Item 7

Glasgow and Clyde Valley City Deal 16th February 2016

Cabinet

Report by Senior Project Manager, Airport Access Project

Contact: George Vincent, Tel: 0141 287 9477

Glasgow Airport Access Project Response to Consultation on Network Rail Route Study

Purpose of Report:

To provide information to Cabinet on the contents of the Scotland Route Study and how it relates to the Access Project.

Recommendations :

It is recommended that the Cabinet:

(i) notes the content of this paper; and

(ii) instructs the Senior Project Manager, Glasgow Airport Access Project to prepare on behalf of the Cabinet for submission by the Cabinet Chair a response to Network Rail on the Scotland Route Study prior to the submission date of 10 March 2016.

1 Introduction

1.1 The Network Rail Scotland Route Study develops and assesses choices for the long term use and development of the rail network, assessing current and future demand on the network taking account of committed development. It sets out a number of possible options which could assist in meeting stakeholder needs, and seeks to particularly address the investment period of Control Periods 6 and 7 (2019-2024, and 2024-2029). It is a consultation document which feeds into the long term planning of the rail network and forms the basis of funders decision making.

This note does not seek to be an exhaustive analysis of the document, rather, it focuses on how the Scotland Route Study relates to the Airport Access Project needs.

2. General comments on the Study

2.1 The Scotland Route study:

 notes that ‘it provides organisations and the people of Scotland with an opportunity to influence this element of the planning process so that they can help shape the strategic direction of Scotland’s railway in the decades to come’ and that ‘the views of wider stakeholders will be taken in to account in finalising the Route Study’.

 makes a number of statements about the rationale behind the development of the study. It states, for example, that:  Funding choices have been identified and prioritised ‘to enable future aspirations’.  The study (and the Long Term Planning Process – LTPP – ‘capture stakeholder aspirations to develop new services in the light of continuing rail investment’  The first stage in developing the Connectivity-related conditional outputs was to ‘to undertake a literature review relating to the aspirations and objectives of rail industry funders, stakeholders and passengers in Scotland’.

Surprisingly, since Network Rail has been sighted on the AAP for over a year, none of this work has captured the aspirations for the Glasgow AAP project or City Deal Programme.

 Outlines ‘Strategic Objectives’ that have been developed for the Scotland Market Study, that informed the Route Study, include ‘Enabling Economic Growth’. The sub objectives under this heading are limited in scope, albeit some tie-up with the aims of the Airport Access Project. However, it is apparent that there was limited, if any, dialogue with wider stakeholder groups or consideration of stakeholder aspirations when developing the objectives.

3. Airport Access Project Needs

3.1 There are 2 key areas which the project team have identified as needing addressed as 4 additional train paths between and Paisley St James are required to be able to accommodate tram train.

(i) Rail capacity at Shields Junction has been identified as a ‘pinch point’ and it is highly unlikely that other services can be accommodated without removal of services or building additional infrastructure to provide capacity. Removal of services to accommodate tram train is viewed as undesirable therefore building additional capacity has been identified as the most likely approach.

(ii) lack of platform capacity at high level at Central station is viewed as a blockage; reallocating Lanark/ Shotts services to low level from high level (allied to the provision of a Hyndland turn back facility) has been identified as a means of freeing up high level platform capacity for tram train.

Both of these existing constraints are recognised in the Route Study with interventions considered, indicating that they are not just an issue for the Airport Access Project.

4. The Scotland Route Study ‘Conditional outputs’

4.1 Points to note from the Scotland Route Study in relation to the Airport Access Project needs:

 The principal theme running through the Scotland Route Study is that improving overall transport connectivity will support the economic and social aspirations of the Scottish people and that improving rail connectivity can play an important part in delivering this overall improvement in connectivity. This very clearly aligns with the City Deal aspirations. However, the study does not appear to follow through on this in any meaningful way with little evidence in the study to indicate how the railway will contribute to growth in the economy other than to take in to account assumed population growth and how this may impact on demand for rail services.

 The SRS has developed Conditional outputs (proposed future service specification, conditional on value for money and affordability) and recognises these are Connectivity related (increasing the opportunity to travel or reducing journey times) or Capacity related.

 The SRS clearly recognises that extra capacity is required both within Glasgow Central station, on the approaches to Central Station (Page 05) and on Glasgow low level services.

 Shields junction improvements (option 2.11.1) are shown as a conditional output for CP7 - however it should be noted that to accommodate a full Airport Access Project service itis required in CP6 and that it is not a ‘given’, it is a potential option.

 The SRS recognises that Central Station High Level will require to accommodate more and longer trains by the end of CP6. Options explored include extending existing platforms (2.10.1, 2.10.4, 2.10.5) and construction of new platforms (2.10.2a). As with Shields junction these proposals are shown for CP7 or beyond and are not a ‘given’.

 The capacity of services running into Glasgow Central Low Level Station is recognised as a major issue with services reaching 100% capacity by 2023. The solution to this problem is presented as running longer trains (6 car), and whilst Hyndland (4.3.1)and/ or Partick (4.6.2) turn backs are mentioned they are discounted. This is at odds with previous discussions as it certainly seemed that the Hyndland turn back was being given serious consideration. However, an intervention (4.3.2) of 4 tracking the section from Hyndland to Partick is mentioned as a possible option for CP8 which would allow extra services on the low level, which is well outwith the timeframe for the Airport Access Project.

 The Scotland Routes Study doesn’t comment on the impact running longer trains through Central station low level and whether it will be able to cope with the additional capacity demands this will place on the station.

 Any infrastructure improvements to Central low level station to increase capacity have been discounted on the basis of costs or deliverability.

 The Airport Access Project is not mentioned by name throughout the study, even though it is a fully funded scheme within City Deal which has been given full backing by Renfrewshire/ GCC and the UK and Scottish Governments. This is at odds with other route studies (Sussex, Western) which have taken note of schemes which would impact on the network.

 It should also be noted that route studies would generally have a significant comment on Airports, this route study is silent on the subject other than to mention the interchange possibilities at Edinburgh Gateway station (to the tram) for Glasgow- Edinburgh services that would flow from the Almond chord (see later).

 It should be noted that there is clearly train capacity issues on the approaches to Glasgow Central and on the and Inverclyde lines, with many trains on these lines being shown to be at capacity by 2023. It is clear that the additional capacity provided by tram train in these areas would assist in providing a solution to the problem.

 ‘High growth’ is assumed in Glasgow City Centre employment, which is not implausible but does have implications on the rail system and capacity in particular. It would not be unreasonable to expect that such an assumption on growth would be predicated on good access to the airport to help drive this level of growth, a subject which the Study is silent on.

 A number of possible projects (e.g Hyndland turn back/ Partick turn back/ capacity improvements at Central low level) appear to have been discounted without consideration of the AAP project.

5. Other Projects:

5.1 It is worth noting the text contained in Section 4 of the study (P31):

There are a number of projects that are being developed by external organisations that may, depending on the outcome of the necessary development work appraisals, have the potential to interface with the existing rail network in Scotland. Whilst Network Rail continues to work with relevant project proposers, no specific schemes have been included within this Route Study resulting from such activity. Any projects to extend the network need to take account of necessary upgrades to the existing infrastructure within that project.

This has potential implications in relation to the Airport Access Project and for the opportunities to align different investment streams to maximise the overall outcomes from investment from City Deal and from the next control period.

5.2 On page 34 in relation to the Almond Chord: The study refers to potential interventions in relation to the Winchburgh Junction Grade Separation + Almond Junction. The output from the interventions is described as:

This intervention would enable some Edinburgh/Glasgow services to run to / from Edinburgh without crossing between the North and South Lines in the Haymarket or Princes Street Gardens areas, which will improve the interface with West Coast Main Line services on the approaches to Edinburgh Waverley and capacity for Empty Coaching Stock to/from Haymarket.

It also provides an alternative route avoiding Newbridge Junction, minimises the timetable impact of a potential new station at Winchburgh, and offers the opportunity for selected Edinburgh/Glasgow services to call at Edinburgh Gateway station.

5.3 This implies even better connectivity between Glasgow/West of Scotland and Edinburgh Airport to that currently available through interchange to tram at Edinburgh Park (via Airdrie-Bathgate line), aligning CP6 investment to build on investment in the Edinburgh tram.

5.4 This intervention is recommended for consideration of delivery in CP6 (3.1.4). By the end of CP6, accessibility to Edinburgh airport from Glasgow will have increased markedly through Scottish Govt/Network Rail investments (Airdrie- Bathgate line, EGIP Edinburgh Gateway Station, Almond chord) whereas no Scottish Govt/Network Rail investment will have been made in improving connectivity to Glasgow Airport to align with City Deal investment.

5.5 Aberdeen to Central Belt upgrade An announcement was made by Keith Brown on 28th January of an initial investment of £200m to improve journey times and increase capacity on key rail links between Aberdeen and the central belt, upgrading the rail line in the Montrose basin. This announcement coincided with the announcement on the Aberdeen City Deal, to build on this. The announcement appears to pre-empt decisions on the Scotland Route Study. This particular intervention appears to be related to that being put forward for consideration in CP7 (5.4.3).

5.6 Both of the above issues (Almond chord and Montrose upgrade) would appear to imply that Scottish Govt is giving consideration to rail upgrades through the Scotland Route Study/rail investments to improve connectivity to Edinburgh Airport and to build on the Aberdeen City Deal investment. No such consideration appears to be being given to the Glasgow and Clyde Valley City Deal.

6. Governance

6.1 There is very little information on the governance surrounding the Scotland Route Study. It mentions Regional Transport Partnerships, and Local Authorities being involved in a Regional Working Group, which is the third tier of the governance for the Scotland Route Study consultation draft. Neither Renfrewshire or Glasgow are represented on this Group. It is not clear whether the governance structures outlined will continue beyond the consultation draft. It is recommended that City Deal should ask for representation at an appropriate level in ongoing governance for oversight of the final version.

6.2 It should be noted that there is talk of a Glasgow Central Station Master Plan. We have no visibility of this work, it would seem sensible that a member authority e.g GCC should have input to what would be a very important document.

7. Recommendation

7.1 It is recommended that the Cabinet:

(i) notes the content of this paper; and

(ii) instructs the Senior Project Manager, Glasgow Airport Access Project to prepare a response on behalf of the Cabinet for submission by the Cabinet Chair on the Scotland Route Study to Network Rail prior to the submission date of 10 March 2016.