sign in sign up
<<
Home , Buxton line, Calder Valley line, Harrogate line, Haxby railway station, Hope Valley line, Horwich railway station

October 2010

Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Network Rail Kings Place 90 Way N1 9AG

Tel: 020 3356 9595

www.networkrail.co.uk RUS138/October 2010 Foreword Investment in infrastructure is key to sustainable economic growth. However, with the nation’s finances severely constrained there are tough choices to be made. Increasingly, the country will need to prioritise investment in infrastructure based on the contribution which it can make to economic growth, jobs and private sector investment, as well as on people’s quality of life and the environment.

The draft Northern Route Utilisation in working arrangements have seen more Strategy (RUS) sets out the priorities for passengers and freight relying on rail. rail investment in the north of The industry has responded well: train and freight for the next 20 years. We believe that operating companies have increased the number the options recommended can both of services, enabled by significant investment from meet the increased demand forecast , central and local government and other bodies. by this RUS, and act as a catalyst for economic growth. However, as this draft second generation RUS shows, growth in passenger and freight demand is The north of England has seen significant growth forecast to continue over the next 10 – 20 years. in demand for rail services in the last 15 years. With the railways already nearly full, this growth Economic growth, modal shift related to road poses significant challenges. congestion and car parking charges, and changes In just ten years’ time passenger growth on all peak services into , , , Newcastle and could be as much as 30 – In just ten years’ time passenger growth 45 per cent. Looking beyond to 2029 these growth on all peak services into Leeds, Liverpool, figures are in the 60 – 70 per cent range. In any Manchester, Newcastle and Sheffield terms, this is a huge increase in demand. could be as much as 30 – 45 per cent. We are already meeting the short-term challenges. Work is underway to improve journey times Looking beyond to 2029 these growth between and peak time capacity into cities like figures are in the 60 – 70 per cent range. Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield, and we are planning a major upgrade of Manchester In any terms, this is a huge increase Victoria station. We are also undertaking a in demand. programme of loading gauge enhancements to facilitate growth of intermodal freight traffic.

Contents 3 Foreword 5 Executive summary 16 1. Background 18 2. Scope and planning context 24 3. Forecast changes in demand 37 4. Gaps and options 83 5. Emerging strategy 94 6. Consultation and next steps 96 Appendix A 124 Appendix B 126 Glossary

3 Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

These improvements alone, however, will not meet In the longer term, high speed links between the the levels of demand forecast in this RUS. We have north and London could improve connectivity and Executive summary to find value for money improvements to the railway free up capacity on existing routes. However, this to allow more trains to run to more destinations, RUS demonstrates that we cannot neglect the more frequently and quickly than today. existing network. This RUS proposes that a number of such Continued investment in rail is necessary if our improvements should be implemented between transport infrastructure is to meet the current 2014 and 2024. and future needs of people and businesses across Introduction the north. It recommends implementing the Since June 2005, the Network Licence has required Network Rail plans, making it possible for 700 more trains to run Network Rail and our industry partners believe across the North every day. that this RUS provides a robust strategy for the rail to publish Route Utilisation Strategies (RUSs), which establish the industry in the coming years and I would like to Longer trains into several cities across the north of most effective and efficient way to use the capacity available take this opportunity to thank industry colleagues England and some additional peak services are also who have worked with us on this RUS. across the network. recommended, as are opportunities for track layout improvements in South and at Liverpool We welcome your comments on this draft for Lime Street. consultation. We have not set specific questions, Network Rail has since then published, and continues funded interventions for Control Period 4 (CP4) and however we would particularly appreciate feedback to publish, RUSs that will, upon completion of the Control Period 5 (CP5), including the Secretary of Continued enhancement of the freight network is on the demand forecasting methodology and the programme, cover the whole of its network. State for Transport’s announcement in 2009 of the another priority, with routes to Immingham docks a electrification of a number of routes in the North options we have recommended. The Network Licence also requires Network Rail particular focus. West, and a set of passenger growth forecasts to ‘maintain’ established RUSs, those that have The deadline for responses is 14 January 2011 and to 2024 and the Strategic Freight Network (SFN) Finally, a rolling programme of electrification, been approved by the Office of Rail Regulation we intend to publish the final RUS next spring. forecasts for 2019 and 2030. Account has also been including the – one of the (ORR). This has led to the development of a ‘second best ways of providing a cheaper, more efficient taken of RUS recommendations that change those Paul Plummer generation of RUSs’, of which this Northern RUS is and even more environmentally friendly railway – published in earlier RUSs. Director, Planning & Development the first. is recommended. Each first generation gap can be broadly Scope and planning context categorised as follows: Apart from the national Freight and Network 1. gap that will have been addressed RUSs, the first generation of RUSs all had a strict by the end of CP4 (the baseline for this RUS) geographic scope to consider when identifying gaps so is ‘closed’ and options. As part of the second generation, the Northern RUS does not have a strict geographic 2. gap which will still be a gap at the end scope to consider but broadly covers the north of of CP4 but for which the previous RUS England. The area covered by this RUS has already recommendation is still appropriate been considered in a number of geographic RUSs: 3. gap which will still be a gap at the those for the North West, , end of CP4 but for which the intervention Merseyside, Yorkshire and Humber, and needs reviewing due to more recent changes and Cumbria. 4. gap that has changed sufficiently The gaps and recommendations of these first that the previous intervention may not be generation RUSs have been reviewed in the light of entirely appropriate.

4 5 Executive summary Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

The Northern RUS process has been overseen and comparison between the method taken forward Despite the recession, growth is expected to be This RUS, along with the first directed by the Stakeholder Management Group and the traditional PDFH method. relatively high to 2014 due to the increase in which comprises representatives from the Train structural change. A 42-44 per cent increase in The following table shows the expected peak generation of RUSs, is designed Operating Companies (TOCs), Freight Operating demand is forecast on all services into Leeds and growth in rail demand into the five CP4 HLOS Companies (FOCs), the Department for Transport Manchester in the peak by 2019 and peak growth to inform the next High Level stations on all services. (DfT), Network Rail, the Association of Train into all five HLOS cities is expected to be between Output Specification in 2012 by Operating Companies (ATOC), Passenger Focus, 62 and 72 per cent by 2029 in the high scenario. feeding into Network Rail’s Initial the Passesnger Transport Executives (PTEs) and Strategic Business Plan, to be the ORR (as observers). published in summer 2011. Forecast changes in demand Peak forecast increase in passenger demand into the five CP4 HLOS cities on all services

Recent industry studies, including RUSs, have Growth – 2014 Growth – 2019 Growth – 2024 Growth – 2029 shown that industry standard models tend to Categories 3 and 4 have shaped most of the underpredict observed passenger growth in the Leeds – low 7% 16% 25% 36% Northern RUS gaps and the vast majority of “first regional centres. Liverpool – low 5% 17% 28% 42% generation” gaps fall into category 2. There has 7% 17% 25% 37% City-wide car parking supply and cost, and Manchester – low been an assessment of the extent of the gap, structural change (the proportion of city centre Newcastle – low 12% 19% 26% 34% and options generated where appropriate. These workers employed in office-based sectors) Sheffield – low 5% 14% 23% 33% options have been appraised to understand which have been cited as potential reasons for this most appropriately meet the identified gap and Leeds – high 20% 42% 53% 68% unexplained peak growth. offer the most value for money. Liverpool – high 13% 32% 46% 63% The UK economy was in recession from the fourth Manchester – high 21% 44% 57% 72% This RUS, along with the first generation of RUSs, quarter of 2008/09 until the third quarter of is designed to inform the next High Level Output Newcastle – high 21% 37% 49% 62% 2009/10 and the effect on future rail demand Specification (HLOS) in 2012 by feeding into Network Sheffield – high 15% 35% 48% 62% is still unclear. However, the most recent data Rail’s Initial Strategic Business Plan (ISBP), to be suggests that in many rail sectors demand published in summer 2011. The ISBP will identify continued to increase during the recession and outputs that Network Rail, in consultation with Freight forecasts are those developed nationally The following table shows the forecast change in demonstrates high growth in the post-recession its industry partners, thinks the Governments for to 2019 and 2030 for the Strategic Freight freight demand by commodity to 2030. recovery period. England and Wales, and Scotland may consider Network (SFN). The route with the largest number of additional buying in CP5, the interventions necessary to achieve High and low growth scenarios have been The changes in freight tonnages to be moved by train paths per day is the Immingham – Scunthorpe them and their costs. This RUS also looks at the produced to 2029. The high growth scenario has rail were mapped across the network from which a – Knottingley corridor. period beyond current train operator franchises, been used to identify gaps and forms the central forecast of future demand for freight train paths and therefore aims to inform the next round of case for growth at the option appraisal stage. per day by line of route was derived. This is shown franchising affecting the north of England. The low growth forecast will be used to show a in more detail in Chapter 3.

Forecast change in freight demand by commodity to 2030

Average Average 2006 2030 2006 2030 annual growth annual growth Solid fuels 51 41 25% 8 5 -2% Construction 21 32 28% 4 5 1% Metals + ore 18 19 25% 3 3 0% Ports non bulk 12 50 26% 4 17 6% Domestic non bulk 2 25 23% 1 12 11% Total 116 25 46% 23 45 3%

6 7 Executive summary Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Northern RUS gaps and Gap 3 – Peak and off-peak crowding on the Leeds capacity on these routes over the period of the Emerging strategy recommendations – Manchester route taking into account journey RUS. Reinstatement of stops at Elsecar station are time improvements also recommended, if value for money linespeed The emerging strategy takes account of the The Northern RUS identified nine gaps from the improvements can be identified. output of previous RUSs, the recommendations in The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended the process described above. The gaps are listed below, this RUS and other relevant developments. It is operation of five interurban services on the route Gap 6 – Insufficient freight capacity on the along with the recommendations made by this RUS split into three sections covering the time to the together with some peak hour train lengthening, Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor or those previously. end of the current control period in March 2014, which this RUS supports. However, passenger A set of infrastructure interventions comprising the next two five-year control periods, and the Gap 1 – Peak crowding on routes affected capacity on north cross-Pennine services is expected signalling upgrades and a new turnback facility long term. by electrification of additional routes in the to increase further, partly as a result of previous at Knottingley is recommended to provide sufficient North West RUS recommendations. In addition, this RUS has Short-term strategy 2009-14 (CP4) capacity to accommodate expected growth to 2030. Recommended options include a peak shuttle recommended a peak semi-fast service between Background Gap 7 – Peak crowding on the , Skipton between Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington and Leeds to provide sufficient and Westgate corridors into Leeds. Although the last year of the period from April Central and lengthening of peak services on the capacity into Leeds in the peaks, and lengthening 2009 to March 2014 is the baseline for this RUS, an Atherton corridor into Manchester. Analysis of the of existing services between Leeds and Manchester The RUS has checked whether the Yorkshire overview of the strategy for CP4 is included here as issues faced by a possible change in the service via Huddersfield to provide sufficient capacity into and Humber RUS recommendations on certain a lead into the strategy recommended for future proposition on the corridor into Manchester Manchester in the peaks. corridors into Leeds are sufficient to accommodate control periods. has been undertaken to inform the strategy after Gap 4 – Peak and off-peak crowding between the new demand forecasts. It was found that the completion of the electrification programme on Sheffield and Manchester previous recommendations of train lengthening, The strategy for CP4 consists primarily of measures this route. additional services and higher capacity rolling stock to increase capacity on peak passenger services Planned lengthening of the existing Liverpool – are expected to provide sufficient capacity on these into Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool, Gap 2 – Accommodating peak services into the services in line with recommendations made corridors over the period of the RUS. to improve cross-Pennine passenger services Manchester Piccadilly station area in the RUS will provide additional throughout the day, to improve journey times and Previous RUSs and this RUS have recommended capacity on this route. In addition, lengthening of service levels from Yorkshire and the North East additional and lengthened services into Manchester peak services between Cleethorpes and Manchester The emerging strategy takes account to London and to provide increased capacity and Piccadilly. This RUS has found that these can be Airport to deal with growth west of is capability for freight. accommodated with some recommended timetable recommended to accommodate passenger demand of the output of previous RUSs, the Anticipated dates for delivery of infrastructure alterations. However, a number of the lengthened over the period of this RUS. recommendations in this RUS and projects funded by Network Rail are set out in the services needed at Manchester Piccadilly operate Gap 5 – Peak crowding on the Retford and other relevant developments. Network Rail CP4 Delivery Plan, which is updated to/from to make best use lines and additional calls at Elsecar quarterly, and the annual route plans published of capacity at Manchester Piccadilly, as well as The circumstances on these two routes into Sheffield in March (both of which are available at www. providing through services. As a result of constraints have changed since the Yorkshire and Humber networkrail.co.uk). The summaries below reflect at Manchester Airport a fourth platform has been Gap 8 – Accommodating peak services into RUS was published. The use of the equivalent of the current proposals for the use of additional recommended to accommodate longer trains on Leeds station 2x23m vehicle units is expected to provide sufficient rolling stock made available and the infrastructure the Bolton and north cross-Pennine corridors. Several infrastructure interventions are interventions to support them. However, the recommended to provide sufficient track number of additional vehicles available for services capacity to accommodate the recommended in the north of England is likely to be significantly train lengthening and additional services into less than was expected prior to the start of the Leeds station over the period of the RUS. control period. As many of the infrastructure interventions in CP4 are designed to deliver the Gap 9 – Strategic connectivity across the operational plans of the train operators that north of England reflect the use of the additional stock, the list of Option two of the Manchester Hub Study is enhancements is subject to change. recommended to meet this gap, along with Local services the recommendations from other RUSs which are aimed at improving connectivity on routes The most crowded local services will either be outside the scope of the Manchester Hub Study. lengthened or supplemented by new shuttle The recommendations of the study are being services as additional rolling stock becomes developed as the Northern Hub Project. A copy of available. New peak shuttles are expected to the Manchester Hub Study can be found on Network run between Leeds and , Doncaster, Rails’ website at www.networkrail.co.uk and Halifax, and between Manchester and Rochdale, and . Platform extensions will be provided at a number of stations and new turnback facilities will be built

8 9 Executive summary Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

at Horsforth and Stalybridge in association with and longer distance flows serving Yorkshire and the renewal projects. New and increased passenger North East. These are supported by a programme train servicing and stabling facilities will be needed of infrastructure enhancements on the East to accommodate the additional rolling stock. Coast Main Line (ECML) and upgrading of the route between Peterborough and Doncaster via Capacity for the longer and additional services Spalding and Lincoln. These schemes will also terminating at Leeds will be provided by creating improve performance and most provide freight an additional through platform at Leeds and using capacity benefits. an existing through platform as a long turnback facility. This involves connecting two bay platforms The programme includes two schemes on the ECML (numbers 13 and 14), and a new crossover at in the RUS area. One is the remodelling of the the west end of Platforms 15 and 16. This allows Shaftholme Jn area to provide a shorter route for Platform 15 to be used to terminate/start two Immingham to Aire Valley coal trains, which also long trains to/from the west of Leeds, while trains removes the conflict between these services and that use this platform currently would use the new long distance passenger and freight trains using through platform. Some peak trains may operate the Doncaster to York route. The second is a fourth through Leeds to a new turnback facility at a resited running line between Holgate Jn and York station, Micklefield station, also to free up capacity at Leeds. and associated signalling enhancements, providing routeing opportunities such as those provided Electrification improved capacity for trains to and from Leeds and Improvements to services in the and by the recently upgraded Brigg line and the addressing reactionary delay to services caused by The first phase of electrification of additional routes between East Lancashire and Manchester are being Shaftholme Jn remodelling project. congestion at York. in the North West is expected to be completed by promoted by local authorities. The former is the The capability to carry 9’6” deep sea containers the end of CP4. The programme of electrification is Project, which involves an even Interurban services on standard deck height wagons and the currently being developed. interval frequency of two trains per hour between Journey times will be reduced between Leeds transportation of other intermodal units will be and Saltburn and two new stations. Other projects promoted/funded by local and Manchester via Huddersfield, and between provided through loading gauge enhancements The latter provides for increased services between authorities/PTEs Liverpool and Manchester via Earlestown (the on a number of routes, funded by several different and Manchester, requiring track capacity Chat Moss route). These will be achieved through mechanisms. The following routes in the RUS area In addition to those in the scope of the Tees Valley improvements, and a new service from to a mixture of linespeed improvements and small are expected to see loading gauge enhancements: Metro project, several new stations are being Manchester via Rochdale using a reinstated north capacity enhancement schemes designed to promoted and/or funded by local authorities or to west curve at Todmorden. ● Peterborough – Doncaster – via the East improve the timetable. PTEs for opening in CP4. These are at Apperley Coast Main Line Long distance services serving Bridge, Forge, and Low Moor. There Freight services London King’s Cross ● Newark – Lincoln – Gainsborough – Doncaster are also schemes to provide a new bay platform at Additional freight services, as forecast in the Freight Wakefield Westgate and to enhance the re-sited There will be increased service levels between ● Peterborough – Spalding – Lincoln RUS, will be accommodated, with re-routeing where Micklefield station to become a parkway station. the RUS area and London King’s Cross to cater for appropriate to take advantage of new freight ● Doncaster – Leeds Stourton via Wakefield growth and to reduce journey times on the medium Europort Medium-term strategy 2014-24 (CP5 and 6) ● Doncaster – Birmingham via Beighton and the Erewash Valley Background

● Doncaster – Newcastle and possibly into The strategy for the medium-term builds on that Scotland proposed for CP4. It assumes that any schemes or service changes in the previous section that are ● Swinton – Moorthorpe – Jn not undertaken in CP4 will become part of the ● Darlington – medium-term strategy.

● Seaforth (Liverpool) – The general approach will be further train via Huyton. lengthening to meet predicted continuing growth in demand, though on some corridors additional Performance improvement shuttle services will provide a better use of Performance improvement is targeted through resources and also improve connectivity. a reduction in reactionary delays, either in There is an opportunity to improve connectivity conjunction with other interventions in the CP4 between the cities and the major towns of the strategy, renewals or where separate value for north significantly, and also between them and money and affordable projects are achievable. other key destinations such as Manchester Airport

10 11 Executive summary Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

and cities in other parts of Britain. This would also Midlands) and where signalling or other renewals of CP5. A timetable recast on the Bolton and increase in freight path requirements are most help drive a step change in economic activity for are due to be undertaken, for example on the route Atherton corridors would be needed to make best significant. These are generally the core national the north of England. out of Hull. use of rolling stock following electrification of the arteries connecting the ports, the Channel Tunnel – Preston – Bolton – Manchester route, to and regional distribution centres, as intermodal Therefore there will be a continuing need for Local services meet growth and connectivity requirements. traffic is the primary growth area. additional rolling stock, including electric units to There will be further train lengthening of local take advantage of later phases of the electrification There would then be possible extension of the For high traffic growth on existing routes the services or the operation of additional peak of routes in the North West. In addition, by this electrified network within the RUS area, as strategy in the longer term must look first to make shuttles, where these provide better value for time a number of existing rolling stock fleets will be identified in the electrification RUS, covering one or best use of the existing infrastructure in the RUS money, to meet peak growth into Newcastle, reaching life-expiry or becoming due for a major more of the following: area and then to the opportunities offered by the , Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and mid-life overhaul, and the commencement of wider rail network, for example making use of Sheffield as more rolling stock becomes available. A ● Midland Main Line from Sheffield to Bedford replacement and refurbishment programmes any remaining capacity on lines outside the RUS programme of platform extensions will be required via Derby will create opportunities for improvements area. There could also be options to provide the to allow train lengthening on some lines. in capacity, performance, fuel efficiency and ● Sheffield to Doncaster and/or South Kirkby Jn additional capacity through reopening currently The improvements in track capacity in the attractiveness to passengers. ● Leeds – York/Selby disused lines, or construction of some completely Manchester area would allow more commuter new sections of railway. Interurban services and local services to run throughout the day and ● Manchester – Leeds. On the north-south axis the development of one The track capacity and linespeed improvements for their journey times to be improved. Other local Freight services or more high speed routes would provide much on a number of corridors linking neighbouring services converted to electric traction following the reduced journey times and increased service cities and towns to Manchester, and in the completion of the electrification of additional lines Further increases in freight services will be seen frequencies to London from key locations in the Manchester area itself, would allow improvements in the North West will also be speeded up. on those routes predicted to see a significant north. It would also release capacity on the existing in frequencies and journey times of interurban increase in train path requirements in the SFN Long distance high speed services north-south routes, which would allow growth in services between major cities in the north. There forecasts, particularly between Immingham and other passenger markets and in freight. would be opportunity to improve links between Further growth on Long Distance High Speed the Aire Valley and into the Park terminals. various northern cities and other key destinations, (LDHS) trains to London King’s Cross, London St The former would require improved signalling In order to accommodate a doubling of commuter including Manchester Airport. In particular, with Pancras and non-London LDHS services will be met headways between Immingham and Scunthorpe in journeys on each rail corridor, the short-to-medium any necessary capacity improvements at Leeds, by a mixture of longer trains and additional services association with signalling renewals. term strategy of either train lengthening or Sheffield and Liverpool Lime Street, increased as a result of the introduction of new LDHS rolling The SFN steering group will identify any further additional services gives the foundation for the frequencies will be possible between Manchester stock. Improved long distance journey times would loading gauge enhancement works beyond those longer term. Continued growth could be addressed and Leeds, Sheffield and beyond and between also be expected. implemented in CP4. The electrification of further largely through progressive train lengthening Liverpool and Manchester. Electrification routes would help provide the increased loading both of existing services and the ‘peak-busting’ gauges on those lines. additional services described in this RUS. Improved journey times will also be sought on other The remaining works in connection with interurban corridors, including between Leeds and electrification of additional routes in the North Rolling stock Much of the network capacity to allow a doubling of Sheffield via (and onwards to the East the passenger markets in the north of England would West are expected to be completed by the middle As well as the introduction of new LDHS rolling be provided by the Northern Hub schemes. Increasing stock mentioned above, new regional rolling the capacity in the Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool stock will be required to deal with the growth and Lime Street areas (which are not within the scope improved connectivity across of the Northern Hub capacity works) would result in described in this strategy. This would be part of most of the remaining infrastructure being in place to a progressive programme of new build and/or accommodate the doubling of passenger numbers in refurbishment to provide the additional vehicles these markets. required and to replace obsolete rolling stock. The electrification of further routes within the RUS For freight growth, accommodating a significant area would allow more electric units to be part of increase in intermodal traffic is necessary. This this programme. requires loading gauge enhancement to W9, W10 and W12, to allow train lengths up to 775 metres Long-term context (CP7 and beyond) (to maximise use of train paths, locomotives and The 2007 White Paper ‘Delivering a Sustainable drivers) and to increase freight paths on the key Railway’ aspired to a doubling of both passenger freight arteries through the RUS area, including and freight traffic nationally over a 30-year period. associated diversionary routes. This section examines what a doubling of Those arteries where increased capacity would be passenger and freight traffic over a 30-year period the most challenging are: could mean for the RUS area. It is assumed that ● Rotherham – Swinton – Moorthorpe – all passenger markets would generally double. Hare Park Jn However, for freight the SFN forecasts for 2030 have been used to identify those routes where the ● Doncaster – Colton Jn.

12 13 Executive summary Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

The first of these arteries will need four-tracking traffic should aim to make use of a mixture of of significant sections and improving some of the enhancements to the existing railway network junctions on this corridor, but this will also provide and new high speed routes. The balance between 1. Background other benefits. these will depend on the routeing of any new lines and therefore which current major passenger flows would transfer to them. The capacity of the In summary, the longer-term high existing routes would then be used to cater for the level strategy to deliver a doubling remaining passenger flows and freight growth. 1.1 Introduction to Route Utilisation 1.1.3 of passenger and freight traffic Consultation and next steps Strategies (RUSs) The ORR Guidelines explain how Network Rail As mentioned previously, this RUS has been should aim to make use of a should consider the position of the railway funding developed in conjunction with industry stakeholders 1.1.1 authorities, their statements, key outputs and mixture of enhancements to the through a Stakeholder Management Group Following the Rail Review in 2004 and the any options they should wish to be tested. Such comprising representatives from DfT, TOCs, existing railway network and Railways Act 2005, the Office of Rail Regulation strategies should address: new high speed routes. FOCs, PTEs, ATOC, Passenger Focus and the ORR (ORR) modified Network Rail’s network licence (as observers). in June 2005 to require the establishment “• network capacity and railway Briefings were also undertaken with organisations and maintenance of RUSs across the network. service performance Simultaneously, ORR published guidelines on RUSs The other requires solutions to future routeing of outside the rail industry, including local authorities, • train and station capacity including and both of these documents were then updated passenger and freight traffic through the Doncaster Government Agencies and ports and airports, and crowding issues and reissued on 1 April 2009. A RUS is defined in station area and attention given to making most workshops were held with rail user groups and Condition 1 of the network licence as, in respect of • the trade-offs between different uses of effective use of the lines via Hambleton and Askern. Community Rail Partnerships. the network1 or a part of the network, a strategy the network (e.g. between different types The former needs to be examined not only in the We now welcome contributions to assist us which will promote the route utilisation objective. of passenger and freight services) context of the freight growth but for the longer- in developing this RUS. Specific consultation term passenger services. This could lead to a major questions have not been set but we are particularly 1.1.2 • rolling stock issues including deployment, upgrade of the network in this area when signalling interested in feedback on the demand forecasting train capacity and capability, depot and The route utilisation objective is defined as: renewals become due. methodology and the options that address the stabling facilities In summary, the longer-term high level strategy gaps identified. Details of how to respond can be “the effective and efficient use and • how maintenance and renewals work can to deliver a doubling of passenger and freight found in Chapter 6. development of the capacity available on be carried out while minimising disruption the network, consistent with the funding that to the network is, or is likely to become, available during the • opportunities from using new technology period of the route utilisation strategy and with the licence holder’s performance of • opportunities to improve safety.” the duty.” Extract from ORR Guidelines on Route Utilisation Strategies April 2009 Extract from Network Licence Condition 1, April 2009

1 Defined in Network Rail’s Licence Condition 1 as where the licence holder has any estate or interest in or right over a station or light maintenance depot, such station or light maintenance depot.

14 15 1. Background Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

1.1.4 1.1.7 1.4 Second generation RUSs where major changes have occurred (and are likely to occur during the current control period) The guidelines also set out principles for RUS Network Rail will take account of the The Network Licence requires Network Rail both and analyse interventions which may be required scope, time period and processes to be followed recommendations from RUSs when carrying out establish and maintain RUSs. Network Rail has in order to accommodate passenger and freight and assumptions to be made. Network Rail has its activities. In particular, they will be used to help published a number of RUSs which, at least in part, demand to 2024. In line with other recently developed a RUS manual which consists of a inform the allocation of capacity on the network cover the north of England: published RUSs, the strategy will also look further consultation guide and a technical guide. These through application of the normal Network Code l Freight RUS, established May 2007 ahead and consider some of the interventions that explain the processes used to comply with the processes. may be required over the next 30 years. Licence Condition and guidelines. These and other l North West RUS, established July 2007 documents relating to individual RUSs and the 1.2 RUS principles l East Coast Main Line RUS, established 1.5 About this document overall RUS programme are available at RUSs examine the rail network at a specific point April 2008 This strategy has been developed based on input www.networkrail.co.uk in time and identify where it will not be able to from stakeholders from within and outwith the accomodate the forecast demand placed upon it. l Merseyside RUS, established May 2009 1.1.5 rail industry, and comprehensive appraisal and This is primarily in terms of capacity but RUSs also l Yorkshire and Humber RUS, established analysis work. The ORR guidelines require options to be appraised. consider performance and connectivity. Where the September 2009 This is initially undertaken using the Department demand cannot be accommodated (Gaps), RUSs Chapter 2 describes the scope of the RUS and the l Lancashire and Cumbria RUS, established for Transport’s (DfT) appraisal criteria, though seek to find solutions. The general principle adopted planning context in which it is written. bespoke analysis will be used where shown to be October 2009 in RUSs has been to consider simpler and lower cost Chapter 3 details the passenger demand forecasts necessary. To support this appraisal work, RUSs seek interventions before turning to more complex and l Network RUS: Electrification Strategy, and the Strategic Freight Network forecasts which to capture implications for all industry parties and expensive solutions. In the first instance, optimising established December 2009. were used in this RUS. wider societal implications in order to understand use of existing infrastructure is examined and Since the original strategies, a number of significant which options maximise net industry and societal timetabling solutions are usually sought as Chapter 4 describes the gap identification process, infrastructure and service changes to the railways benefit, rather than that of any individual preferable to infrastructure works, subject to there the strategic gaps considered by the Northern RUS in the north of England have either occurred or organisation or affected group. being no unacceptable performance impact. The and the options appraised. have been announced as funded. In order to fulfil various options are then evaluated using the DfT’s 1.1.6 its obligations to maintain established RUSs, Chapter 5 summarises the emerging strategy for appraisal criteria and recommendations made. Network Rail is therefore publishing a series of the north of England resulting from work done in RUSs occupy a particular place in the planning second generation RUSs, of which this Northern this RUS and the established RUSs listed above. activity for the rail industry. They utilise available 1.3 RUS governance RUS is the first. Chapter 6 describes how stakeholders can input from processes such as the DfT’s Regional The RUS process is designed to be inclusive. Joint respond to this consultation and the next steps Planning Assessments and, for the period to work is encouraged between industry parties, who These strategies will take into account the relevant in the RUS process. 2014, the 2007 High Level Output Specification share ownership of each RUS through its industry recommendations from previous RUSs, identifying (HLOS). The recommendations of a RUS and Stakeholder Management Group (SMG). Detailed the evidence of relationships and dependencies analysis is undertaken in industry Working Groups. revealed in the work to produce them form an input to decisions made by industry funders and There is also informal consultation outside the rail suppliers on issues such as franchise specifications industry by means of rail user group workshops and and investment plans. In particular, RUSs form an wider stakeholder group briefings. essential building block of Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan, itself a precursor to the 2012 HLOS process which will define the level of expenditure available for rail in the next control period (Control Period 5 2014/19).

16 17 Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Inverness Network Rail’s CP4 Delivery Plan was published in Additionally, in 2009 the Government announced the June 2009 and subsequently updated in March electrification of a number of routes in the north west, 2. Scope and planning context 2010, with further updates generated through a known as the Lancashire Triangle, to be completed in rail industry change control mechanism. It states phases during CP4 and Control Period 5 (CP5). how Network Rail aims to deliver the outputs Aberdeen This programme of electrification comprises the specified within the HLOS. The relevant CP4 following routes: Liverpool to Manchester via enhancement schemes that are currently included Earlestown, Huyton to Wigan via St. Helens in the 2014 baseline for this RUS are contained Central, Manchester to Preston via Bolton and Fort in Chapter 5. However, the number of additional William Preston to Blackpool. vehicles expected to be available for services in the 2.1 Introduction 2.3 Northern RUS timeframe north of England is likely to be less than indicated 2.3.2 Availability of funding and purpose in the Rolling Stock Plan and will constrain the This chapter details the scope of the Northern As mentioned in Chapter 1, the RUS is required ability to meet growth in CP4. The list of Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), its purpose, 2.3.1 Timeframe to take account of funding that is or is likely to infrastructure interventions required toDundee support timeframe, the planning context in which it is set, Perth become available. Evidently, there are currently a The baseline for this RUS is the expected position the use of the additional rolling stock in CP4 will and the linkages to other studies. number of uncertainties regarding the economy, at the end of Control Period 4 (CP4). Network Rail be subject to change. but it is still appropriate for this RUS to identify 2.2 Northern RUS scope is funded in five-year control periods and CP4 is Those interventions that were previously interventions that demonstrate value for money the period from April 2009 to March 2014. Apart from the Freight and Network RUSs, the first recommended by RUSs for CP4 which are not over the full period of the RUS to meet identified generation of RUSs all had a strict geographic scope The ‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’ Glasgow fully implemented by the end of the control gaps. In the event that funding is constrained then to consider when identifying gaps and options. Government White Paper was published in period will become part Edinburghof the strategy the RUS will play a valuable role in prioritising the As part of the second generation, the Northern July 2007. This included a High Level Output beyond 2014. use of available funds. RUS does not have a strict geographic scope to Specification (HLOS) for CP4, specifying the safety, consider but broadly covers the north of England. capacity and performance outputs that the This area has already been considered in other RUSs Government required the rail industry to deliver by and so has an established set of recommended 2014. Table 2.1 details the CP4 HLOS peak capacity interventions. This RUS reviews those interventions, requirements for urban centres in the north of Figure 2.1 – Railway in the north of England and relevant ones in the Freight and Network RUSs, England. In January 2008, the Department for in the light of demand forecasts over a longer time Transport (DfT) also published a Rolling Stock Plan frame and what has happened since the RUSs were that indicated the number of additional vehicles published. It only considers issues where there has likely to be available for meeting capacity growth been a change in circumstance since the original across the network. Newcastle recommendations were made. The RUS also contains a high-level 30-year strategy; something that a Carlisle number of the earlier RUSs did not have. Figure 2.1 shows broadly the railway in the north of England. Middlesbrough

Table 2.1 – CP4 HLOS peak capacity requirements for urban centres in the north of England

Morning peak three hours Morning high-peak hour Urban centre Forecast Extra Maximum Forecast Extra Maximum demand in demand to average demand in demand to average Barrow 2008/09 be met by load factor 2008/09 be met by load factor in Furness 2013/14 at end CP4 2013/14 at end CP4 York Leeds 23,400 5,100 64% 11,300 2,700 70% Blackpool Bradford Leeds Central Manchester 22,100 4,100 45% 10,700 2,200 49% Hull Preston Other urban areas (including Sheffield, Newcastle and Liverpool 27,700 3,600 41% 12,300 2,000 46% Manchester Doncaster (excluding Merseyrail Liverpool network)) Holyhead Sheffield

Chester Crewe

Derby Nottingham

Shrewsbury Norwich 18 19 Leicester Peterborough

Birmingham Coventry

Worcester Cambridge Fishguard Harbour Ipswich Felixstowe Colchester

Swansea

Swindon LONDON Southend Cardiff Reading Bristol Ramsgate

Ashford

Salisbury Southampton Hastings Exeter Brighton

Plymouth

Penzance 2. Scope and planning context Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

2.3.3 Purpose of the RUS l interventions planned in CP4 Network RUS: Electrification Strategy Hub and the improvements to rail services that would drive economic growth for the north of This RUS, along with the first generation of RUSs, l subsequent RUSs affecting some previous The Network RUS: Electrification Strategy looked England, described as conditional outputs. is designed to inform the next HLOS in 2012 by recommendations. at potential electrification schemes across the network, focusing on the benefits associated with Phase two, led by Network Rail, identified value for feeding into Network Rail’s Initial Strategic Business More information on these changes and how they reducing the ongoing cost to the country of the money interventions to address the gaps between Plan (ISBP), which will be published in summer have informed the gap identification process can railway and the environmental benefits associated the capability of the network in 2014 and the 2011, identifying outputs that Network Rail, in be found in Chapter 4. The recommendations with electrification. It then identified a core capability required to deliver the conditional outputs. consultation with its industry partners, thinks the made by the first generation RUSs that are not strategy and a series of further schemes based on Governments for England and Wales, and Scotland affected by the above remain valid and have not The recommended interventions provide many of these criteria. The outputs of the Electrification may consider buying in CP5, the interventions been re-examined by this RUS. They are detailed in the outputs the Northern Way identified, including Strategy were included in the review undertaken to necessary to achieve them and their costs. Appendix A. increased inter- and intra-regional connectivity, identify the gaps for this RUS. improved freight capacity and capability, journey This RUS also goes beyond current train operator 2.4.2 Network RUS franchises, and therefore aims to inform the next 2.4.3 East Coast Main Line 2016 times and performance. This work is now being round of franchising in the north of England. The Network RUS is split into four workstreams, two Capacity Review taken forward as The Northern Hub and more of which (Scenarios and Long Distance Services and information on both the study and The Northern 2.4 Links to other studies the Electrification Strategy) are already established. The East Coast Main Line RUS was established Hub can be found at www.networkrail.co.uk in April 2008. Network Rail are currently leading The Northern RUS cannot be considered in isolation Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance the industry in work on an addendum to the RUS 2.4.6 Merseyside Long-Term and fits within a wider context of transport Forecasts which examines the likely capacity requirements Planning Study planning and other studies and workstreams. of the route in 2016, which will then inform the The Network RUS: Scenarios & Long Distance The Merseyside RUS, which was established strategy for the East Coast Main Line for CP5 2.4.1 Established first generation RUSs Forecasts document considers passenger and in May 2009, identified a number of potential freight long distance demand over 30 years. The onwards. A report was published for consultation As mentioned above, the area covered by this RUS future problems of a magnitude that can only RUS provides four scenarios for demand, based on in August 2010 and the final document is expected has already been considered in a number of RUSs. be addressed through radical changes to the rail alternative economic and environmental futures, by the end of the year. It is expected that the final 1 They are: infrastructure and/or pattern of services on the DC Northern RUS will incorporate the East Coast Main two of which were used in forecasting long distance electrified network in Merseyside. The unique way l Freight RUS, established May 2007 Line 2016 Capacity Review work’s findings into the flows for the Northern RUS, more details of which in which rail services in Merseyside are franchised strategy for the north of England. l North West RUS, established July 2007 can be found in Chapter 3. has allowed the industry to work in partnership to seek solutions that make a major contribution to the l East Coast Main Line RUS, established Network RUS: Stations 2.4.4 West Coast Main Line RUS economy of the area, through a Long-Term Planning April 2008 The Network RUS: Stations document will look The West Coast Main Line RUS is currently in Study jointly led by , Merseyrail and at the passenger capacity of stations across the development and covers the core West Coast l Merseyside RUS, established May 2009 Network Rail. This study commenced in August national network. It will provide a prioritised shortlist Main Line route from London Euston to Carstairs, 2009, and is due to be completed this Autumn. l Yorkshire and Humber RUS, established of stations that require interventions, as agreed by Manchester and Liverpool and affects the north In light of this study, the Northern RUS has not September 2009 an industry working group, and describe a toolkit of England. The West Coast Main Line RUS will reviewed the parts of the Merseyside RUS that of solutions that can be adopted to solve a variety consider connectivity and capacity on the route and l Lancashire and Cumbria RUS, established cover the DC electrified network. October 2009 of capacity constraints at stations. Appendix B is due for publication as a Draft for Consultation discusses passenger capacity at stations across the in winter 2010. Any relevant recommendations 2.4.7 Network Rail route plans l Network RUS: Electrification Strategy, Northern RUS area. made by the West Coast Main Line RUS Draft for established December 2009 Network Rail publishes route plans annually. The Consultation will be taken into account in the final Network RUS: Rolling Stock and Depots route plans provide a description of the current l Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance Northern RUS. capability and use of each of the 17 strategic Forecasts established August 2009 The Network RUS: Rolling Stock and Depots routes, detailing information such as linespeeds, workstream will produce two documents. The 2.4.5 The Manchester Hub Study The recommendations in these RUSs have loading gauge, scheduled renewals, route Rolling Stock document will take a whole-industry In October 2007 the Minister of State for Transport, been re-examined in the light of subsequent availability and current performance. The plans approach to planning the interaction between new responding to work by the Northern Way, asked changes, including: also describe Network Rail’s vision for the future of or refurbished rolling stock and the infrastructure Network Rail to undertake a study to develop the route, and the strategy for achieving that vision. l new passenger demand forecasts covering the which it runs over. It will consider the appropriate proposals to enhance the capacity and functionality This largely reflects the output of the RUSs and period to 2024 rolling stock for each key market sector and where of the rail network in and around Manchester, funding made available for interventions through appropriate it will consider how the infrastructure referred to as the ‘Manchester Hub’. The Manchester l Strategic Freight Network (SFN) freight growth whatever mechanisms, and are developed with would require investment to enable appropriate Hub is seen as a major constraint to developing rail forecasts for 2019 and 2030 train operators and other stakeholders. Figure 2.2 rolling stock to operate. services across the north of England. l the Government’s announcement of shows the 17 strategic routes and the route plans The Depots document will provide guidelines on electrification of certain routes in the North West The study was undertaken in two phases. Phase are available at www.networkrail.co.uk future depot requirements. It will concentrate on one, led by the Northern Way, identified the l the tram-train trial being moved from the how the choice of depot location can influence economic case for enhancement to the Manchester Sheffield – Huddersfield route to that between capacity utilisation. Rotherham and Tinsley (and onto the local tram network in Sheffield)

1 The DC network is that in Merseyside which is electrified at 750V DC over which services are currently operated by Merseyrail.

20 21 Figure 2.2 Map – Network Rail’s 17 strategic routes Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

2.4.8 Strategic Freight Network (SFN) March 2010. The Command Paper sets out the case for a new core British high speed rail network. The SFN is a proposed network of core trunk The core strategy comprises a 335-mile core and diversionary freight routes, as agreed by an Y-shaped high speed rail network between London industry steering group, with sufficient capacity and and Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds capable of appropriate loading gauge to carry the expected carrying trains at speeds of up to 250mph. The growth of major flows of freight. Subject to Command Paper states that a London to West acceptable business cases, the core network would Midlands route would be the first stage of the new ultimately be expected to: high speed rail network. ● have sufficient capacity for growth with possibly The current Government has publicly stated that it a few high capacity lines is in favour of a new high speed line. However, it is ● have limited conflicts between passenger revisiting some aspects of the scheme, such as the and freight traffic by using avoiding lines and case for a link to High Speed One, and whether or grade separation not Heathrow should be served directly. ● provide for longer trains 2.4.10 Local Transport Plans ● provide for appropriate axle loads Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs), Integrated ● have appropriate loading gauge for the traffic Transport Authorities (ITAs) and local authorities that needs to use it with a responsibility for public transport produce Local Transport Plans (LTPs) which cover all modes ● include defined diversionary routes where of transport. These set out interventions that possible for each core route with the objective they fund themselves, how the transport needs of ensuring availability whenever operators wish of their areas are supported by schemes funded to use the network. by other parties and their vision for the future. Network Rail leads the SFN work and as part of its These are normally formulated in consultation with remit developed sets of forecasts for freight traffic rail industry members and rail schemes funded in 2019 and 2030 which were used when identifying through LTPs form part of the rail industry planning the gaps in this RUS. framework. The next set of LTPs are currently being prepared for April 2011. 2.4.9 New Lines Programme 2.4.11 Community Rail Partnerships In summer 2008 Network Rail commenced its New Lines Programme, examining the case for the There are several Community Rail Partnerships development of new high speed lines in the UK. The (CRPs) in the north of England covering various first phase of the New Lines Programme, which was lines and services throughout the RUS area. completed in August 2009, established the business CRPs are a link between the railway and local case for a new high speed line connecting the communities. They propose positive development, A Kent main conurbations between London and Glasgow/ bringing together a wide range of interests along B Sussex Edinburgh currently served by the West Coast Main the rail corridor. Some partnerships have enabled C Wessex Line. The second phase of the study examined the significant increases in the use of rail through D East Anglia case for a New Line to Leeds and the East Midlands innovative marketing, improved services and E North London Line and found that there was a case for such a line to better station facilities. The work of CRPs includes F Thameside be taken forward. improving bus links to stations, developing walking G East Coast Main Line and cycling routes, restoring station buildings, art The previous Government’s proposed strategy for H Cross-Pennine, Yorks & Humber and education projects and organising special High Speed Rail was established in a Command and North West events which promote the railway and its relevance Paper presented to Parliament and published in I London and East Midlands to the community. J London and West K West of England L Wales M and Chilterns N West Coast Main Line O Merseyside P Scotland East Q Scotland West

22 23 Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Table 3.1 – Drivers of demand

3. Forecast changes in demand PDFH exogenous demand drivers Source fares standard DfT assumptions Gross Value Added (GVA) per capita Oxford Economics Forecast Update for Passenger Demand Forecasting Council (PDFC) Members, December 2009 employment Oxford Economics Forecast Update for Passenger Demand Forecasting Council (PDFC) Members, December 2009 3.1 Passenger demand forecasts High and low growth scenarios have been produced. The high growth scenario – which for population TEMPRO2 3.1.1 Introduction short distance flows represents an improvement car ownership TEMPRO This chapter outlines the methodology and results from the traditional Passenger Demand Forecasting fuel cost standard DfT assumptions Handbook (PDFH) methodology – has been used of the Northern Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) car journey time standard DfT assumptions to identify gaps and formed the central case passenger demand forecasting process. The air cost standard DfT assumptions forecasts run to 2029, using 2014 as a reference for growth at the option appraisal stage. The air headway standard DfT assumptions case, and have informed the gap identification low growth forecast has been used to show a process and subsequent appraisal of options to comparison between the method taken forward bus cost standard DfT assumptions address these gaps. and the traditional PDFH method. bus journey time standard DfT assumptions bus headway standard DfT assumptions 3.1.2 Context of methodology 3.1.3 Short distance methodology LUL cost standard DfT assumptions Consultants were commissioned to develop a set Recent industry studies, including RUSs, have air cost standard DfT assumptions demonstrated that industry standard models of growth forecasts for short distance flows for tend to underpredict observed passenger growth the Northern RUS. This ensured consistency with Recent studies of rail growth in the north of GVA per capita in some of the main regional centres covered by the revised demand forecasts for phase 2 of the England have identified city-wide car parking cost the RUS area. This is particularly true of season Northern HLOS scheme, which seeks to understand GVA per capita is a measure of economic growth and the proportion of employment in office-based tickets, affecting the validity of peak demand the operator vehicle requirements in the North, and is related to demand for business and leisure sectors to explain peak growth to (and between) forecasts into the five major High Level Output which were produced on behalf of the Department trips. Figure 3.2 illustrates the forecast rate of the urban centres. This is significant for season Specification (HLOS)1 cities (Manchester, Sheffield, for Transport (DfT). growth in GVA per capita from 2009. GVA per ticket journeys where the difference between Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle). The challenge is This methodology was used for flows of less than capita is expected to decline in 2009, followed PDFH forecasts and recent observed growth is to understand the drivers of rail demand into these 50 miles. Two sets of forecasts have been produced. by a period of high growth representing recovery most pronounced. cities and project these drivers into the future. A low forecast, which has been developed using from 2010 to 2018 with steady growth from Population 2018 onwards. The UK was in a recession from the fourth quarter standard PDFH forecasting drivers and a high of 2008/09 until the third quarter of 2009/10 and forecast, which includes outputs from the DfT Figure 3.1 represents the forecast population the effect on future rail demand is still unclear. Northern HLOS growth study, specifically including growth rate from 2009 in the five major HLOS cities. However, the most recent data suggests that in additional demand drivers derived from regression analysis and back-casting to explain the gap many rail sectors demand continued to increase Figure 3.1 – Forecast population growth rate per annum in the five major Northern between observed and forecast growth in the north during the recession and demonstrates high growth HLOS cities of England evident since the early 2000s. in the post-recession recovery period. Leeds A forecast has been produced for every flow on the Drivers of demand Liverpool Leeds Manchester 2.0% network that contributes to demand within the RUS The high and low growth scenarios use the same Liverpool area. Two methods have been used: one for long set of demand drivers listed in Table 3.1. Newcastle Manchester distance flows and one for short distance flows. Newcastle Sheffield 1.5% The impact of committed service improvements on Sheeld demand has been estimated and included in the forecasts to the end of Control Period 4 (CP4). 1.0%

0.5% Population growth per annum growth Population

0.0% 2009 2014 2019 2024 Year

1 The Department for Transport’s High Level Output Specification, which specifies the rail industry outputs that need to be delivered within a control period. 2 TEMPRO is the DfT’s demographic forecasting data. 24 25 3. Forecast changes in demand Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Employment Structural change change) over Control Period 5 (CP5) and Control over one. It is likely that this relationship is masking Period 6 (CP6) based upon the above achieved rates structural change in the city centres and is acting Employment is related to demand for commuting Table 3.2 demonstrates that there has been a shift of 2009 structural change and an upper limit that as a proxy for wider changes, such as restrictions on trips. Figure 3.3 illustrates the forecast rate of towards office-based sectors, with the exception of represents a saturation point. long-stay parking supply and increased density of annual growth in employment from 2009 in the Newcastle (derived from Annual Business Inquiry office-based employment. five major HLOS cities. Employment is expected to data). Table 3.3 shows the assumed forecast Car parking decline from 2009 to 2010/11 with a period of high growth in structural change. For the high forecasts Table 3.4 shows the forecast annual real increase in Car parking data has been obtained for Leeds, growth representing recovery from 2012 to 2018, the recently observed rates of structural change are car parking costs in the five major HLOS cities of the Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield which shows with steady growth from 2018 onwards. assumed to continue during CP4 in all urban areas, north. For the high forecasts it has been predicted that there have been large sustained real increases and then reduce to PDFH (ie. no further structural that car parking costs rise at an average RPI+3% in car parking costs in recent years, with smoothed for CP4 in all urban areas, then decrease to PDFH real growth rates of 5-6 per cent per annum (ie. no real increase in costs) over CP5 & CP6 based observed in Manchester and Leeds. upon rates of structural change to 2009. As Table For the season ticket market, regression analysis shows, the decrease would begin earliest with Figure 3.2 – Forecast rate of GVA per capita growth per annum in the five major 3.4 suggests that real changes in car parking costs Northern HLOS cities Leeds, followed by Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool have a statistically significant relationship with Leeds and Newcastle, reflecting rates of structural change rail passenger growth, with an elasticity value just already achieved. Liverpool Manchester 3% Leeds Liverpool Newcastle 2% Manchester Sheffield 1% Newcastle She eld Table 3.2 – Structural change (percentage of city centre workers employed in 0% office-based employment) -1% City 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 -2% -3% Leeds 64.57% 66.40% 68.23% 68.47% 72.97% 75.67% 75.55% 77.37% 60.46% 61.25% 62.03% 63.35% 67.50% 64.37% 65.17% 65.96% -4% Liverpool Manchester 56.06% 58.47% 60.89% 62.75% 63.80% 70.09% 70.55% 72.96% -5%

GVA per capita growth per annum growth per capita GVA Newcastle 62.71% 61.78% 60.86% 56.95% 58.82% 58.46% 57.15% 56.22% -6% 2009 2014 2019 2024 Sheffield 65.05% 65.89% 66.73% 67.40% 68.18% 68.87% 70.09% 70.92% Year

Table 3.3 – Forecast annual percentage increase in structural change

City 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Figure 3.3 – Forecast rate of growth in employment per annum in the five major Northern HLOS cities Leeds 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Leeds Liverpool 0.8% 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Liverpool Manchester 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Manchester 1.5% Leeds Liverpool Newcastle 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Newcastle 1.0% Manchester Sheffield 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Sheffield 0.5% Newcastle 0.0% She eld -0.5% -1.0% Table 3.4 – Forecast real car parking cost increases -1.5% City 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 -2.0% Leeds 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -2.5% Liverpool 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%

Employment growth per annum growth Employment -3.0% Manchester 3.0% 2.6% 2.2% 1.8% 1.5% 1.1% 0.7% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% -3.5% 2009 2014 2019 2024 Newcastle 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0% Year Sheffield 3.0% 2.7% 2.4% 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.1% 0.8% 0.5% 0.2% 0.0%

26 27 3. Forecast changes in demand Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

3.1.4 Long distance methodology 3.1.6 Summary of results Figure 3.4 – Drivers of long distance demand by scenario The Network RUS: Scenarios and Long Distance The forecasts by flow can be aggregated in many Forecasts document was used to forecast demand different ways. Where appropriate, flows have been Sustainable agenda on flows with a straight line distance of over 50 aggregated to produce forecasts at a route and • Relatively high economic growth miles. Chapters 7 and 8 of the document describe service level to identify gaps. Similar aggregations • Moderate increase in UK energy prices the demand drivers and the methodology in of flows have been used to produce forecasts at the • High technological innovation and intervention detail. Figure 3.4 outlines the demand drivers of option appraisal stages of the RUS. The following • Migration is managed to acceptable levels • Distance from market becomes a significant the two chosen scenarios. One (top left) reflects tables and graphs give a summary of the forecasts. factor in business decisions an optimistic high growth scenario that assumes Table 3.5 shows forecast growth in peak demand • Social equality and opportunities drive rail’s competitive position improves and its market government policy into the five HLOS cities on all services. share increases. The other (bottom right) represents • Industry regionalises with continued importance of London. a pessimistic scenario where rail’s competitive Forecasts on local services position stays roughly the same as now and growth Figure 3.5 and Table 3.6 show expected growth is driven by relatively modest changes in the drivers in demand into the five HLOS cities on local of the size of the long distance travel market. services (services currently run by Global player Decentralisation have been used as a proxy for local services). The Market share and market size were estimated • Modest economic growth separately and the key drivers of passenger demand blue spectrum lines show growth defined by the low • Significant increase in energy price were categorised according to whether they impact scenario, the red/yellow lines show growth defined by • Technological innovation hampered by upon market size, market share or both. the high scenario. lack of international cooperation • Moderate inward migration To estimate the future size of the long distance The effect of the recession is taken as a four to five • Improved quality of life market the population of Great Britain was per cent decrease in GVA per capita in 2009/10, • Limited regionalisation of cities with ties to London as the major conurbation segmented by geographical area, household very low growth in 2010/11 and slightly higher than structure and income band. Then analysis of the average growth in 2011-2014 to reflect recovery, Unabated consumption National Travel Survey (NTS) was undertaken to with corresponding figures for employment over relate drivers of market size to the propensity to this period. Therefore, the steepness of both curves undertake long distance trips by market segment. is less in CP4 than in CP5. Growth in CP5 is highest as estimated economic growth is strong and the To estimate the share of the long distance market structural shift drivers that affect the high growth Table 3.5 – Forecast increase in peak passenger demand into the five Northern HLOS cities traveling by rail, the generalised cost of each mode scenario will have only just begun to reduce. This on all services was derived from demand drivers that affect market reduction ends by around 2024, when annual share. The results were used to allocate changes in Growth – 2014 Growth – 2019 Growth – 2024 Growth – 2029 growth decreases to that of the low scenario. The market share according to changes in the relative uplift of demand from a PDFH base is highest in the Leeds – low 7% 16% 25% 36% generalised cost of travelling by each mode. season ticket market as a result of structural shift. Liverpool – low 5% 17% 28% 42% 3.1.5 Service improvements in CP4 Therefore, growth will be high in markets where Manchester – low 7% 17% 25% 37% the proportion of season ticket demand is high Newcastle – low 12% 19% 26% 34% MOIRA (the industry standard demand modelling compared to demand for all tickets. Differences in tool) was used to estimate the effect of committed Sheffield – low 5% 14% 23% 33% passenger growth are also explained by economic service improvements in CP4 on demand including: Leeds – high 20% 42% 53% 68% growth, employment and population growth in the Liverpool – high 13% 32% 46% 63% l The East Coast Main Line 2011 timetable catchment areas of the five cities. Manchester – high 21% 44% 57% 72% l Leeds to Liverpool line speed improvements Newcastle – high 21% 37% 49% 62% 3 l Northern Rail operational plan Sheffield – high 15% 35% 48% 62% l Network Rail’s committed performance trajectory for CP4. The impact of committed service improvements at an aggregate level is relatively small.

3 The Northern Rail operational plan refers to peak service frequency improvements to provide additional capacity

28 29 3. Forecast changes in demand Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Figure 3.5 – Forecast increase in all-day passenger demand into the five HLOS cities Figure 3.6 – Forecast increase in peak passenger demand into the five HLOS cities on local services on local services Leeds – low Leeds – low Liverpool – low Liverpool – low Leeds – Low Manchester – low 180% Manchester – low Leeds – low Liverpool – Low 180% Liverpool – low Newcastle – low 170% Manchester – Low Newcastle – low 170% Manchester – low Newcastle – Low Sheffield – low Sheffield – low Newcastle – low 160% Sheeld – Low 160% She eld – low Leeds – high Leeds – High Leeds – high 150% Leeds – high Liverpool – High 150% Liverpool – high Liverpool – high Liverpool – high Manchester – High Manchester – high 140% Manchester – high Manchester – high Newcastle – High 140% Newcastle – high Newcastle – high Sheeld – High Newcastle – high 130% 130% She eld – high Sheffield – high Sheffield – high

Index of passenger 120%

Index of passenger 120% growth (base = 2008/9) growth growth (base = 2008/9) growth 110% 110% 100% 100% 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 Year Year

Table 3.6 – Forecast increase in all-day passenger demand into the five HLOS cities Table 3.7 – Forecast increase in peak passenger demand into the five HLOS cities on on local services local services

Growth – 2014 Growth – 2019 Growth – 2024 Growth – 2029 Growth – 2014 Growth – 2019 Growth – 2024 Growth – 2029

Leeds – low 8% 20% 31% 46% Leeds – low 7% 17% 26% 38% Liverpool – low 8% 20% 31% 46% Liverpool – low 7% 18% 29% 43% Manchester – low 7% 18% 28% 41% Manchester – low 5% 15% 23% 34% Newcastle – low 8% 17% 26% 37% Newcastle – low 7% 15% 23% 33% Sheffield – low 5% 15% 24% 35% Sheffield – low 4% 13% 20% 30% Leeds – high 17% 36% 49% 66% Leeds – high 21% 44% 56% 71% Liverpool – high 11% 27% 40% 56% Liverpool – high 16% 37% 52% 68% Manchester – high 14% 31% 44% 58% Manchester – high 20% 44% 56% 71% Newcastle – high 13% 27% 39% 53% Newcastle – high 17% 34% 47% 60% Sheffield – high 12% 29% 41% 54% Sheffield – high 17% 38% 51% 64%

Figure 3.6 and Table 3.7 show expected peak l morning peak growth into Sheffield was forecast growth into the five HLOS city stations on local as 3.9 per cent per annum in the Yorkshire and services. The proportion of season tickets is higher Humber RUS to 2019. Peak growth into Sheffield in the peak, therefore structural change has a larger in this RUS is forecast to grow by 38 per cent by effect on growth in the high scenario. The peak 2019, which equates to a CAGR of 3.3 per cent high scenario forecasts are comparable to forecasts to 2019 in the high scenario. The difference can produced in the Yorkshire and Humber and North be explained by the affect of the recession. West RUSs: l morning peak growth into Manchester was l morning peak growth into Leeds was forecast forecast as 3.4% per annum in the North West as 3.7 per cent per annum in the Yorkshire and RUS to 2019. Peak growth into Manchester in Humber RUS to 2019. Peak growth into Leeds this RUS is forecast to grow by 44% to 2019, in this RUS is forecast to grow by 44 per cent which equates to a CAGR of 3.7% to 2019 in to 2019, which equates to a Compound Annual the high scenario. Growth Rate (CAGR) of 3.7 per cent to 2019 in l there are no easily comparable forecasts for the high scenario. Liverpool and Newcastle from previous RUSs.

30 31 3. Forecast changes in demand Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Interurban forecasts Figure 3.8 shows expected growth to 2029 in the population and other drivers. For the long distance high scenario for flows between the five major HLOS flows, the expected growth is related to the Figure 3.7 and Table 3.8 show forecast growth city stations. Leeds to Manchester, Manchester estimated gain in rail market share. The difference in all-day demand on a selection of interurban to Liverpool, Manchester to Sheffield and Leeds between the high and low scenarios tends to corridors. The corridors are defined as follows: to Sheffield have been assessed using the short be smaller for flows where the short distance distance flows methodology and the expected methodology has been used; this shows that the Reading/ to Edinburgh/Glasgow/Newcastle services and also Manchester to Birmingham and the South A services currently run by CrossCountry growth is related to the size of the season ticket forecast passenger growth is relatively high even market as well as economic growth, employment, when using the standard PDFH methodology. Services currently run by East Coast between London King’s Cross, Doncaster, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh and B Glasgow Newcastle, Scarborough, York and Hull to Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool Lime Street services currently run Table 3.8 – Forecast increase in all-day passenger demand on a defined set of C by TransPennine Express interurban corridors Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport and Norwich to Liverpool services currently run by TransPennine Express and D Growth – 2014 Growth – 2019 Growth – 2024 Growth – 2029 respectively A – low 11% 18% 25% 33% Manchester Airport to Blackpool North, Barrow, Windermere and Preston services, currently run by TransPennine E B – low 12% 19% 25% 33% Express C – low 11% 18% 25% 32% F Manchester Piccadilly, to Llandudno services currently run by Arriva Trains Wales D – low 10% 19% 26% 35% G Manchester Airport to Glasgow and Edinburgh services currently run by TransPennine Express E – low 11% 20% 28% 38% F – low 8% 16% 23% 31% G – low 11% 20% 27% 36% The forecasts are generally aggregations of flows The difference between the high and low scenarios A – high 17% 28% 40% 51% estimated using the long distance methodology. is related to the change in market share assumed B – high 17% 27% 37% 46% However, in some instances where the straight line in the top left scenario. Therefore, a large C – high 18% 30% 39% 47% distance between the origin and destination pair is difference between the high and low scenarios D – high 16% 28% 40% 51% less than 50 miles, the short distance methodology implies a relatively large mode shift to rail in the E – high 16% 28% 39% 49% has been used; for example Leeds to Manchester, high scenario. 14% 25% 34% 43% Sheffield to Manchester, Liverpool to Manchester F – high Figure 3.7 includes historic growth data for the and Sheffield to Leeds. G – high 18% 32% 45% 58% period 1999/2000 to 2007/08 for comparison.

Figure 3.7 – Forecast increase in all-day passenger demand on a defined set of Figure 3.8 – Forecast increase in all-day passenger demand between the five HLOS interurban corridors cities by 2029 A – low B – low Newcastle High scenario (H) – 43% A – low C – low 160% Low scenario (L) – 22% B – low D – low 150% C – low H – 50% E – low 140% D – low L – 28% E – low F – high 130% F – low H – 46% L – 31% G – high 120% G – low Leeds A – high 110% A – high B – high B – high 100% C – high H – 54% Liverpool H – 63% H – 63% L – 27% C – high D – high H – 65%

(base = 2008/09) 90% L – 56% L – 52% L – 22% D – high 80% E – high F – high Index of passenger growth Index of passenger growth E – high 70% G – high Manchester H – 46% F – high 60% L – 37% H – 50% G – high 1999 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 L – 41% H – 39% Year L – 25% Sheeld

32 33 3. Forecast changes in demand Figure 3.10 – SFN aspirations Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Thurso and the Haven Ports to the East Coast Main Line 3.2 Forecast freight demand Wick (which includes W9) in CP4 will further assist the Freight demand forecasts were developed competitive nature of rail in this market. Domestic nationally to 2019 and 2030 for the Strategic non-bulk is forecast to grow most rapidly, but this Freight Network (SFN). The forecasts were is from a low base. This will mean a significant developed, as reported in the Network RUS: increase in traffic to freight handling facilities. Scenarios and Long Distance Forecast, using the Inverness The bulk sector is forecast to grow, albeit at a Great Britain Freight Model (GBFM) to assess the Kyle of Lochalsh slower rate than the non-bulk sector. The demand 59 aggregate level of demand. The GBFM is designed Aberdeen 60 Mallaig to forecast freight moved within Great Britain, for coal traffic from Hunterston to the power

stations in England is forecast to decrease as the Fort including freight to and from the ports and the William Channel Tunnel. It covers different modes such as amount of coal imported through Immingham increases. Therefore, coal traffic to the Drax, rail and road and produces a matrix of all forecast Oban Dundee Perth freight flows. This provides a ‘top down’ view based Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations from Stirling on economic modelling. the port of Immingham is forecast to grow. Other bulk commodities, such as metal, aggregates, scrap Glasgow In common with the method adopted in the and chemicals are forecast to increase. The future Edinburgh Berwick upon Tweed Freight RUS, this perspective was complemented Carstairs of the UK energy policy and carbon emission levels Kilmarnock by a ‘bottom up’ view of the markets provided will affect the demand for coal in the medium term. Ayr by a review of the forecasts by the industry. The forecasts have made assumptions about the The forecast change in demand by commodity use of alternative fuels such as biomass. Newcastle type is shown in Table 3.9. Stranraer Sunderland The forecasts were made from a pre-recession base. Carlisle

The changes in origin to destination freight However, it is reasonable to assume that following a Workington Middlesbrough demand were mapped across the network. Whitehaven Darlington period of relatively static growth, freight will return Whitby Windermere

to, or exceed previously attained levels of traffic. The majority of the increase in demand is forecast Scarborough to occur in the non-bulk sector. Deep sea container Figure 3.10 shows the SFN gauge clearance Barrow Morecambe Lancaster growth is forecast to continue. The completion York aspirations. Figure 3.11 shows the forecast daily Skipton of the W10 gauge clearance schemes between Blackpool Bradford Leeds freight paths in each direction in 2030. Blackburn Hull Preston Southampton and the West Coast Main Line, Huddersfield Wigan Immingham Doncaster Liverpool Manchester Llandudno Sheffield Holyhead Warrington

Retford Lincoln Bangor Chesterfield Chester Skegness Wrexham Crewe Newark Boston Table 3.9 – Forecast change in freight demand by commodity to 2030 Blaenau Stoke on Trent Cromer Ffestiniog Derby Nottingham Grantham Pwllheli Kings Lynn Stafford Million tonnes Billion tonne km Shrewsbury Norwich Gt Yarmouth Leicester Peterborough Wolverhampton Average Average Nuneaton Lowestoft Aberystwyth Birmingham Rugby Ely 2006 2030 annual 2006 2030 annual Coventry Huntingdon growth growth Worcester Leamington Northampton Cambridge 41 Fishguard Harbour Bedford Solid fuels 51 41 -1% 8 5 -2% Hereford Banbury Milton Ipswich Keynes Colchester Felixstowe Carmarthen Gloucester Stevenage Harwich Construction 21 32 2% 4 5 1% Aylesbury Cheltenham Oxford Chelmsford Swansea Milford Didcot Newport Metals + ore 18 19 0% 3 3 0% Haven Swindon LONDON Southend Cardiff Ports non-bulk 12 50 6% 4 17 6% Bath Reading Bristol Ramsgate Basingstoke Maidstone Westbury Domestic non-bulk 2 25 11% 1 12 11% Guildford Redhill Ashford Tonbridge Barnstaple Dover Taunton Other 12 12 1% 3 3 1% Salisbury Southampton Total 116 179 2% 23 45 3% Hastings Brighton Eastbourne Exeter

Weymouth Plymouth Paignton

Truro

Penzance 46

Gauge cleared to at least W10: Planned end CP4 SFN routes which are also core routes from the Network RUS: Electrification Strategy Gauge cleared to at least W10: planned end CP4 Designated in SFN to become W9/W10/W12 Electrification core and commited routes on SFN Other SFN routes Designated in SFN to become W9/W10/W12 Core and diversionary routes

34 35 Figure 3.11 – Forecast daily freight paths each direction in 2030 Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010 4. Gaps and options

Inverness

Aberdeen 4.1 Introduction Each first generation gap can be broadly categorised as follows: Fort As described in Chapter 2, the Northern Route William Utilisation Strategy (RUS) is a second generation 1. gap that will have been addressed by the end of RUS and therefore the geography it covers has CP4 (the baseline for this RUS) and so is ‘closed’ Dundee Perth already been the subject of previous RUSs and has 2. gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4 Stirling Longannet an established set of recommended interventions. but for which the previous RUS recommendation Glasgow is still appropriate Edinburgh The Northern RUS strategic gaps have been Hunterston Berwick upon Tweed identified by reviewing the first generation of RUSs Carstairs 3. gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4 Kilmarnock that cover the north of England. Specifically, these but for which the intervention needs reviewing Ayr are the East Coast Main Line (ECML) RUS (between due to more recent changes Peterborough and the Scottish Border), Yorkshire 4. gap that has changed sufficiently that Newcastle and Humber RUS, Lancashire and Cumbria RUS, Stranraer the previous intervention may not be 71 Sunderland Network RUS: Electrification Strategy, Freight Carlisle entirely appropriate. Workington RUS, North West RUS, and Merseyside RUS Middlesbrough where appropriate1. Categories 3 and 4 are those that have shaped Shap most of the Northern RUS gaps and the vast These have been reviewed in the light of funded majority of ‘first generation’ gaps fall into Barrow interventions for Control Period 4 (CP4) and Control Morecambe Lancaster category 2. Appendix A details each of the Period 5 (CP5), including the Secretary of State York Leeds recommendations from the first generation of RUSs Bradford Drax Hull for Transport’s announcement in 2009 of the Preston and how they have been categorised. electrification of a number of routes in the North Wigan Immingham Doncaster Liverpool Manchester West, along with the passenger growth forecasts Medium-term capacity requirements for the Sheffield Holyhead Warrington to 2024 and the agreed Strategic Freight Network ECML from Peterborough to the Scottish Border Chester Crewe (SFN) forecasts for 2019 and 2030. Account has have not been examined by this RUS as they are Boston

Derby Nottingham also been taken of any RUS recommendations that being considered by the East Coast Main Line

Kings Lynn Stafford change those published in earlier RUSs. 2016 Capacity Review (see paragraph 2.4.3). Shrewsbury Norwich Leicester Peterborough Wolverhampton Nuneaton Birmingham Rugby Ely Coventry

Worcester Northampton Cambridge Ipswich Colchester Felixstowe Gloucester Harwich

Swansea Milford Didcot Newport Haven Thames Haven Swindon LONDON Cardiff Reading Grain Bristol Maidstone Westbury Merehead Redhill Ashford Tonbridge Channel Tunnel Salisbury Southampton Hastings 51 Brighton Exeter

Plymouth

Up to and including 5 Penzance Above 5 and up to 20 (inclusive) Above 20 and up to 40 (inclusive) Above 40 and up to 80 (inclusive) Above 80

1 The Northern RUS only reviewed the non-DC lines recommendations in the Merseyside RUS, as those for the DC lines are being taken forward via the Merseyside Long Term Planning Study (see 2.4.6) The DC lines are those in Merseyside electrified at 750V DC over which services currently operated by Merseyrail run.

36 37 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

However, it is anticipated that the outputs, where 4.2 Crowding analysis and 4.3 Analysis of gaps and electrification announcement and so services on appropriate, will be incorporated into the final option appraisal option appraisal this corridor will continue to be comprised of Diesel version of this RUS. Multiple Unit (DMU) rolling stock. Passenger demand data has been collated from This process led to the following gaps being Gap 1: Peak crowding on routes The services on these routes into Manchester have on-train counts provided by several train operators. identified for examination by the Northern RUS: affected by electrification of been split into six categories for consideration: The crowding analysis has been undertaken using additional routes in the North West Gap 1 – Peak crowding on routes affected by the mean of these counts and, where possible, the l services currently run by Arriva Trains Wales the electrification of additional routes in the 75th percentile of counts has been calculated to In 2009, the Secretary of State for Transport (ATW) into Manchester Piccadilly on the Chat North West. demonstrate the variability of demand on the same announced the electrification of the routes in the Moss route including the following morning service on different days. The 75th percentile is North West, commonly known as the Lancashire high-peak hour services: Gap 2 – Accommodating peak services into the the point at which 75 per cent of observations are Triangle, to be completed in phases in CP4 and Manchester Piccadilly station area. – Llandudno to Manchester Piccadilly (three- below that figure. CP5. This comprises the routes from Liverpool to car DMU) Gap 3 – Peak and off-peak crowding on the Leeds Manchester Victoria via Earlestown (the Chat Moss The gap between capacity and demand has been – Manchester route taking into account journey Route), Huyton to Wigan via St.Helens Central, – Chester to Manchester Piccadilly (three- assessed assuming that passenger loads above time improvements. Manchester to Preston via Bolton, and Preston car DMU) seated capacity is unacceptable for passenger to Blackpool. Figure 4.1 shows the routes to Gap 4 – Peak and off-peak crowding between journeys, of more than approximately 20 minutes. l services currently run by Northern Rail through be electrified. Sheffield and Manchester. This is consistent with Department for Transport Manchester Piccadilly on the Chat Moss route The electrification of these routes will result in including the following morning high-peak Gap 5 – Peak crowding on the Retford and (DfT) policy. a new allocation of Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) hour service: Penistone lines, and additional calls at Elsecar. When appraising options, the costs and benefits to rolling stock to the area which is able to accelerate the industry and society are taken into account: – Liverpool to Manchester Airport (currently a Gap 6 – Insufficient freight capacity on the faster and have different capacity characteristics to two-car DMU but assumed to become a four- Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor. l capital costs are those associated diesel counterparts. For the purposes of analysing car EMU following electrification) Gap 7 – Peak crowding on the Ilkley, Skipton and with infrastructure this gap it has been assumed that these are four- car EMUs, as this is the predominant formation of l services currently run by Northern Rail via Wakefield Westgate corridors into Leeds. l operating costs are those associated with AC electric units. This presents an opportunity to Manchester Victoria from the Chat Moss route employment of drivers and guards to run Gap 8 – Accommodating peak services into consider demand and capacity on services that run including the following morning high-peak hour additional services, the leasing costs of extra Leeds station. on the Bolton, Atherton, Chat Moss and services: rolling stock, and the mileage-related costs Lines Committee (CLC) routes into Manchester Gap 9 – Strategic connectivity across the north associated with rolling stock maintenance, track – Liverpool to Manchester Victoria (currently a and Liverpool. This analysis considers the optimal of England. access and fuel/electric current for traction two-car DMU but assumed to become a four- service proposition following the completion of the This chapter details each of these gaps and the car EMU following electrification) l rail user benefits quantify the change in utility electrification schemes. The analysis has focussed options and recommendations developed to to passengers as a result of an improved or on the morning high-peak hour, which is defined as – Liverpool to Huddersfield (currently a two- address them. worsened service trains arriving at Manchester Victoria, Manchester car DMU but assumed to become a four-car EMU and terminate at Manchester Victoria Peak services are those arriving at the following l crowding benefits are the rail user benefits Oxford Road or Liverpool Lime Street between following electrification) stations between 07:00 and 09:59 Monday to associated with reduced load factors 08:00 and 08:59. Friday and departing between 16:00 and 18:59: l services currently run by Northern Rail into l revenue is accrued through attracting more Demand and capacity on the CLC Manchester Oxford Road on the CLC route l Leeds passengers to rail services and Chat Moss routes into Liverpool including the following morning high-peak l Liverpool Lime Street (high level platforms) l non-user benefits are accrued by the and Manchester hour services: abstraction of vehicles from the roads reducing l Manchester Oxford Road (eastbound in Figure 4.2 shows the Chat Moss and CLC routes – Liverpool to Manchester Oxford Road congestion, environmental impacts and road morning peak and westbound evening peak) between Liverpool and Manchester. The Chat (four-car DMU) maintenance costs Moss refers to the line of route from Liverpool l Manchester Piccadilly (westbound in morning – Warrington to Manchester Oxford Road l other government impacts are the expected Lime Street through Wavertree Technology Park, peak and eastbound in evening peak) (two-car DMU) loss in tax duty related to reduced car miles Whiston, Earlestown and Eccles, and allows access l Manchester Victoria to Manchester Victoria, Manchester Piccadilly and l services currently run by TransPennine Express l options that require operational expenditure l Newcastle Manchester Oxford Road. Services on this route (TPE) through Manchester Piccadilly from the only are generally assessed over a 30- include trains between Liverpool Lime Street and CLC route, including the following morning high- l Sheffield. year appraisal period and a Benefit Cost Manchester and beyond, trains from Chester and peak hour service: Ratio (BCR) of more than 1.5 is required The high peak hour is 08:00 to 08:59 in the morning North Wales to Manchester Piccadilly, and services for recommendation – Liverpool to Scarborough (six-car DMU) peak and 17:00 to 17:59 in the evening peak. from Preston, Wigan North Western and St Helens l options that require infrastructure expenditure Central into Liverpool Lime Street. l services currently run by East Midlands Trains are assessed over an appraisal period pertinent through Manchester Piccadilly from the CLC The CLC refers to the route from Liverpool Lime to the asset life of the infrastructure (usually 60 route, including the following morning high- Street through Mossley Hill, Warrington Central, years) and a BCR of more than two is required peak hour service: Trafford Park and into Manchester Oxford Road for recommendation. and Manchester Piccadilly and is not included in the – Liverpool to Norwich (four-car DMU).

38 39 Figure 4.1 – current and planned 25kv AC electrification in the North West Figure 4.2 – routes used by CLC andNorthern Chat Moss Route passenger Utilisation Strategy services Draft for Consultation October 2010 Routes used by CLC and Chat Moss To Preston/Blackpool

d passenger services g n Elendus ut vendita nem rem et quam, everfer i quundae eri beribustibus as destem repudamus. Other routes Hadfiel Glosso p Dint Wigan North Western WCML

citiuntur res veleceatem. Et esti sit quam, simus g ns m in

o Ibusaepta sinverat landam reri comnihici Jc t Springs Branch Jn Dint

rae plis des as earupta quidelest vellite rerum bearuntur? Quiae porerrum faccum re vollupt Bryn Golborne Jn y e oadbot voloremposti ium nos velecti tem quam eatque l Garswood Bamfurlong Patricroft Eccles rs Br Jn Deansgate

e atibusa vel ma si comnisit ommoluptur, expliqu St Helens nos aut ea di cum fuga. Ad everis doluptamStalybridg Manchester ey Hatt Central l idebit fuga. Nam ventiorendit maximpo rendit Parkside Jn Oxford Road s ield f s l audigende autas videndam facilo ipsam accusapiet Newton-le-Willows Jn n ra M e Godley Thatto Heath Manchester

reen exceri doluptati vendaec esenet, ut aut unduntem Jc th d r rf G Piccadilly y rero quae eum fugiate nobis asperorio to qui cus n c Hy y ha Newton-le-Willows No Cent J

Marple Eccleston Park e l e

apic tem. Nam, suntemqueRose Hill nonsequam fugitibus, i e or

y St Helens odle e W Newton f n Trafford Park m y pl d

re si amusam, que ditatus que elitia sed mint r L Seaforth Junction Earlestown iley om el Wo Hyde d Hy Prescot Humphrey Park To Manchester Airport Ro R autem id quist elestioreMa iligene custium fuga. Ut aut ower Fi /Sheffield Fl Huyton Jn alit omnis ut lis qui doloreh entiumder- delia perrum Rainhill Winwick Jn

e Urmston n

e and beyond le Jc n yd etur resequos quaereria volescia con et omnis de Huyton st H

rp Chassen Road s n Whiston Lea Green Wa Centra l a fugiae venduci enimolu ptatene catusant qui aut c y New Mills ne r M Buxton n J laborio rehentum et volent. Roby Flixton GM

ri Liverpool o t nnington i hton-uAs bu n St r y

optatiumque sundunt ea velitat officia dellique e

d Lime Street Guid e Broad Green Bridge

B Irlam D e n s y ills dbur Br

M Wavertree Technology Park

Aquiae estio re blat. Isiment prat fuga. Hendis dem h J c Glazebrook Denton

etur? ld B h inle ut t

e Edge Hill Hole

ew Bootle Branch Jn i WCML h N So

rf Edge Hill East Jn C i Birchwood ve s os voluptis natiumque enimoluptam, alitaes-Fri ini cus a Mossley Hill n M h J cn od F le o rt - Do o n

Ur, sum volorru ptatur molorro volorupta nam idge Padgate rt o n West Allerton w No ry s le o h h coreptae comnihit officid et od Br quide consequid que st n e -e s l bu i e G rt As ht Va Jc

h Warrington Cental h Jc n Ea s v d s

repra sum voloritatur rerores dolupic ientemp s dd ill d r

ut Liverpool South Parkway A wn st n

w Sankey No y s ro aley c Hough

e Hunts o

l nisquas re, sincta nonet utem. Et eum fuga. Ed et in J Mi h G ro oo We u Allerton West Jn Re So ne e s l g ld l r Chapel i Green w M Cross Wh m u oraecus, officiis assequunt por aut eossunt, et di ys e s d r B s h Fo Ba V ze e d Fu Newt lips Ne i ut nulpa des parcitatur? Quis am estem facipid maio n Jc n port e ap

h k ar Warrington Bank Quay l od Ashburys c h e

l Hunts Cross n Ha h P P So J s o Re Halewood Widnes e quamus dolupti dempore sin evendi andit moditetAs hbur rr is C Ryde West Jn dg hulm Be W e ri s No et harumn ario. Cere videstrumque pe dent. k y J cn hburyAs n c Dave n i n y on e

eaqui nihicidy B errum, volent, con cus magnam is n l

Jc n To Chester and v to d gele cn h il eato dw n J el it ry North Wales Hulm e Rochdal i Heat Stockpor t Ed y H sk P ar Le Routes used by CLC and Chat Moss passenger services e f Cheadl amhall d st Ar r' w lingto s H Littleboroug Cus poratiam re debis quodica borersp editas cus el r ilip n aut odis dolo estoriatur sum qui consed molores estbur Po Sm ll fi Br es re We r do l / y e te B to Ph

Ad Other routes c n a P rri e s Mi ts e c Castleto de k ac c r tl as Jc n a andforth an Co ac y l

ium veligenim rerum exceaque volorep ratempogl ailw L C r k J he r ' du

sequae non nesequam explibu sdandanis explia S H e s T n c M i ur osto n ro s R nc P u or ad c t n M Co sb d tley n C s deth d Ar dw remperis ex eliquia nis dio corerumqui ipsam, al d a s ee Oxford Road Ma dolorep eritaqui dit, quia nonsequibusng quate e e La Ro n ti el le t G Ea Di g Stoke-on-Trent He Gr Jc ns fi dsgrov rd at Jc n derley Mi le Piccadilly as Pl Ki Jc E Maul Al Ed st l n

sequernag que pos autenim et, culles id que dolupit aut Longport te Victoria Mancheste sus mo earum fuga. Vidi rehendi piento ent qui Mancheste en Ca d ya as Bu Chapel d en Chelfo al St l Jc n Gree th

tr explabori volupta nossi doluptam et vidunt. MW al

volupta cumendipis dolupitibus di omnit quae es h t or n e ne lfor n cn e a ds N Goostrey s J r to &G L re Wilmslow Sa Ce O Br idge eald Hope ng St n ti dbac

nusandi cillest quam quid utecae nis dolore mo Holm H Figure 4.3 – demand and capacity on the Chat Moss and CLC routes into Manchester e n rm inal t Laut as dus.ar Ipit unt ipsam, nulpa a quatus enihillis r s e r P s e o T Airpor t ' nk s Crewe so Sa n cn dg Wa Li Sy dney Deansgat J ri nd to

del ipsaperore poresediae et, culparunt,nd eseque in 2024 by service group in the morning high-peak hour i Road B e n l magnis enturestium est voloribus audi derro tem W GM Wi d ' rk Manchester to n d Navigatio s e Pa Salford P an estiorro odiam fugitad volorione voluptat offictisto on m Demand 2024 – rk s t o

Crescent que nos modis entur, cum core pa dolum apis imus o rk Ur d ross W 75th percentile Trafford Park ford k ar Wo c Pa Y

voluptatur? Quidi’ vent volorib usapit laborem Swin e af e o e n h y C ch lifton

incipsandey prectae rspera as rem rest, cum aut r st n st ey lt

id 900 l Altrincham Tr u T e o le C e b s ea L i’ Sa rs k Demand 2024 – an br n m c W atur aut autat quam doluptih berchiliam etum quo o rw ll twistl rm inal a nd phr o ch l rt i d o a

pro endigna tationseroHale venecaboris earum que se

Te mean B a m ey Bolton Kear Mo Da s En Br H l M ew Winsford l 800 a s y cum ipitati antempedis peria ium eturibus sum er n n n Ro Hu dd e c l s to

ur laborerum adit, et quaecusciam imus debitatio Gate h As J l Ch r Mi RN unn b e

o Standing capacity r l h J cn e alkden U d s Farn wo B on B r c B t Bolton k ac W k

excesequil re dolores ut laceseque conseque perro K bb x

fo 700 on i hwic B y Ec quidl que quiducipid ut hici amet a corum, suntur res t o on s West Jcn t AC an ht F r or L M Mose

ut Seated capacity b g N ns B n c bearume ndipis molorem in posu doluptatur assed et n he k oc J am umle Kn ft ma venimaxim est isquiaspel volestis as dolum eos st m Jc d d At o 600 a r l Pl a l Lo o o f stho t r ic Gree Ir as dolupta dolorem pelles pe ne sunt. Gr r ar wich t nihit as atem. Eventiatur mosanto min conemh dolor H g F h We r t Cheste r l r Pa l 500 tock stoc k Ha s o Hi Mond No o

L anim atquo estrum volorro dolorem que eossitae Hartford

Ehento consenda plit, int laborum rem es apid Brunne k L y Oakleigh sy n o ai h ic oo wa r 400 D rd omnimus es debisit eaque sin rere gt cuptatias eni bea k e b Mouldswort rw

magnat fuga. Et que r et alia etur ati is et velluptatur n fo kl e f a r c a ze st di n Ho e P y Mi Tr Jc n d d la Acton ow Cr Ne Jc m on con non conseni enduci ad qui odit,Bridge offic toreper t wood ate ero omnimaio minctem porepudae velibus, tet G 300 ro Cu h e k Warrington Centra l cn ng i Earlestown rc at l e y n ac Dela Hindle c

e J sperrum que volorporum velenet ut quame perecep e n Bi rerfero volore laccuptatur restisite odi doloJ earum, dg Bl id rl Ad Jc e-

o 200 -l e rk s n J cn s J cn ong Pa n ne o c k rl on r i nd

tianihic litasim lab int officitio. Itat por arum ulla Ch Pa u a ga l

apiditium quodipsae. Nequate ctatio.at Ossim que Wigan Wallgat In wt llow y e mf Wi St olbo e n inwi a N Wi L m Euxton Jcn Presto n G st

B 100 W Jc nonestis ne consequos es descid quis aut arunt, veniend erecepr estrum, quundel enihicimaa netur Ea - sh ey n Helsby le k r n Ellsmere Port n Lane as imi, simos expero dolupis idis eto volupta sequi o Nort h

se ne omnisquid expe peligeniWigan nimincime non 0 Frod Warrington Euxton Bank Quay ws s Wester n Balshaw Sa o Helens Bryn reen s

reprae pos pa conempe remperumRunc fugia voluptia G al St Juncti

rae occum ut as est rendiat emporem pellesequi idne Will Newton- a W s e y ic em n L h dernatectur, volutem peribus maio dis accus, inum to Salwick C Ha im faccus, quis res reruptur, que explia cum fuga. h Garswood g ng en i Rainhill u e

P ilk estio cones explat laccull aborro quodigent od eturi Gr Ignate por sit haribusam nobitio coris expla quam Ho on the CLC d o on into Victoria into t o consequiant laborrum quodis eosti num ne volorit services ATW s i into Piccadilly into solor aut aute nonseque con pos voluptias debis Piccadilly into Piccadilly into St Helen’s Central w k Thatto Heath e l s Wh

iossintis aut officiuss nam simus, ut exeribu saestia serio blaccum acerate mo magnihillam doluptate Ha Northern services Northern services Northern services Thatto Heath o on the Chat Moss on the Chat Moss on the Chat Moss Huyton Jcn CLC into Piccadilly into CLC CLC into Piccadilly into CLC Kirkby Cr TPE services on the n EMT services on the

sitam,o sit, cus eribea nam eum faceatur ab ipidit Presco t Kirkham & Wesham ditaqui coribus quidess endeseq uaectio nseque ts Eccleston Par yt cn n n J n s s t Jc s s Hu to Hu o r e st

et verepreceate aut r aciumet qui aut et fuga. Et la

offici nescid utatis re cupta sum erionse quatiae nus by le Hunt C W Al We porroRo quo volo cone porerch illat. ipsaeperi siminci duciunt, untemolliqui cum volest, ad o reen Br y G k r

que volendi atatur?t Ormskirk Imo ommod qui que mostrum sequi doloriat Figure 4.3 shows the expected demand and from Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford Pa le vertre e rton Liverpool Poulton-le-Fylde hnc J cn a ot e a l es nonsed molorrol moluptas que nem quame capacity in 2024 on the CLC and Chat Moss routes Road – a journey which takes approximately 25 il echnolog W Boris esectiscil ium ut alia corerum in remo odis Bo Br Al T Southpor t s y H quat dolupta ius molorSouth Parkway sequi aut fugitat uribus into Manchester in the morning high-peak hour, minutes. Northern Rail services on the CLC route h simincto di re quiaepudiam iscim que vel molor a l We il ssle e H Jc n l o g il st ge

pa voluptaturM rempell aborem. Labor sinvel is taking into account the demand forecasts to 2024. into Manchester in the morning peak are expected veliquodita ditaqui ut omnimperum que commolo H Ed Ea Ed Layton l na reicips undero id maionseni alitemp orioratiore, l sequaep eriant untem. Et ut lanti recturios ipiscim to be over seated capacity for less than 20 minutes. o o

rm i The graph shows that demand will be over Current 25 kv AC electrification Planned 25 kv AC electrification Not AC electrified e rp T e l

Blackpool North Blackpool Sout Seaforth

iv agnihil lorporunt occus re estio volore expel iniatia Arriva Trains Wales services into Manchester utatem vendisciet omnimolum que et as aborrorum a L Liverpool

Co standing capacity on the interurban services on

voluptatur,Lime Street cusam re dolesec totatio consequates Piccadilly on the Chat Moss route are expected to fugitat eceaque maximin vernam derunt quiati the CLC currently run by TransPennine Express es aligend uciumquo eum sumquisimus, sitatium be over seated capacity for more than 20 minutes. nullor aut esequid elenem et laborem verum nimus, and East Midlands Trains. Standing is expected

40 41 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

A similar assessment of the demand in the morning Road in the morning high-peak hour to abstract Assessment of option 1.2 – two peak hour shuttles from Warrington Central to peak on the CLC and Chat Moss routes into passengers directly from Warrington and Manchester Oxford Road Liverpool demonstrates that there will be sufficient remove some intermediate stops from the Two additional three-car DMU shuttles from Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford Road capacity into Liverpool on both routes following interurban services to manage demand Concept in the morning high-peak hour (and back to Warrington in the evening high-peak hour) to electrification of the Chat Moss line. 1.4. run one four-car DMU shuttle from Warrington abstract passengers directly from Warrington. Options considered to meet demand on the Central into Manchester Oxford Road in the Timetable analysis shows that a service can be run on the existing network in the current CLC route morning peak hour to abstract passengers timetable from Warrington into the Manchester Oxford Road bay platform in the morning directly from Warrington and remove some Operational analysis peak hour and from , via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Warrington in the The following options have been considered to meet evening peak hour. A second service would require re-timetabling of existing services and may intermediate stops from the interurban services demand into Manchester on the CLC route: not be possible as a result. to manage demand 1.1. an additional shuttle from Liverpool Lime Infrastructure No infrastructure enhancement would be required. 1.5. run one four-car DMU shuttle from Liverpool Street into Manchester Victoria in the morning required Lime Street into Manchester Oxford Road Provides enough overall capacity to meet the gap but inadequately manages passenger loads, high-peak on the Chat Moss route to abstract Passenger impact via Warrington Central in the morning peak therefore stops need to be taken out of the interurban services to manage crowding. passengers from Liverpool who would have hour to abstract passengers from stations travelled on the CLC route Freight impact Minimal along the entire CLC route and remove some The following table outlines the appraisal results: 1.2. run two three-car DMU shuttles from intermediate stops from the interurban services Option 1.2 PV Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford to manage demand. 30-year appraisal £m Road in the morning high-peak hour to abstract In all cases the appraisals have assumed that passengers directly from Warrington Costs (present value) a similar return train would operate in the evening Investment cost 0.0 1.3. run two three-car DMU shuttles from high-peak hour (departures between 17:00 Operating cost 25.0 Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford and 17:59). Revenue -8.6 Other Government impacts 1.7 Total costs 18.1 Assessment of option 1.1 – increased/improved Chat Moss services Financial and This option is designed to abstract passengers from services that are over capacity on the economic analysis Benefits (present value) Concept CLC route onto new services on the Chat Moss route by running shuttles from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Victoria. Rail users benefits 1.6 Paths can be found for the additional services from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Crowding benefits 14.8 Operational analysis Victoria and timed to abstract the maximum number of people from the Liverpool to Non users benefits 3.5 Scarborough and Liverpool to Norwich services. Total quantified benefits 19.9 Infrastructure required No infrastructure enhancement would be required. The option attempts to abstract enough passengers from Liverpool Lime Street to manage NPV 1.8 loadings on the CLC, however, demand from Liverpool does not contribute to the crowding Passenger impact problem as much as demand from Warrington Central, Birchwood and Irlam. Therefore, Quantified BCR 1.1 options considered on the Chat Moss route would not be able to abstract an adequate Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices number of passengers to meet the gap. Link to other options None Freight impact Affects ability to run any freight trains on the Chat Moss route in the high-peak hour. Conclusion This option is not recommended as other options represent higher value-for-money. Financial and economic No further analysis undertaken. analysis Link to other options None This option is not recommended as it would not abstract an adequate number of passengers Conclusion to meet the gap.

42 43 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Assessment of option 1.3 – two high-peak hour shuttles from Warrington Central Assessment of option 1.4 – one high-peak hour shuttle from Warrington Central to Manchester Oxford Road with stops removed from existing services to Manchester Oxford Road with stops removed from existing services Two additional three-car DMU shuttles from Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford Road Run one four-car DMU shuttle from Warrington Central into Manchester Oxford Road in the in the morning high-peak hour (and back to Warrington in the evening high-peak hour) to morning high-peak hour (and back to Warrington in the evening high-peak hour) to abstract Concept Concept abstract passengers directly from Warrington and remove some intermediate stops from the passengers directly from Warrington and remove some intermediate stops from the interurban interurban services to manage demand. services to manage demand. Timetable analysis shows that a service can be run on the existing network in the current Timetable analysis shows that a service can be run on the existing network in the current timetable from Warrington into the Manchester Oxford Road bay platform in the morning timetable from Warrington into the Manchester Oxford Road bay platform in the morning Operational analysis Operational analysis high-peak hour and from Stockport, via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Warrington in the high-peak hour and from Stockport, via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Warrington in evening high-peak hour. A second service would require re-timetabling of existing services and the evening high-peak hour. may not be possible as a result. Infrastructure No infrastructure enhancement would be required. Infrastructure No infrastructure enhancement would be required. required required This option is significantly cheaper than option 1.3 but does not abstract enough passengers Passenger impact Provides adequate capacity and manages loadings well enough to meet the capacity gap. from the existing services. Passenger impact However, the majority of the crowding relief is attributable to the train that would run Freight impact Minimal between the two high-peak hour interurban services. The following table outlines the appraisal results: Freight impact Minimal Option 1.4 PV The following table outlines the appraisal results: 30-year appraisal £m Option 1.3 PV 30-year appraisal Costs (present value) £m Investment cost 0.0 Costs (present value) Operating cost 14.1 Investment cost 0.0 Revenue -6.4 Operating cost 25.0 Other Government impacts 1.3 Revenue -11.0 Total costs 9.0 Other Government impacts 2.2 Financial and Total costs 16.2 economic analysis Benefits (present value) Financial and economic analysis Rail users benefits -0.9 Benefits (present value) Crowding benefits 13.5 Rail users benefits 0.1 Non users benefits 2.7 Crowding benefits 21.1 Total quantified benefits 15.3 Non users benefits 4.6

Total quantified benefits 25.8 NPV 6.3 Quantified BCR 1.7 NPV 9.6 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices. Quantified BCR 1.6 Link to other options None Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices. Conclusion This option is not recommended as other options represent higher value-for-money. Link to other options None Conclusion This option is not recommended as other options represent higher value-for-money.

44 45 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Assessment of option 1.5 – one high-peak hour shuttle from Liverpool Lime Street to Analysis of options to meet capacity on removing stops from these services and inserting Manchester Oxford Road with stops removed from existing interurban services the Chat Moss route into Manchester stops in the Liverpool – Manchester Airport service. However, because the Llandudno and Chester An additional four-car DMU shuttle from Liverpool Lime Street into Manchester Oxford Road in The Llandudno/Chester – Manchester Piccadilly services are expected to be over seated capacity the morning high-peak hour (and back to Liverpool in the evening high-peak hour) to abstract Concept high-peak hour services are expected to be over passengers from along the entire CLC route and remove some intermediate stops from the from as far out as Warrington and beyond, this seated capacity from Warrington Bank Quay interurban services to manage demand. would not be sufficient to meet the capacity gap. by 2024. These services stop at Earlestown and Timetable analysis shows that a train can be run on the existing network in the current Therefore, lengthening of the existing services has Newton-le-Willows on the Chat Moss route, so timetable from Liverpool Lime Street into the Oxford Road bay platform in the morning high- been considered. Operational analysis peak hour and from Stockport, via Manchester Piccadilly Platform 14 to Liverpool Lime Street better management of loads could be achieved by in the evening high-peak hour. Infrastructure No infrastructure enhancement would be required. required Assessment of option 1.6 – lengthening of the high-peak Chester/Llandudno to This option incurs the cost of extra mileage over Option 1.4, but provides the opportunity to Manchester Piccadilly services Passenger impact abstract passengers from stations between Liverpool Lime Street and Warrington. Lengthening the morning and evening high-peak hour services between Llandudno, Chester Concept Freight impact Minimal and Manchester from three-car to four-car DMUs. The following table outlines the appraisal results: Operational analysis Platforms are able to accommodate four-car DMU stock. Option 1.5 PV Infrastructure No infrastructure enhancement would be required. 30-year appraisal £m required Costs (present value) Passenger impact Increased capacity and reduced crowding. Investment cost 0.0 Freight impact None Operating cost 15.4 The following table outlines the appraisal results: Revenue -12.0 Option 1.6 PV 30-year appraisal £m Other Government impacts 2.4 Costs (present value) Total costs 5.8 Financial and Investment cost 0.0 economic analysis Operating cost 4.0 Benefits (Present Value) Revenue -4.0 Rail users benefits 0.1 Other Government impacts 0.8 Crowding benefits 21.8 Non users benefits 5.0 Total costs 0.8 Total quantified benefits 26.9 Benefits (present value) Financial and Rail users benefits 0.0 NPV 21.1 economic analysis Crowding benefits 9.5 Quantified BCR 4.7 Non users benefits 1.7 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices. Link to other options None Total quantified benefits 11.2 Option 1.5 is recommended as it is the highest value-for-money. The interurban high-peak Conclusion hour services are currently over capacity, therefore this intervention is recommended to be NPV 10.4 implemented as soon as possible. Quantified BCR >5 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices The increase in revenue is estimated to be sufficient to cover the operating costs. The total The recommended solution for meeting peak Road in the morning high-peak hour and from costs of this option are small when compared with the crowding benefit to passengers and non-user benefits. hour growth on the CLC route into Manchester is Manchester Piccadilly to Liverpool Lime Street in There is a risk of having to run the lengthened service in the off-peak to avoid coupling/ to operate an additional semi-fast service from the evening high-peak hour. uncoupling and therefore incur the increased mileage related costs; however, the business case Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Oxford is robust against this possibility. Link to other options None Conclusion This option has a high value-for-money case and is recommended and will be required in CP5.

46 47 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Demand and capacity on the Atherton Figure 4.5 shows the expected demand and Figure 4.4 – routes used by Bolton and Atherton passenger services route into Manchester capacity in 2024 on the Atherton route in the morning high-peak hour. Services are expected to Routes used by The Atherton route (see Figure 4.4) runs from Bolton and Atherton be at or over standing capacity between Atherton passenger services Burn Naze branch To Carlisle/Glasgow Wigan via Atherton and Salford Crescent into and Salford Central which is around 20 minutes. (temporarily out of use) Other routes Layton Poulton-le-Fylde Manchester and is not included in the announced Lancaster Clitheroe Altering calling patterns is not sufficient in the long Salwick North West electrification scheme, so the services Blackpool North Kirkham Jns Whalley term as forecast crowding shows a requirement Moss Side Kirkham on this route will remain as DMU stock. Blackpool South & Wesham Preston Ramsgreave Langho for two to three extra vehicles on the route across Lytham Lostock Hall Jn & Wilpshire Services on the Atherton route into Manchester are Blackpool Lostock all trains, by 2024. Therefore, lengthening of the Ansdell & Fairhaven Pleasure Beach Hall Pleasington Mill Hill Blackburn Rishton currently run by Northern Rail, with the following Farrington Curve Jn Wigan to Manchester Victoria services to four-car Squires Gate St Annes-on-the-Sea Blackburn Church & Bamber Cherry Bolton Jn Daisyfield Jn high-peak hour services: DMUs is sufficient to meet the capacity gap. Croston Bridge Tree Oswaldtwistle Darwen 1. Southport to Manchester Victoria (four-car DMU) Rufford Leyland Bescar Burscough Euxton Entwistle Southport Lane Bridge Jn 2. Kirby to Rochdale via Manchester Victoria (four- Adlington Bromley Cross Hoscar Meols New car DMU) Cop Lane Parbold Parkway Hall i’ Th’ Wood Appley 3. Two Wigan Wallgate to Manchester Victoria Burscough Bridge Lostock Jn Ormskirk Junction services (two-car DMU). Gathurst Bolton Lostock Bolton Moses Gate Wigan West Jn Wallgate Jn Farnworth Wigan Wigan Wallgate Kearsley Westhoughton Pemberton North Western Wigan Station Jn Clifton Crow Windsor Bridge Jns Assessment of option 1.7 – lengthening of the Wigan Wallgate to Manchester Victoria Nest Salford Manchester Victoria Orrell Daisy Hill Atherton Moorside Crescent via Atherton services Ince Jn Hindley Hag Fold Walkden Swinton Salford Upholland To Rochdale Lengthen the 08:00 and 08:13 Wigan Wallgate to Manchester Victoria services to four-car Central Hope Street Concept DMUs. The 08:00 service is expected to be lengthened to a three-car DMU in the near future, Rainford Ordsall Lane Jn 'Windsor Link' Castlefield Jn and the 08:13 is currently a two-car DMU. KIRKBY ''

Operational analysis Platforms on the Atherton route are long enough to cope with four-car trains. Deansgate Manchester Oxford Road Manchester Infrastructure No infrastructure enhancement would be required Piccadilly required Passenger impact Increased capacity and reduced crowding. To Manchester Airport/Stockport/Buxton Freight impact None The following table outlines the appraisal results: 30-year appraisal Option 1.7 PV £m Figure 4.5 – morning high-peak hour demand and capacity in 2024 by line of route and Costs (present value) Demand 2024 – service group on the Atherton and Bolton routes Investment cost 0.0 75th percentile Operating cost 5.2 Demand 2024 – mean Revenue -1.3 Standing capacity Other Government impacts 0.3 1400 Seated capacity Total costs 4.2 Financial and 1200 economic analysis Benefits (present value) 1000 Rail users benefits 0.0 800 Crowding benefits 7.4 Non users benefits 0.5 600 Total quantified benefits 7.9 400

NPV 3.7 200 Quantified BCR 1.9 0 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices. Northern services Northern services Northern services TPE services on on the Atherton line on the Bolton line on the Bolton line the Bolton line Link to other options None into Victoria into Piccadilly into Victoria into Piccadilly Lengthening is the recommended option to meet the demand and capacity gap on the Conclusion Atherton route into Manchester Victoria in the morning and evening peaks, and would be Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile Standing Capacity required in CP5. Demand 2024 - Mean Seated Capacity

48 49 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Demand and capacity on the Bolton expected to be at or over standing capacity EMU stock; the DfT is currently investigating this. Analysis was undertaken to ascertain what capacity route into Manchester by 2024. As described previously, the Chat Moss services are will be required on each of the routes/service groups better suited to four-car EMU stock, indicating that by 2024 using generic vehicle characteristics agreed Table 4.1 is an outline of services currently running The Bolton route (see Figure 4.4) is the most the best provision for the North West would be a mix by the RUS industry working group. The results for on the Bolton corridor and the future rolling stock complex of those analysed under Gap 1. It has of three-car and four-car EMU stock. the Bolton corridor are shown in Table 4.2. a mix of interurban and local services and will type assumed for this analysis. Local services that continue to operate as DMUs Two options have been tested that provide the have a mix of electric and diesel services once the Electrification allows services from Blackpool North will need to be lengthened and the formations required capacity on the Bolton corridor and route is electrified. Some services on this route and Scotland via Bolton to run as electric services. will depend on the capacity available on the EMU both have a ‘value for money’ business case, serve Manchester Victoria while others operate to One of the Blackpool North services currently joins services running via Bolton. Depending on the demonstrating that there will be a number of Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly. at Preston with a service from Barrow-in-Furness. solution for the lengthening of DMU-operated ways to structure the Bolton line services, including Figure 4.5 shows the expected demand and services, some platform extensions on the operating services via the West Coast Main Line capacity in 2024 on the Bolton route. Services are Southport and/or Blackburn routes may be required. and the Chat Moss route as an alternative routing option. On completion of electrification, the service pattern will also have to provide a desirable spread of The service development process will have to Table 4.1 – services on the Bolton corridor by service group in the morning high-peak hour services to the north and south side of Manchester. consider the points outlined above, any need Passenger Transport Executive for platform extensions on the Southport and Local services on the Bolton line to Manchester Piccadilly (GMPTE) will be undertaking a study into the Blackpool lines and provide the optimal service Origin station Destination station Current After- electrification ultimate destination of passengers travelling from which provides enough capacity, is ‘value for stations between Preston and Manchester on the money’ and provides as many linkages that Southport Manchester Airport four-car DMU DMU Bolton corridor to help inform what the optimal passengers require as possible. The phasing of Blackpool North Hazel Grove four/five-car DMU EMU spread should be. The results of this study will be the interventions will depend on the availability of additional DMUs and what electric rolling Local services on the Bolton line to Manchester Victoria reported in the final RUS, though consultees are welcome to comment on this in their responses. stock becomes available upon completion of the Origin station Destination station Current After- electrification electrification programme.

Wigan Wallgate Manchester Victoria two-car DMU DMU

Clitheroe Manchester Victoria two-car DMU DMU Table 4.2 – vehicle requirement by service group in the morning high peak hour in 2024

Clitheroe Manchester Victoria three-car DMU DMU Number of services Vehicles required to Service group in the morning peak Blackpool North Manchester Victoria four/five-car DMU EMU provide capacity – 2024 hour Inter urban services on the Bolton line to Manchester Piccadilly Local services on the Bolton line to Manchester Piccadilly 2 13

Origin station Destination station Current After- electrification Local services on the Bolton line to Manchester Victoria 4 14 Blackpool train will be EMU Interurban services on the Bolton line to Manchester Piccadilly 2 13 and so unable to join with Blackpool North/ six-car DMU that joins at a service from Barrow-in- Barrow-in-Furness Manchester Airport Preston Furness. Gap 2: Accommodating peak growth To understand whether there will be sufficient Blackpool North/ six-car DMU that joins at platform capacity at Manchester Piccadilly in the Edinburgh Manchester Airport Preston EMU into Manchester Piccadilly high-peak hour, a number of scenarios were tested In the period to 2024, there will be an increase in which included any known service or formation the number and length of services into Manchester alterations and any increases in train length and Piccadilly. Therefore, it is necessary to identify frequency to meet demand to 2024: However, the route from Barrow-in-Furness to be unable to call at Salford Crescent, a well-used whether Manchester Piccadilly is capable of l lengthening of the following: Carnforth is not due to be electrified and so the station on the route, without the use of Selective accommodating these additional and longer joining of these services will no longer be possible as Door Opening (SDO) or very expensive infrastructure services in terms of track capacity both in the – local services as identified in the North West DMUs cannot couple to EMUs. works to provide sufficient platform lengths. terminal platforms and the approaches to the RUS and this RUS station, and identify solutions when issues arise. As previously mentioned, the analysis assumes that The provision of four-car EMU stock could raise issues – nine-car Class 390 services to 11-car the EMU rolling stock to be used on these routes is on the local services on the Bolton corridor: the Platform capacity at Manchester – further north cross-Pennine train lengthening in four-car formation. The services from Blackpool analysis shows that in some cases, four-car services Piccadilly from three-car to six-car and Edinburgh that join at Preston would convert would not provide enough capacity and eight cars to four-car EMU operation, which would result in an would likely be an overprovision and trigger a large Trains at Manchester Piccadilly station platforms l increased frequency of services share to allow more than one train to occupy eight-car EMU service from Preston to Manchester. programme of platform lengthening. Analysis – fifth north cross-Pennine service between a platform at the same time but there are This would require some platform lengthening if indicates that six-car trains may be ideal, which Manchester and Leeds (see Gap 3). it was to continue to call at Chorley. It would also would require the reconfiguration of the assumed some restrictions depending on the length of trains involved.

50 51 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

The current platform occupation report for cause invalid platform occupations. The following Manchester Piccadilly between 07:30 and 09:30 shows any issues raised and the associated Assessment of option 2.1 – fourth platform at Manchester Airport in the weekday morning peak has been used to recommendation: Lengthening of services on the Bolton and north cross-Pennine corridors will require additional Concept understand whether the aforementioned scenarios capacity at Manchester Airport. The capital expenditure associated with a fourth platform at the airport has been assessed Issue Recommendation against the operational costs and benefits of lengthening services on the north cross-Pennine corridor and lengthening the existing Southport to Manchester Airport service so that it is Operational analysis 11-car Class 390 trains are too long for Platform 4, which It is recommended that this train is formed from an longer than the current four-car formation. A six-car service has been assumed to simplify the 08:15 departure from Manchester Piccadilly to Euston additional service from Crewe which allows the 08:15 to the appraisal. The additional benefit of possible lengthening of other existing services on the uses and which is formed from an Empty Coaching Stock use one of Platforms 5, 6 or 7 which can accommodate an Bolton corridor to more than four-car services has not been assessed. (ECS) move from depot. 11-car Class 390. This also avoids a number of platforming issues that are experienced currently. The Northern Hub has identified that the cost of a fourth platform is around £16 million in Infrastructure 2009 prices. Depending on the operational solution, lengthening of some existing platforms required between Southport and Bolton may also be required. The cost of this has been estimated at A fifth cross-Pennine train cannot be accommodated in The introduction of this service requires some re- £1.5 million in 2009 prices for six-car operation in the appraisal. Platforms 1-3 in the current timetable. timetabling of local services over Junction. However, re-timetabling of these services is likely to be Passenger impact To accommodate longer services to increase capacity and reduce crowding required anyway to take advantage of planned linespeed Freight impact None improvements on this route and initial analysis indicated that it is possible. The following table outlines the appraisal results: Option 2.1 PV 60-year appraisal £m Costs (present value) Track capacity at Manchester Piccadilly l services up to eight-car (depending on the Investment cost 18.8 chosen mix of train formations on this route as The track layout at Manchester Piccadilly is a Operating cost 6.0 described in Gap 1) from the Bolton corridor to constraint to running additional services. Currently, Revenue -11.9 Manchester Airport three of the four cross-Pennine services per hour Other Government impacts 2.4 l six-car north cross-Pennine services running between Leeds (and beyond) to Manchester Total costs 15.2 (and beyond) in each direction cross the approaches l lengthening of local services in line with the Financial and to Manchester Piccadilly. Any additional services economic analysis North West RUS and as identified by this RUS. Benefits (present value) crossing the throat would create a capacity problem. However, the Northern RUS has not identified the All three existing platforms are approximately 200 Rail users benefits 0.0 requirement for any additional services to cross the metres long, sufficient to allow an eight-car train to Crowding benefits 30.4 throat of Manchester Piccadilly as the fifth cross- be in a platform. However, a second train cannot Non users benefits 5.2 platform-share if a train of more than four-cars long is Pennine train goes in and out of Platforms 1-4. Total quantified benefits 35.7 already occupying it. Therefore, further interventions to those listed above The impact on platform capacity has been analysed are not necessary at Manchester Piccadilly just to NPV 20.4 and demonstrates that the following services cannot accommodate the lengthened or more frequent Quantified BCR 2.3 services required to meet passenger demand. share a platform: Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices l six-car north cross-Pennine services; Track capacity at Manchester Airport Option 3.3: Lengthen peak services into Manchester in the morning peak and out of in some instances these services cannot be Link to other options Manchester in the evening peak. A third platform at Manchester Airport was built in re-platformed Gap 1 Bolton corridor. December 2008 to increase platform capacity and l six/eight-car Bolton line services; in some This option is recommended in the strategy and would have to be completed prior to reduce the frequency of platform sharing. Similar to instances these cannot be re-platformed. Conclusion lengthening either the Bolton line services or the north cross-Pennine trains that ‘platform the analysis undertaken at Manchester Piccadilly, share’ with other services. an assessment was undertaken of the expected Therefore, a fourth platform is required at length of services that use Manchester Airport Manchester Airport to provide adequate track between 07:30 and 09:30 and it should be noted capacity for lengthened trains to deal with peak that these services operate for both connectivity hour growth into Manchester Piccadilly. and operational reasons but the length of them is determined by the need to meet passenger demand into Manchester Piccadilly. The following lengthening scenarios have been taken into account:

52 53 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Figure 4.6 – routes used by Manchester – Leeds interurban services Gap 3: Peak and off-peak crowding in the high-peak are still required to help address all-day crowding. Therefore, a 25 per cent uplift was Routes used by on the Leeds – Manchester route Manchester – Leeds applied to the capacity of the services to allow for interurban services taking into account journey time the affect of the extra train plus lengthening into Other routes Whitehall Holbeck Jn Leeds improvements Jn To Hull/ Leeds in the high-peak. Routes used by Manchester – Leeds York/ Leeds North East interurban services The interurban services between Manchester and West Jn The Leeds to Manchester route will experience Other routes Cottingley Leeds on the north cross-Pennine route (Figure 4.6) some journey time reductions by 2024 as a result of Batley are heavily used and were originally considered in linespeed improvements. It is not possible to take the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. To deal with all-day full advantage of these in the peak as services have Morley crowding on this route, the Yorkshire and Humber to call at multiple stations, but a 10 per cent uplift RUS recommended an all-day fifth cross-Pennine has been applied to the demand data to allow for service between Manchester and Leeds (and Wakefield an increase in patronage resulting from the reduced Westgate beyond) and lengthening of some existing services journey time. Ravensthorpe into Leeds in the high-peaks. The recommendations Thornhill L.N.W. Jn for the local services on the route in previous RUSs The following graphs demonstrate what crowding Bradley Jn Heaton remains on interurban services after the fifth cross- Lodge are still appropriate for growth to 2024. Deighton Jn Pennine train and lengthening of some services into Huddersfield Analysis of demand and capacity on the interurban Slaithwaite Springwood Jn Leeds in the high-peaks have been introduced. Marsden services considered the following: Greenfield Demand and capacity in the Leeds to Mossley l forecast demand to 2024 on existing services Manchester direction To Liverpool Stalybridge l the impact on demand and capacity of a Figure 4.7 shows the number of passengers on all Ashburys fifth cross-Pennine service and lengthening West Jn trains departing Leeds in the Leeds to Manchester Manchester Fairfield of services into Leeds in the high-peaks as Piccadilly Ardwick Gorton direction and the expected seated and total Ardwick Jn Ashburys Ashburys recommended in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS East Jn Guide Bridge capacity on those services in 2024. As standing l the estimated impact on demand of journey is only expected between Leeds and Dewsbury, To Manchester Airport time improvements. which is a journey time of less than 20 minutes, this Analysis of crowding on the interurban services in demonstrates that there will be sufficient capacity 2024 demonstrated that the Yorkshire and Humber in the morning peak and off-peak, but insufficient RUS recommendation of a fifth cross-Pennine capacity in the evening peak. service plus some lengthening of services into Leeds Figure 4.7 – forecast demand and capacity in 2024, on train departure at Leeds in the Leeds to Manchester direction Demand 2024 – mean Standing capacity 2000 Demand – 2024 – 75th%ile Seated capacity Demand 2024 – Mean Standing Capacity 1600 Seated Capacity

1200

800

400 Passengers/Seats/Capacity

0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Weekday departure hour at Leeds Demand 2024 - Mean Standing Capacity Seated Capacity

54 55 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Figure 4.8  – forecast demand and capacity in 2024, on train arrival at Manchester in the Figure 4.9 – forecast demand and capacity in 2024, on train departure at Manchester Leeds to Manchester direction in the Manchester to Leeds direction

Demand 2024 – Demand 2024 – mean mean Standing capacity 2000 Demand – 2024 – 75th%ile Standing capacity 2500 Demand 2024 – Mean Seated capacity Seated capacity Standing Capacity 2000 1600 Seated Capacity

1200 1500

800 1000 Passengers/Seats/Capacity Passengers/Seats/Capacity 400 500

0 0 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Weekday arrival hour at Manchester Weekday departure hour at Manchester

Figure 4.8 shows the number of passengers on Therefore, even the Yorkshire and Humber RUS Figure 4.10 – forecast demand and capacity in 2024, on train arrival at Leeds in the all trains arriving at Manchester from Leeds and recommendations of lengthening of services into Manchester to Leeds direction the expected seated and total capacity on those Leeds in the morning high-peak and out of Leeds Demand 2024 – services in 2024. This demonstrates that there will in the evening high-peak, plus the extra train, still mean be sufficient capacity in the evening peak and off- does not provide sufficient capacity to meet the Standing capacity 2500 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile peak, but insufficient capacity in the morning peak. peak hours crowding gap at Leeds. Seated capacity Demand 2024 - Mean Demand and capacity in the Manchester Therefore, to meet the crowding gap at Leeds the Standing Capacity 2000 Seated Capacity to Leeds direction following options have been considered: Figure 4.9 shows the number of passengers on all 3.1. a shuttle service between Huddersfield and 1500 trains departing Manchester in the Manchester to Leeds in the morning high-peak hour and the busier shoulder peak (in addition to the fifth Leeds direction and the expected seated and total 1000 capacity on those services in 2024. This shows that cross-Pennine train) and a similar pattern of there will be sufficient capacity in the morning peak services from Leeds to Huddersfield in the Passengers/Seats/Capacity 500 and off-peak, but insufficient capacity is delivered in evening peak the evening peak. 3.2.  a sixth service between Manchester Piccadilly 0 Figure 4.10 shows the number of passengers on and Leeds in the morning and evening peaks. 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 all trains upon arrival at Leeds in the Manchester Weekday arrival hour at Leeds to Leeds direction and the expected seated and total capacity on those services in 2024. This demonstrates that there will be sufficient capacity in the off-peak, but insufficient capacity in the morning and evening peak.

56 57 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Assessment of option 3.1 – Huddersfield to Leeds peak hours shuttle Assessment of option 3.1 – Huddersfield to Leeds peak hours shuttle cont.

An additional shuttle from Huddersfield to Leeds in the morning high-peak hour and one The following table outlines the appraisal results assuming that the service requires two Concept morning shoulder-peak hour and out of Leeds to Huddersfield in one evening high-peak hour additional sets of rolling stock. and one evening shoulder peak hour. Option 3.1 PV A path can be found for a Huddersfield to Leeds shuttle in the morning and evening peak in 30-year appraisal £m the current timetable in addition to a fifth cross-Pennine train. Two stops would have to be Operational analysis removed from the existing Huddersfield to Leeds stopping service and added into the shuttle Costs (present value) service to avoid infrastructure changes. Investment cost 0.0 Infrastructure This option would use the additional platform at Huddersfield Station which was included in Operating cost 24.2 required the business case for the lengthening of the local services in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. Revenue -13.0 Passenger impact Increased capacity and reduced crowding. Other Government impacts 2.6 Freight impact None as there are no freight paths currently in the ‘peak’ direction. Total costs 13.8 The following table outlines the appraisal results assuming that this service can be run with Financial and one additional set of rolling stock. economic analysis Benefits (present value) Option 3.1 PV 30 year-appraisal £m Rail users benefits 1.7 Costs (present value) Crowding benefits 17.4 Investment cost 0.0 Non users benefits 3.6 Operating cost 13.0 WEBs 0.0 Revenue -12.9 Total quantified benefits 22.7

Other Government impacts 2.6 Total costs 2.7 NPV 8.9 Financial and Quantified BCR 1.6 economic analysis Benefits (present value) Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices. Rail users benefits 1.4 Link to other options Option 3.2 Crowding benefits 17.4 This option is recommended to meet capacity on the north cross-Pennine route in addition to the lengthening and fifth train per hour recommended in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. If Non users benefits 3.6 Conclusion actual demand grows in line with forecast demand then implementation of option 3.1 would WEBs 0.0 be necessary in CP6. Total quantified benefits 22.5

NPV 19.8 Assessment of option 3.2 – sixth Manchester to Leeds semi-fast service in Quantified BCR 8.4 the morning and evening peaks Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices. Concept Run a shuttle between Manchester and Leeds in the morning and evening peak hours. A path does not exist between Manchester and Huddersfield in the current timetable with the Operational analysis existing infrastructure. To provide the extra path, infrastructure would be required to allow overtaking of stopping services, or rolling stock could be produced that can accelerate fast enough to reduce the Infrastructure time differential between fast and stopping passenger services. The Northern Hub Study has required identified that four-tracking the route between Marsden and Diggle to allow fast trains to pass slow trains would cost around £61 million in 2009 prices. Infrastructure would also likely be required at Manchester Piccadilly to path and platform the train. Increased capacity, reduced crowding and improved connectivity between Manchester and Passenger impact Leeds. However, the service is not required to go west of Huddersfield to solve the capacity constraint. Depends on solution to accommodate the sixth train but there is a need for an hourly off-peak Freight impact freight path on the route. Financial and The infrastructure cost is significant and there are cheaper ways to provide sufficient capacity economic analysis into Leeds in the morning peak. Link to other options Option 3.1 Conclusion This option is not recommended to meet capacity.

58 59 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Though the fifth cross-Pennine train provides extra in the high-peak. As a result, in 2024, crowding The recommended approach for meeting growth on between Liverpool and Nottingham, which is capacity into Manchester in the peaks, the train remains into Manchester in the morning peak and interurban services between Leeds and Manchester expected to be implemented in 2011 following lengthening recommended in the Yorkshire and out of Manchester in the evening peak. Therefore, is the operation of a fifth cross-Pennine train all day, agreement on the provision of additional rolling Humber RUS does not provide the required capacity the best option would be to lengthen the busiest train lengthening in the peaks at Manchester and stock between DfT and East Midlands Trains. as it is aimed at increasing capacity into Leeds services into and out of Manchester. Leeds and two peak semi-fast services each way Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the strategy between Huddersfield and Leeds. for this corridor in light of these changes. Gap 4: Peak and off-peak crowding Analysis of demand and capacity between Sheffield Assessment of option 3.3 – lengthen peak services into Manchester in the morning peak and Manchester considered the following: and out of Manchester in the evening peak between Sheffield and Manchester l forecast demand to 2024 An extra six vehicles on services into Manchester in the morning high-peak hour and one in the Crowding on the Sheffield to Manchester route Concept first morning shoulder peak hour, and similarly deployed in the evening peak to meet demand (Figure 4.11) was originally considered in the l a planned increase in capacity as a result of in the evening high-peak hour and shoulder peak hours. Yorkshire and Humber RUS, which resulted in lengthening the existing Liverpool to Norwich Lengthen the four existing three-car DMU services into Manchester in the morning high-peak a recommendation for an additional all-day services hour to a mixture of six and four-car trains, and lengthen one existing three-car DMU service Manchester Piccadilly – Sheffield service which The following services are considered in the analysis into Manchester in the 07:00–08:00 shoulder peak hour to a four-car DMU. This rolling stock would have been an extension of an existing of demand and capacity: Operational analysis is then assumed to be deployed onto the busiest services in the evening peak to deal with Manchester Piccadilly – New Mills Central service capacity issues. The operational costs of this scheme are the leasing costs of six extra vehicles with suitable amendments to calling patterns on l hourly Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport and the mileage costs of running in one direction in the morning peak and one direction in the services that run as three-car DMUs, apart from evening peak. line services. This option also improved connectivity between the two cities. the least busy hours, where they run as two-car This option would require an additional platform at Manchester Airport. The infrastructure DMUs Infrastructure costs are excluded from this business case because the fourth platform has been assessed Subsequently, the East Midlands RUS recommended required separately (see Gap 2). lengthening the Liverpool Lime Street – Norwich l hourly Liverpool to Norwich services that are expected to run as four-car DMUs in 2011. Passenger impact Increased capacity and reduced crowding. services to four-car so as to deal with crowding Freight impact None The opportunity to maximise the benefit of this scheme by running lengthened services in the off-peak has not been assessed. The following appraisal quantifies the operational costs and Figure 4.11 – routes used by Sheffield – Manchester passenger services benefits of running the services in the peak only: Routes used by Option 3.3 PV Sheffield – Manchester 30-year appraisal passenger services £m To Liverpool Other routes Costs (present value) Ashburys West Jn Manchester Piccadilly Flowery Investment cost 0.0 Ardwick Gorton Fairfield Field

Ardwick Jn Ashburys Ashburys Guide Newton Hyde Operating cost 16.7 East Jn Slade Belle Vue Jn Bridge for Hyde Lane Ryder Brow Denton Jn Jn Revenue -12.3 North Hyde North Levenshulme Denton To Manchester Brinnington Hyde Central Other Government impacts 2.5 Airport Heaton Chapel Reddish Woodley Financial and Total costs 6.9 South

economic analysis Heaton Norris Jn Stockport Romiley Jn Edgeley Jns Romiley Marple Wharf Jn Marple Benefits (present value) Davenport To Doncaster/Cleethorpes Strines Woodsmoor Rose Hill Marple Rail users benefits 0.0 New Mills Central Hazel Grove

Crowding benefits 26.6 Hazel Grove Jns Edale Hope Sheffield Non users benefits 5.1 Dore New Chinley Mills Jns & Totley South Jn Hathersage Total quantified benefits 31.7 Grindleford

To East Midlands/ NPV 24.8 East Anglia Quantified BCR 4.6 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices. Requires an additional platform at Manchester Airport to avoid platform-sharing with six-car Link to other options services, which links to the lengthening of services on the Bolton route.

This option is recommended to meet capacity on the north cross-Pennine route in addition to the lengthening and fifth shuttle recommended in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. If actual Conclusion demand grows broadly in line with forecast demand then phased implementation of this option would be required in CP5 and CP6.

60 61 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Demand and capacity in the Manchester Figure 4.13 shows the number of passengers on Demand and capacity in the Sheffield to Figure 4.15 shows the number of passengers on to Sheffield direction all trains arriving at Sheffield in the Manchester Manchester direction all trains arriving at Stockport2 in the Sheffield to to Sheffield direction and the expected seated Manchester direction and the expected seated Figure 4.12 shows the number of passengers on and total capacity on those services in 2024. This Figure 4.14 shows the number of passengers on and total capacity on those services in 2024. 2 all trains departing Stockport in the Manchester demonstrates that there will be sufficient capacity all trains departing Sheffield in the Sheffield to This demonstrates that there will be generally to Sheffield direction and the expected seated in the morning peak and off-peak, but some Manchester direction and the expected seated sufficient capacity in the off-peak and evening and total capacity on those services in 2024. This standing is expected in the evening peak. Standing and total capacity on those services in 2024. peak, but insufficient capacity is delivered in the demonstrates that there will be sufficient capacity is expected for more than 20 minutes but is on This demonstrates that there will be generally morning peak. Standing is expected for more than in the morning peak and off-peak, but insufficient trains that have capacity problems on departure sufficient capacity. 20 minutes. capacity is delivered in the evening peak as from Stockport. standing is expected for more than 20 minutes. Figure 4.14 – forecast demand and capacity in 2024, on train departure at Sheffield in the Sheffield to Manchester direction Figure 4.12 – forcast demand and capacity in 2024, on train departure at Stockport in the Manchester to Sheffield direction Demand 2024 – mean Demand 2024 – 800 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile mean Standing capacity Demand 2024 - Mean Seated capacity Standing Capacity Standing capacity 800 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile Seated Capacity Seated capacity Demand 2024 - Mean 600 Standing Capacity 600 Seated Capacity 400

400 200 Passengers/Seats/Capacity

200 Passengers/Seats/Capacity 0 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 Weekday departure hour at Sheeld 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Weekday departure hour at Manchester

Figure 4.15 – forecast demand and capacity in 2024, on train arrival at Stockport in the Sheffield to Manchester direction Figure 4.13 – forcast demand and capacity in 2024, on train arrival at Sheffield in the Demand 2024 – Manchester to Sheffield direction mean 800 Demand 2024 – Standing capacity Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile mean Demand 2024 - Mean Seated capacity Standing Capacity Standing capacity 800 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile Seated Capacity Seated capacity Demand 2024 - Mean 600 Standing Capacity 600 Seated Capacity 400

400 200 Passengers/Seats/Capacity

200 Passengers/Seats/Capacity 0 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 Weekday arrival hour at Manchester 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Weekday arrival hour at Sheeld

2 Analysis of demand on trains at Stockport is used to represent crowding for a period of more than 20 minutes, and exclude crowding 2 Analysis of demand on trains at Stockport is used to represent crowding for a period of more than 20 minutes, and exclude crowding between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, which is less than 10 minutes and therefore complies with DfT guidelines. between Stockport and Manchester Piccadilly, which is less than 10 minutes and therefore complies with DfT guidelines.

62 63 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

In summary, there is a gap between demand and 4.3. extending the shuttle to the off-peak with the capacity on some of these services, mainly into capital cost associated with Dore Jn redoubling Assessment of option 4.2 – run a peak shuttle between Manchester and Sheffield Manchester, that can be dealt with by lengthening and Grindleford loops with a sensitivity of not Extend a Marple/New Mills Central to Manchester Piccadilly service to Sheffield in each of the existing services or running additional services. including the cost of Grindleford loops Concept morning and evening peak hours to provide more capacity on services between Manchester and Sheffield with the added benefits of improved connectivity. The following four options have been appraised: 4.4. extending the all-day shuttle to connect with the Hull to Sheffield service to improve Extending an existing train avoids having to timetable an additional train into or out of 4.1. lengthening of the busiest Cleethorpes to Manchester Piccadilly in the peak hours. A review of calling patterns on Romiley line services connectivity benefits with the capital cost Manchester Airport services by one vehicle would be needed to get the best balance between Sheffield – Manchester journey times and associated with Dore Jn redoubling only. meeting the needs of local users. The existing Marple/New Mills Central service runs as a two- 4.2. an additional shuttle between Manchester and car DMU, which will have to be lengthened to a three-car DMU to provide enough capacity for Operational analysis Sheffield in the morning and evening peaks existing passengers, and will require two additional units to extend the services. Therefore, this with the capital cost associated with Dore option requires the following: Jn redoubling • eight sets of train crew • seven extra DMU vehicles • extra mileage from Marple/New Mills to Sheffield for 12 services a day This option requires doubling of Dore Jn. The Northern Hub Study estimates the cost of this Infrastructure required Assessment of option 4.1 – lengthening Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport services scheme as £16 million in 2009 prices at GRIP 1 (initial feasibility estimate). Concept Lengthen the busiest services between Cleethorpes and Manchester Airport Passenger impact Increased capacity, reduced crowding and improved connectivity. Current Manchester Airport to Cleethorpes services are a mixture of two and three-car DMUs; Freight impact Further limits opportunity for freight to operate in the Hope Valley during the peaks. four-car DMUs can be accommodated at all platforms at which these trains call. This appraisal The following table outlines the standalone appraisal results: Operational analysis assumes that two unit diagrams (the group of trains that one set of rolling stock operates in Option 4.2 PV a day) would have an additional vehicle all day to avoid coupling and shunting between the 60-year appraisal peaks. This means the mileage-related costs apply to all trains covered by the two diagrams. £m Infrastructure No infrastructure required. Costs (present value) required Investment cost 17.2 Increased capacity and reduced crowding on the busiest Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport Operating cost 54.4 Passenger impact (and vice versa) trains. Revenue -16.0 Freight impact None Other Government impacts 3.3 The following table outlines the appraisal results: Total costs 58.9 Option 4.1 PV Financial and economic 30-year appraisal £m analysis Benefits (present value) Costs (present value) Rail users benefits 18.3 Investment cost 0.0 Crowding benefits 20.1 Operating cost 8.9 Non users benefits 7.1 Revenue -8.3 Total quantified benefits 45.5 Other Government impacts 1.7

Total costs 2.3 NPV -13.4

Financial and Quantified BCR 0.8 Benefits (present value) economic analysis Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices Rail users benefits 0.0 Link to other options Crowding benefits 16.7 The operating costs of this scheme are very expensive compared with the connectivity Conclusion Non users benefits 3.6 improvements over and above option 4.1. Therefore, this option is not recommended. Total quantified benefits 20.3

NPV 18.0 Quantified BCR >5 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices The revenue associated with this scheme is expected to almost cover the operating costs. Therefore, there may be a purely financial case for lengthening these services in the future. Link to other options This option is recommended to meet capacity on the south cross-Pennine route. If actual Conclusion demand grows in line with forecast demand then implementation of option 4.1 would be necessary in CP6.

64 65 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Assessment of option 4.3 – run a shuttle all day between Manchester and Sheffield Assessment of option 4.4 – run a shuttle all day between Manchester and Sheffield as an extension of the Hull to Sheffield service Extend one Marple/New Mills Central to Manchester Piccadilly service per hour to Sheffield all Extend one Marple/New Mills Central to Manchester Piccadilly service per hour to Sheffield all Concept day. To provide more capacity on services between Manchester and Sheffield with the added day and then combine it with the Sheffield – Hull service. To provide more capacity on services benefits of improved connectivity. Concept between Manchester and Sheffield, and between Sheffield and Doncaster, with additional The incremental operating expenditure compared with Option 4.2 is the extra mileage costs of Operational analysis connectivity benefits compared with Option 4.2. running the additional service in the off-peak. Operational analysis There is assumed to be no additional operating expenditure compared with Option 4.3. This option requires doubling of Dore Jn and passing loops in the Grindleford area, as This option requires doubling of Dore Jn and passing loops at Grindleford. The Northern Hub Infrastructure identified by the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. The Northern Hub study estimates the cost of Infrastructure project estimates the cost of this scheme at £16 million and £25 million respectively in 2009 required these schemes are £16 million and £25 million respectively in 2009 prices at GRIP 1 (initial prices at GRIP 1. However, the capital cost of passing loops of Grindleford is assumed to be feasibility estimate). required covered by the Strategic Freight Network Hope Valley train lengthening scheme. Passenger impact Reduced crowding and increased connectivity. Passenger impact Reduced crowding and increased connectivity. The Yorkshire and Humber RUS developed an outline timetable that could accommodate the The Yorkshire and Humber RUS developed an outline timetable that could accommodate the Freight impact extra passenger services and three freight trains every two hours in each direction, as required extra passenger services and three freight trains every two hours in each direction, as required to meet freight growth. Freight impact to meet freight growth with the above infrastructure schemes. The freight services were timed Link to other options An extension of option 4.2 as heavier trains than those which operate in the daytime currently. The improved connectivity and small increase in connectivity benefits are not sufficient to The following table outlines the standalone appraisal results: Conclusion cover the cost of passing loops at Grindleford or the operating cost of the extended service. Option 4.4 PV This option is therefore not recommended. 60-year appraisal £m Costs (present value) Investment cost 17.2 Operating cost 64.6 Revenue -35.9 Other Government impacts 7.4 Total costs 53.3

Financial and Benefits (present value) economic analysis Rail users benefits 33.8 Crowding benefits 40.3 Non users benefits 14.8 Total quantified benefits 88.9

NPV 35.7 Quantified BCR 1.7 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices The standalone case for extending the services to Hull has a medium value-for-money case, assuming that the cost of Grindleford loops is not included. However, the incremental case of this scheme compared with option 4.1 (which has a high value-for-money case) has a low value for money business case. Link to other options This is an extension of options 4.2 and 4.3. The further increase in connectivity benefits is not sufficient to cover the operating cost of the Conclusion portion of the service between Marple/New Mills and Sheffield. This option is therefore not recommended.

Therefore, the strategy for this corridor is to project (see Gap 9) provides the infrastructure lengthen the busiest services between Manchester required to enable an increase in services and Airport and Cleethorpes as described in option 4.1, improved journey time between Manchester to provide adequate capacity west of Doncaster to and Sheffield and also provides opportunity for 2024 and it is not possible to recommend additional improved connectivity beyond these cities. services at this time. However, the Northern Hub

66 67 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Gap 5: Peak crowding on the Retford shows demand and capacity on services into Figure 4.17 – demand and capacity in the morning peak into Huddersfield on the and Penistone lines, and additional Huddersfield in the morning peak and combines demand and capacity of all services on the Barnsley Demand 2024 – calls at Elsecar corridor into Sheffield to demonstrate capacity 75th percentile issues on this route to 2024. The Penistone line Demand 2024 – The Penistone line mean 250 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile services are currently formed of two-car or three-car Demand 2024 - Mean The Penistone line (Figure 4.16) currently has one Standing capacity Class 142/144s (20m vehicles). Standing Capacity stopping service every hour between Sheffield and Seated capacity 200 Seated Capacity Huddersfield in each direction, and many platforms Figure 4.17 shows demand and capacity assuming that each hourly service is made up of a two-car are only long enough to accommodate trains 150 comprising the equivalent of two 23 metre vehicles. Class 156 service. The demand figures show the mean and the 75th percentile of the passengers The Yorkshire and Humber RUS did not analyse on the train each morning. This demonstrates that 100 capacity on the Penistone line because the planned the equivalent of two-car 23 metre vehicle trains is tram-train trial was expected to provide more expected to provide sufficient capacity to 2024, with 50 capacity on this route. However, the tram-train Passengers/Seats/Capacity passengers standing for less than 20 minutes, given trial is no longer going ahead on this route and the expected changes in demand on this route. 0 so further work is required. The following analysis 07 08 09 Weekday arrival hour at Huddersfield

Figure 4.16 – routes used by Retford and Penistone line passenger services

Routes used by Retford and Penistone Figure 4.18 shows demand and capacity on the Another consequence of the tram-train trial no passenger services Leeds via Barnsley, and Penistone line services into longer being on the Huddersfield – Sheffield route

Other routesOther routes R outes used Huddersfield Sheffield with the observation point at Meadowhall is that the expected ability to reinstate the Elsecar Marsden Springwood Jn Greenfield as trains are at their busiest approaching here. calls in these services is no longer addressed. Due to Mossley Lockwood

by R Three services run between Leeds and Sheffield on the tight turnrounds at Sheffield and the effects of Stalybridge etf the Barnsley corridor in the morning high-peak hour the single line sections north of Barnsley following ord and and all are assumed to be four-car DMUs. Assuming the introduction of a revised Leeds – Sheffield – Stocksmoor Pe nistone passenger services Shepley that each hourly Penistone line service comprises Barnsley service, train calls at Elsecar were reduced. the equivalent of a two-car Class 156, the demand The overall journey time of the Penisitone line Penistone To Wakefield Kirkgate/Leeds Silkstone services needs to be reduced by two minutes in Common Gainsborough and capacity figures demonstrate that there will Lea Road Lincoln Dodworth Trent Jns be sufficient capacity to 2024, with passengers each direction to allow this service to call at Elsecar. Saxilby Barnsley Station Jn Barnsley standing for less than 20 minutes. The better acceleration of tram-train vehicles was To Doncaster Clarborough Jn expected to allow this to happen. Retford Retford Western Elsecar Jn Chapeltown Meadowhall Figure 4.18 – demand and capacity in the morning peak into Meadowhall on the Barnsley line, Wincobank Jn Worksop Darnall Kiveton Bridge Shireoaks Jns including Penistone line, towards Sheffield Nunnery Main Jn Woodhouse Kiveton Park Shireoaks Sheffield Demand 2024 – 75th percentile Demand 2024 – mean 1000 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile Demand 2024 - Mean Standing capacity 875 Standing Capacity Seated capacity Seated Capacity 750 625 500 375 250

Passengers/Seats/Capacity 125 0 07 08 09 Weekday arrival hour at Sheeld

68 69 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

The East Midlands RUS identified the maximum trains calling at Elsecar, a linespeed improvement Retford line l 07:04 Lincoln to Sheffield service that arrives infrastructure cost that could support a one-minute with a cost of no more than £1.7 million in 2010 into Sheffield between 08:00 and 09:00 and is a Unlike all other corridors into Sheffield, the Yorkshire journey time improvement between Barnsley prices would need to be found. four-car Class 142 DMU and Humber RUS did not find the need for any and Meadowhall with a BCR of two, benefiting all It is recommended that the East Midlands RUS interventions on the Retford line to 2019. Further l 08:27 Lincoln to Adwick service that arrives into services on this route. Given the nature of this route recommendation to further develop journey time analysis is required to see if this is still true to 2024. Sheffield between 09:00 and 10:00 and is a it is unlikely that more than one minute of journey improvements between Nottingham, Sheffield two-car Class 142 DMU. time improvement could be found for trains calling Analysis of demand and capacity on the Retford and Leeds via Barnsley also includes journey time intermediately and so a second minute would need line (Figure 4.16) into Sheffield on the following Figure 4.19 shows that there is sufficient capacity on improvements for Sheffield – Huddersfield services to be found north of Barnsley on the Penistone services has been undertaken: the Retford line to 2024 and no further options have which would allow the Elsecar call to be reinstated line services to enable the reinstatement of calls been considered to increase capacity on this route. rather than reduce overall journey times on at Elsecar. To achieve a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) these services. of two, based on the benefits of all Penistone line Figure 4.19 – demand and capacity in the morning peak into Sheffield on the Retford line

Option 4.4 PV 60-year appraisal £m Demand 2024 – 75th percentile Costs (present value) Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile Demand 2024 – 300 Investment cost 1.8 mean Demand 2024 - Mean Standing Capacity Standing capacity 250 Operating cost 0.0 Seated Capacity Revenue -0.6 Seated capacity 200 Total costs 1.2 150 Benefits (present value) Rail users benefits 2.3 100 Crowding benefits 0.0

Passengers/Seats/Capacity 50 Non users benefits 0.2 Other Government impacts -0.1 0 08 09 Total quantified benefits 2.4 Weekday arrival hour at Sheeld

NPV 1.2 Note: Passenger count information for the service in the 0700 hour was not available. Quantified BCR 2.00 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices

70 71 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

available. The areas of concern on the East Coast Gap 6: Insufficient freight capacity Figure 4.20 – Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor on the Immingham – Scunthorpe – Main Line will be examined by the East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review (see paragraph 2.4.3) Knottingley corridor and the only other area where the network is unable Immingham – Scunthorpe– Analysis of the Strategic Freight Network (SFN) to accommodate the required number of freight Knottingley corridor Eggborough Power Drax Power Station Station forecasts for 2019 and 2030 was undertaken to paths is the Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley Other routes Knottingley identify where the number of freight paths required corridor (Figure 4.20). Table 4.3 shows the demand * Name used in RUS Knottingley West Jn per hour is expected to exceed the capacity for paths in 2019 and 2030 on this corridor. for proposed junction Killingholme Knottingley Knottingley South Jn East Jn Immingham Docks Table 4.3 – current capacity and SFN forecasts in 2019 and 2030 Docks ECML Current Roxby Ulceby Landfill site freight paths 2019 forecast 2030 forecast Thorne Jn Crowle Scunthorpe BrocklesbyJn available per freight freight Shaftholme Flyover Hatfield & Jn* Stainforth Wrawby Jn hour in each demand demand Thorne Althorpe South Corus direction Applehurst Jn Stainforth Scunthorpe Jn Immingham to Brocklesby 6 5 7 Brocklesby to Wrawby Jn (two westbound lines) 6 5 7 ECML Wrawby Jn to Scunthorpe Foreign Ore Jn 4 4 5 Scunthorpe Foreign Ore Jn to Scunthorpe West Jn 4 4 5 Immingham – Scunthorpe – Knottingley corridor Scunthorpe West Jn to Thorne Jn 4 3 4 Other routes Thorne Jn to Hatfield & Stainforth (two lines each way) 5 4 5 This analysis* Namedemonstrates used in RUS for thatproposed there junction is sufficient Scheme 1 Enhanced signalling to provide four-minute Hatfield & Stainforth to Applehurst Jn 4 3 4 capacity on all sections to meet the requirements of planning headways between Humber Road Applehurst Jn to Shaftholme Flyover Jn# 4 3 4 the 2019 forecasts, unless a half-hourly Knottingley Jn and Scunthorpe Foreign Ore Jn # – Leeds passenger service is introduced (see scheme Shaftholme Flyover Jn to Knottingley South Jn 5 3 5 Scheme 2 A turnback at Knottingley station so ECS two below). Knottingley South Jn to Knottingley East Jn 2 2 3 moves associated with the passenger Knottingley South Jn to Knottingley West Jn 3 1 1 The following sections/locations have insufficient services that terminate at Knottingley Knottingley East Jn to Eggborough Whitley Bridge Jn 4 4 4 capacity to meet the 2030 forecasts: do not block Knottingley East Jn whilst shunting (required to meet the Knottingley West Jn to Ferrybridge North Jn 2 2 2 l Immingham to Brocklesby 2019 freight forecasts if a half-hourly Knottingley West Jn to Knottingley East Jn 2 2 1 l Wrawby Jn to Scunthorpe West Jn Knottingley – Leeds service is introduced). Eggborough Whitley Bridge Jn to Drax Branch Jn 4 3 4 l Knottingley East Jn. The case for investment is based on the environmental Ferrybridge North Jn to Milford Jn 2 2 2 Analysis shows that the following infrastructure benefits of removing lorries from roads. The following # Name used for the purposes of this RUS to identify where the Immingham – Knottingley and Doncaster – Knottingley routes join once the table shows the appraisals assuming that a lorry Shaftholme Flyover project is completed. would be required to provide sufficient capacity in these areas: carries a load of around 29 tonnes and capital costs are £23 million and £12 million respectively for the two schemes in 2010 prices:

Scheme 1 PV Scheme 2 PV 60-year appraisal £m £m Costs (present value) Investment cost 24.7 12.9 Total costs 24.7 12.9

Benefits (present value) Non users benefits 174.1 42.0 Other Government impacts -17.8 -4.2 Total quantified benefits 156.2 37.7

NPV 131.6 24.9 Quantified BCR 6.3 2.9 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices

72 73 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

The case is still robust against an increased load than forecast in the Yorkshire and Humber RUS, Figure 4.22 – routes used by Skipton and Ilkley passenger services per lorry of 40 tonnes. Therefore, the infrastructure therefore an assessment of capacity and demand detailed above is recommended for implementation to 2024 has been completed, assuming that the to provide sufficient capacity for the 2019 and 2030 Yorkshire and Humber recommendations are Routes used by To Carlisle/Lancaster Skipton and Ikley SFN forecasts. implemented, to see whether a capacity gap is still passenger services expected in 2024. There are signalling works scheduled in these Other routes areas in CP5 which would therefore be the best Demand and capacity on the Ilkley line Skipton Ilkley time to undertake scheme one, which would give The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended performance and potential linespeed improvement Cononley lengthening the current four-car EMUs on the four opportunities in advance of the need for an increase busiest Ilkley line (Figure 4.22) trains (one of which Steeton & in capacity. Burley-in- is in the first shoulder peak hour) to six-car EMUs. In addition, Stainforth Jn is at capacity by 2030, In the morning peak, two services run from Ilkley which means that the performance of passenger to Leeds in each shoulder-peak hour and three in and freight trains in the area is likely to be affected. the high-peak hour, providing 18 vehicles’ worth of This could be alleviated through alterations to capacity in the high-peak hour. the signalling approach control arrangements or Demand on this corridor is expected to be very Jn relocating Stainforth Jn to reduce the junction high by 2024, largely because of the proportion of margin. This will be examined in more detail during Shipley commuters on this corridor and the expected growth Shipley Jncs the consultation period. in the season ticket market into Leeds. Dockfield The analysis has only covered the network owned by Jn Figure 4.21 shows the expected capacity provision Network Rail and has not considered the impact of on the Ilkley line after the implementation of the the growth forecasts on the Associated British Ports Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommendations and railway infrastructure within the port complex at Bradford Forster Square Apperley Jn the forecast demand in 2024. This demonstrates Immingham. that services will be over seated capacity but not

Gap 7: Peak crowding on the Ilkley, over standing capacity by 2024 and passengers will Whitehall Jns Skipton and Wakefield Westgate be standing for less than 20 minutes. Therefore, no corridors into Leeds capacity gap has been identified in 2024. However, it is recognised that, according to current demand Leeds The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended a forecasts, by 2024 these services will be very close series of options to deal with expected crowding on to capacity. Therefore it is recommended that these the Ilkley, Skipton and Wakefield corridors. However, services are reviewed in the next control period, demand on these routes is expected to be higher taking account of intervening growth. Demand and capacity on the l between 09:00 and 10:00 into Leeds: Skipton line – two services run from Skipton to Leeds Figure 4.21 – demand and capacity in the morning peak into Leeds on the Ilkley line (assumed to be four-car EMUs) The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended – one service from Lancaster to Leeds Demand 2024 – lengthening the busiest current four-car EMUs on 75th percentile (two-car DMU), the Skipton Line (Figure 4.22) to six-car EMUs. The Demand 2024 – following services currently run in the morning peak Figure 4.23 shows the expected demand and mean 2500 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile with assumed future formations as shown: capacity on the Skipton line in 2024, assuming the Standing capacity Demand 2024 - Mean Standing Capacity recommendations of the Yorkshire and Humber RUS Seated capacity l between 07:00 and 08:00 into Leeds: 2000 Seated Capacity have been implemented. This demonstrates that – two services run from Skipton to Leeds services will be over seated capacity but not over (EMU services, one assumed to be four-car and standing capacity by 2024; standing will be for less 1500 the other six) than 20 minutes. Therefore no options have been l between 08:00 and 09:00 into Leeds: identified to provide more capacity on this line. 1000 – three services run from Skipton to Leeds (assumed to be six-car EMU) 500 Passengers/Seats/Capacity – one service from Ribblehead into Leeds (assumed to be a four-car DMU) 0 07 08 09 Weekday arrival hour at Leeds

74 75 4. Gaps and options Figure 4.24 – routes used by WakefieldNorthern Westgate Route Utilisation corridor Strategy local Draftpassenger for Consultation service October 2010 Routes used by Wakefield Westgate corridor local passenger service Demand 2024 – 75th percentile Figure 4.23 – demand and capacity in the morning peak into Leeds on the Skipton line Other routes Demand 2024 – Leeds mean Standing capacity Outwood Seated capacity 3000 Demand - 2024 - 75th%ile Demand 2024 - Mean Wakefield Westgate 2625 Standing Capacity Sandal & Agbrigg Seated Capacity 2250 1875 Fitzwilliam 1500 Moorthorpe Adwick 1125

Thumscoe 750 Bentley

Passengers/Seats/Capacity 375 Goldthorpe Doncaster 0 07 08 09 Weekday arrival hour at Leeds Bolton-on-Dearne

Note: Information for the 09:18 Skipton to Leeds service that arrives at Leeds at 09:59 is unavailable, therefore the capacity and demand for Swinton this service has been excluded.

Rotherham Central Demand and capacity on the l between 09:00 and 10:00 into Leeds: Meadowhall – one service from Doncaster to Leeds (four-car EMU) The Yorkshire and Humber RUS recommended using Sheffield higher capacity EMUs on the Doncaster to Leeds – one service from Sheffield to Leeds trains on the Wakefield Westgate corridor Figure( (two-car DMU), 4.24) and an additional Doncaster to Leeds service Figure 4.25 shows the expected demand and in the high-peak hour. The local services that are capacity on the Wakefield Westgate line in assumed to run are as follows: 2024, assuming the Yorkshire and Humber l between 07:00 and 08:00 into Leeds: RUS recommendation of an extra train from Doncaster to Leeds, plus higher density EMU – one service from Doncaster to Leeds Figure 4.25 – demand and capacity in the morning peak into Leeds on the Wakefield line (four‑car EMU) stock, have been implemented and the Sheffield Demand 2024 – - Leeds services are comprised of Sprinter DMU 75th percentile – one service from Doncaster to Leeds rolling stock. Strengthening of cross-country Demand 2024 – (four‑car DMU) LDHS services provides trains of up to eight-car mean

l between 08:00 and 09:00 into Leeds: length from Wakefield into Leeds in the morning Standing capacity 2000 Demand – 2024 – 75th%ile – three services from Doncaster to Leeds peak, which, along with services from London Demand 2024 – Mean Seated capacity 1750 (four‑car EMU) King’s Cross, would provide capacity for Wakefield Standing Capacity Seated Capacity Westgate commuters. 1500 – one service from Sheffield to Leeds (four‑car DMU) This demonstrates that services will be within 1250 seated capacity by 2024. 1000 750 500

Passengers/Seats/Capacity 250 0 07 08 09 Weekday arrival hour at Leeds

76 77 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Gap 8: Accommodating peak services The expected length of services (both existing and The service changes on the Castleford corridor connecting the Normanton route to an extended into Leeds station additional ones recommended in the Yorkshire and would require either a lengthened Platform 17 or an Platform 17 would be required to improve timetable Humber RUS and this RUS) on all corridors arriving additional Platform 18. It was the view of the rail flexibility and mitigate the performance effects of A number of service improvements are expected into Leeds in the high-peak hour is as follows: industry Stakeholder Management Group (SMG) running the additional services. A to F lines are the between now and 2024 that will cause capacity that a lengthened Platform 17 is more feasible six approaching the west end of Leeds station. This issues at Leeds station in the high-peak hour. and therefore this cost has been included in will be investigated further during the consultation the appraisal. period and the results reported in the final Strategy, though consultees are welcome to comment on this The six lines approaching the west of Leeds station Assumptions on formations of services arriving into in their consultation responses. Corridor are named A to F lines. The increase in services Leeds in the high-peak hour in 2024 using E and F lines, including additional trains using The current cost estimates for these enhancements Bradford Forster Square 4x23m EMU E line instead of C line in the May 2011 timetable, are as follows: Calder Valley 4x23m DMU means that it is possible that a new G line Castleford 4X23m DMU East of Leeds local services 4x23m DMU Infrastructure required Point estimate of capital cost (£m) Harrogate 4x20m DMU Leeds Platform 0 3.5 Huddersfield/ local services 4x23m DMU Leeds Platform 13/14 7.5 Ilkley 6x23m EMU Leeds Platform 17 extension 9.5 North cross-Pennine 6x23m DMU (4x23m on Hull services) Micklefield Turnback 24.0 Services from Skipton 6x23m EMU Skipton Services through Skipton 4x23m DMU Total 44.5 4x23m EMU from Doncaster 4x23m DMU from Sheffield Wakefield Westgate Cross-country LDHS: 8x23m DMU The present value of the capital costs after recommended in the Yorkshire and Humber London LDHS: 10x26m vehicles optimism bias, financing costs and inflation have and Northern RUSs listed previously. However, been taken account of is £48 million in 2002 prices this analysis was undertaken using the current and values. timetable as the basis (with the further addition of the services listed) and it is recognised in that The following recommended extra morning high- Northern RUS: The capital costs of these enhancements have in future timetable structures it may be different peak hour services have also been assumed from been appraised as a package of interventions l one extra Huddersfield – Leeds semi fast services in the package of interventions that trigger recommendations in the Yorkshire and Humber and against the operational costs and benefits of (4x23m DMU). the requirement for the additional infrastructure. Northern RUSs: the associated service improvements. The costs, This is because the current infrastructure at Leeds Analysis of the effect of these service benefits and revenue implications of the service Yorkshire and Humber RUS: cannot accommodate the amalgamation of improvements on track and platform capacity changes have been collated and compared with all the train lengthening and additional service l two extra Horsforth – Leeds (4x20m DMU) at Leeds station shows that the following service the capital costs of infrastructure at Leeds. This interventions. l two extra Halifax – Leeds (4x23m DMU) interventions trigger the need for the following appraisal only includes the costs and benefits l one extra Knottingley – Leeds (4x23m DMU) infrastructure solutions: throughout the route of the identified trigger This gives a combined benefit cost ratio of 2.5. l one extra Doncaster – Leeds (4x23m EMU) peak capacity interventions and the cost of the The phasing of the infrastructure at Leeds will l one extra Manchester – Leeds and beyond infrastructure enhancements at Leeds. It does not depend on the infrastructure interventions provided (4x23m DMU). include the costs and benefits of the rest of the in CP4, timing of growth and the availability of (train lengthening) peak capacity interventions additional rolling stock and how it is deployed.

Service change Infrastructure requirement Lengthening of Ilkley & Skipton services to six-car New bay platform on north side of station Yorkshire and Additional Horsforth and Halifax services Costs Revenue Benefits Service change Humber RUS Extend Platform 17 to eight-car operation or a new bay (£m) (£m) (£m) Lengthening of Castleford corridor to four-car Option Code Platform 18 Lengthening of Ilkley & Skipton services to six-car WH1 & AI1 88 35 110 Additional Huddersfield service Change Platforms 13 and 14 to a through platform Additional Horsforth and Halifax services HA1 or 2 or 3 CV1 105 41 138 Operation of additional interurban services from Manchester Micklefield turnback facility to Leeds and beyond Lengthening of Castleford Corridor to four-car BP1 & BP4 71 28 83 Additional Huddersfield service - 16 13 23 Fifth cross-Pennine train HD2 192 138 311 Infrastructure at Leeds 48 - - Total 524 267 689 Note: All figures are presented in 2002 market prices

78 79 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Gap 9: Strategic connectivity across The preferred solution (Option 2 in the Study) On key Manchester commuter corridors the Other RUSs have made recommendations to the north of England delivers excellent value for money and provides the opportunity is created to: improve connectivity on those routes outside the opportunity for faster, more frequent and more scope of the Northern Hub work, for example l enable more commuter and local services to run The geographical RUSs that covered the north of reliable services, freeing up capacity and providing between Leeds, Sheffield and Nottingham. These throughout the day England all identified that improved connectivity for future growth in demand. It will: recommendations, in combination with the within the areas they covered is needed. To varying l make commuter and local services faster than Northern Hub, would enhance strategic connectivity l increase platform capacity in central extents they also looked at improving links with ever before in the north of England. Manchester other areas. In consequence, the Northern RUS l introduce 15-minute frequency services between Depending on the service improvements chosen recognises that strategic connectivity across the l remove conflicts which use up valuable capacity Manchester Victoria, Manchester Oxford Road, following completion of the Option 2 works, there north of England is a gap and that extensive work l increase capacity on key lines across Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport will need to be a review of the implications on by the Northern Way had looked at this issue. Manchester and on major routes across the improving end-to-end journey times by making capacity at other key locations in the north of The Northern Way work identified a number of north. more accessible by rail England including Leeds, Liverpool and Sheffield. Conditional Outputs, particularly involving improved The preferred option involves: l connect north east Manchester into the Asset renewals in CP6 at the latter two will inter and intra-urban connectivity (including faster wider rail network by running through provide the opportunity to deal with any such journey times) which, if addressed, would contribute l a new section of railway west of Manchester Manchester Victoria. capacity issues, as well as to address other to a major increase in the Gross Value Added (GVA) city centre at Ordsall, to allow trains to travel RUS recommendations. of the north of England. Economic growth is one of from Manchester Victoria to both Manchester For freight operations the study provides the the key objectives of the Coalition Government and Piccadilly and Manchester Airport stations opportunity to: it recognises that our railways can contribute to this, l major improvements to Manchester Victoria, l double capacity into the Trafford Park terminals as well as the objective of carbon reduction. sallowing many more services to use the station l provide capacity for traffic to planned new and providing improved facilities for passengers Network Rail’s Manchester Hub Study (see freight terminals. paragraph 2.4.5) then identified a number of gaps l new tracks on the north cross-Pennine line Therefore the recommended option to meet much to be examined with the aim of achieving the between Leeds and Liverpool, and on the Hope of the gap of ‘strategic connectivity across the Conditional Outputs in a way that delivers value for Valley between Sheffield and Manchester, to north of England’ is Option 2 in the Manchester money, taking account of wider economic benefits. allow fast trains between the major towns and Table 4.4 shows the outputs relating to connectivity Hub Study. As well as benefiting the Manchester cities of the north to overtake slower trains. that were specified by the Northern Way and the city region, improvements will be seen for corresponding gaps, mainly as identified in the This option provides the capability for significant adjoining city regions and other towns and cities Manchester Hub Study. improvements to rail services across the north further afield such as Newcastle, Middlesbrough of England, including interurban, commuter and and Hull. More information can be found at The study examined these and found a high value-for- freight services. www.networkrail.co.uk money case for a solution which would address many of these gaps and thereby meets many of the inter For interurban services the opportunity is created to: and intra-urban connectivity outputs identified by the l increase the frequency of train services between Northern Way, along with other Conditional Outputs, major cities in the north such as performance, passenger train capacity (which is an extension of the recommendations covered l improve journey times on the north cross- above) and freight path provision. Pennine route, reducing journey times for passengers between the North East and The solution was based on a sample service Yorkshire, and Manchester, Liverpool and other proposition that improved connectivity between destinations west of Manchester cities and key towns across the whole of the north of England and also between these and other key l improve journey times from Sheffield and the destinations within the north (eg. Manchester East Midlands to Manchester, Manchester Airport) or other areas (eg. the East Midlands). Airport, Liverpool and other destinations west of Because the benefits stretch way beyond the Manchester Manchester area, this scheme has been renamed l provide direct journeys from Bradford, Halifax the Northern Hub. and the Calder Valley, to Manchester Airport Following detailed consideration of alternatives, and destinations west of Manchester Network Rail identified two strategic options to l provide direct services from Chester to provide the capability to achieve the conditional destinations beyond Manchester outputs: one to allow greater use of Manchester l reduce delays to services across the north Piccadilly; the other greater use of Manchester of England. Victoria. The work demonstrates that the Manchester Victoria option offers better value for money and greater benefits at a lower capital cost.

80 81 4. Gaps and options Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Table 4.4 – Northern Way-specified connectivity outputs and corresponding Manchester Hub Study gap 5. Emerging strategy Requirement Gap Journey times These are target journey times for the key corridors, from a Manchester The current public times are shown below: city centre station (either Victoria or Piccadilly) to the principal adjoining city regions: • Leeds 40 minutes 54 minutes 5.1 Introduction those of the Department for Transport (DfT). • Bradford 50 minutes 60 minutes This process has identified new or amended gaps • Sheffield 40 minutes 48 minutes The study of the routes covered by the Northern which the RUS has then sought to solve. The Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), together with those • Chester 40 minutes 63 minutes recommendations for gaps and options in in the first generation of RUSs covering the north • Liverpool 30 minutes 47 minutes the previous RUSs that have not been addressed of England, has shown that generally the routes are • Preston 30 minutes. 39 minutes already and remain unchanged by this review very well used by passenger and freight traffic. The still stand. For the gaps addressed by this RUS, Growth centres in Greater Manchester most acute issues are accommodating the growth options were developed, tested, sifted and modified From each principal rail corridor to each sub-area within the Regional Calder Valley does not link to the Village. in commuter journeys and certain interurban flows, until feasible solutions were identified that meet Centre there should be either a direct rail service or a service that requires and providing additional capacity for freight traffic. no more than a single interchange for onward travel by rail, Metrolink or value for money criteria and are consistent with This strategy therefore primarily seeks to address Metroshuttle. anticipated funding. the question of growth progressively over time. It is From each principal rail corridor to each of the key town centres, there Calder Valley does not give a link to based on the work undertaken in this RUS and those To align with the 2007 Government White Paper should be either a direct rail service or a service that requires no more Stockport. ‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’, the strategy also than a single interchange by rail or Metrolink. elements of the strategies in the previous RUSs looks forward to interventions which will support From each principal rail corridor to Salford Quays there should be Calder Valley does not reach the Metrolink covering the north of England that are unchanged long-term freight and passenger growth. a service that requires no more than a single interchange by bus or service to Eccles for connection to Salford by the work of this RUS. Metrolink. Quays. The RUS process has considered the current Many of the key recommendations are reliant upon Connectivity to deliver economic benefits and future freight and passenger markets and there being additional rolling stock available to the Calder Valley services do not reach All principal corridors to be connected if possible to the same station in assessed the growth in each. It has then sought to Train Operating Companies (TOCs). Consequently, Manchester Piccadilly, all others do. Manchester city centre for easy passenger transfer (or through cross- accommodate this growth effectively and efficiently, timescales and final capacity solutions will be Manchester operation), as well as other central area stations appropriate in accordance with the route utilisation objective dependent on the rolling stock strategy and to the travel market. specified in Network Rail’s Network Licence. The subsequent acquisition, cascade and deployment The improved connectivity should therefore be used: Not all corridors connect to the same single measures proposed range from lengthening services of rolling stock across the network. • where possible, to promote direct cross-city movements (for which station. to provision of additional infrastructure. train service provision and hence franchising costs will also generally For Control Period 4 (CP4), which runs from experience cost efficiencies), or The Northern RUS has reviewed the conclusions of April 2009 to March 2014, there is a process • where this cannot be done, to facilitate convenient passenger the previous RUSs covering the north of England that is seeking to meet the Government’s High interchange. This is best done at a single Manchester city centre station in the light of passenger and freight demand Level Output Specification (HLOS) requirements to avoid circuitous, time-consuming/counter-intuitive routeing. forecasts beyond the timescales previously through the Network Rail CP4 Delivery Plan and Manchester Airport available, and significant changes in circumstances revised TOC operational plans. This process aims The requirement is for direct services of at least hourly interval service The Calder Valley, Chester and the CLC have since publication of those RUSs. It has taken into to address peak crowding for services into five frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of the no direct service to Manchester Airport, and account other aspirations that stakeholders have cities in the north of England using the options and North East via Leeds corridors). the corridor to the south has only got one proposed for recommendations in the appropriate if the local service from Crewe is counted as indicated they could potentially fund, particularly first generation RUSs, subject to the availability sufficient. Trans Pennine Leeds – Manchester a 15-minute interval service Currently four tph a few minutes off an (or better) even interval

Sheffield – Manchester a 20-minute service interval Currently 30-minute interval

Bradford/Halifax – Manchester a 30-minute service interval Currently two tph a few minutes off interval

Liverpool – Manchester a 15-minute service interval Currently three fast tph but not at 20-minute intervals

82 83 5. Emerging strategy Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

of rolling stock. The infrastructure and train services and direct connections. Faster rolling stock infrastructure but will be dependent on the exact the HLOS. Joint work by the train operators, the service outputs of this process at the end of CP4 and additional vehicles may also be required, the timetable, train formations and classes of traction DfT and Network Rail is ongoing. are the assumed baseline for the Northern RUS. latter particularly to allow increased frequencies that will be used. A significant factor will be the As mentioned in 5.2.4, beyond 2014 a programme Those recommendations in previous RUSs to and to deal with growth that is driven by the power consumption characteristics of any new Long of new build and life extension will be necessary to accommodate capacity and growth in CP4 (listed improved connectivity. Distance High Speed (LDHS) electric rolling stock meet further growth and to address the eventual in paragraph 5.3), that are not fully implemented and which routes it would be used on. The Northern Hub project would provide increased obsolescence of some of the existing fleet, and by the end of the control period form part of the infrastructure capability in the Manchester area and The strategy for electrification is addressed in the further infrastructure enhancements beyond those strategy beyond 2014. on several routes connecting it with other locations Network RUS: Electrification Strategy. Following to be delivered in CP4 will be necessary to continue 5.2 Principles in the north of England. This would allow enhanced the electrification of additional routes in the North to make best use of this new rolling stock. This RUS services to operate, which would give a step change West, infill electrification between Leeds and York assumes that sufficient electric units are made 5.2.1 Dealing with growth in connectivity across the north of England. would bring benefits in terms of faster local available to operate all existing services on the services and improved diversionary capability routes announced to be electrified in the North West The general principle adopted in RUSs has been 5.2.3 Performance to consider simpler and lower-cost interventions for East Coast Main Line (ECML) services. where those services will operate entirely on the before turning to more complex and expensive Train service performance has improved Further electrification of routes, such as between electrified network. As well as the requirement for solutions. In the first instance, optimising the use considerably in recent years but the rail industry Manchester and Leeds, the Midland Main Line, electric stock to deal with growth on these services, of existing infrastructure is examined. Timetabling continues to identify ways to improve it further. and Sheffield and Leeds/Doncaster, would provide particularly in commuter and long distance journeys, further opportunities to convert local and longer rolling stock would need to be made available to solutions have always been sought as preferable As with many other parts of the country, issues distance services to electric operation. help meet growth on routes not currently electrified. to infrastructure works, subject to there being affecting performance on the rail network in the no unacceptable performance impact. The Northern RUS area are complex, given its diversity The need for further folling stock to accommodate There are a number of electric fleets around the next step has been to consider the progressive of routes and the wide range of services operating growth and to replace and/or refurbish obsolete country, including the Merseyrail 3-car units, that lengthening of trains to the maximum practical over it, with a number of services originating from rolling stock during Control Period 5 (CP5) or will be due for replacement and this procurement size where heavy demand exists and only then to places well outside the RUS area. It is clear that Control Period 6 (CP6) and perhaps beyond might of new stock could provide the opportunity for look towards infrastructure enhancement. Again, major factors are the mix of services with varying offer particular opportunities to build a case for provision of electric stock for some of the additional the range of options is considered in order, from speed and stopping patterns and the large number electrification, based around the premise that electrified routes. This issue will be considered in simpler schemes such as platform extensions, of complex junctions and crossings, nearly all on electric traction is generally simpler to maintain more detail in the Network RUS: Rolling Stock and through track and signalling enhancements, the level, with conflicting train movements. These than diesel, giving potentially more intensive Depots workstream, which is due to be published capability works for longer freight trains, increased factors become critical when trains are running out utilisation and lower maintenance costs, as well for consultation in early 2011. loading gauge for intermodal traffic, to more of sequence due to an incident and the strategy as helping to reduce carbon emissions. Further benefits might be achieved by the comprehensive investment in a particular line of seeks to reduce the scale of these issues. RUSs focus All electrified routes within the RUS area have introduction of a new generation of self-powered route. In some cases, the provision of additional on reactionary delays which are those that are recently been made receptive to regenerative trains with better acceleration characteristics than services may offer a solution to peak and inter-peak caused by trains that have been previously delayed braking, allowing the environmental and financial the Sprinter and Pacer fleets, which would minimise overcrowding, offers passengers a better service elsewhere on the network by primary delays, which benefits of regeneration to be exploited by future journey time differentials between stopping trains and is better value for money than the cost of are then delayed further after losing their timetable new build and re-engineered rolling stock. and faster services on a number of capacity- simple train lengthening, even taking into account slot, or cause delays to other trains. constrained corridors and thereby optimise the infrastructure capacity improvements. Primary delays are those that arise due to a 5.2.5 Rolling stock timetable. Similarly, an increase in the electrified Looking to the medium term, account has been problem with the infrastructure or the train itself, The DfT published its Rolling Stock Plan on 30 network in the RUS area, with an associated taken of the opportunity presented by the eg. points failure, vandalism or shortage of train January 2008. The Plan set out how rolling stock increase in the Electrical Multiple Unit (EMU) fleet, introduction of further new trains to provide crew. There are other industry processes which would be used to deliver increased capacity and could give an opportunity to procure rolling stock increased capacity per train and to consider the part focus on reducing these delays and the RUS has not hence contribute to the capacity outputs required with characteristics that optimise between the that increased use of electric traction might play. sought to address them. over the period covered by the 2007 HLOS needs for rapid acceleration/deceleration, maximum (covering CP4) and beyond. The DfT and train carrying capacity and quick access/egress to reduce 5.2.2 Connectivity The first generation of RUSs covering the north operators have been involved in the development station dwell times. The tram-train concept, which of England made recommendations as to how Many stakeholders have an aspiration for improved of the Northern RUS. Therefore, the strategy set is to be piloted in starting in 2012, reactionary delay could be reduced, so the Northern connectivity in and between the many cities and out in this chapter takes account of the most may also provide opportunities to deal with some RUS, has not specifically studied this issue further. towns in the north of England and with cities recent developments, recognising that some growth issues in the RUS area. These issues are However, for those interventions examined by this elsewhere in the UK and abroad. This would aspects are still under discussion between DfT also being considered further by the Network RUS: RUS, consideration of their affect on reactionary benefit commuting, business and leisure travellers, and some operators, particularly Northern Rail. Rolling Stock and Depots workstream. delay has been taken into account. and therefore the economy. Improvements to The Northern Rail, TransPennine Express (TPE) For LDHS services operating into the RUS area, rail journey times, service frequency and the and East Midlands Trains (EMT) fleet increases 5.2.4 Electrification benefits in terms of capacity, fleet flexibility and availability of direct services would all contribute would contribute to providing increased capacity This RUS has assumed in the baseline the destinations served can be expected from the to achieving improvements in connectivity for the in CP4 and beyond. electrification of those routes in the North introduction of new LDHS rolling stock, either north of England. West announced by the Government in 2009. Given that the detail of the Rolling Stock Plan is directly or through consequential rolling stock Improvements to rail connectivity usually require Looking further to the future, electrification still evolving, the infrastructure enhancements cascade. The Class 390 train lengthening in CP4 is enhanced infrastructure to improve journey times of any additional routes will very likely require planned for CP4 aim as far as possible to expected to accommodate growth on LDHS services and to provide capacity for an increased number of enhancement of the existing power supply accommodate the rolling stock necessary to meet operating over the West Coast Main Line (WCML).

84 85 5. Emerging strategy Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

5.2.6 Depots and stabling of freight trains. These issues will be addressed A number of routes in the RUS area are used by 5.3 Short-term strategy 2009/14 on some routes in the north of England in CP4 high passenger train and freight tonnages and So far as commuter services into the main (Control Period 4) but further works will be necessary, particularly the increases in services on these will generally northern cities are concerned the strategy is in relation to the first two, for those intermodal not be sufficient to raise the current maintenance 5.3.1 Background to accommodate the additional diesel vehicles arteries and their diversionary routes not category for the specification and scheduling of required during CP4 by concentrating maintenance Although the end of CP4 is the baseline for this addressed, as this traffic will be the main growth maintenance inspections and work. However, the of vehicles at Neville Hill depot at Leeds and RUS, an overview of the strategy for CP4 is included market for rail freight. Additionally, the forecast RUS recommendations on some routes to run in Manchester. In order to do this, here as a lead into the strategy recommended for continuing growth of traffic through the Port of additional or lengthened services may drive the need provision of additional servicing and stabling future control periods. Immingham will need the capacity interventions for additional maintenance access but application of facilities is necessary at a number of locations described in Chapter 4 of this RUS. the Seven Day Railway principles will aim to minimise In July 2007, the Government published the HLOS. around Yorkshire and the North West. Those the effect of this on all passenger and freight flows. This set out the improvements in the safety, currently under consideration by Network Rail 5.2.9 Seven Day Railway reliability and capacity of the railway system which and Northern Rail include Leeds Holbeck, Allerton There are a few sections of route for which there It is recognised that there would be merit in moving it wished to secure during CP4. (Liverpool), Hull Botanic Gardens, Blackpool and is no reasonable diversionary route and so, when towards a regime whereby fundamentally the same Skipton (for electric stock). In addition, Allerton renewals or other enhancements are proposed on The strategy for CP4 primarily consists of measures timetable operated on a daily basis. This reflects depot could provide a maintenance, stabling and these, opportunities should be examined to to increase capacity on peak passenger services the increasing demand that passenger services at servicing facility for the electric units for the routes provide a more flexible track layout, such as bi- into Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool, weekends should mirror more closely the Monday to be electrified in the North West. directional signalling. to improve cross-Pennine passenger services –Friday service and the growing need of freight throughout the day and to provide increased In some cases the lack of a ‘reasonable’ The Class 390 train lengthening programme customers for consistent daily continuity of supply, capability for freight. provides enhanced facilities at Edge Hill (Liverpool) in line with what is generally available from the diversionary route is due to alternative routes and Longsight (Manchester). road transport industry. not being electrified and therefore the Seven The summaries in paragraphs 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 Day Railway benefits need to be examined when represent the current proposals for the use of The introduction of any new LDHS rolling stock will Network Rail is leading the Seven Day Railway considering further routes for electrification. additional rolling stock being made available through have to include consideration of the depot facilities initiative, under which the overall vision is to the DfT’s Rolling Stock Plan and the infrastructure required to allow successful implementation. deliver the working timetable in full, alongside 5.2.10 Access to stations interventions to support them. However, the number cyclic maintenance, renewal and enhancement Additional stabling and depot facilities will be Access to the network was highlighted as a gap of additional vehicles available for services in the requirements. This will entail a need to provide required for the additional diesel and electric rolling in first generation RUSs. Some measures were north of England is likely to be significantly less than more flexible operational layouts at the time stock required beyond 2014 to accommodate proposed to improve access to the railway, such was expected prior to the start of CP4. As many of renewals are carried out, together with changes growth on commuter and interurban services in the as improved interchange and Park & Ride facilities the infrastructure interventions in CP4 are designed in working arrangements. The latter are likely RUS area. The exact locations will depend on the at a number of stations, together with work under to deliver the operational plans of the train operators to include introduction of quicker and simpler future balance between electric and diesel rolling the Access for All initiative for which funding will that reflect the use of the additional stock, the list of procedures for taking and giving up possessions, stock fleets and where they are deployed. be available until 2015. In CP4, Network Rail’s enhancements is subject to change. coupled with changed ways of working to allow National Stations Improvement fund is being greater Adjacent Line Open or Single Line Working Anticipated dates for delivery of infrastructure 5.2.7 Power supply used to improve station facilities at medium train operations, probably facilitated by installation projects funded by Network Rail are set out in the Traction power supply is potentially critical to sized stations and opportunities are sought to of bi-directional signalling when renewals arise. Network Rail CP4 Delivery Plan, which is updated service developments such as the operation of more supplement this fund by contributions from other quarterly, and the annual Route Plans published frequent and longer trains or newer stock which In many cases in the RUS area, key towns and stakeholders for those stations targeted. There will in March (both of which are available at has a higher power draw. This includes the Airedale cities can be accessed by more than one route, so be a continuing need to work with train operators, www.networkrail.co.uk). and Wharfedale corridors and also routes supplied that reasonable continuity of service is possible at the Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs), local by the Doncaster feeder where a maximum of times of engineering work or perturbation, albeit authorities and other stakeholders to maximise The May 2011 East Coast Main Line timetable two Class 333 units are allowed to draw current with some journey time extension. A key issue, access opportunities both within the Network Rail will deliver a standard pattern of service with at any one time. Power supply modelling is being particularly for freight, is that comparable capability property portfolio and beyond it to deliver those increased levels of long distance trains to and from undertaken taking into account the service exists on diversionary routes, notably in relation interventions previously identified that are not King’s Cross which, in turn, will provide additional strengthening of local services in this strategy. to loading gauge clearance and route availability. funded in CP4. capacity for journeys between the North East, It will also be important to make sure that any Yorkshire and London and better connectivity at Power supply requirements for the additional routes infrastructure work or changes in the maintenance 5.2.11 Station passenger capacity interchange points. A programme of infrastructure in the North West that are to be electrified are regime do not disproportionately affect users As commuter numbers increase, there are a number enhancements between London and York, due for being considered as part of the development work of local passenger services – which make up a of stations where interventions will be required completion by 2014, will further improve capacity, for that project. significant proportion of operations in the RUS area to deal with crowding at the station, such as on journey times and train performance on the route. 5.2.8 Freight capability – in the interest of longer-distance services. the platforms or at the station exits. This RUS has identified a list of stations(Appendix B) where these Freight growth requires a number of capability Most of the RUS recommendations relating to problems already exist or are most likely to occur. This improvements, particularly capacity for additional additional services concern the commuter peaks list has been passed to the Network RUS: Stations, services, improved loading gauge clearance of the or the main part of the day, the latter on both which is looking at this issue nationally, and will be core arteries over which intermodal freight does, weekdays and weekends. These are times when published as a draft for consultation in early 2011. or will need to, operate, and increasing the length there is currently no maintenance access.

86 87 5. Emerging strategy Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

The following is a list of train services and 5.3.3 Infrastructure – Doncaster – Berwick upon Tweed (with – the reinstatement of the Todmorden Curve infrastructure that form the expected strategy for funding to extend the loading gauge The following schemes are needed in order to – increased track capacity between Blackburn CP4. Listed next to any specific items that have enhancement into Scotland potentially deliver the above strategy: and Bolton come from a previous RUS is the reference1 to the provided by Transport Scotland) (ECMLFC4) corresponding previous RUS recommendation in l platform lengthening on a number of lines to – a new station at Low Moor. – Swinton – Moorthorpe – South Kirkby Jn Appendix A. accommodate increased train length l loading gauge improvements between 5.4 Medium-term strategy 2014 – l new and increased passenger train servicing 5.3.2 Train services Darlington and Teesport, subject to agreement 2024 (Control Periods 5 and 6) and stabling facilities The following changes to train services currently of funding (ECMLFC4) 5.4.1 Background l new turnback facilities form the expected strategy for CP4: l various infrastructure improvements to The medium-term strategy builds on that – at Horsforth – in conjunction with signalling improve capacity, journey times and l the most crowded local services will be proposed for CP4. It assumes that any schemes renewals (YHPC1) performance for long distance and other lengthened as additional rolling stock becomes or service changes in the short-term strategy not services between London and Peterborough available (except on the corridors below where – in the Micklefield area (YHPC10) undertaken in CP4 will be added to the strategy for additional services will operate) l upgrade of the route from Peterborough the medium term. – at Rochdale – in connection with to Doncaster via Spalding and Lincoln to l subject to the availability of additional rolling Metrolink works The general approach will be further train become a key freight route, including W9/W10 stock, additional peak shuttles will be run as an lengthening to meet predicted continuing growth – at Stalybridge – part of a wider enhancement loading gauge clearance between Werrington alternative to train lengthening between in demand, though on some corridors additional scheme in conjunction with renewals (NWPC1) Jn (near Peterborough) and Lincoln, and – Leeds and Horsforth, Doncaster, Bradford shuttle services will provide better use of resources two freight paths throughout per hour Forster Square, and Halifax (YHPC1, YHPC7, l provision of an additional through platform and also improve connectivity. at Leeds by connecting two bay platforms ECMLAD1, ECMLFC3) YHPC3, YHPC4) There is an opportunity to help drive a step change (numbers 13 and 14) and an improved l remodelling of Shaftholme Jn to provide a – Manchester and Rochdale, and Stalybridge in economic activity for the north of England by turnback facility in Platform 15 by providing a shorter route for Immingham to Aire Valley (YHPC15, NWPC1) improving connectivity between the cities and the new crossover at the west end, thus allowing coal trains, which also removes the conflict major towns of the north, and also between them l a few peak services may be extended through Platform 15 to be used to terminate/start two between these services and long distance and other key destinations such as Manchester Leeds to a new turnback facility east of Leeds in long trains to/from the west of Leeds (Northern passenger and freight trains using the Airport and cities in other parts of Britain. the Micklefield area (YHPC10) RUS Gap 8) Doncaster – York route (ECMLFC1) There will be a continuing need for additional rolling l increased services between the RUS area and l linespeed improvements between Leeds and l a fourth running line between Holgate Jn and stock, including electric units to take advantage of London King’s Cross to cater for growth and to Manchester via Huddersfield, and between York and associated signalling enhancements, later phases of the electrification of routes in the reduce journey times on the medium and longer Manchester and Liverpool via Earlestown providing improved capacity for trains to and North West. In addition, by this time a number of distance flows serving Yorkshire and the North (YHRC1, NWRC7) from Leeds and addressing reactionary delay to existing rolling stock fleets will be reaching life-expiry East (ECMLAD1) services caused by congestion at York l various small scale capacity enhancements or becoming due for a major mid-life overhaul, l reduction of cross-Pennine journey times between Leeds and Manchester (YHRC1) l first phase of electrification of additional routes and the commencement of replacement and between Leeds and Manchester via l any infrastructure works to allow any new LDHS in the North West (NEN1, NEN5, NEN10) refurbishment programmes will create opportunities Huddersfield (YHRC1) for improvements in capacity, performance, fuel rolling stock to operate l small-scale projects to enhance performance, efficiency and attractiveness to passengers. l faster services between Liverpool and l W9/W10 loading gauge enhancements, provide marginal capacity improvements and/ Manchester via Earlestown (NWRC7) funded by Hutchison Ports UK (completion date or journey time improvements funded via The following is a list of train services and the Network Rail Discretionary Fund, which is infrastructure that form the expected strategy for l improvements to services in the Tees Valley is subject to the timing of port developments at Felixstowe) expected to include work in the Calder Valley, CP5 and CP6. Listed next to any specific items that l improved services between East Lancashire through Conisbrough tunnel, between Hazel have come from a previous RUS is the reference2 to and Manchester – Peterborough – Doncaster – Selby via the East Grove and Stockport, between Ormskirk and the corresponding previous RUS recommendation Coast Main Line l additional freight services as forecast in the Preston, and at Methley Jn (near Castleford) in Appendix A. – Newark – Lincoln – Gainsborough – Doncaster Freight RUS will be accommodated, with re- l schemes being promoted and/or funded by 5.4.2 Train services routeing where appropriate to take advantage – Doncaster – Leeds Stourton via local authorities or PTEs: of new freight routeing opportunities such as In addition to any service changes proposed for Wakefield Europort – Tees Valley Metro those provided by the recently upgraded Brigg CP4, the following alterations to train services form line and the Shaftholme Jn remodelling project l W9/W10/W12 loading gauge enhancements – new stations at and the recommended strategy for CP5 and CP6: funded by the Strategic Freight Network (SFN) Kirkstall Forge l further train lengthening of local and interurban l performance improvement through reduction Fund (subject to agreement of the SFN steering services, into Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Leeds, in reactionary delay, either in conjunction with group) of: – reopening a station at Haxby other interventions in the CP4 strategy or Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield – Doncaster – Birmingham via Beighton and the – improvements to Wakefield Westgate station renewals, where separate value for money and l an additional all-day hourly service between Erewash Valley affordable projects are achievable. – enhancement of Micklefield turnback into an Manchester via Huddersfield and Leeds (or east interurban park and ride station thereof) (YHAD1)

1 The Appendix A reference is made up of the RUS title, and the gap name and number. ie. YHPC3 is the Yorkshire and Humber RUS, Peak 2  The Appendix A reference is made up of the RUS title, and the gap name and number. ie. YHPC3 is the Yorkshire and Humber RUS, Peak Crowding 3 in Appendix A. Crowding 3 in Appendix A.

88 89 5. Emerging strategy Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

l additional peak services on some corridors l possible increased frequency of trains serving l improved signalling headways between It is also likely that within the next 10 or 15 years where these make better use of resources: Rotherham (YHRC5) Immingham and Scunthorpe in association with demand for travel between the Yorkshire and signalling renewals (Northern RUS Gap 6) Humber RUS area, the West Midlands and south – Liverpool and Manchester via Warrington l half-hourly service between Knottingley and thereof will have increased to such an extent that Central (Northern RUS Gap 1) Leeds (YHRC11) l new layout at and the significant train lengthening or a third service surrounding area provided in association with – Huddersfield and Leeds (Northern RUS Gap 3) l enhanced service serving a new station at every hour will be necessary. This would require a signalling renewals in CP6 (YHRD3, Northern Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield large scale package of infrastructure investment l a timetable recast on the Bolton and Atherton RUS Gap 9) (RHADS) (YHRC6). corridors to make best use of rolling stock at a number of key locations across the network. l layout enhancements approaching and at following electrification of the Blackpool Network Rail is developing a holistic view of these 5.4.3 Infrastructure Liverpool Lime Street (high level station) in – Preston – Bolton – Manchester route to key services, which cross RUS boundaries, in the It is envisaged that the following projects will be connection with renewals in CP6 (NWRC22, meet growth and connectivity requirements West Midlands and Chiltern RUS which will pull needed during CP5 and CP6 to deliver the above Northern RUS Gap 9) (Northern RUS Gap 1) together the findings in relation to these services strategy. The exact timing of these will depend on l further capacity interventions in the Leeds across other RUSs in the programme. l additional interurban services across the the rate of growth and the availability of funding: station area (Northern RUS Gap 8) north of England providing a step change in In the medium term, and possibly more critically in l further platform lengthening connectivity between the cities and towns in l linespeed improvements between Sheffield and the longer term, track capacity in the Leeds station the north and between these and other key l additional platform at Huddersfield (YHPC5) Leeds via Barnsley area will become a major constraint in dealing with destinations across Britain, some of which would passenger growth within and into . l an additional platform at Manchester Airport, l improved signalling headways and linespeeds absorb certain extra services recommended This RUS has identified a number of infrastructure required to meet passenger growth into between Hessle Road Jn and Gilberdyke in elsewhere in this section. The increase in service interventions to deal with medium-term growth; Manchester Piccadilly (Northern RUS Gap 2) association with signalling renewals (YHFC1) levels would be accompanied by journey time however, other options may provide additional improvements which would further improve l the Option 2 infrastructure interventions l doubling of Holmes Chord and possible capacity either instead of or in addition to these connectivity (Northern RUS Gap 9) recommended by the Manchester Hub Study improvements to Aldwarke Jn (YHRC5) interventions. For example, the operation of (published in January 2010). This project more London – Leeds services through to other l the opportunity for more commuter and local l additional crossover at is now referred to as The Northern Hub. It destinations would free up some further through- services or key corridors into Manchester and some bi-directional signalling (YHCV1) involves a new railway line in Manchester platform capacity at Leeds, subject to paths being l lengthening of long distance trains to King’s city centre at Ordsall, major improvements to l possible incremental improvements to capacity, available on the relevant routes. performance and engineering access in the Cross and St Pancras International and Manchester Victoria, and new tracks between Subject to a successful operation of tram-train in Doncaster station area prior to more significant other LDHS services, mainly as a result of the Leeds and Liverpool and between Sheffield and South Yorkshire, another opportunity to mitigate enhancement on the back of signalling renewals introduction of new LDHS rolling stock, which Manchester (Northern RUS Gap 9) capacity issues at Leeds station might be by the would also allow some extra services to run in the longer term (YHRD1). l possible extension of electrified network within deployment of tram-train vehicles on certain local l possible increased use of electric trains within the RUS area, as identified in the electrification Both of the potential strategies for the Leeds – corridors making use of a connection off the heavy parts of the RUS area not covered by the RUS, which could include: York/ described in the Yorkshire and rail network close to Leeds station to access new electrification scheme in the North West Humber RUS will use up the last of the remaining low level platforms alongside the existing station. – Midland Main Line from Bedford to Sheffield capacity during peak periods. It is unlikely that any This may be examined in development work on l progressive programme of new build and/or via Derby (NEN2) further growth, in services can be accommodated medium-term interventions at Leeds station, taking refurbishment to replace obsolete rolling stock – Sheffield to Doncaster and/or South Kirkby beyond this though there would be scope for into account the results of the pilot scheme. l further increases in train paths on those Jn (NEN4) further train lengthening. This is a key constraint Similar opportunities may also be identified at routes predicted to see a significant increase in the RUS area and should be a major focus of – Leeds – York/Hull (NEN3) Sheffield but operations could extend onto the in freight services in the SFN forecasts, the industry planning processes once there is Supertram network building on experience gained particularly between Immingham and the Aire – Manchester – Leeds (NEN3) clarity on the intended service proposition that during the planned tram-train pilot scheme Valley, and a doubling of capacity into the The Northern Hub infrastructure schemes would – Northallerton – Middlesbrough (NEN8) between Sheffield and Rotherham which will use Trafford Park terminals allow. Analysis undertaken for the Yorkshire and the Supertram network between Sheffield city l any further W9/W10/W12 loading gauge works Humber RUS suggests electrification of the line l further improvements to train performance centre and Tinsley. identified by the Strategic Freight Network would only provide a small track capacity benefit. through reduction in reactionary delays steering group It is likely that this extra capacity would be Delivery of the strategy for the routes covered by l improved journey times between Leeds and l schemes identified as representing value for occupied within the next 10 years and the analysis this RUS during CP5 and CP6 will require analysis Sheffield via Barnsley (and onwards to the East money to reduce reactionary delay and/or suggests that four-tracking some of the sections of the value of the different inputs and outputs Midlands) and re-instate calls at Elsecar in the improve the balance between engineering of line between Leeds and Micklefield would be to understand better the relationships shown, services (YHRC10, Northern access and continuity of service operation required to provide sufficient capacity beyond and to produce a robust staged implementation RUS Gap 6) that. Similarly, capacity at Sheffield and Liverpool plan with minimum disruption to the operational l enhanced turnback facilities at railway. Some of the inputs might be redefined or l improved performance and faster journeys for will also need to be reviewed through the industry Castleford (YHBP1) eliminated after further development work, but freight and passenger trains between Hull and planning processes in light of the emerging service this is considered unlikely because many of the key Gilberdyke (YHFC1) proposition from the Northern Hub taking into account the renewals opportunities. dependencies are already clear.

90 91 5. Emerging strategy Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

5.5 Long-term context any of Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, recommended in the East Coast Main Line RUS. The 5.6 Alternative growth scenarios (Control Period 7 and beyond) there will be a need to examine the capacity shortfall for a doubling of capacity would probably issues, how the significantly longer trains can be be provided by two extra trains each way per hour. As mentioned above, the previous Government’s The 2007 White Paper ‘Delivering a Sustainable accommodated, and how to provide connections The East Coast Main Line 2016 Capacity Review 2007 White Paper ‘Delivering a Sustainable Railway’ Railway’ aspired to a doubling of both passenger to other routes. published for consultation in August 2010 examines aspires to a doubling of both passenger and freight and freight traffic nationally over a 30-year the introduction of further LDHS trains alongside traffic nationally over the next 30 years. It is In order to accommodate a doubling of commuter period, though there may be wide variations on increases in quantum of other service types on the recognised that there may be wide variations on journeys on each rail corridor, the short-to-medium individual routes or parts of routes according to ECML, including the SFN 2030 freight forecasts. The individual routes or parts of routes, according term strategy of either train lengthening or local circumstances. The Government recognises final version of the Review will be reflected in the to local circumstances. In the event of rapid growth it additional services gives the foundation for the the role that rail has to play in helping to deliver Final Northern RUS document. is clear the strategy should focus on making longer term. Continued growth could be addressed two of its key objectives: economic growth and the best use of the existing network in the first largely through progressive train lengthening As far as freight growth is concerned, as described carbon reduction. instance, and then on opportunities to develop both of existing services and the ‘peak-busting’ above, accommodating a significant increase the network more widely. There has been strong This section of the document examines what a additional services described in the short and in intermodal growth is necessary. This requires growth in recent years in rail demand in the RUS doubling of passenger and freight traffic over the medium-term strategies. loading gauge enhancement to W9, W10 and area, particularly around Leeds, reflecting its 30-year period 2009 to 2039 could mean for the W12, to allow train lengths up to 775 metres (to Much of the network capacity to allow a doubling considerable growth as a regional commercial centre. RUS area. It is assumed that all passenger markets maximise use of train paths, locomotives and of the passenger markets in the north of England would generally double. However, for freight the drivers) and the provision of additional freight The demand forecasts used in this RUS represent would be provided by the Northern Hub schemes. SFN forecasts for 2030 have been used to identify paths on the key freight arteries through the RUS the growth projections derived from the Increasing the capacity through Leeds and those routes where the increase in freight path area, including associated diversionary routes. housing, population and employment forecasts east thereof, through Sheffield and north/east requirements are most significant. Not surprisingly, contained in DfT’s TEMPRO model, overlaid with thereof, and into Liverpool Lime Street (which Those arteries where increased capacity would be these are generally on the core national arteries information from Regional Planning Assessments are not within the scope of the capacity works the most challenging are: connecting the ports, the Channel Tunnel and and some bespoke overlays. It is expected that for the Northern Hub) would result in most of the regional distribution centres as the majority l Rotherham – Swinton – Moorthorpe – Hare Park Jn the recommendations for the 10-year RUS period remaining additional infrastructure being in place contribution to a national doubling of rail freight are robust against the short-term uncertainties to accommodate that doubling of passenger l Doncaster – Colton Jn. would be intermodal traffic. in the UK economy. However, as highlighted in numbers on services in the north of England. The first of these will need four-tracking of the 2007 Government White Paper, longer-term In the event of high growth of traffic on existing More widely, steps might be taken to encourage significant sections, which would need to be demand forecasts can be very uncertain and routes there is little doubt that the strategy for staggering of working hours in major urban centres – considered in relation to eliminating some of the extremely sensitive to economic conditions. It handling demand in the longer term must look first perhaps incentivised by fares policy. This could help to flat junctions in the Rotherham to Sheffield corridor will therefore be important periodically to update to make best use of the existing infrastructure in reduce the adverse effect of relatively short morning as well, but this will have benefits for other types of the industry’s understanding of the need for the RUS area and then to the opportunities offered and evening peaks in terms of rolling stock assets freight traffic growth, increased passenger services, further investment in the light of growth to that by the wider rail network. These could include, for fully utilised for only a very short period of each day. train performance improvement and moving point in time and updated demand forecasts. example, making use of any remaining capacity Longer, less intense peaks could certainly contribute towards a Seven Day Railway. The other requires One of the mechanisms for this would be though for growth on lines outside the RUS area. There to a reduction in crowding and more efficient solutions to future routeing of passenger and Network Rail’s Licence Condition to review could also be options to provide the additional operation of the local passenger transport network. freight traffic through the Doncaster station area established RUSs. capacity through reopening currently disused lines, The development of new ticketing technology to and attention given to making most effective use or construction of some completely new sections The RUS strategy is expected to cater adequately introduce more flexible and sophisticated pricing in of the lines via Hambleton and Askern. of railway, although the practical difficulties of for forecast growth in passenger and freight the high peak hour and peak shoulders should be doing so must not be underestimated. However, a The Doncaster station area needs to be examined not demand into the next decade. In the event accorded a high priority. This will build on the work benefit of new or reopened lines is that they could only in the context of the freight growth above but for that growth in demand does not meet the RUS already done at industry level to identify appropriate be unconstrained by traditional limitations on the longer-term increase in passenger services from forecasts, then clearly it would be possible to delay standards for the potential national application maximum speed, loading gauge and other output London to the RUS area and Scotland is met, and or abandon interventions where appropriate, of future ticketing solutions and other demand characteristics and can be built with very little other service improvement aspirations in Yorkshire. provided that decisions are made in time to avoid management techniques. The lead time in developing impact on the existing network, thereby minimising This could lead to a major upgrade of the network in major expenditure commitments. Equally, if and proving such solutions means that while the full disruption to services during construction. this area when signalling renewals become due. growth continues at recent high levels and benefits are unlikely to be realised in the short to exceeds the forecast over the next decade, then On the north-south axis the development of one In summary, the high-level strategy to deliver a medium term, some early impact may be made. some of the measures for the longer term may or more high speed routes would provide much doubling of passenger and freight in the longer The introduction of new LDHS rolling stock have to be accelerated. reduced journey times, increased frequency of term should aim to make use of a mixture of trains on services between London King’s Cross services to London from key locations in the enhancements to the existing rail network and new and the RUS area should deliver much of the north and would release capacity on the existing high speed routes. The exact balance between the doubling of capacity on ‘franchised services’ over north-south routes, which would allow growth in two will depend on the routeing of any new lines and that provided when the 2007 White Paper was journeys between locations not on the high speed therefore which current major passenger flows would published. This would be achieved by an increase in route and London, and freight growth, as well as a transfer to them. This would determine how the seats compared with the current rolling stock, the many other opportunities for connectivity. Should capacity of the existing routes would then be used to additional service per hour provided in the proposed the high speed services use the existing stations in cater for the remaining passenger and freight flows. May 2011 timetable and the extra peak hour services

92 93 Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

6. Consultation and next steps

6.1 Introduction 6.1.2 Stakeholder Management 6.2 How you can contribute 6.3 Response date Consultation with stakeholders, both within Group (SMG) Contributions to assist in developing this RUS are This RUS will have a formal consultation period of and outside the rail industry, is essential to the The SMG consists of representatives from: welcome. Specific consultation questions have 13 weeks. The RUS consultation period is usually successful development of a Route Utilisation not been set; comments on the document as a 12 weeks but this has been extended to avoid the l Department for Transport Strategy (RUS). Close involvement of stakeholders whole are welcome but feedback on the demand Christmas and New Year periods. The date for helps to ensure that: l Train Operating Companies forecasting methodology and options that receiving responses is 14 January 2011. Earlier address the gaps identified is particularly sought. responses would be very much appreciated in order l the correct gaps are identified l Freight Operating Companies Consultation responses can be submitted either to maximise the time available to respond in the final l the widest range of options is considered and l Passenger Transport Executives electronically or by post to the addresses below: RUS document. the most appropriate solutions recommended l Association of Train Operating Companies [email protected] 6.4 Next steps l implementation of the strategy can be l Passenger Focus Northern RUS undertaken more quickly. After the formal consultation period closes, the l Office of Rail Regulation (as observers). RUS Programme Manager SMG will agree any further work that is required 6.1.1 Network Rail This group meets periodically, acting as a steering and the final RUS document will be published in Kings Place According to the RUS Guidelines: group for the RUS. spring 2011. 90 York Way 6.1.3 Working groups London N1 9AG “Network Rail should develop a Draft RUS in conjunction with relevant stakeholders. It Detailed analysis and appraisal work is undertaken should then publish this Draft RUS, specifying in industry Working Groups, whose outputs are then a reasonable consultation period within which approved by the SMG. representations may be made. Having taken 6.1.4 Wider stakeholder briefings account of any representations received, Network Rail should publish and provide to Briefings were held for those organisations outside ORR the RUS it proposes to establish, together the rail industry, including local authorities, with any representations.” Government Agencies, ports and airports and workshops were held with rail user groups and ORR Guidelines on Route Utilisation Strategies Community Rail Partnerships. April 2009 These meetings are undertaken to provide that stakeholders outside the rail industry have the In order to deliver this obligation in an effective opportunity to contribute to the RUS process and manner, various consultative groups were that they are briefed and prepared to make best established for the Northern RUS. use of the formal consultation period.

94 95 Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS Appendices Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS AD 1 Option All-day crowding Increase LDHS (Long 6tph off peak to be Remaining part of No 3.3 on London – East Distance High Speed) introduced in May recommendation still Appendix A Each first generation gap can be broadly Midlands/Yorkshire/ service levels to 8tph peak 2011 timetable. holds. categorised as follows: North East/ and 6tph off peak. Further improvements As discussed in previous chapters, the strategic gaps Scotland services to TT following l gap that will have been addressed by the end of in the Northern RUS were derived by reviewing the completion of ECML recommendations of the previous RUSs1 covering CP4 (the baseline for this RUS) so is ‘closed’ upgrade schemes. the north of England. These have been reviewed in l gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4 EA 1 Gap 8.4 Capability of Further opportunities CP4 GE/GN Joint Line First option needs No the light of funded interventions for CP4 and CP5, but for which the previous RUS recommendation Werrington Jn to to provide increased outputs currently to be amended including the Secretary of State for Transport’s is still appropriate Newark (and on to diversionary capability under development. to reflect that it is announcement in 2009 on the electrification of a Doncaster) should be examined as part likely that separate number of routes in the North West, along with the l gap which will still be a gap at the end of CP4 of the GN/GE Joint Line scheme may need upgrade. When signalling to be investigated passenger growth forecasts to 2024 and the agreed but for which the intervention needs reviewing due to more recent changes renewals are due, bi-di through Seven Day Strategic Freight Network (SFN) forecasts for 2019 signalling over the two track Railway process. Other and 2030. Account has also been taken of RUS l gap that has changed sufficiently that the sections to be considered, recommendations still recommendations that change those published in previous intervention may not be entirely as should any necessary hold. earlier RUSs. appropriate. powered crossovers, so that ‘single line working’ This appendix summarises each recommendation, the can be introduced easily. anticipated progress by the end of CP4 and therefore The Seven Day Railway whether it was reviewed by the Northern RUS. workstream should examine the opportunities the above offers. EA 2 Gap 8.5 Capability of Opportunities to enhance No change Previous No Newark to the Newark – Lincoln line recommendation Doncaster Decoy for diversions should be holds. Key to gap references Junctions examined. When signalling renewals are due, bi-di Abbreviation Meaning signalling over the two track sections to be considered, AD All-day crowding as should any necessary powered crossovers, so EA Engineering access that ‘single line working’ can be introduced easily. FC Freight capability The Seven Day Railway workstream should examine PC Peak crowding the opportunities for the above. RC Regional connectivity EA 3 Gap 8.6 Capability of Examination of the No change Previous No RD Reactionary delay Marshgate Jn to opportunities and recommendation Colton Jn requirements for using holds. (other than EN Electrification diversionary routes by Northern W10 is the Seven Day Railway replaced by SFN gauge workstream, taking into strategy). account possible infill electrification east of Leeds, the IEP, and the potential gauge clearance that the Northern W10 project could include W9 and W10 clearance of some or all of the diversionary routes. When signalling renewals are due, bi-di signalling over the two track sections to be considered, as should any necessary powered crossovers, so that ‘single line working’ can be introduced easily. 1 All RUSs can be found at www.networkrail.co.uk 96 97 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS EA 4 Gap 8.7 Capability of Examination of the No change Previous No EA 7 Gap Capability of Examination by the Seven No change Previous No Marshgate Jn to opportunities and recommendation 8.10 Newcastle to Day Railway workstream recommendation Whitehall Jn requirements for using holds. (other than Edinburgh of enhancing those holds. diversionary routes by Northern W10 is sections of the ECML in the Seven Day Railway replaced by SFN gauge Scotland without bi- workstream, taking into strategy). directional signalling (only account possible infill Grantshouse to Innerwick electrification east of Leeds, is currently bi-directional) the IEP, and the potential against the alternative of gauge clearance that the developing the capability of Northern W10 project the diversionary route. could include W9 and FC 1 Option Freight RUS Gap 12 Reinstatement of Boldon Planned for Gap closed No W10 clearance of some 9.1 East Curve. reinstatement in CP4. or all of the diversionary routes. When signalling FC 2 Option Freight RUS Gap B Construction of a Shaftholme flyover Gap closed No renewals are due, bi-di 9.2 remodelled junction at completed. signalling over the 2 track Shaftholme. Doncaster to Leeds route FC 3 Option Freight RUS Gap C Provision of two freight GN/GE Joint Line Gap closed No should be considered, 9.3 paths per hour between capacity relief as should any necessary Peterborough and scheme planned for powered crossovers, so that Doncaster. completion in CP4. ‘single line working’ can be FC 4 Option The upgrading A programme of feasibility No change Gap to be addressed No introduced easily. 9.4 of certain route work has been developed through SFN process. EA 5 Gap 8.8 Capability of Examination of the No change Previous No sections to W9, which will develop gauge Northallerton to opportunities and recommendation W10 and W12 clearance proposals for the Ferryhill Jn requirements for using holds. (other than gauge routes listed. the diversionary route via Northern W10 is FC 5 Option Upgrade of Power supply along the No change Previous No Stockton by the Seven Day replaced by SFN gauge 9.5 electrical route will be reassessed recommendation Railway workstream, taking strategy). power supplies over the next few years holds. into account proposals to (to eliminate for the introduction of IEP headways and line speeds restrictions on the trains. This assessment between Norton Junctions use of Class 92s) should consider all other and Ferryhill Jn, the IEP potential electric traction programme, and that requirements. the potential Northern W10 project and Teesport FC 6 Option Increased To be considered during the No change Previous No projects could include W9 9.6 capability for 775m development of renewals recommendation and W10 clearance. trains and enhancements where holds. it can be delivered most EA 6 Gap 8.9 Capability of Examination of the No change Previous Subject to efficiently. Ferryhill Jn to opportunities and recommendation East Coast Newcastle requirements for using holds., subject to East Main Line PC 1 Option Peak crowding into Train lengthening up to No change Local train growth No the diversionary route via Coast Main Line 2016 2016 6.8 Middlesbrough 3x23m 30% to 2024. Previous Sunderland by the Seven Capacity Review. Capacity recommendation Day Railway workstream, Review. holds. unless Tees taking into account planned Valley Metro scheme headway improvements is funded, in which between Hartlepool and case it is expected Dawdon and the IEP that it will support programme. It should also organic growth and confirm the level of benefits additional growth that could contribute to the its improved outputs Leamside reinstatement give. Manchester – costs. Middlesbrough growth 45%. PC 2 Option Peak crowding into Train lengthening up to No change Previous No 7.1 Newcastle 3x23m recommendation holds. – maximum 50% growth on all corridors to 2024.

98 99 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS RC 1 Option Increase in Further development Speed improvements Previous No RC 7 Option ECML north Dependent on future No change Previous No 3.5 linespeeds on in conjunction with being considered recommendation 4.6 service pattern timetable pattern of Anglo- recommendation ECML. improvements to in ECML upgrade holds. – North Berwick Scottish LDHS services and holds. infrastructure capacity and schemes where they to Edinburgh half- freight requirements. Full the IEP. are only of marginal hourly off-peak multi-modal appraisal to cost. weekday service. be undertaken. Stronger RC 2 Option Improved services Preservation of the existing This process is already Previous No economic case may be 3.6 to various frequency to destinations in action. recommendation possible by combining parts destinations on already served and let holds. of this option with elements and off the ECML. the market largely decide of options 4.5 and 4.8. the ultimate destinations RC 8 Option ECML north service Recommended for No change This gap could be No of further LDHS services 4.7 pattern – development to reduce addressed with subject to normal industry New Down some Anglo-Scottish LDHS funding in CP5. processes. platform at journey times and improve RC 3 Option ECML north Spread largely determined Ongoing Previous No Dunbar. performance. 4.2 service pattern by the development of recommendation RC 9 Option ECML north service Dependent on future No change Previous No – Newcastle future timetables but holds. 4.8 pattern – Dunbar timetable pattern of Anglo- recommendation to Edinburgh: recommended that to Edinburgh Scottish LDHS services and holds. improvements to opportunities to optimise hourly service. freight requirements. Full timetable spread. the spread should be multi-modal appraisal to considered within the be undertaken. Stronger constraints of the service economic case may be mix. A number of particular possible by combining parts recommendations made. of this option with elements RC 4 Option ECML north Elements of option tested No change Previous No of options 4.5 and 4.6. 4.3 service pattern could be considered as part recommendation RC 10 Option South and West Recommended for further See RC6 See RC6 No – Newcastle to of package of proposals holds. 5.1 Yorkshire services consideration in the Edinburgh: semi- for east of Edinburgh – introduction of a Yorkshire and Humber RUS. fast service. local services which could new train service to be investigated further serve Robin Hood by Transport Scotland Airport Doncaster through the multi-modal Sheffield. Scottish Transport RC 11 Option South and West Recommended for further See PC8, PC12 and See PC8, PC12 and No Approval Guidance (STAG) 5.2 Yorkshire services – consideration in the FC4 FC5 methodology. provide additional Yorkshire and Humber RUS. RC 5 Option ECML north Market will identify where No change Previous No capacity on the 4.4 service pattern – some additional calls could recommendation Sheffield/Doncaster Additional Dunbar be justified. holds. – Wakefield stops in LDHS Westgate – Leeds services. corridor. RC 6 Option ECML north service Dependent on future No change Previous No RC 12 Option South & West Recommended for further Being considered Gap being addressed No 4.5 pattern – Berwick timetable pattern of Anglo- recommendation 5.3 Yorkshire services consideration in the as part of the West upon Tweed to Scottish LDHS services and holds. – extension of Yorkshire and Humber RUS. Yorkshire Passenger Edinburgh local freight requirements. Full Knottingley Transport Executive service with new multi-modal appraisal to – Wakefield Major Schemes bid. stations at East be undertaken. Stronger Kirkgate services Linton and Reston. economic case may be into Wakefield possible by combining parts Westgate. of this option with elements RC 13 Option South and West Recommended for further Improvements on No longer a gap No of options 4.6 and 4.8. 5.3 Yorkshire services consideration in the Knottingley – Leeds – extension of Yorkshire and Humber RUS. services recommended Knottingley in Yorkshire and –Wakefield Humber RUS on route Kirkgate to Leeds via Castleford instead. via Wakefield Westgate

100 101 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – East Coast Main Line RUS Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS RC 14 Option South & West Recommended for Second off peak Previous No PC 1 6.5.2 Commuter Peak hour train lengthening Gap solved by Gap closed No 5.4 Yorkshire services consideration in Network service Sheffield – recommendation Option demand Barrow-in- in both peaks. strengthening in 2008 – improve South RUS. London introduced holds. C1 Furness – Sellafield timetable. Yorkshire links to from December insufficient London via ECML 2009. Linespeed capacity in peak or Midland Main improvements on PC 2 6.5.2 Commuter Additional train in peaks Gap solved in Dec Gap closed No Line (MML). MML, and ECML Option Demand to serve Sellafield from the 2008 timetable. Upgrade planned for C2 Whitehaven – north. CP4. Sellafield RC 15 Option Reduction in Tees Examine opportunities for No change Previous No PC 3 6.5.6 Peak Crowding Extend morning and Linespeed Previous No 6.6 Valley journey linespeed improvements recommendation Option Clitheroe evening peak Manchester improvements on recommendation times. when renewals become due holds. R1b – Blackburn – Victoria – Blackburn services the route being holds. or as part of Tees Valley Manchester to Clitheroe to provide a undertaken. Metro project. half-hourly peak service. Implementation of RC 16 Options Schemes remitted None recommended No change No change to previous No Lengthen both services. peak hour extensions 6.1, 6.2, from North East situation. yet to be taken 6.3, 6.4, Regional Planning forward. 6.5 and Assessment. RC 1 6.5.2 Regional Links: Increase service levels Gap solved in Dec Gap closed No 6.7 Option Carlisle – Barrow- using peak stock used in 2008 timetable. RC 17 Option Reduction in Tyne Examine opportunities for No change Previous No C3a in-Furness C1 and C2 done as part of 7.2 Valley journey linespeed improvements recommendation timetable times. when renewals become due. holds. RC 2 6.5.2 Regional Links: Part of option C3a Increase service levels Gap closed No RC 18 Option York to Newcastle: Spread largely determined Ongoing Previous No Option Barrow-in-Furness – using peak stock used 4.1 improvements to by the development of recommendation C4 Lancaster in C1 and C2 done as timetable spread. future timetables but holds. part of timetable. recommended that RC 3 6.5.2 Regional Links: Enhance infrastructure No change Previous No opportunities to optimise Options Lancaster – Barrow- Whitehaven to Carlisle to recommendations the spread should C5a to in-Furness – Carlisle give more capacity to allow holds. be considered within C5d, C8 more frequent service, the constraints of the and C9 remove token block working service mix. In particular, and increase loop options opportunities should be with signalling renewals. examined to reduce the Review infrastructure service gaps at Durham. enhancement opportunities RC 19 Option Car parking Use of stations close to No change Previous No when undertaking other 10.4 problems at Sunderland as there is recommendation renewals. Sunderland no station car park at holds. RC 4 6.5.2 Regional Links: Implement additional Action was expected Previous No and Sunderland, and possible Option Sunday service Sunday service within in CP4 but not yet recommendation affecting use of development of Eaglesclffe C6 frequency Carlisle – existing resources Carlisle progressed. holds. service to London. car park for increasing park Whitehaven – Whitehaven round trip and ride within current box hours. FC 1 5.3.13 Freight capability Buxton remodelling Schemes not being Gap better solved by No Stockport (train length) at progressed in full; no other solutions; being option 5 Buxton. funding available. addressed by freight capacity scheme. FC 2 5.3.3 Freight Capability: Undertake works to remove Majority of restrictions Gap largely No Marple East Manchester RA10 restrictions on will be removed in CP4. addressed but need option 2 Route Availability. Peak Forest – New Mills – for identification of Guide Bridge – Stockport/ anything else required. Manchester Victoria. FC 3 5.3.3 Freight Capability: Undertake works to allow Project complete Gap closed No Marple East Manchester W9 and W10 on Stockport option 3 loading gauge. – Guide Bridge – Denton – Ardwick.

102 103 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcom of publication of the by of of publication of the by e of Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS RC 5 6.5.4 Regional Links: There is an economic case Dependent on 2030 SFN forecasts No RC 12 6.5.8 Regional Links: Option OP1, plus replace No change Previous No Option Settle and Carlisle for the existing service discussions between show significant Option Southport – Burscough Bridge and recommendation S2 line service levels on the Settle and Carlisle Department for reduction in paths OP2 Preston Burscough Junction with holds. Line to become broadly Transport and the required so option a new interchange station two-hourly and tie into incumbent train dependant on where both lines cross. connections with the operator and ongoing any WCML RUS Existing Southport – Wigan West Coast Main Line requirements for requirements for services to be retimed 2008 timetable. There is freight paths. capacity on the to give a five-minute also a case for operating route, therefore in interchange for Preston/ another three round trips the long term the Ormskirk at the new station. infilling and extending recommendation is Requires the Preston – that pattern (Option S2). only constrained by Ormskirk service to be It is recommended that a any requirement for speeded up (see above). scheme is developed based freight paths identified RC 13 6.5.8 Regional Links: Option OP1, plus reinstate No change Previous No on a minimum passenger in the WCML RUS. Option Southport – Burscough Chord South and recommendation frequency of two-hourly, OP3 Preston operate hourly Southport holds. and supplemented with – Ormskirk, timed to give additional services targeted a five-minute interchange to the passenger market for Preston at Burscough and where space exists in Junction. the timetable, and ideally consistent with the rest RC 14 6.5.12 Regional links: Preston station: relocation Scheme being Gap closed No of the pattern. Develop Option station facilities of the prefabricated sponsored for delivery further, subject to the MC1 needing platform buildings located in CP4, but is being outcome of the evaluation improvement to near the entrance/exit at revisited as scheme and the ability to identify facilitate improved stairwell Platforms 1 and 2. costs and work to acceptable pathing options connectivity at this be undertaken not for both freight and key interchange. agreed. Specific gap passenger services. of Platform 1 and 2 expected to be closed. RC 6 6.5.4 Regional Links: Improve linespeed between Dependent on track Previous No Option journey times Carlisle and Skipton in renewal programme. recommendation RC 15 6.5.12 Regional links: Carlisle station: provide Scheme not been Previous No S4 between Leeds and association with track holds. Option station facilities better interchange facilities, progressed, no funding recommendation Carlisle renewals. MC3 needing particularly improved access identified. holds. improvement to between platforms such as RC 7 6.5.4 Regional Links: Optimise maintenance and This recommendation Previous No facilitate improved escalators or lifts. Option affects of renewal practices around has not yet been recommendation connectivity at this S6 maintenance and new service requirements. progressed. holds. key interchange. renewal works on Settle & Carlisle RC 16 6.5.12 Regional Ormskirk station: provide Improvement Previous No line Option Links: station better interchange works to existing recommendation MC4 facilities needing facilities, particularly those station facilities now holds. RC 8 6.5.6 Regional Links: Linespeed improvements – Development work Previous No improvement to appropriate if option OP3 completed via funding Option journey times on east of Burnley Manchester being undertaken to recommendation facilitate improved is pursued, ie. a bridge with from Lancashire R9a Roses line Road. identify any value for holds. connectivity at this lifts. County Council and money schemes. interchange. Merseytravel. Other RC 9 6.5.6 Regional Links: Linespeed improvements – No change Previous No works pending the Option journey times Blackburn – Clitheroe. recommendation implementation of R9b Blackburn – holds. option OP3. Clitheroe RC 17 6.5.12 Regional Blackburn station: provide Work completed Gap closed No RC 10 6.5.6 Regional Links: Linespeed improvements – No change Previous No Option Links: station a full length canopy on Option journey times Colne Branch. recommendation MC5 facilities needing Platform 4. R9c Colne branch holds. improvement to RC 11 6.5.8 Regional Links: Infrastructure Scheme being Previous No facilitate improved Option journey times improvements to allow an developed for possible recommendation connectivity at this OP1 Ormskirk – Preston hourly service. implementation in holds. interchange. CP4.

104 105 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – Lancashire and Cumbria RUS Appendix A – Merseyside RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS RC 18 Regional links: Burscough Junction: better Subject to discussions Previous No FC 1 6.4.8 Connectivity Rail freight between the No change Previous No station facilities interchange facilities if with Merseytravel. recommendation between Wirral and the Midlands recommendation needing the second platform were holds. Birkenhead Docks routed via Bidston – holds. improvement to to reopen as part of OP3. and the Midlands. Wrexham. Requires facilitate improved This may include a bridge infrastructure upgrade work connectivity at and lift. which would have to be this interchange delivered for £6 million of if option OP3 is public spending. Aspiration pursued. of Peel Ports and Wirral RD 1 6.5.2 Train Performance: Enhance infrastructure Anticipated signalling Previous No Metropolitan Borough Options Whitehaven – Whitehaven to Carlisle to renewals in CP4 now recommendations Council (MBC). C5a to Carlisle give more capacity to allow deferred. holds. FC 2 6.4.9 Connectivity Recommended that the No change Previous No C5d, more frequent service, between Canada route into Canada Docks recommendation C8 and remove token block working Docks and the rail is protected from further holds. C10 and increase loop options network. development until a better with signalling renewals. understanding of rail RD 2 6.5.4 Performance issues Re-double the track No change Previous No freight growth has been Option due to single track between Carlisle South Jn recommendation understood and assessed. S5 between Carlisle and London Road Jn. holds. RC 1 6.4.2 Connectivity Conduct a more detailed No change Previous No South Jn and and journey study into extending recommendation London Road Jn. times between the Wrexham – Bidston holds. North Wales and diesel services to Merseyside. Birkenhead North for better connectivity to the Merseyrail Network. RC 2 6.4.2 Connectivity Merseytravel to conduct a Demand study Previous No and journey study into reinstating the completed for recommendation times between Halton Curve. Merseytravel and holds. North Wales and Halton Borough Merseyside. Council, showing medium value business case (BCRs 1.5 – 1.9 depending on option chosen) for new Liverpool – Runcorn – Chester – Wrexham service. NR GRIP stage three study completed. RC 3 6.4.3 Connectivity and Additional hourly inter-peak No change Gap to be reviewed Yes See journey times Wigan – Liverpool semi-fast in light of changes to Northern between Wigan, service. services driven by NW RUS Gaps St Helens and area electrification. 1 and 9 Liverpool. RC 4 6.4.5 Connectivity GRIP three study into Merseytravel and Previous No between extending the Liverpool Lancashire County recommendation Skelmersdale and Central – Kirkby service, Council currently holds. Liverpool. to terminate at a new undertaking demand station in the centre of study into a range of Skelmersdale. Rainford service options. will then become an interchange station for services to and from Wigan Wallgate.

106 107 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – Network RUS: Electrification Appendix A – Network RUS: Electrification

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS EN 1 Option Non-electrified Electrify Manchester Planned scheme Closed No EN 6 A23.1 Non-electrified Review business case No change Previous No A20.4 routes (Deansgate and Victoria) routes for electrification of recommendation to Liverpool (Edge Hill) via Oxenholme to Windermere holds. Chat Moss route. Convert following Euxton Jn to Liverpool to Manchester Manchester. Convert Airport, Liverpool to Manchester – Windermere Warrington Bank Quay and and Oxenholme – Manchester to Scotland Windermere services to services to electric traction. electric traction. EN 2 Option Non-electrified Electrify the Midland Main No change Previous No EN 7 B18.2 Non-electrified Review business case for No change Previous No A19.1 routes Line and run St Pancras recommendation routes electrification of Ditton recommendation to Nottingham, Sheffield, holds. Yard to terminal. holds. Derby and Corby services EN 8 A9.2 Non-electrified Review business case for No change Previous No with electric trains, using routes electrification of Stockton recommendation cascaded diesel trains for Cut and Bowesfield holds. other long distance services. Junctions to Sunderland EN 3 Option Non-electrified Review business case for No change Previous No following Northallerton to A10.1B routes electrification of Guide recommendation Middlesbrough. Convert Bridge to Leeds, Leeds holds. London to Sunderland to Colton Junction and service to electric traction. Hull, Northallerton to EN 9 B10.6 Non-electrified Review business case for No change Previous No Middlesbrough and Temple routes electrification of Hare Park recommendation Hirst to Selby following Jn to Wakefield Europort. holds. Manchester Deansgate to Liverpool (Edge Hill). EN 10 Option Non-electrified Electrify Huyton to Wigan Planned scheme in Gap closed No Convert Hull to London and 20.5A routes following Edge Hill to CP5 cross-Pennine services to Manchester and Preston to electric traction. Modify Blackpool North. Convert cross-Pennine services so Liverpool to Wigan and that they run between Blackpool North services to Liverpool and Manchester electric traction. via the Chat Moss route, and so that Scarborough is served by trains from Preston rather than by north cross-Pennine services. EN 4 Options Non-electrified Review business case for No change Previous No A13.4/ routes electrification of parts of recommendation A13.5/ the cross-country network holds. A19.2 including Doncaster – Sheffield and Moorthorpe – Swinton to allow Edinburgh – Plymouth, Newcastle – Reading and Leeds – Moorthorpe – Sheffield services to convert to electric traction. EN 5 Options Non-electrified Review business case for Planned scheme in Gap closed No A20.1B routes electrification of Euxton CP5 Junction to Manchester and Preston to Blackpool North. Convert Manchester – Blackpool North and Hazel Grove – Preston services to electric traction.

108 109 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – North West RUS Appendix A – North West RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed by end of CP4 at time Reviewed of publication of the by of publication of the by Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Outcome of Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Outcome of Ref No Ref in RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? Northern RUS Ref No Ref in RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? Northern RUS FC 4 5.3.10 Freight Gauge clear Dittion – Edge Project complete Gap closed No PC 6 5.3.8 Bolton Peak Crowding Train lengthening to Some train Previous Yes See Northern Chat Moss Capability: Hill – Earlestown to W9 and options 8 on the Bolton provide additional peak lengthening in CP4. recommendation RUS Gap 1 option 8 Bootle branch W10. & 9 corridor. capacity to meet expected needs to be not W10 growth. Includes platform reviewed in light loading gauge. lengthening where of electrification of FC 5 5.3.10 Freight Olive Mount chord Project complete Gap closed No necessary. Bolton corridor. 55% Chat Moss Capability: No growth to 2024. option 9 direct access to PC 7 5.3.9 Peak crowding Train lengthening to Platform extensions Gap to be re- Yes See Northern Liverpool Docks. Atherton on the Wigan/ provide additional peak provided to meet CP4 examined – 65% RUS Gap 1 FC 6 5.3.10 Freight Improve signalling Project complete Gap closed No Option 1 Southport line. capacity to meet expected Operational Plans. growth to 2024. Chat Moss capacity and headways on back of growth. Includes platform option 10 performance scheme to close Rainhill lengthening where necessary. on Chat Moss signal box. PC 8 5.3.10 Peak crowding Train lengthening to Some train Previous Yes See Northern route. Chat Moss on the Chat provide additional peak lengthening in CP4 recommendations RUS Gap 1 PC 1 5.3.5 Peak crowding: Enhance layout at Stalybridge Track layout Other No options 11 Moss route. capacity to meet expected and electrification. need to be Stalybridge Stalybridge – when re-signalled to increase enhancement scheme recommendation & 12 growth. Includes platform reviewed in light of option 1 Manchester speed across junction and complete. still stands. lengthening where electrification of the Victoria. to/from the bay platform, or necessary. Alternative is Chat Moss route. relocate/add bay on north additional peak hour trains. 60% growth to 2024 side of station (see Stalybridge into Manchester and option 4). Operate additional Liverpool. peak shuttles using resulting PC 9 5.3.11 CLC Peak crowding Train lengthening to Some train Previous Yes See Northern improved track capacity. Option 5 on the provide additional peak lengthening in CP4. recommendation RUS Gap 1 PC 2 5.3.2 Peak capacity Train lengthening to Platform extensions Gap to be re- Yes See Northern Cheshire Lines capacity to meet expected needs to be Stockport on Stockport provide additional peak provided to meet CP4 examined – 55% to RUS Gap 1 Committee growth. Includes platform reviewed in light of Line Option local lines. capacity to meet expected Operational Plans. 60% (depending on route. lengthening where electrification of the 6 growth. Includes platform corridor) growth to necessary. Chat Moss route. lengthening where 2024. 45% local train necessary. growth to 2024 into Manchester and 40% PC 3 5.3.3 Peak capacity Train lengthening to Dependent on CP4 Gap to be re- Yes See Northern interurban. 35% local Marple on local lines provide additional Operational Plan. examined – 65% RUS Gap 1 train growth to 2024 option via Ardwick. peak capacity to meet growth to 2024. into Liverpool and 4, 5.3.4 expected growth. Includes 40% interurban. Hadfield platform lengthening line options where necessary. Possible PC 10 5.3.14 St Peak crowding Train lengthening to Some train Previous Yes See Northern 2 & 3 redeployment of four-car Helens on the Liverpool provide additional peak lengthening in CP4. recommendation RUS Gap 1 trains on Hadfield line. Option 2 – Wigan line. capacity to meet expected need to be growth. Includes platform reviewed in light PC 4 5.3.5 Peak capacity Train lengthening Some train Gap to be re- Yes Examined lengthening where of electrification of Stalybridge on Stalybridge on Huddersfield and lengthening in CP4. examined – 55% and found necessary. Huyton – Wigan. Options 2 – Manchester Stalybridge services growth to 2024. that previous and 3 Victoria line. to provide additional intervention PC 11 5.3.2 Peak crowding: Additional bay platform on None Needs reviewing Yes Not peak capacity to meet is robust for Stockport track and north side of station. to see whether recommended expected growth. Includes growth to Line Option platform services can be – see platform lengthening 2024, assuming 11 capacity at accommodated in Northern RUS where necessary (up to current Manchester 2024. Gaps 2 and 9. a maximum of 3x20m operating Piccadilly. eastbound due to practices PC 12 5.3.10 Peak crowding: Major capacity and None Previous Yes Extra capacity constraints at Mossley for continue to be Chat Moss track and linespeed enhancements on recommendation to not identified Huddersfield services). acceptable. corridor platform back of signalling renewals, be reviewed in light as required for PC 5 5.3.7 Calder Peak capacity Train lengthening to Option superseded by Option superseded No Option 4 capacity at to include additional of electrification of dealing with Valley on the Rochdale provide additional peak Yorkshire and Humber by Yorkshire and Liverpool Lime platforms and increased the Chat Moss route peak growth – Option 5 line. capacity to meet expected RUS. Humber RUS. Street. parallel moves. and Huyton–Wigan, see Northern growth. Includes platform noting that the West RUS Gap 1. lengthening where Coast Main Line RUS necessary. is also examining services into Liverpool Lime Street.

110 111 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – North West RUS Appendix A – North West RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed by end of CP4 at time Reviewed of publication of the by of publication of the by Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Outcome of Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Outcome of Ref No Ref in RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? Northern RUS Ref No Ref in RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? Northern RUS PC 13 5.3.2 Peak crowding: Remove some buildings Scheme complete Gap closed No RC 8 5.3.7 Calder Regional links: Through trains to Salford Extension of Calder New option – No Stockport platform capacity to improve passenger Valley Calder Valley Crescent. Extend Calder Valley services to extension of Calder Line Option on Platforms circulation. options 3 Valley trains through Salford Crescent Valley services 7 13 and 14 at & 4 Manchester Victoria to was not possible as right through to Manchester terminate at Salford proposed due to loss Airport achievable Piccadilly. Crescent, allowing of Regional Funding with Northern Hub RC 1 5.3.5 Regional links: Enhance layout at Layout enhancement Other No interchange with Airport Allocation funded recommendation. Stalybridge Stalybridge – Stalybridge when re- scheme complete recommendation services. Alternatively option for Salford option 1 Manchester signalled to increase speed still stands extend through to Salford Crescent. No change across junction and to/ Central to get some on alternative option. from the bay platform, or connectivity benefits. relocate/add bay on north RC 9 5.3.10 Regional Salford Central additional Scheme under Previous No side of station. Improve car Chat Moss links: Salford platforms on Chat Moss consideration by recommendation parking. option 5 – Liverpool lines. Greater Manchester holds. RC 2 5.3.5 Regional links: Introduce additional No change Previous No connectivity via Passenger Transport Stalybridge Stalybridge – off-peak service from recommendation Chat Moss Executive and Salford option 4 Manchester Stalybridge, to provide holds. City Council. three tph service between RC 10 5.3.10 Regional links: Improve interchange with No change Previous No Stalybridge and Manchester Chat Moss connectivity Metrolink at Eccles. recommendation Victoria. option 7 with Metrolink holds. RC 3 5.3.8 Bolton Regional links: Between Manchester and Included in Dec 08 Gap closed No RC 11 5.3.11 CLC Regional links: Cornbrook or White No change Previous No option 1 Preston – Preston: increase from one timetable option 2 connectivity City new station and recommendation Manchester fast, one semi-fast and one with Metrolink interchange. holds. slow train per hour off-peak RC 12 5.3.11 CLC Regional links: Increased frequency No change Gap being reviewed No to two fast and two slow option 3 Liverpool between Liverpool Lime by West Coast RUS. trains per hour off-peak. Lime Street – Street and Liverpool South RC 4 5.3.8 Bolton Regional links: Manchester – Blackpool Some linespeed Previous No Liverpool South Parkway through a Cheshire option 3 journey times linespeed. Higher speed improvements have recommendation Parkway. Lines Committee timetable Manchester between Manchester been delivered with holds. recast, a dedicated shuttle – Preston – and Euxton Junction and renewals. or recast of London Blackpool. between Preston and Midlands services. To be Blackpool North including considered after West Coast both raising the overall Main Line 2008 timetable is linespeed and addressing implemented. permanent speed restrictions. RC 13 5.3.13 Regional links: Manchester Airport third Project complete Gap closed No RC 5 5.3.8 Bolton Regional links: Remodel Bolton station No change Previous No option 1 Manchester platform option 4 Bolton corridor layout to improve journey recommendation Airport times and create improved holds. RC 14 5.3.7 Calder Regional links: 70mph through Castleton No change Previous No interchange and car parking Valley Calder Valley and 90mph between recommendation when renewals become due. Option 2 journey times Rochdale and Smithy holds. RC 6 5.3.10 Regional links: Liverpool to Manchester Electrification of the Gap to be reviewed Yes See Northern Bridge. Chat Moss Liverpool – additional off-peak services. route and supply of in light of changes RUS Gaps 1 RC 15 5.3.2 Regional links: Up to 60mph between Scheme being Previous No option 1 Manchester Increase from one to two rolling stock will allow to services driven and 9. Stockport and Edgeley and Hazel Grove. examined recommendation fast trains per hour between increased service, by North West area corridor south cross- holds. Liverpool Lime Street and subject to pathing. electrification. option 14 Pennine journey Manchester Piccadilly via times Chat Moss in the off-peak with a similar pattern to RC 16 5.3.5 Regional links: Guide Bridge Jn linespeed Scheme completed Specific gap closed No the existing Liverpool Lime Stalybridge north cross- improvement on Street to Manchester service. corridor Pennine journey Stalybridge route. option 4 times RC 7 5.3.10 Regional links: Chat Moss linespeed. Liverpool – Manchester Gap addressed No Chat Moss journey times Higher speeds between Line Speed option 3 Manchester – Huyton and Patricroft. Improvement scheme Liverpool (via funded in CP4. Chat Moss route)

112 113 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – North West RUS Appendix A – North West RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of CP4 at time Reviewed by end of CP4 at time Reviewed of publication of the by of publication of the by Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Outcome of Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Outcome of Ref No Ref in RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? Northern RUS Ref No Ref in RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? Northern RUS RC 17 5.3.13 Styal Regional links: Examine new services from No change Previous No RD 2 5.3.2 Performance Service frequency and/or No change Northern Hub Yes See Northern option 3 Manchester Manchester Airport to the recommendation Stockport of Castlefield headway reductions and/or will alter the RUS Gap 9 Airport south in the West Coast holds. corridor corridor faster access to Longsight recommendations Main Line RUS. options 9, goods line to be examined on this corridor. RC 18 5.3.14 St Regional links: Progress linespeed No change Previous No 10 & 12 after the West Coast Main Helens Huyton – Wigan improvements in recommendation Line 2008 timetable is Central route improved association with signalling holds., noting that implemented. option 3 journey times renewals. electrification RD 3 5.3.2 Performance New platform beside Scheme now surpassed Recommendation No See Northern should improve Stockport problems Platform 1 at Manchester by Northern Hub work. is superseded by RUS Gap 9 journey times. corridor caused by late Piccadilly to be examined Northern Hub RC 19 5.3.10 Regional links: Develop Newton-le-Willows None Previous No option 11 running north after the West Coast Main proposals. Chat Moss station facilities as an interchange with recommendation and south cross- Line 2008 timetable is option 6 needing improved station facilities holds. Pennine Airport implemented. improvement and car parking. services to facilitate RD 4 5.3.2 Performance Higher speed junction to No change Previous No improved Stockport problems be examined after the recommendation connectivity at corridor caused by West Coast Main Line 2008 holds. this interchange option 12 crossing moves timetable is implemented. RC 20 5.3.4 Regional links: Develop Guide Bridge No change Previous No at Heaton Hadfield access to rail station as an interchange. recommendation Norris Jn. corridor network east of holds. RD 5 5.3.4 Performance Linespeed improvements on No change Previous No option 1 Manchester Hadfield problems Dinting/Hadfield/Glossop recommendation RC 21 5.3.8 Bolton Regional links: Salford Crescent Scheme changed Northern Hub No corridor caused by tight triangle. holds. option 5 Manchester remodelling/relocation. following the recommendation option 4 turnrounds at connectivity Create a new layout at withdrawal of provides alternative Glossop and and Manchester Salford Crescent that potential regional ways to improve Hadfield. Airport access creates more capacity funding. Scheme connectivity. RD 6 5.3.11 CLC Performance at Hunts Cross remodelling No change Previous No on the network for both being re-evaluated option 6 Hunts Cross to be considered by the recommendation through trains and trains to increase platform Merseyside RUS. holds. terminating from the lengths at current site. RD 7 5.3.11 CLC Performance: Glazebrook eastbound loop No change Performance on No See Northern Manchester direction, more option 7 Warrington to be considered in light of this corridor to be RUS Gap 9 capacity on the platforms Central – West Coast Main Line 2008 reviewed as part of to handle passengers, and Manchester timetable implementation the Northern Hub better station facilities and any Cheshire Lines proposals. befitting a station where Committee route recast. people interchange both to connect to and from RD 8 5.3.11 CLC Performance: Westbound loop No change Performance on No See Northern Manchester Airport services option 8 Warrington approaching Trafford this corridor to be RUS Gap 9 and to and from services to Central – Park. Progress with future reviewed as part of both sides of the city centre. Manchester renewals. the Northern Hub proposals. RC 22 5.3.10 Regional Major capacity and No change Previous Yes Northern Chat Moss links: track linespeed enhancements on recommendation Hub service RD 9 5.3.13 Styal Performance: timetable recast Delivered with Gap closed No corridor and platform back of signalling renewals, holds, noting that proposition option 2 Styal line to redistribute intermediate December 2008 Option 4 capacity at to include additional the West Coast includes more calls. Re-examine in light timetable changes. Liverpool platforms and increased Main Line RUS is services into of implementation of West Lime Street parallel moves. also examining Liverpool – Coast Main Line timetable for additional services into see Northern 2008 timetable. services Liverpool Lime RUS Gap 9 Street. RD 1 5.3.8 Bolton Performance: Bolton additional platform. Scheme not Previous No option 10 Bolton corridor Create a fifth platform at progressed recommendation Bolton by extending the holds. down loop at Moses Gate. May be an enabler for 5.3.8 Bolton Option 3.

114 115 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of Control by end of Control Period 4 (CP4) at time Reviewed Outcome Period 4 (CP4) at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Gap Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Gap Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS AD 1 HD2 All day crowding on Additional hourly service No change 50% growth to Yes See FC 5 HV3 Freight growth in the Additional loops in the Hope No change (unless Gap needs to No Leeds – Huddersfield Manchester – Leeds/ 2024 without Northern Hope Valley Valley (also required for loops are provided addressed in CP5 with – Manchester services Selby (or Hull subject to further journey time RUS Gap additional hourly off-peak via the CP4 SFN train funding of additional strengthened business case). reductions – previous 3 service). lengthening fund). loops in the Hope recommendation Valley. needs checking. FC 6 SD4 W9/W10/W12 Prioritisation and funding Being considered Gap to be addressed No AD 2 HV3 All day crowding Additional hourly semi-fast Nearly all Liverpool Gap needs to be Yes See gauge enhancement provision to be determined for SFN infill gauge through SFN process. on Sheffield – service between Manchester – Norwich services reviewed following Northern Chesterfield – Treeton through SFN process. enhancement fund. Manchester services and S heffield (or beyond) increased to 4x23m East Midlands RUS RUS Gap Jn – Rotherham – probably integrated with a operation. recommendation to 4 Doncaster recast service on Marple and operate most Liverpool FC 7 Page Freight growth Double junction at Thorne No change Gap needs to be Yes See New Mills routes to avoid – Norwich trains as 92 between Immingham Jn and fourth track between addressed with Northern the need for extra paths at 4x23m. 40% demand and Doncaster/ Brocklesby and Barnetby. funding of Thorne Jn RUS Gap Manchester. growth to 2024. Shaftholme Jn area redoubling on back 6 EA 1 Engineering access at To be taken into account Some CP4 schemes Previous No of signalling renewals key locations and on in developing options for will assist delivering recommendation and fourth track is a key corridors infrastructure works – either the Seven Day Railway. holds. Transport Innovation renewals or enhancements. Fund (TIF) candidate. EA 2 LD4 24-hour access The Seven Day Railway No change Previous No 2019 SFN forecast required between workstream will need to recommendation 5tph. SFN 2030 Leeds and Neville Hill examine the scope for bi- holds. forecast 7tph needs depot for which no directional tracks or other accommodating. diversionary route mitigation measures. FC 8 IC1 W9/W10/W12 Prioritisation and funding No change Gap to be addressed No exists gauge enhancement provision to be determined through the SFN EA 3 SF2 No diversionary route To be considered when No change Previous No Doncaster/Joan Croft through the SFN process. process. between Sheffield resignalling takes place in recommendation Jn–Immingham and Nunnery Main Control Period 6 (CP6). holds. FC 9 IC2 W9/W10/W12 gauge W10 to be provided as part W9 and W10 provided Gap largely addressed No Line Jn enhancement Lincoln of Hutchison Ports (UK) subject to timing of but increment to FC 1 Page Freight growth Longer-term growth will No change Gap needs to be No – Doncaster project and W9 through GN/ funding by Hutchinson W12 to be considered 77 between Gilberdyke require improved track addressed with GE Joint Line upgrade but Ports (UK). through SFN process. and Hessle Road Jn capacity which should be enhancement funding prioritisation and funding considered when signalling when signalling provision of increment to renewals are due. renewals take place W12 to be determined (probably in Control through SFN process. Period 5 (CP5). PC 1 HA1 Peak crowding on the Additional maximum 2tph Turnback at Horsforth Gap addressed – 50% No FC 2 Page Limited freight Requirement to be taken Depends on CP4 Gap to be recognised No peak shuttles of up to and shortened growth to 2024. 77 capacity between into account in any service interventions in future interventions four-car length between block section Leeds and Church increases on this corridor. on this corridor. Horsforth and Leeds. Some between Horsforth Fenton/Gascoigne calls taken out of Harrogate and Harrogate Wood services at and implemented. Burley Park to spread loads. FC 3 WF3 Freight growth Diversion of some existing Shaftholme flyover Gap may require Subject between Hare Park freight services via completed capacity enhancement to East PC 2 WH1 Peak crowding on the Lengthening of all trains Platform extensions Gap to be re-examined Yes See Jn and Doncaster/ Shaftholme flyover to free funding in CP5 or CP6. Coast Ilkley Line from four to six vehicles. provided subject to – 70% growth to Northern Moorthorpe up paths for new traffic that Draft 2019 Strategic Main Line three-car electric units 2024. RUS Gap specifically needs to use Freight Network (SFN) 2016 being available. 7 the route but growth in CP5 forecast of 3tph and Capacity PC 3 AI1 Peak crowding on the Lengthening of all trains Platform extensions Gap to be re-examined Yes See may require infrastructure 2030 SFN forecast Review Skipton Line from four to six vehicles. provided subject to – 60% growth to Northern enhancement on the route. 3tph. Additional four-car train in three-car electric units 2024. RUS Gap FC 4 HD4 W9/W10/W12 Prioritisation and funding No change Gap to be addressed No high-peak hour between being available. New 7 gauge enhancement provision to be determined through SFN process. Bradford and Leeds. Use of stations built. Calder Bridge Jn through SFN process. Bradford services to serve – Huddersfield – possible new stations at Manchester and Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Stourton – Dewsbury Bridge. – Thornhill LNW Jn

116 117 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of Control by end of Control Period 4 (CP4) at time Reviewed Outcome Period 4 (CP4) at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Gap Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Gap Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended Option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS PC 4 CV1 Peak crowding on the Additional maximum 2tph Turnback facility at Gap largely addressed No PC 10 LD1 Track and platform Additional bay platform(s) New through platform Review in light of 50% Yes See peak shuttles between Halifax already in but all-day operation LD2 capacity at Leeds on north side of the station created by connecting total peak growth into Northern Halifax and Leeds. Business existence. and possibly 2tph LD3 and increased platform Platforms 13 and 14 Leeds. RUS Gap case for all-day operation in peaks require capacity on south side. plus new crossover to 8 but requires further funding of additional Operation of some long allow Platform 15 to infrastructure enhancement crossover and bi- diesel local services through be used also for 2 by at Bradford which may be directional signalling to turnback at Micklefield. 4x23m vehicle trains needed for more than 1tph in association with turning back in the in peak hours. planned signalling station. renewals in CP5. 45% PC 11 BP4 Barnsley line Train lengthening up to a Platform extensions Gap addressed – 50% No growth to 2024. maximum of 4x23m vehicles provided. growth to 2024. PC 5 HD1 Peak crowding on Train lengthening to a Platform extensions Gap partially No for Leeds – Sheffield services. the Huddersfield/ maximum of 4x23m vehicle provided to meet CP4 addressed but PC 12 SD1 Sheffield – Doncaster/ Train lengthening up Platform extensions Gap largely addressed No Brighouse Line trains on local services, Operational Plans to/ new platform at Moorthorpe line to 4x23m vehicles on provided between but platform including new platform at from Brighouse route. Huddersfield and Doncaster/Leeds – Sheffield Sheffield and Leeds. extensions required Huddersfield. Platform extension at possibly further services. at Deighton. platform extensions and Conisbrough required. 45% growth and stations east of to 2024. Doncaster in CP5. PC 6 HD2 Peak crowding on Interurban service Some additional Previous No 50% local train growth the Huddersfield enhancements to be a track capacity may recommendation to 2024 and 40% Line into Leeds and mixture of train lengthening be provided between holds. – 50% growth interurban growth. Manchester to six-cars and additional Leeds and Manchester. into both Leeds and PC 13 HV1 Additional three-car Nearly all Liverpool Gap needs to reviewed Yes See hourly service Manchester – Manchester. semi-fast service between – Norwich services following the East Northern Leeds – Selby (or Hull). Manchester and Sheffield increased to 4x23m Midlands RUS RUS Gap PC 7 WF2 Peak crowding on the Additional high peak hour Platform extensions Gap to be re-examined Yes See each peak hour probably operation, including all recommendation to 4 Wakefield Line Doncaster – Leeds service. provided between – 55% growth to Northern integrated with a recast peak trains. operate most Liverpool Class 333 operation on Sheffield and Leeds, 2024. RUS Gap service on the Marple and – Norwich trains as Doncaster services. Up to derogation for Class 7 New Mills routes to avoid 4x23m. 45% growth 4x23m vehicle operation 333 operation south of the need for extra paths at to 2024. on Sheffield – Moorthorpe – South Elmsall. Manchester. Leeds trains. PC 15 CV3 Peak crowding from Additional maximum 2tph Some shuttles 55% growth to 2024 No PC 8 BP1 Peak crowding on the Half hourly 4x23m vehicle Platform extensions Gap partially No Calder Valley line into peak shuttles of up to four- introduced but Gap addressed as Castleford Line peak trains between provided to meet CP4 addressed but half- Manchester car length between Rochdale intervention adds up Knottingley and Leeds. Operational Plans. hourly Knottingley and Manchester. to 65% extra capacity. Possible all day operation if service requires PC 16 SF3 Track and platform Capacity scheme to alleviate No change Previous No proposed housing growth funding of at least one capacity at Sheffield train lengthening of local recommendation takes place. additional crossover, and long distance trains at holds. signalling and a new Sheffield to be considered platform at Castleford. when re-signalling takes PC 9 YS1 Peak crowding on Train lengthening to a Platform extensions Gap partially No place. YS2 the East Leeds line maximum of 4x23m vehicle completed for local addressed. 50% PC 17 DR3 Track and platform Identify overall Enhanced interval Performance modelling Subject including York and trains on local services, some services. local services growth capacity at Doncaster infrastructure requirements East Coast Main Line of May 2011 being to ECML Selby operating only between to 2024 and 30% for Doncaster station area (ECML) timetable undertaken which may RUS Micklefield and Leeds. For interurban. in order to deliver increased introduced. identify issues with Capacity interurban services a mixture East Coast Main Line (ECML) increased service levels Review of train lengthening to passenger and freight paths, at Doncaster. East six cars and an additional improve performance and Coast Main Line 2016 hourly service Hull/Selby facilitate other aspirations. Capacity Review may – Leeds – Manchester. To be developed further once also identify issues Alternative option to reduce regular interval timetable is with the current layout local service to maximum of known. at Doncaster. 3tph and for the Newcastle – Reading service to operate via Leeds with at least one call east of Leeds.

118 119 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of Control by end of Control Period 4 (CP4) at time Reviewed Outcome Period 4 (CP4) at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of of publication of the by of Gap Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Gap Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS RC 1 Page Department for Transfer of some Some linespeed Gap partly addressed Yes See RC 8 WF4 Journey time Develop further No change Previous No 83 Transport journey intermediate calls to the improvements but further linespeed Northern improvements on the recommendation time aspiration fifth train per hour and a plus possibly small improvements and RUS Gap Wakefield line holds. of 43 minutes programme of linespeed and scale capacity possible capacity 3 RC 10 BP6 Journey time between Investigate further No change Previous No See between Leeds and capacity improvements to improvements. enhancements Sheffield and Leeds recommendation Northern Manchester avoid faster trains catching required in CP5 to via Barnsley holds., noting that RUS Gap up local trains and freight achieve 43 minutes. the East Midlands 5 services. RUS recommended RC 2 Page Greater Manchester Various options could No change Previous No See further development 82 Integrated Transport achieve this depending on recommendation Northern work on journey Authority (ITA) detail of enhanced service holds. RUS Gap times between Leeds, aspiration for half operation on the Leeds – 3 Barnsley, Sheffield hourly Huddersfield– Huddersfield – Manchester and Nottingham Manchester Victoria corridor including skip-stop and the Northern local service calling pattern east of RUS recommends Stalybridge. further linespeed RC 3 HV3 Service frequency Additional hourly semi-fast All Liverpool – Norwich Gap needs to Yes See improvements on between Sheffield service between Manchester services increased to reviewed following Northern the route to allow and Manchester and Sheffield (or beyond) 4x23m operation in East Midlands RUS RUS Gap additional calls at probably integrated with a peaks. recommendation to 4 Elsecar. recast service on Marple and operate most Liverpool RC 11 BP3 Improved access All day half hourly No change Previous No New Mills routes to avoid – Norwich trains as between the three Knottingley – Leeds service recommendation the need for extra paths at 4x23m. CP5 funding of towns and Leeds once half hourly peak holds. Manchester. improved track layout services are introduced. at Dore may still be RD 1 Page Increased congestion Consider possible train No change Subject to East Coast Subject required. 99 at Doncaster with service changes and Main Line 2016 to East RC 4 HV4 Journey time between Examine opportunities for No change Gap to be considered No Long Distance infrastructure enhancements Capacity Review. Gap Coast Sheffield and linespeed improvements during CP4 and High Speed (LDHS) in the light of emerging may need further Main Line Manchester and trade-offs with reduced if linespeed and freight service December 2010 timetable consideration for 2016 performance allowances improvements are increases and future Intercity possible service Capacity and/or altered calling identified (but not Express Programme (IEP) changes and/ Review patterns. funded in CP4) then requirements. or smaller scale these would need to infrastructure be funded in CP5. enhancements to RC 5 SD3 Increased service Further development of No change Previous No be funded in CP5 levels at Rotherham South Yorkshire Passanger recommendation followed by probable Central from 3 to Transport Executive scheme holds. major remodelling 5tph taking into account affects when Doncaster of rebalancing the numbers Switches and Crossings of trains via Rotherham (S&C) and signalling Central and Masborough renewals become due. and the consequent RD 2 Page Reactionary delays at To be taken into account in New through platform Previous No affects on Aldwarke Jn and 96 Leeds developing options for future created by connecting recommendation performance. layout changes. Platforms 13 and 14 holds. RC 6 LN2 Rail access to Station to be built by No change Previous No plus new crossover to LN3 Robin Hood Airport RHADS to be served initially recommendation allow Platform 15 to Doncaster Sheffield by Doncaster – Lincoln holds. be used also for 2 by (RHADS) service. Regular service to 4x23m vehicle trains be considered in relation to turning back in the future services in Doncaster station. area. RD 3 Page Reactionary delays at To be taken into account No change Previous No RC 7 CV3 Journey times Linespeed enhancements No change Previous No 97 Sheffield in developing options for recommendation between Bradford recommendation future layout changes in holds. and Manchester holds. association with S&C and signalling renewals.

120 121 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Appendix A – Yorkshire and Humber RUS Appendix A – New Gaps

Anticipated progress Anticipated progress by end of Control by end of CP4 at time Reviewed Period 4 (CP4) at time Reviewed Outcome of publication of the by of publication of the by of Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Outcome of Gap Ref in Northern RUS Draft Gap status for Northern Northern Ref No Ref in RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? Northern RUS Ref No RUS Gap Recommended option for Consultation Northern RUS RUS? RUS FC 1 New gap Draft 2019 SFN N/A N/A Possible new gap, Subject RD 4 Page Reactionary delays in To be taken into account No change Previous No forecasts for subject to East to East 90 Rotherham area in developing options for recommendation Northallerton – Coast Main Line Coast allowing more services to call holds. York require 3tph 2016 capacity Main Line at Rotherham Central. freight. 4tph by review. 2016 RD 5 N/A Reactionary delay at To be taken into account Some CP4 schemes Gap will be addressed No 2030. Capacity other locations in developing options for will reduce reactionary over time as projects Review. infrastructure works – either delay. are delivered to meet FC 2 New gap Draft 2019 N/A N/A Freight Yes See Northern renewals or enhancements. other outputs. SFN forecasts forecasts need RUS Gap 6 for Shaftholme accommodating. Jn – Knottingley require 3tph freight. 4tph by 2030. PC 1 New gap Retford line peak N/A N/A Route requires Yes See Northern crowding – 55% examining in RUS Gap 5 growth by 2024. the light of new demand forecasts.

122 123 Appendices Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Station Issue Proposed solutions

Leeds Identified by the Yorkshire and Humber RUS. Leeds station new southern entrance would improve station facilities and footfall capacity and reduce passenger access times to the development area south of the station. This scheme will help mitigate station congestion particularly around the station barriers/ concourse entrance. Appendix B: Station passenger deal with passenger capacity at stations. However, Liverpool Central Identified by the Merseyside RUS. Network Rail, Merseytravel and Merseyrail are capacity the Northern RUS Stakeholder Management Group currently developing possible solutions to the identified the following stations across the north of crowding on Liverpool Central platforms. The Network RUS: Stations document is looking at England as those which currently have passenger Manchester Narrow westbound platform can become No planned intervention. passenger capacity at stations nationally. It will capacity issues or are most likely to become a Deansgate congested at peak times and late evenings. provide a tool kit of interventions of the best ways problem in the future. Also listed are any proposed Manchester Platforms 1 and 2/3 are served by a footbridge The works in CP4 to make the station Disability to solve different capacity constraints. or planned interventions that have already been Oxford Road with steps. At busy times (especially in the Discrimination Act compliant with lifts/access As this is being considered nationally, the Northern identified via various workstreams to solve the morning peak) the queue of passengers to improvements and platform renewals will exit via the barrier can stretch back onto provide access improvements. Plans to remodel RUS has not looked at specific gaps and options to capacity issues. the platforms. This raises issues when other the layout and extend Platforms 1-4 are being passengers are pushing in the opposite direction examined by the Northern Hub. to reach the platforms and board trains, especially at the bottom of the stairs where Station Issue Proposed solutions passengers can be standing/queuing close to the platform edge. Ashburys Narrow outbound platform accessed by narrow A new direct tram link from Manchester City Manchester Platform 13/14 can become congested due to Track capacity on the corridor towards footbridge/steps. This station serves a growing Centre to the stadium is under construction. This Piccadilly number of trains/people using platform. Castlefield Jn is constrained by the reoccupation edge-of-centre employment area, with a further will reduce the use of the station when there are of Platform 13 and 14. The Northern Hub education college, as well as the Sports City events and hence crowding on the station. Passengers queuing to buy tickets when recommended option would create two new complex. On busy match days the station alighting trains can cause congestion/block flow through platforms (15 and 16). This would operator has to close the station. of passengers leaving and entering platforms spread passenger flows across four platforms Bradford Forster Bottleneck expected in egress from platforms on No planned intervention. with tickets. rather than two. Square busy peak trains. Bradford Bottleneck expected at barrier particularly on No planned intervention. Escalators to Metrolink platforms, taxi rank and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Interchange egress from station on busy peak trains. short-term parking can become congested. Executive have discussed Metroshuttle stops with the Department for Transport and this is Chapeltown In the morning peak, the number of passengers No planned intervention. Queues from Metroshuttle stops can block the deferred to refranchising. waiting on the platform (which is comparatively flow of passengers to/from the station. narrow) could cause overcrowding problems, especially as a number of trains do not stop at Meadowhall Access to and congestion on Platform 2. No planned intervention. Chapeltown and therefore pass the platform at Currently access restrictions are put in place on speed. the run-up to Christmas, at weekends and in the evening peak. Dore Morning peak hour platform crowding. South Possible doubling of the single line through Dore Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive have station and provide a second platform with Salford Central Excessive stepping height slows boarding/ No planned intervention. just bought an adjacent site for a 120-space Disability Discrimination Act compliant access alighting leading to increasing station dwell car park. in CP5. times as more people use the station Guiseley Limited footpath and footbridge access to No planned intervention. Salford Crescent Narrow becomes congested Planned extension to existing platform in CP4 Leeds/Bradford bound platform at peak times. with combination of interchange and origin/ but will not provide enough extra space to help destination passengers. Northern Rail staff with passenger flows. Halifax Restricted platform capacity on island No planned intervention except a new entrance control access to platform for originating platform and shared access/egress via stairs to from the waiting room directly onto the Leeds- passengers but cannot control numbers footbridge. bound platform that may reduce congestion alighting for interchange and destination. around the stairs, particularly at morning peak times. Saltaire Restricted platform space for peak passengers Potential platform lengthening in CP4. on Leeds/Bradford bound platform. Horsforth Restricted footway capacity to and from Leeds- No planned intervention. bound platform. Sheffield Crowding currently occurs on the steps into Station recently redeveloped/refurbished and no the main concourse and to Platforms 2-5 in further interventions to the station are planned. Huddersfield Limited capacity on concourse, stairs and The station operator is installing lifts to help particular, mainly at peak times. subway and on Platform 8, the busiest and most with access/Disability Discrimination Act issues. restricted platform. A new platform is proposed in CP5 to meet Shipley Spacious platforms, subway ramps and No planned intervention. passenger growth and improve passenger and footbridge at original station but restricted new train flows. Platforms 1 and 2 and footbridge link could pose a future problem as these also have the James Street Identified by the Merseyside RUS. No planned intervention. highest footfall.

Kirk Sandall Express trains pass the island platform which No planned intervention. Wakefield Restricted footbridge access to and from Leeds- No planned intervention. gets busy during morning peak periods. Westgate bound platform and limited concourse space.

124 125 Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Glossary

Term Meaning Term Meaning ATOC Association of Train Operating Companies. PTE Passenger Transport Executive. BCR Benefit Cost Ratio. RPI The Retail Price Index measure of UK inflation. Control Period 4 (CP4) The 2009 – 2014 period. Switches and crossings, track components which allow trains to change from one line S&C to another. Control Period 5 (CP5) The 2014 – 2019 period. Selective door opening, used where the whole of the train does not fit into a Control Period 6 (CP6) The 2019 – 2019 period. SDO station platform. DfT Department for Transport. SMG Stakeholder Management Group. Down The direction of trains normally when travelling away from London. Network Rail is structured for planning purposes with 17 Routes, which are aligned closely ECML East Coast Main Line. Strategic routes to the traffic flows in the planning areas and operational areas to enable direct use of route plans for delivery. Engineering access is the time on the rail network when no trains operate. This provides the Engineering access means by which maintenance/renewals and enhancement works are undertaken. TOC . FOC Freight operating company. tph Trains per hour. GVA Gross value added – Measure of the economic productivity of an area. Up The direction of trains normally when travelling towards London. HLOS High Level Output Specification. WCML West Coast Main Line Proposed high speed rail link between London and the West Midlands, and potentially HS2 beyond.

ISBP Initial Strategic Business Plan. This includes signalling, track, structures and telecom assets associated with the rail Infrastructure network. Loading gauge is the profile for a particular rail route within which all vehicles or loads must Loading gauge remain to ensure that sufficient clearance is available at all structures. An industry standard passenger demand forecasting model which uses many of the MOIRA principles published in PDFH (see opposite). These are trains composed of self-contained units, coupled together so that they work in unison under the control of the driver at the front of the leading unit. Each unit is normally Multiple unit trains composed of two or more semi-permanently coupled vehicles and a driving compartment (DMU & EMU) is provided at each end of every unit. There are diesel multiple units (DMU) and electric multiple units (EMU). Net present value – The whole-life economic benefit and revenue generated by a rail NPV capability change minus the whole-life cost of this change. A proportional uplift to scheme cost estimates to allow for historical systematic optimism on Optimism bias the part of UK scheme promoters.

ORR Office of Rail Regulation is the regulator for the railway industry in Great Britain. Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (version 5.0) – Industry standard publication PDFH containing detailed research on passenger behaviour and trends.

126 127 October 2010

Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Northern Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation October 2010

Network Rail Kings Place 90 York Way London N1 9AG

Tel: 020 3356 9595

www.networkrail.co.uk RUS138/October 2010