressure on the capacity of the by the forecast demand at Waterloo is 2010; Unconstrained forecast of a.m. peak passengers major London terminals, including London taking the various critical loading points Base seated capacity Waterloo, intensifies year after year. Unconstrained forecast of a.m. peak passengers at critical point together, overall seated capacity is already In developing Route Utilisation Strategies exceeded. By 2017, it is anticipated that (RUSs), Network Rail is required to have overall demand at Waterloo will exceed due regard to statements published by total capacity by around 9,000 people railway funding authorities concerning per am peak (11%). available funding and outputs being sought. The Department for Transport (DfT) will 120000 provide this guidance in the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) and Statement of Funds Available (SoFA) during 2007 in order to inform the Access Charges Review for Network Rail’s Control Period 2009 to 100000 2014. In the meantime this RUS seeks to accommodate predicted demand efficiently, but has had to make assumptions about affordability.

80000 Passengers and seats to Waterloo – 3hr a.m. peak Passengers and seats to Waterloo

60000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year

20 21 It should be noted that because these figures It is clear that substantive measures are A RUS seeks to attain effective and efficient Some demand could be managed by are simply three-hour totals they do not required if Government and other funders use and development of railway capacity, introducing differential levels of fare in the adequately reflect the overcrowding in the high wish to accommodate the forecast number commensurate with funding and other morning peak. The rail industry has very peak period, nor localised overcrowding on of commuters to central London from locations constraints4. This strategy is therefore laid limited experience and understanding of particular routes or service groups. Figure C in the area covered by this document. The net out to differentiate between: the effects on demand of differential fares shows that within the high peak hour, on subsidy requirement for the whole railway within the peak period. It is known that ■ measures that contribute to the average about 5,000 people each morning system must be considered, taking account of commuter demand is relatively inelastic to objective and that are financially already experience crowding greater than the the effect of changes to farebox revenue and fare differentials – the majority of passengers neutral or beneficial (4.3) level specified in the Government’s ‘PIXC’ operating cost. prefer to arrive in London to begin the working targets3. Ways of addressing this overcrowding ■ measures that contribute to the objective day between 0800 and 0900 – but insufficient are discussed in section 4.2.1. that have a net financial cost but are value research evidence exists to forecast actual for money when their wider economic passenger responses. effects are considered (4.4). Appendix 1.3 presents some examples of This is preceded by consideration of three hypothetical responses to different systems overriding strategic factors (4.2). Section 4.5 of peak pricing. The intention of this analysis then summarises all the recommendations in was to explore at a simple level the potential Figure C: Distribution of AM peak period a single coherent strategy for implementation opportunities for and issues around managing demand, capacity and passengers in excess over the coming decade. peak demand on the SWML. of capacity, Spring 2005 4.2 Key strategic considerations The analysis concluded that using pricing to match current demand to current supply 4.2.1 Passenger demand Key would be very difficult, as anything other than The greatest priority for this RUS is how to a very sophisticated pricing policy is likely to Supply address peak passenger demand to/from Demand create a minor peak just before the full fare central London. There are ‘supply-side’ PIXC restrictions take effect. This could be partially solutions set out in sections 4.3 and 4.4 below, mitigated if the cut-off time when the fare level but first it is necessary to consider what scope changes is carefully chosen and linked to there is to influence the pattern of demand. appropriate increases in train capacity. Within limits, passengers adjust their travel Observed experience (most recently on the patterns to reflect timetable changes or to c2c network) is that a straightforward ‘early secure a faster or more comfortable journey. bird’ cheap season ticket is unsuccessful The limits within which these adjustments 14,000 at encouraging people to change their time are made are determined by both willingness of travel because it restricts the commuter 12,000 and ability. One way to accommodate growth to travelling before a certain time each day. in demand could be to provide both the If someone on this type of ticket wishes to 10,000 motivation and the ability to travel earlier, travel after the cut-off time on a particular or later, thereby flattening the demand profile. 8,000 day, they must buy a one-off full-fare ticket. Figure C shows how capacity and the number It appears, and is understandable, that very 6,000 of passengers at the point of highest demand few will commit to never travelling in the high vary throughout the morning peak period. peak hour, however much it saves them. 4,000 It can be seen that at either end of this People travelling in the high peak might travel period, the capacity exceeds the number of earlier or later occasionally (or maybe often) 2,000 passengers. However, for trains arriving in if it would proportionally reduce their travel London between 0800 and 0900, demand costs. Only a much more sophisticated pricing 0 07:00 - 07:15 - 07:30 - 07:45 - 08:00 - 08:15 - 08:30 - 08:45 - 09:00 - 09:15 - 09:30 - 09:45 - is well in excess of capacity, sometimes by mechanism can provide this flexibility. 07:14 07:29 07:44 07:59 08:14 08:29 08:44 08:59 09:14 09:29 09:44 09:59 almost 20%. Providing incentives for passengers to travel outside the high peak appears to lead

3 Targets are defined in Appendix 12 4 The route utilisation objective is set out in section 1.

22 23 to marginal benefits. If, for example, each already operate at the maximum length for the most appropriate to their stopping pattern. One further constraint that is anticipated to traveller during the high peak hour could be platforms at which they call, so this is not a Consequently, the RUS did not identify any emerge beyond the period of the RUS is the persuaded to travel outside that hour on one straightforward step to take. Sections 4.3 and capacity ‘gap’ that could be addressed by track layout at Basingstoke. This does not fit occasion out of ten, then in total half of the 4.4 set out recommendations in this regard. changing the mix of services. immediately into the hierarchy outlined above growth forecast over the RUS period could be because Basingstoke is a key node linking the Train capacity can also be increased by Physical constraints that prevent additional accommodated without changing the current London to Southampton / Bournemouth main changing the internal layout of the coaches. services from running on the network were high peak crowding level. It is a strategy worth line with the West Midlands to Southampton The current refurbishment and internal considered. A number of options were outlined considering and developing, but one that will route. Freight demand on the latter route reconfiguration programme led by South West in the Draft for Consultation to increase track not provide a panacea to the issue of growth. is forecast to grow at a rate that does not Trains for the class 455 rolling stock fleet capacity at four key locations on the SWML If this approach is combined with investment require additional capacity within the ten year establishes an appropriate mix of seating and suburban network: London Waterloo (Appendix in capacity (additional and/or lengthened period of the RUS. However, in the longer standing capacity for the current demands 4.2), Clapham Junction (Appendix 5.2), Woking services) then the benefits could be magnified. term such capacity may be required. Freight of the SWML inner suburban services. Junction (Appendix 6.1), and the approach stakeholders have suggested that capacity This strategy aims to manage both supply and The revised layout is approved by all key to platforms 4a and b at Reading (Appendix enhancements should be included in the demand to meet forecast growth efficiently stakeholders and is viewed as correctly 11). It has become clear through the analysis scope of the Basingstoke signalling renewal rather than suppress it. It recommends that balancing the desire to provide seats with the of these options that, without the provision of (Appendix 14). early attention is given to the development need to carry large numbers of passengers extra capacity into and at London Waterloo, the of flexible, sophisticated pricing mechanisms for short distances in the peak periods. This value of costly infrastructure enhancements at The strategy set out in the following sections is and products for the peak commuter market. programme will be complete in 2007. the other locations is limited. The concept of a shaped by the findings detailed in this section. The rail industry, working with users’ and hierarchy of infrastructure capacity constraints The other types within the SWT fleet mainly 4.2.3 Engineering access employers’ representatives and government5, can be developed, as follows: operate on longer distance routes where the The current engineering access regime will conduct research into consumer target is to provide seating for all passengers. within the SWML area has been arrived at preferences and the role that business can An exception could be some of the class Figure D: Hierarchy of constraints over a number of years through a significant play in encouraging flexible working hours. 450 units that operate predominantly on the degree of iteration and evolution. Industry New technologies will be examined and Priority Constraint shorter distance Windsor lines services, but parties feel that the resulting situation provides developed to enable ticketing methods that London Waterloo station and to maintain maximum rolling stock flexibility 1 an effective balance between the value of support this initiative, such as the installation approaches it is not recommended that any changes are passenger and freight train services and the of automatic ticket gates. Modern automatic Clapham Junction station and made to the internal configuration to reflect this 2 efficiency of maintenance and renewal activity. ticket gates are planned to be introduced for approaches usage. These units also regularly operate on As identified in the Draft for Consultation, there all platforms at Waterloo station from 2008. 3a Woking Junction longer distance services, and they would no are a few areas where engineering access These will protect railway revenue, and are the Reading station and longer be appropriate for this task if changes 3b is at a premium, but Network Rail and the first step towards the technology required for approaches were made to reduce the seating level; fleet industry stakeholders agreed that these do not advanced ticketing systems. flexibility would be reduced and service constitute a strategic ‘gap’ that would require Each constraint may be resolved 4.2.2 System capacity reliability impaired. analysis through the RUS. Local issues will (i.e. removed, at least temporarily) or The capacity of the railway system to deal with continue to be addressed through the standard Track Capacity accommodated (i.e. operations modified to peak passenger demand into central London annual industry Rules of the Route process as The number of train paths that the network make the best of the constraint6). Resolving is a combination of two factors: the ability of they arise. can accommodate is dependent on physical each constraint will yield at best minor benefits the trains to carry people and the ability of the features such as signalling headway and the unless the constraints above it have also been network to carry trains. Onward distribution mix of service types (fast and slow, express resolved. It is first at Waterloo that resources from the London terminal is also relevant. and stopping) using each line. In the case should be directed. SWML, unlike some other routes, has no of the SWML, the mix of services is most clear sub-optimal use of network capacity on challenging between London and Woking. London peak services requiring correction. However, this section of line has at least four Train capacity tracks available throughout, and for most of This strategy proposes to increase the the distance these are arranged in pairs by 5 The Mayor’s Transport Strategy sets the statutory policy framework for transport in London. The integrated nature of transport services in London requires that initiatives to manage demand take a network view, considering the needs of all transport users and the implications for number of people carried on some services by direction. This permits services to ‘weave’ all modes of transport. It is therefore appropriate that peak management initiatives are developed in partnership with TfL and DfT, reflecting the statutory duties involved. lengthening the trains. However, most trains between fast and slow lines at the points 6 As an example of ‘accommodation’, the changes to the SWML timetable made in December 2004 aimed to optimise the train service around these key constraints so that when performance problems occur they have a minimal impact.

24 25 4.3 Better use of current industry been time during the development of The basic rules of the timetable (‘Rules of [Passenger Focus] …acknowledges that resources this RUS to explore this. the Plan’), and in particular the length of time SWT’s December 2004 timetable has led to that trains dwell at platforms, were updated to an increase in performance. However, the This section details RUS recommendations Based on observed crowding levels, Figure E match reality more closely and so contributed new timetable was not without its drawbacks to meet the route utilisation objective which lists the services that have been identified as to the improvement in performance. Some in terms of restricted capacity for additional have a neutral or positive financial effect. priorities for lengthening. journey times were extended by this process. services and increased journey times. Each recommendation is also value for money Assuming that extra rolling stock would have in wider economic terms. Figure F summarises the changes for six Passenger Focus also referred to the results to be provided to lengthen these services, routes. It sets out the peak average journey of the SRA’s passenger priority research (May 4.3.1 Lengthening trains a net increase of six four-car units would be times, numbers of trains per hour under the 2005), which are presented in this document Train operators naturally direct resources required7. Subject to the availability of units, December 2003 and 2004 timetables and the as Figure G. The results show that punctuality towards the busiest services, but the need the extra costs incurred would be outweighed average lateness8 for the peak service groups and reliability are the highest priority across all to resource a standard service, and the by the benefits (Appendix 1.2) and the in which the routes are included. The table sectors and regions. constraints around where units should lengthening should be introduced as soon as demonstrates how performance has improved start and end the day, force compromises. is practical. SWT has identified further services significantly, while the journey times for some South West Trains has identified a number during the three hour peak period that could be routes have been extended. of services that currently run shorter train lengthened, but these are of lower priority than formations than the maximum for the particular those listed in Figure E. These findings have been echoed by those route. Conversely, some contra-peak train of Passenger Focus (previously known as the 4.3.2 Review of timetable principles formations are longer than is necessary. Rail Passengers Council), which stated in its Overall train performance on the SWML There may be some scope to redistribute RUS consultation response: since the introduction of the December 2004 rolling stock so that peak direction formations timetable has been greatly improved, despite are maximised at the expense of contra-peak the introduction of additional peak services. capacity and/or frequency, but there has not Figure F – Scheduled journey time and lateness comparison, Dec 2003 and Dec 2004 timetables

Average peak Average peak trains Average peak Figure E: Identified priority services for lengthening journey time (mins) per hour lateness (mins)

Estimated 2004 2005 2004 2005 2004 2005 Current Lengthened Additional formation formation Alton - Waterloo 68 75 2 2 3.8 2.1 capacity (seats) Reading - Waterloo 78 80 2 2 3.0 1.9 0550 Portsmouth Harbour to Waterloo 10 (444 stock) 12 (450 stock) 142 via Guildford Basingstoke - Waterloo 46 47 4 5 3.7 2.7 0642 Hilsea to Waterloo 10 (444 stock) 12 (450 stock) 142 Exeter - Waterloo 209 218 0.33 0.33 3.9 1.8 0654 Basingstoke to Waterloo 8 12 270 Shepperton - Waterloo 52 58 3 3 3.8 2.1 0739 Farnham to Waterloo 8 12 270 Portsmouth - Southampton 53 54 2 2 2.8 1.3 0752 Basingstoke to Waterloo 5 10 334 0802 Woking to Waterloo 8 12 270 Figure G – SRA passenger priority research, May 2005 AM Peak Total 49 70 1428 Passenger priorities Long London 1605 Waterloo to Poole 5 10 331 All Regional Commuter Business Leisure - Factors distance and SE 1737 Waterloo to Hounslow via Brentford 4 8 270 rank rank rank rank rank rank rank 1745 Waterloo to Hounslow 4 8 270 Punctuality/reliability 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 via Twickenham Value for money for the price 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1752 Waterloo to Weybridge via Brentford 4 8 270 of ticket 1802 Waterloo to Woking 8 12 270 Frequency of trains on route 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 1822 Waterloo to Weybridge via Brentford 4 8 270 Provision of information 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 PM Peak Total 29 54 1681 about train times/platforms

7 Fleet and depot implications are discussed in section 4.4.2 8 Data taken for 48 weeks from December timetable change each year, as remaining data not available at time of analysis.

26 27 During the RUS process, efforts have been ■ Network Rail and Transport for London 4.3.4 Other stations 4.3.5 Change to services made to analyse and refine the Rules of the (TfL) have jointly identified ways to improve Access to stations has been identified as west of Southampton Plan in the light of the actual performance of access and interchange between the main an issue at certain locations. The Draft for Early analysis for the RUS identified that poor the new timetable. A number of locations have station and London Underground facilities. Consultation made a number of proposals performance in the Southampton area was been identified where it appears possible to regarding car park expansion, but consultation a result of an inappropriate mix of services, Some or all of these improvements should be shorten the amount of time the rules expect responses showed that whilst these were operated by a number of companies, implemented, dependent on the timing and trains to take travelling between stations. This generally supported, other modes of transport which had developed over the years without phasing of the proposed major development information on proposed changes to sectional should not be forgotten. RUS analysis has a coherent plan. scheme (Section 4.4.1). running times is presented in Figure H. confirmed that, closer to London, the private Southampton to Salisbury The International Terminal car is a relatively unattractive way of getting It can be seen that there are several locations Following responses to the Draft for Waterloo International Terminal (WIT) is to stations. In rural areas it is dominant. at which running times can be reduced, Consultation, an option was taken forward for anticipated to become available for other including Alton to Farnham and Farnham SWT has identified seven stations as a priority appraisal which extended the hourly Totton uses when Eurostar services transfer to to Bentley, where a longer journey time had from those having an average weekday car to Romsey via Eastleigh service through to St Pancras in 2007. resulted from the introduction of the December park utilisation in excess of 90%. Plans to Salisbury, replacing the local services between 2004 timetable. These alterations have The Secretary of State for Transport expand these facilities have been examined Southampton and Salisbury. In some respects, been discussed with SWT and are planned announced in October 2005 that the WIT and prioritised as shown in Figure I. this gave encouraging results (Appendix 10.2), for implementation from December 2006. platforms will be reserved for the use of and has been modified in discussion with Car park expansion schemes will be domestic rail services. DfT and the Association of Train Operating 4.3.3 London Waterloo progressed as individual cases are developed, Companies (ATOC). The enhanced proposal Waterloo station currently handles in the The five WIT platforms could be used to but station facilities to enable or improve is to operate an hourly service in each region of 85,000 passengers in each peak provide only very limited additional capacity in access by other modes should also be direction on the route Salisbury – Romsey three hour period. Passenger congestion the SWML morning peak for two reasons: the developed. These include cycle storage – Southampton – Eastleigh – Romsey, again on the main concourse and the links to track layout approaching Waterloo restricts facilities, bus stops/turning circles, and replacing the local services south of Salisbury and from the London Underground lines is access to WIT from the SWML because of possibly pedestrian and cycle priority routes. (the hourly Portsmouth to Cardiff services becoming a significant problem. A number of conflicting moves with Windsor line services; The competition for the new South Western would be unchanged). steps will be required in the short term, before and the level of peak traffic elsewhere on franchise is an opportunity for the new major investment is necessary: the network makes it almost impossible to franchise holder to work with Network Rail in This proposal is now being considered by the create a train path from a worthwhile origin. developing these facilities and others such as DfT, and is likely to be taken forward through ■ free-standing retail units on the concourse TfL’s South Western Rail Corridor Plan station security and Disability Discrimination the franchise processes. may be relocated progressively from analysed the potential short-term use of WIT Act compliance. 2007 concomitant with the footfall for South Western services and reached increases at Waterloo similar conclusions. ■ Customer Information Systems (CIS) and Despite the limited short-term potential of the other information sources will have to be WIT for the use of South Western services, repositioned around the concourse as the site is of obvious strategic significance to passenger numbers increase and any future development of Waterloo station. flows change Figure I: Priority car park extension schemes

Current Avg. 2005 Extra spaces Figure H: Review of the rules of the plan Priority Capacity Utilisation planned Current timing Actual average timing New overall time Location Egham 73 91% Decision pending 7 (min/sec) (min/sec) (min/sec) Esher 237 99% 37 4 Woking to Brookwood 5.30 4.44 5.00 Fleet 411 99% Decision pending 5 Brookwood to Ash Vale 7.30 6.26 7.00 Guildford 406 91% Decision pending 2 Farnham to Bentley 6.30 6.02 6.00 Southampton Airport Parkway 606 98% 406 1 Alton to Farnham 10.00 8.24 9.30 Weybridge 105 93% 28 6 Winchester to 17.00 15.17 16.30 Basingstoke Winchfield 241 100% 28 3

28 29 Southampton to Weymouth The effects on the Public Performance 4.4 Investment to address Analysis undertaken jointly with DfT and Measure (PPM) and occupancy levels forecast growth ATOC during the consultation period identified predicted from the proposed change are This section details the RUS recommendations that significant improvements would result as follows: to meet the route utilisation objective which from a package of alterations to the standard ■ the PPM figure improves by approximately are not self-financing but are considered to pattern of services, including some revisions to 0.25% and 0.35% for right time to within be consistent with the funding that is likely to stopping patterns (Appendix 10.2): three minutes and right time to within five become available over the period of the RUS. ■ extend the Waterloo to Poole services minutes respectively Each recommendation is value for money in to Wareham wider economic terms. ■ the average occupancy level at Portsmouth ■ extend the Waterloo to Southampton Harbour increases by approximately 5%. 4.4.1 London Waterloo services to Poole The vacation of the Waterloo International Figure J illustrates the strategy for the better Terminal (WIT) by Eurostar in 2007 presents ■ discontinue the Brockenhurst to Wareham use of current industry resources on SWML. a rare opportunity to create a step-change local services. in the capacity and capability of Waterloo This proposal is now being considered by the station. The footprint of the station and its DfT, and is likely to be taken forward through approaches is severely constrained, even by the franchise processes. the standards of central London terminals. Use 4.3.6 Change to operations at of part of the footprint of the long international Portsmouth Harbour platforms would allow other platforms in the Analysis of the options put forward in the station to be extended and the track layout in Draft for Consultation concluded that some the station’s ‘throat’ to be remodelled for much alteration to platform workings at Portsmouth greater flexibility. This would be most efficiently Harbour can deliver an improved service, undertaken when the signalling of the Waterloo without alteration to public timings. area is renewed in the 2020s.

A number of different services use the station Before this, though, a major property-driven at Portsmouth Harbour for long layovers development scheme has been identified that between workings. As a result, top train would lengthen the platforms so that all could working is common, where the three and four accommodate at least ten cars, and reposition car Southern services often share platform 1 and expand the concourse area while with a Wessex three-car unit on the Cardiff improving access to bus and underground service. This leaves insufficient flexibility to links. The result could double Waterloo’s recover from delays. passenger throughput capability, resolving the principal constraint on this route for much Revisions to rolling stock diagrams to reduce longer than the period of this strategy. layovers, permitting revised platform allocation to improve flexibility, will be discussed with train operators for implementation, possibly from the December 2006 timetable.

30 31 Figure J: Summary map illustrating strategy for the better use of current industry resources on SWML.

Key

London Waterloo London Waterloo – short and medium term Windsor & Eton Riverside Isleworth Car park extension schemes Hounslow Kew Bridge Changes to services in the Southampton, Salisbury and Weymouth areas Datchet Syon LaneBrentford Vauxhall Change to operations at Portsmouth Harbour Sunnymeads Chiswick Barnes Bridge Wraysbury St Wandsworth StainesAshford Feltham Whitton TwickenhamMargarets BarnesPutney Town Egham Strawberry Hill RichmondNorth SheenMortlake Clapham Queenstown Road Junction Teddington Fulwell Hampton Earlsfield Virginia Water Hampton Wick Reading Kingston Wimbledon Norbiton Longcross Shepperton Raynes Earley Sunningdale New Park Winnersh Triangle Sunbury Hampton Malden Court Thames Malden Hersham Berrylands Winnersh KemptonWalton-on- Park Esher Ditton Motspur Upper Halliford Surbiton Manor Park Wokingham Bracknell Martins HeronAscot WeybridgeThames Worcester Park

Crowthorne Tolworth Bagshot Chertsey Chessington Stoneleigh North Sandhurst Chessington Byfleet & New Haw South Ewell West Camberley Addlestone FarnboroughBlackwater West Byfleet HinchleyClaygate Wood Farnborough Woking Epsom North Frimley Oxshott Mortimer Winchfield Fleet Brookwood Leatherhead Bookham Basingstoke Effingham Junction Bramley Hook D'Abernon Cobham & StokeHorsley North Ash Vale Worplesdon Whitchurch Camp Clandon Overton Andover London Road Ludgershall (Guildford) Ash Wanborough Grateley Aldershot Guildford Yeovil Junction Templecombe Redhill Exeter Central AxminsterCrewkerne Sherborne Gillingham Micheldever Farncombe Salisbury Winchester Holybourne Farnham WhimpleFenitonHoniton Tisbury ShalfordChilworthGomshallDorking WestDorkingBetchworth Reigate Pinhoe (Deepdene) Bentley Godalming

Shawford Milford Dean Alton Exeter St Davids Dunbridge Witley Romsey Chandlers Ford Hedge End Haslemere Eastleigh Botley AirportSouthampton Parkway Liphook

Liss Swaythling Ashurst New Forest Portchester Petersfield Southampton Fareham Cosham Redbridge St Denys Beaulieu Road Rowlands Totton Castle Bournemouth Hinton Admiral Brockenhurst Holton Heath Christchurch Hamworthy Branksome Pokesdown New Milton Wareham Parkstone BitterneWoolstonSholingNetley HambleBursledonSwanwick BedhamptonHavant Poole Millbrook Hilsea Sway Eastern Docks Fratton Western Docks PortsmouthPortsmouth Harbour & Southsea

Fawley - ESSO

WoolFurzebrook Moreton Hamworthy Goods Lymington Town

Lymington Pier Dorchester South

Upwey Weymouth

32 33 Use of the WIT is necessary to allow such progressively lengthening trains and platforms Lengthening of suburban trains during the with scope to expand where paths allow. extensive works to go ahead without significant to twelve cars throughout the SWML area. period of this RUS would go some way Without a W10 route, freight will run less disruption to current services: the extra With the provision of some 310 additional towards relieving crowding on long distance efficiently, and stagnate or decline. The most capacity from these platforms would be used coaches, this would provide a 50% increase in services as they approach London, particularly direct route, which crosses the SWML network so that sections of the current station could be capacity; in the order of 300 additional seats if combined with revisions to the stopping from Southampton via Eastleigh, Basingstoke taken out of use and rebuilt in turn. on each suburban train. pattern of long-distance services in the and Reading, is to be the subject of a bid for peak, but further measures such as peak funding from the Government’s Transport Forecasts indicate that the capacity of the However, twelve-car operation would require management (section 4.2.1) will be required. Innovation Fund (TIF). Whether or not this current station will be exceeded before 2017, infrastructure alterations that would be justified bid succeeds, it is recommended that funding even with the measures described in section most readily at the time of the Waterloo area Fleet and depots should be found for this gauge enhancement 4.3.3. With the opportunities presented by signalling renewal in the 2020s. The station Light Maintenance Depots (LMDs) in some (the benefits are further explored in property development and the availability of development would be much earlier than this, locations are already feeling pressure from the Appendix 7). WIT, and the imperative for major investment and provides an opportunity to deliver benefits current fleet distribution. In general terms, it is in the station’s capacity, the timing for this of ten-car operation during the period of strategically preferable to provide additional Experience from operation of the first long- redevelopment is obvious. this RUS. capacity away from London so that trains distance W10 route, Felixstowe to the West start the day in a convenient location for the Midlands and North West via London, has It is noted that other parties have developed less This would require a significant number of morning peak. The developing LMD strategy revealed the disadvantages of operation optimal plans for extending the platforms without platform lengthening schemes at suburban on the SWML needs to provide for the overall without a diversionary route. The Freight RUS the proposed major property development. stations, and the provision of approximately rolling stock requirements set out in Figure K. will be examining key strategic freight routing These plans will be considered during the 160 extra coaches, but no work additional to and loading gauge options (including potential development phase so that the capacity of the the development scheme at Waterloo. This The industry will seek to utilise the available for W12 and European gauge) and will station is enhanced in the most effective way and increase would create real improvements depot capacity as well as other sites suitable consider the appropriate provision of gauge- at the appropriate time. A project team is being for commuters in the medium term, given for stabling. The provision of any additional cleared diversionary routes for these options. established to lead the consultation, design and growth forecast to be 23% over the ten-year depot facilities required will be an integral part implementation of the development. This RUS period of the RUS. It is recommended that of any new rolling stock procurement strategy. 4.4.4 The route to Exeter forms a key input into the project remit, which is the first lengthening project should be the The current service is timetabled around the Power supply to be developed in Spring 2006. Windsor/Reading lines, which are the most existing single-track sections of the West The recently completed Power Supply crowded at present, and should be timed to of England line west of Salisbury. Stakeholder As part of their remit the project team will also be Upgrade allowed new rolling stock to replace make use of the first phase of the Waterloo aspirations to increase the service frequency asked to further review how temporary use might the older slam door stock that had been station development project. This should to Exeter cannot be met unless additional be made of Waterloo station in order to facilitate a mainstay of the route since the 1950s. be followed by the other suburban routes in lengths of double track are provided. The construction of the Thameslink Programme Further upgrade work will probably be accordance with the development of project analysis undertaken has indicated that London (Section 4.6.3) necessary for the train lengthening project business cases and the interface with the Waterloo to Exeter services could increase and investigatory work will be required as 4.4.2 Train and platform lengthening ongoing work at Waterloo, but all suburban frequency to hourly with the provision of one it is developed. Given the lead time for One of the outputs of the Waterloo routes should have ten-car trains in the peak additional double-track section. The aspiration development of this project and the time redevelopment would be the removal of by 2014. In view of the anticipated longer-term to operate an additional hourly local service constraint on analysis for the RUS, the platform constraints on the length of suburban requirement for twelve-car operation, where between Exeter and Axminster would require appraisal has included no cost estimate for trains. The RUS considered the case for appropriate the platform lengthening works for a further new section of double track. power supply enhancements, but the value for suburban train lengthening (Appendix ten-car operation will include passive provision money case is sufficiently robust to withstand The proposal has been appraised (Appendix 1.2). The analysis concludes in favour of for further lengthening to twelve cars. some capital cost for this item. 9.2) and demonstrates value for money on the established appraisal criteria (excluding 4.4.3 Loading gauge for freight trains regeneration effects). Network Rail is working Figure K: South Western franchise suburban fleet increments The future of the majority of freight traffic with stakeholders to identify funding solutions on the SWML is linked to the provision of Estimated incremental for part or all of this proposal, including possible Approximate date 9 a larger (W10) loading gauge to the midlands number of coaches use of the Network Rail Discretionary Fund. and the north. W10 is the gauge required Short-term crowding relief 10 2007-9 +24 to carry modern larger containers on standard Figure L illustrates the strategy for investment Ten-car suburban operation 2012-4 +160 railway wagons. If a W10 route is provided, to reflect forecast growth on SWML. Twelve-car suburban operation 2020s +150 then freight traffic can be carried efficiently,

9 Estimate based on ‘train hours’ output from PLANET South model 10 Section 4.3.1

34 35 Figure L: Summary map illustrating strategy for investment to reflect forecast growth on SWML.

Key

London Waterloo London Waterloo development Windsor & Eton Riverside Isleworth Train and platform lengthening Hounslow Kew Bridge Loading gauge for freight trains Datchet Syon LaneBrentford Vauxhall West of England line passing loops Sunnymeads Chiswick Barnes Bridge Wraysbury St Wandsworth StainesAshford Feltham Whitton TwickenhamMargarets BarnesPutney Town Egham Strawberry Hill RichmondNorth SheenMortlake Clapham Queenstown Road Junction Teddington Fulwell Hampton Earlsfield Virginia Water Hampton Wick Reading Kingston Wimbledon Norbiton Longcross Shepperton Raynes Earley Sunningdale New Park Winnersh Triangle Sunbury Hampton Malden Court Thames Malden Hersham Berrylands Winnersh KemptonWalton-on- Park Esher Ditton Motspur Upper Halliford Surbiton Manor Park Wokingham Bracknell Martins HeronAscot WeybridgeThames Worcester Park

Crowthorne Tolworth Bagshot Chertsey Chessington Stoneleigh North Sandhurst Chessington Byfleet & New Haw South Ewell West Camberley Addlestone FarnboroughBlackwater West Byfleet HinchleyClaygate Wood Farnborough Woking Epsom North Frimley Oxshott Mortimer Winchfield Fleet Brookwood Leatherhead Bookham Basingstoke Effingham Junction Bramley Hook D'Abernon Cobham & StokeHorsley North Ash Vale Worplesdon Whitchurch Camp Clandon Andover Overton London Road Ludgershall (Guildford) Grateley Ash Wanborough Aldershot Guildford Yeovil Junction Templecombe Redhill Exeter Central AxminsterCrewkerne Sherborne Gillingham Micheldever Farncombe Salisbury Winchester Holybourne Farnham WhimpleFenitonHoniton Tisbury ShalfordChilworthGomshallDorking WestDorkingBetchworth Reigate Pinhoe (Deepdene) Bentley Godalming

Shawford Milford Dean Alton Exeter St Davids Dunbridge Witley Romsey Chandlers Ford Hedge End Haslemere Botley AirportSouthampton ParkwayEastleigh Liphook

Liss Swaythling Ashurst New Forest Portchester Petersfield Southampton Fareham Cosham Redbridge St Denys Beaulieu Road Rowlands Totton Castle Bournemouth Hinton Admiral Brockenhurst Holton Heath Christchurch Hamworthy Branksome Pokesdown New Milton Wareham Parkstone BitterneWoolstonSholingNetley HambleBursledonSwanwick BedhamptonHavant Poole Millbrook Hilsea Sway Eastern Docks Fratton Western Docks PortsmouthPortsmouth Harbour & Southsea

Fawley - ESSO

WoolFurzebrook Moreton Hamworthy Goods Lymington Town

Lymington Pier Dorchester South

Upwey Weymouth

36 37 4.5 Conclusions RUS examined crude pricing measures, would reduce a limited number of sectional – Salisbury– Weymouth area have been The recommendations set out in Section 4 such as an ‘early bird’ fare, but these were running times by half a minute, with developed with DfT and ATOC. The are here structured by three implementation found to be ineffective and in some cases particular benefits for the Alton line. This is alterations include a rebalancing of service periods which align with Network Rail Control counter-productive. The development anticipated to marginally improve revenue groups and stopping patterns to better Periods so that funding arrangements can of new ticketing technology to introduce and economic benefits without worsening match resources to demand, although be suitably identified within the industry’s more flexible and sophisticated pricing in performance or incurring any extra cost. there is minimal impact on service levels the high peak hour and peak shoulders for specific stations. This will require no financial framework. ■ Regional stakeholders on the West of should be accorded a high priority. This will capital and will be broadly neutral in terms England line seek an hourly London 4.5.1 Until March 2009 (Control Period 3) build on the work already done at industry of operating costs. There should be minor Waterloo to Exeter service and an ■ Some longer distance services in the peak level to identify appropriate standards for increases generated in revenue and additional hourly Axminster to Exeter three hours currently run at less than the the potential national application of future economic benefits as well as performance service, to give a half-hourly frequency permitted maximum length. High priority ticketing solutions and other demand improvements, although there may be an between Axminster and Exeter. The cases have been identified and Network management techniques. The lead time impact on freight capacity. analysis undertaken has indicated that Rail will work with the franchise holder in developing and proving such solutions London Waterloo to Exeter services ■ Station facilities should be developed to and funders to facilitate the lengthening means that while the full benefits are could increase frequency to hourly with improve access by appropriate modes of these services as quickly as rolling unlikely to be realised in the short to the provision of one additional double- of transport. The competition for the new stock can be sourced. This will provide medium term, some impact can be made. over a thousand extra seats into London track section, and the additional hourly South Western franchise is an opportunity ■ Waterloo in each peak period. It will There is a strong case for enhancing the local service between Exeter and for the new franchise holder to work increase rolling stock lease charges and rail freight route between the Southampton Axminster would require a second new with Network Rail in developing car other operating costs, but this rise will be container terminals and Reading to provide section of double track. The proposal parks, cycle storage facilities, pedestrian outweighed by the revenue generated. W10 capability, which would enable the has been appraised (Appendix 9.2) and access and bus stops; and other facilities Significant economic benefits will be retention and expansion of rail market it is estimated that operating costs would such as station security and Disability generated without affecting performance. share by accommodating the growing increase by more than the revenue Discrimination Act compliance. As a proportion of large containers. The generated. The economic benefits improve priority, development of the best-value ■ Work is already taking place to identify business case for this enhancement was this position to the extent that the scheme car park expansion schemes, such as means to permit sophisticated but practical identified by the SRA, and the South East becomes value for money (excluding Southampton Airport Parkway, Guildford, peak management techniques. Travel England Development Agency (SEEDA) regeneration effects), although highly Winchfield, Esher and Fleet, will be demand management covers a range is preparing a bid for funding through the sensitive to the appraisal assumptions. The progressed by Network Rail in conjunction of potential techniques including: Transport Innovation Fund. The timing and overall effect of the service improvements with the franchise holder. Car park revenue – more sophisticated pricing strategies form of the gauge enhancement is being and infrastructure works is performance will cover the capital and operating costs of for public transport further examined in the Freight RUS as neutral. The infrastructure works would these schemes. the route continues beyond Reading to the allow an enhanced service level in an – road user congestion charging ■ Short-term measures to improve the midlands and to the north. A project team area of the network where capacity is – Organisational Travel Plans and effectiveness and operational capacity is being established to coordinate this and heavily constrained, and provide greater marketing initiatives of the concourse at Waterloo station, related gauging projects. Experience with diversionary capability when the Great – encouragement of cycling and walking primarily gating the platforms and reducing other gauge cleared routes reinforces the Western main line (GWML) is closed – land use initiatives including development the space reserved for retail, will be need for consideration of diversionary between Castle Cary and Exeter. Network control and parking control. progressed as necessary in the run up to capability, which will also be examined Rail is working with stakeholders to identify Such initiatives are supported by the the redevelopment of Waterloo from 2009. through the Freight RUS. funding solutions for part or all of this findings of the RUS, which show that In order to provide the capacity and flexibility proposal, including possible use of the within the ten year timescale covered, ■ The timetable ‘Rules of the Plan’ will be necessary for the redevelopment project, the Network Rail Discretionary Fund. While peak management is the only practical continually reviewed in the light of new Waterloo International Terminal should be the business case work continues, the solution to crowding outside the London rolling stock and infrastructure capabilities reserved for this use when Eurostar services service enhancements will be included in suburban network. Longer distance trains in order to achieve and maintain the most transfer to St Pancras in 2007. The changes the South Western franchise Invitation to generally operate to the maximum length effective balance between performance will involve capital and operating expenditure Tender as ‘priced options’. practical on each route and platform and capacity. Some improvements have and there may be some loss of retail extensions to permit further lengthening been identified for implementation from ■ As a result of the RUS process, revenues. However, gating is essential to would be prohibitively expensive. The the December 2006 timetable. These service alterations in the Southampton protect revenue and the concourse changes

38 39 are required to avoid increasingly frequent coincides with the phased changes to of the number and length of platforms 4.5.4 Summary of effects crowding-related closures of the station. The the capability of Waterloo station as it is and the availability of access from the Figure M illustrates how the RUS gating will be funded by Network Rail with remodelled. Twelve-car operation would throat to the platforms, then the focus recommendations outlined above will provide recovery from the South Western franchise require changes to the Waterloo station should be turned to Clapham Junction. the required capacity into Waterloo to meet holder via the long term station access throat and so are best implemented with The South Western section at Clapham forecast demand through the RUS period. charge. the planned signalling renewal in the Junction will be redesigned around the As in Figure B, the two rising demand lines 2020s. This lengthening of suburban trains future layout of Waterloo to provide a fully show the predicted numbers arriving at ■ A revised platforming strategy at would go some way towards relieving integrated solution that allows the optimal London Waterloo and at the highest load point Portsmouth Harbour improves performance crowding on long-distance services as they use of capacity available at Waterloo. (critical point) between the hours of 07:00 and and will be discussed with train operators approach London, particularly if combined The Waterloo and Clapham Junction 10:00 each weekday morning. The horizontal for implementation, possibly from the with revisions to the stopping pattern of signalling renewal is at present proposed supply line indicates current total capacity in December 2006 timetable. This has no long-distance services in the peak, but to take place in the 2020s and combining terms of seats on trains arriving at Waterloo impact on service levels to any stations, the long-term solution lies in a mixture of the renewal with any remodelling over this three-hour period. The rising ‘supply’ and there is no cost to obtaining these this approach and the peak management will provide a more cost-effective line indicates the step-changes in seating performance benefits. techniques discussed in section 4.2.1. long-term strategy. capacity introduced by elements of this 4.5.2 April 2009 to March 2014 Platform extensions, even for ten-car strategy. It should be noted that because these (Control Period 4) operation, would require significant capital ■ The proposed complete redevelopment from public funds, and operating costs Figure M: Combined effects of Route Utilisation Strategy of Waterloo station, including the whole (driven by fleet size and vehicle miles) recommendations on capacity of SWML into London of the WIT site, would double the would increase significantly. The generated

concourse capacity and extend all revenue would not be enough to cover the Key platforms to accommodate at least ten-car operating costs, but the economic benefits Unconstrained forecast of a.m. peak passengers alighting Waterloo trains. It would also allow for future are very large and make the proposal good Seating capacity resulting from interventions remodelling of the track approaches value for money. Base seated capacity to increase capacity and flexibility. Unconstrained forecast of a.m. peak passengers at critical point ■ The Reading area signalling renewal is The redevelopment is essential before currently planned to take place in 2013. long-term capacity improvements on This scheme could be scoped to deliver the SWML can deliver real benefits. capacity and flexibility improvements Remodelling of the station and, eventually, between the GWML and the route to its approach is recommended as the Wokingham, for example by reinstating the cornerstone of the rail industry’s strategy route under the GWML at the eastern end 120000 for the SWML. The capital cost of this of the station. The signalling renewal will station scheme is very large, and while therefore be developed to take account of Other suburban over half is expected to be met by to 10-car longer distance services and opportunities, commercial property development, it will Windsor/Reading some of which may be identified in the to 10-car require a significant contribution from public 100000 forthcoming Network RUS. Strengthening funds. Other station passenger capacity services solutions have been put forward, but do not 4.5.3 From April 2014 (Control Period 5) achieve the required improvements. ■ The benefits of the peak management initiative referred to above are expected to ■ The redevelopment of Waterloo station be increasingly realised within this period. discussed above is a key step towards 80000 the operation of longer trains – first ten ■ In the Draft for Consultation, the concept cars, later twelve – across the suburban of the hierarchy of constraints was network. It is recommended that the outlined. It is first at Waterloo that available entire suburban network is equipped for resources should be directed because it – 3hr a.m. peak Passengers and seats to Waterloo ten-car operation during Control Period 4, is the primary capacity constraint on the 60000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 beginning with the Windsor and Reading route. Once the outline of the hub station Year lines which are the most crowded. This has been developed, with the knowledge

40 41 figures are simply three-hour totals, they do forward the Waterloo area signalling renewal service proposal has examined the need for 4.6.3 Thameslink Programme not adequately reflect the overcrowding in the (and the associated proposals to introduce grade separation at Woking and works in the The Thameslink Programme is a strategic high peak period, nor localised overcrowding twelve-car suburban trains, and to remodel Reading station area, and the inclusion of rail infrastructure project intended to enhance on particular routes or service groups. Clapham Junction) to a date before 2020. such enhancements might mitigate against the the busy Thameslink network across London Even in the sensitivity case, these longer term additional congestion that would otherwise be and the south east of England. The project is Figure M shows how a holistic approach to changes would only be justified at the very end a problem. Further modelling and simulation designed to provide an expanded Thameslink planning can deliver appropriate outputs over of the ten-year period of the RUS. work is also needed to identify how AirTrack network, linking more destinations, and the ten-year period. However, the graph does could be accommodated at Waterloo. This is resulting in quicker and easier journeys for not tell the whole story. Firstly, it only illustrates 4.6 Contingent projects the primary area of capacity constraint on the passengers across the south east, also the principal issue of how to address peak SWML area as identified in section 4.2.2. reducing overcrowding on the existing demand into London; Figures J and L together 4.6.1 AirTrack Thameslink route in peak periods. illustrate all the RUS proposals. Secondly, the The AirTrack project is promoted by the In summary, further feasibility work RUS proposes delivering the steps shown in AirTrack Forum, comprising a group of local will determine how AirTrack could be The findings from the public inquiry reviewing the graph in a way which sets the framework authorities, other Governmental organisations accommodated through certain specific the Thameslink Programme proposals are due for longer-term investments to meet anticipated and private companies such as BAA. The infrastructure enhancements and revisions to be published in the second quarter of 2006. growth over the next twenty years or more. proposal is for the operation of a service from to the service pattern. Until this happens the impact of the proposals, Heathrow Airport, using new infrastructure including the construction programme, cannot 4.5.5 Alternative growth scenarios 4.6.2 Crossrail where necessary, to London Waterloo, be fully assessed. Nevertheless the proposals The demand forecasts used in this RUS Crossrail is a scheme to link the GWML Guildford and Reading. This project is currently as they currently exist interface with the represent a consensus among the rail industry with routes to the east of London through unfunded and uncommitted but the concept SWML RUS area at two locations. The first is stakeholders. However there are a number new tunnels under central London. It is the is supported by many rail industry and other in relation to the service that is proposed to of uncertainties that require the consideration subject of a Hybrid Bill currently in Committee bodies, subject to meeting certain criteria. run to Guildford on the line via London Road of alternative growth rates. In developing the Stage in Parliament. The effect on the SWML Guildford station. This service will not impact strategy, it was agreed that growth is unlikely The capacity constraints at certain points of the proposals as currently detailed in the on the SWML RUS recommendations as there to be significantly lower than the forecast, but in the SWML area identified in previous Crossrail Bill would be significant, and if are no specific infrastructure requirements a number of factors (e.g. road congestion or sections of this document are significant in enacted would almost certainly require the expected and it is planned that the service is pricing) could drive passenger rail demand relation to this proposal. Waterloo station and RUS to be reviewed. either a substitution of, or complementary to, to be higher than the forecast. A sensitivity approaches, Reading station and approaches, Crossrail could impact on the SWML area the services that currently run on this line. test concluded that if demand were to rise by and Woking Junction are all identified as points during and after its construction phase. 50% higher than the rate predicted over the of capacity constraint and use of these parts The second area of interface is in relation to When it is built, the provisions in the Bill as ten-year period of the RUS, then the proposed of the network would be required to deliver the potential use of WIT for the diversion of drafted allow Crossrail to be timetabled first. train and platform lengthening facilitated by the the aspired train service. Implementation of South Eastern franchise services during the Consultation responses highlighted that as a redevelopment of Waterloo station would still the current AirTrack proposal would require period of Thameslink Programme construction result freight traffic in particular might need to be the most appropriate approach, but might the substitution of five ‘regular’ train services with the aim of minimising overall disruption. be diverted via SWML routes. One example need to be brought forward in time. with AirTrack services in the am and pm The opportunities for this have not yet been among several is traffic of around four paths peak periods. If the AirTrack service were to fully assessed but due to the passenger The extent to which this is possible is per hour in each direction between Reading be provided by eight car trains, as currently constraints at Waterloo identified earlier in this constrained by the lead time of the projects. and London via Wokingham, Ascot and proposed, there would be a likely impact on chapter, it is clear that this cannot significantly The Waterloo redevelopment scheme could Hounslow to Kew where trains would join overall train capacity, because this would not benefit the enhancement construction works start as early as 2008, with ten-car capability the cross-London network. be consistent with the planned move to ten/ necessary for the programme implementation, being delivered on the Windsor and Reading twelve car trains on the SWML area. as only a limited number of additional services routes in 2010 and the other suburban routes can be accommodated at Waterloo. two years later. This would provide for most The industry is currently conducting an of the growth, supported by further train operational feasibility study as part of the lengthening of the type discussed in section development of the AirTrack proposal. This 4.3.1 in the period before 2010. involves further modelling of the impact of AirTrack and the identification of any Finally, if growth is sustained at a level possible changes to the associated level of substantially higher than the base case infrastructure provision. For example, previous forecast, there could be a case to bring modelling work to support the AirTrack

42 43 Early views of the expected timing and nature of the construction programme for 5 Next steps the Thameslink proposals suggest that the extra passenger and platform length capacity created at Waterloo after redevelopment and the integration of the WIT into the main station might well generate an opportunity for the short term diversion of some services during This Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) will High Level Output Specification the construction period. The redeveloped become established sixty days after publication (HLOS) station will be better placed to respond to unless the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) issues Over the next 12 to 15 months, the Department this requirement without causing additional a notice of objection within this period. for Transport will be preparing its HLOS to define passenger and train congestion to the existing The recommendations of a RUS – and the the outputs it wishes to buy from the rail network SWT services. If the Thameslink Programme evidence of relationships and dependencies during the next Control Period, i.e. 2009 to 2014. is approved, the proposals would appear to be revealed in the work to reach them – form an This HLOS, and an accompanying Statement of complementary; indeed there may be benefits input to decisions made by industry funders and Funds Available, will be used by ORR to set the to the Programme resulting from the Waterloo suppliers, for example, on franchise specifications funding requirements of Network Rail over that station development advocated within this or investment plans. period, taking into account other obligations strategy. and funders’ reasonable requirements. The sensitivity test for the Thameslink Network Rail Business Plan The recommendations of this RUS, where Programme therefore does not result in any The 2006 Business Plan, due to be published they fall within the 2009 to 2014 period, are change to the recommendations of the RUS. shortly after this document, includes Route part of the rail industry’s recommendations to Plans that integrate the RUS into Network Rail’s be incorporated within the HLOS. ongoing planning process. Ongoing access to the network South Western franchise This RUS will also help to inform the allocation of The Department for Transport (DfT) will issue capacity on the network through application of the an Invitation to Tender (ITT) for the South normal Network Code processes. Western franchise before the end of March 2006. Industry parties have worked closely Review with DfT while developing this RUS, so the Network Rail is obliged to maintain a RUS ITT is informed by the RUS analysis, the RUS once it is established. This requires a review consultation responses and the conclusions which uses the same principles and methods drawn and recommendations made in the used to develop the RUS when circumstances RUS. have changed, when so directed by ORR or (for whatever reason) the conclusions may Access Charges Review no longer be valid. The ORR review of Network Rail’s funding requirements and access charges for the period 2009 to 2014 will conclude in 2008. This RUS will inform Network Rail’s input to the review, the initial submission for which will take place in June 2006.

44 45 46 47 Network Rail, 40 Melton Street, London, NW1 2EE www.networkrail.co.uk