DOCSLIB.ORG

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited – Annual Return 2011 3 MB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited – Annual Return 2011 3 MB Network Rail Annual Return 2011 “More trains would take the pressure off at busy times. They nearly all seem to be crowded.” The railways have never been more popular. The result is that we need more capacity. More trains. Longer trains. We spent £1.7bn in the year on capacity enhancements and plan to invest £12bn over the five years to 2014 *Passenger comment, December 2010 Helping Britain run better Contents 1 Executive Summary 8 Introduction 11 Section 1 – Operational performance and stakeholder relationships 25 Section 2 – Network capability and network availability 37 Section 3 – Asset management 75 Section 4 – Activity volumes 89 Section 5 – Safety and environment 98 Section 6 – Enhancement Programme “Projects designed to increase capacity and improve services range from the new Airdrie-Bathgate rail link in Scotland to Thameslink across London, from platform lengthening on the East Coast to the redevelopment of Reading and entirely new stations such as Newport.” Contents Executive Summary 1 Track failures 50 Overall performance in 2010/11 1 Condition of asset temporary speed restriction sites (M4) 51 Operational performance and stakeholder relationships 2 Track geometry faults (M5) 54 Network capability and network availability 3 Earthwork failures (M6) 57 Asset management 4 Earthwork condition (M33) 58 Safety and environment 5 Tunnel condition 59 Expenditure and efficiency 6 Bridge condition (M8) 61 Enhancements schemes 7 Signalling failures (M9) 64 Signalling asset condition (M10) 64 Introduction 8 Alternating current traction power incidents causing train Scope of reporting against targets 8 delays (M11) 66 Independent Reporter 8 Direct current traction power incidents causing train delays Confidence reporting 9 (M12) 67 Regulatory Accounts 9 Electrification condition – AC traction feeder stations and track sectioning points (M13) 68 Section 1 – Operational performance and stakeholder Electrification condition – DC traction substations (M14) 69 relationships 11 Electrification condition – AC traction contact systems (M15) 70 Introduction 11 Electrification condition – DC traction contact systems (M16) 71 Overview: PPM and delay minutes 11 Station Stewardship Measure (M17) 71 Public Performance Measure (PPM) 12 Light Maintenance Depot Stewardship Measure (M19) 73 Summarised network-wide data (delays to major operators) 13 Network-wide total delays to freight train services 14 Section 4 – Activity volumes 75 Network-wide data by delay category grouping 15 Introduction 75 Asset failures 21 Track renewals 75 Cancellations & Significant Lateness (CaSL) 22 Rail renewed (M20) 75 Customer satisfaction 22 Sleepers renewed (M21) 76 Passenger satisfaction 23 Ballast renewed (M22) 77 Doing business with Network Rail 23 Switches and crossings renewed (M25) 78 Key regulatory issues arising in 2010/11 23 Signalling renewed (M24) 79 Level crossing renewals 79 Section 2 – Network capability and network availability 25 Telecom renewals 80 Introduction 25 Civils activity volumes 82 Network capability 25 Bridge renewals and remediation (M23) 83 Linespeed capability (C1) 25 Culverts renewals and remediation (M26) 83 Gauge capability (C2) 26 Retaining walls remediation (M27) 84 Route availability value (C3) 28 Earthwork remediation (M28) 85 Electrified track capability (C4) 30 Tunnel remediation (M29) 86 Infrastructure Capability Programme 31 Electrification and plant renewal activity volumes 87 Discrepancies between actual and published capability Drainage renewals expenditure 88 identified by the ICP 32 Short-Term Network Changes resulting from ICP and year of Section 5 – Safety and environment 89 expiry 33 Introduction 89 Permanent Network Changes completed resulting from ICP 33 Passenger safety 89 Network availability 34 Workforce safety (fatalities and weighted injuries rate) 90 Disruptions to passengers and freight as a result of planned System safety 92 engineering possessions 34 Environment 94 Section 3 – Asset management 37 Section 6 – Enhancement Programme 98 Introduction 37 Introduction 98 Broken rails (M1) 39 Summary of progress in the year 98 Rail defects (M2) 40 England and Wales 102 Track Geometry – Good Track Geometry (M3) 42 England and Wales: Defined outputs 121 Track geometry quality – Poor Track Geometry (M3) 46 Scotland 156 Track buckles 49 Scotland: Programme funds 157 Scotland: Specified projects 159 Scotland: Other programmes 162 Contents Network Rail – Annual Return 2011 1 Annual Return Reporting on the year 2010/11 Executive Summary Introduction Overall performance in 2010/11 This Annual Return reports on our Most of our regulatory train performance targets achievements, developments and challenges have been missed as a result of the severe during 2010/11, year two of Control Period 4 winter weather. However, we remain confident (CP4), and is the primary means by which we that the targets for the rest of CP4 will be met. report progress in delivering outputs established Despite continuous improvements in safety and in the Periodic Review 2008 (PR08). improvements in the passenger safety indicator, there was unfortunately one workforce fatality The Annual Return is a public document that during the year. As regards other areas of our provides an important reference for CP4 commitments, such as enhancement stakeholders. This and previous editions of the milestones, asset stewardship and network Annual Return are available on the Network Rail availability, most of our annual targets have website. been met. The Annual Return includes the following During the earlier part of the year, the ORR sections: found Network Rail in breach of two network licence conditions, as a result of the problems operational performance and stakeholder related to the roll out of the Integrated Train relationships; Planning System (ITPS). network capability and network availability; asset management; The comprehensive spending review reaffirmed activity volumes; that governments in both Westminster and safety & environment; and Holyrood continue to support investing in rail as enhancement schemes. the majority of projects and funding for them was confirmed. Unlike previous years, this Annual Return will not report on expenditure and efficiency. The detail In 2010/11 Network Rail started devolving of this information is now included in the responsibility to Route Managing Directors with Regulated Financial Statements as well as the the aim of being more responsive to customers Annual Report and Accounts. and stakeholders and increasing local accountability and ownership. For most measures we have provided information for Scotland and England & Wales Highlights for the year include: together with the network total where appropriate, although there are some measures improvements in asset stewardship with a which only have network-wide information and seven per cent reduction in the number of cannot be disaggregated further. This Annual infrastructure incidents causing delay; Return follows the agreed form as approved by continued high investment on our assets whilst the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) in 2010 and achieving further efficiencies; is prepared in accordance with Condition 12 of steady progress with our enhancement our network licence. programme; completion of our Infrastructure Capability Programme with all except one short term network change established; and network availability measures (PDI-P and PDI- F) are ahead of the CP4 regulatory targets. A summary of the year‟s performance is shown in Table 1 and later sections of this Annual Return provide more detailed information. Executive Summary and Introduction Network Rail – Annual Return 2011 2 Table 1: Performance against CP4 regulatory targets Measure Target 2010/11 Performance in 2010/11 CP4 target Passenger safety indicator (MAA) 0.246 0.171 0.246 Workforce fatalities and weighted 0.096 0.126 0.096 injuries (MAA) Regulatory target Performance in 2010/11 CP4 target 2010/11 PPM (% MAA) England & Wales 89.8 87.7 92.0 long distance PPM (% MAA) England & Wales 92.0 91.1 93.0 London & South East PPM (% MAA) England & Wales 91.0 91.5 92.0 Regional PPM (% MAA) England & Wales 91.5 90.9 92.6 Total PPM (% MAA) Scotland Total 91.3 90.1 92.0 (ScotRail) Cancellations & significant lateness 4.5 5.0 3.9 (% MAA) England & Wales long distance Cancellations & significant lateness 2.2 2.6 2.0 (% MAA) London & South East Cancellations & significant lateness 2.5 2.4 2.3 (% MAA) Regional Delay mins – passenger (000's) 5,790 6,859 4,980 England & Wales Delay mins – passenger (000's) 410 541 382 Scotland (ScotRail) Delay mins per 100 train km – freight 3.41 4.29 2.94 PDI – passenger (MAA) 0.91 0.52 0.91 PDI – freight (MAA) 1.00 0.89 1.00 Station Stewardship Measure (by category) A 2.48 2.30 2.48 B 2.60 2.40 2.60 C 2.65 2.47 2.65 D 2.69 2.47 2.69 E 2.74 2.50 2.74 F 2.71 2.50 2.71 Scotland (all stations) 2.39 2.33 2.39 Network Capacity – Generally good progress, see section 6 for progress with the enhancement programme Network Capability – No deterioration, see section 2 for details Note: MAA is the Moving Annual Average Operational performance and weather we worked hard to keep the network stakeholder relationships running (sometimes to the known detriment of At the start of the year train performance targets PPM and delay), this being recognised and were being met, however we have ended the appreciated by ORR and the TOCs. year with all but the regional PPM and CaSL regulatory targets being missed, mostly due to Major problem areas during the year were the impact of the severe
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ITS 500 Series the New Alsaldobreda/Firema Meneghino Train for Milan
    Connectors ITS 500 ITS 500 Series Reverse Bayonet Single Pole Power Connector Introduction New York MTA The new AlsaldoBreda/Firema Glenair is proud to supply connectors and Meneghino train for Milan, Italy interconnect systems for various programs for the The Meneghino is a new six-car dual- New York MTA. voltage train for the Metropolitana Milanese Glenair interconnects are employed on critical (Milan underground). It belongs to the “MNG” Traction Motor System and Intercar Jumper (Metropolitana di Nuova Generazione or Metro applications on the M8 EMU Railcars supplied by New Generation) family.The MNG is designed and Kawasaki for Metro North Railroad. manufactured in cooperation with Ansaldo Breda, a premier Italian rail transport and engineering company. Each train is built with two identical traction units, in the “Rp-M-M” configuration: Each unit includes one trailer coach (Rp) equipped with a driver’s cab, and two intermediate motor coaches (M) without a driver’s cab. C The M8 is an electric multiple unit (EMU) railroad car built by Kawasaki for use on the New Haven Line of the Metro-North Railroad. Photo: office of Dannel Malloy Glenair has also supplied product for numerous applications on the Long Island Railroad / Metro North M9 cars such as Traction Motor Systems, Intercar Jumpers, Lighting, Communication, HVAC, Converters, as well as others. The new AlsaldoBreda/Firema Meneghino train for Milan, Italy The electrically - controlled passenger doors (8 on each coach) grant a high reliability standard and very low maintenance. The train is equipped with a highly advanced Passengers’ Audio/ Video Information System. With this system, passengers receive informational messages and video The EMU M9 railcars will replace the M-3 fleet and regarding train service, broadcast directly to LCD expand the electric fleet for East Side Access.
    [Show full text]
  • Irchel Tram Depot – Headshunt Redevelopment
    Zurich Public Transport, Infrastructure Irchel Tram Depot – Headshunt Redevelopment 27.09.2021 Page 1 Irchel Tram Depot – Headshunt Redevelopment Client Facts Zurich Public Transport, Infrastructure Period 2010 - 2013 Project Country Switzerland Redeveloped headshunt enables Zurich Public Transport (VBZ) to operate its Irchel Tram Depot more efficiently. Difficult and time-consuming shunting tasks are now a thing of the past. Trams with low-floor cars in the middle and trailers (also referred to as “sedan-pony trams”) have been in operation on Line 7 since November 2010. These trams are now to be maintained and housed at the Irchel Tram Depot. The existing headshunt was not long enough to permit the expeditious handling of trams longer than 43 metres. Handling the 45-metre sedan-pony trams on the existing headshunt involved disconnecting the tram cars, shunting them separately into the depot and then reconnecting them – an overly complicated, time consuming and operationally impractical process. In response, Zurich Public Transport (VBZ) initiated an internal process of identifying alternative solutions. These solutions were also expected to take account of the new tram specifications that will apply following Zurich Public Transport’s purchase of a new tram generation (NTG). In October 2010, Zurich Public Transport commissioned EBP to conduct an independent and comprehensive review of the various development proposals it had worked out. The review was also to include an examination of the associated costs and relative merits of the proposed construction measures and their impact on the depot’s immediate vicinity and on railway operation in general. Working in the capacity of a general planner, EBP evaluated the various proposals and used the results of its review to outline the steps that would need to be taken to gain approval for and execute the redevelopment project.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation on the Minneapolis Riverfront
    RAPIDS, REINS, RAILS: TRANSPORTATION ON THE MINNEAPOLIS RIVERFRONT Mississippi River near Stone Arch Bridge, July 1, 1925 Minnesota Historical Society Collections Prepared by Prepared for The Saint Anthony Falls Marjorie Pearson, Ph.D. Heritage Board Principal Investigator Minnesota Historical Society Penny A. Petersen 704 South Second Street Researcher Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 Hess, Roise and Company 100 North First Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 May 2009 612-338-1987 Table of Contents PROJECT BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1 RAPID, REINS, RAILS: A SUMMARY OF RIVERFRONT TRANSPORTATION ......................................... 3 THE RAPIDS: WATER TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS .............................................. 8 THE REINS: ANIMAL-POWERED TRANSPORTATION BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ............................ 25 THE RAILS: RAILROADS BY SAINT ANTHONY FALLS ..................................................................... 42 The Early Period of Railroads—1850 to 1880 ......................................................................... 42 The First Railroad: the Saint Paul and Pacific ...................................................................... 44 Minnesota Central, later the Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railroad (CM and StP), also called The Milwaukee Road .......................................................................................... 55 Minneapolis and Saint Louis Railway .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • M7 Electric Multiple Unitанаnew York
    Electric Multiple Unit -M- 7 POWERCAR WITH TOILET ---10' 6' B END FEND I 3,200 mi , -: -" 0 C==- ~=0 :- CJCJ ~~[] CJCJCJCJCJCJ [] I D b 01 " ~) -1::1 1211-1/2 t~J ~~W ~~IL...I ~w -A'-'1~~~- I ~~ 309~mmt ~ 1 I~ 11 m 2205~16~m-! 591..1.6" mm --I I 1- -- 59°6" ° 4°8-1/2. , ~ 16,~:,60~m ~-- -;cl 10435mm ~ .-1 25.908 mm F END GENERAL DATA wheelchair locations 2 type of vehicle electric multiple unit passenger per car (seated) under design operator Metropolitan Transportation Authority passengers per car (standing) crush load under design Long Island Railroad order date May 1999 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS quantity 113 power cars without toilet .power fed by third rail: 400-900 Vdc 113 power cars with toilet .auxiliary voltages: 230 Vac / 3 ph / 60 Hz train consist up to 14 cars 72 Vdc .AC traction motor: 265 hp (200 kW) DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHf Metric Imperial .dynamic and pneumatic (tread & disc) braking system length over coupler 25,908 mm 85'0" .coil spring primary suspension width over side sheets 3,200 mm 10'6" .air-bag secondary suspension rail to roof height 3,950 mm 12' II Y;" .stainless steel carbody rail to top of floor height I ,295 mm 51" .fabricated steel frame trucks rail to top of height 4,039 mm 13' 3" .automatic parking brake doorway width 1,270 mm 50" .forced-air ventilation doorway height 1,981 mm 6'6" .air-conditioning capacity of 18 tons floor to high ceiling height 2,261 mm 89" .electric strip heaters floor to low ceiling height 2,007 mm 79" .ADA compliant toilet room (8 car) wheel diameter 914 mm 36" .vacuum sewage system
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Passage
    Right of Passage: Reducing Barriers to the Use of Public Transportation in the MTA Region Joshua L. Schank Transportation Planner April 2001 Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA 347 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017 (212) 878-7087 · www.pcac.org ã PCAC 2001 Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank the following people: Beverly Dolinsky and Mike Doyle of the PCAC staff, who provided extensive direction, input, and much needed help in researching this paper. They also helped to read and re-read several drafts, helped me to flush out arguments, and contributed in countless other ways to the final product. Stephen Dobrow of the New York City Transit Riders Council for his ideas and editorial assistance. Kate Schmidt, formerly of the PCAC staff, for some preliminary research for this paper. Barbara Spencer of New York City Transit, Christopher Boylan of the MTA, Brian Coons of Metro-North, and Yannis Takos of the Long Island Rail Road for their aid in providing data and information. The Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee and its component Councils–the Metro-North Railroad Commuter Council, the Long Island Rail Road Commuters Council, and the New York City Transit Riders Council–are the legislatively mandated representatives of the ridership of MTA bus, subway, and commuter-rail services. Our 38 volunteer members are regular users of the MTA system and are appointed by the Governor upon the recommendation of County officials and, within New York City, of the Mayor, Public Advocate, and Borough Presidents. For more information on the PCAC and Councils, please visit our website: www.pcac.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Track Geometry
    Track Geometry Track Geometry Cost effective track maintenance and operational safety requires accurate and reliable track geometry data. The Balfour Beatty Rail Digital Track Geometry System is a combined hardware and software application that derives track geometry parameters compliant with EN 13848-1:2003 and is an enhanced version of the original BR and LU systems, with a rationalised transducer layout using modern sensor technology. The system can be installed on a variety of vehicles, from dedicated test trains, service vehicles and road rail plant. Unlike some systems, our solution is designed such that voids and other vertical track defects are identified through the wheel/rail interface when the track is fully loaded. The compromise of taking measurements away from the wheel could produce under-measurement of voided track with an error that increases the further the measurement point is away from the influences of the wheel. The system uses bogie mounted non-contacting inertial sensors complemented by an optional image based sub-system, to measure rail vertical and lateral displacement. The system is designed to operate over a speed range of approx. 5 to 160 mph (8-250km/h). However, safety critical parameters such as gauge and twist will function at zero. Geometry parameters are calculated in real time and during operation real time exception and statistical reports are generated. Principal measurements consist of: • Twist • Dynamic Cross-level • Cant and Cant deficiency • Vertical Profile • Alignment • Curvature • Gauge • Dipped Joints • Cyclic Top Vehicle Ride Measurement As an accredited testing organisation we are well versed in capturing and processing acceleration measurements to national/international standards in order to obtain Ride Quality information in accordance with, for example ENV 12299 “Railway applications – Ride comfort for passengers – Measurement and Evaluation”.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Deck Park Engineering and Costing Study
    Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1 1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Alignment with Other Initiatives ................................................................................. 8 1.3 Project Team ............................................................................................................. 9 City of Toronto.................................................................................................. 9 Build Toronto.................................................................................................... 9 WSP Canada Group Limited............................................................................ 9 2.0 STUDY METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................. 10 2.1 Study Area............................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Data Gathering ........................................................................................................ 10 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS............................................................................................... 12 3.1 Topography & Landforms.......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CSX Transportation (CSX) Lynchburg, VA April 30, 2014
    Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Safety Accident and Analysis Branch Accident Investigation Report HQ-2014-4 CSX Transportation (CSX) Lynchburg, VA April 30, 2014 Note that 49 U.S.C. §20903 provides that no part of an accident or incident report, including this one, made by the Secretary of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration under 49 U.S.C. §20902 may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. U.S. Department of Transportation FRA File #HQ-2014-4 Federal Railroad Administration FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT TRAIN SUMMARY 1. Name of Railroad Operating Train #1 1a. Alphabetic Code 1b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. CSX Transportation CSX 000129247 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Railroad or Other Entity Responsible for Track Maintenance 1a. Alphabetic Code 1b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. CSX Transportation CSX 000129247 2. U.S. DOT Grade Crossing Identification Number 3. Date of Accident/Incident 4. Time of Accident/Incident 4/30/2014 1:54 PM 5. Type of Accident/Incident Derailment 6. Cars Carrying 7. HAZMAT Cars 8. Cars Releasing 9. People 10. Subdivision HAZMAT 104 Damaged/Derailed 17 HAZMAT 1 Evacuated 400 Huntington East 11. Nearest City/Town 12. Milepost (to nearest tenth) 13. State Abbr. 14. County Lynchburg VA LYNCHBURG 15. Temperature (F) 16. Visibility 17. Weather 18. Type of Track 53 ̊ F Day Rain Main 19. Track Name/Number 20. FRA Track Class 21. Annual Track Density 22. Time Table Direction (gross tons in millions) No. 2 Freight Trains-25, Passenger Trains-30 East 50 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rtd Light Rail Design Criteria
    RTD LIGHT RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA Regional Transportation District November 2005 Prepared by the Engineering Division of the Regional Transportation District Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1399 303.628.9000 RTD-Denver.com November 28, 2005 The RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual has been developed as a set of general guidelines as well as providing specific criteria to be employed in the preparation and implementation of the planning, design and construction of new light rail corridors and the extension of existing corridors. This 2005 issue of the RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual was developed to remain in compliance with accepted practices with regard to safety and compatibility with RTD's existing system and the intended future systems that will be constructed by RTD. The manual reflects the most current accepted practices and applicable codes in use by the industry. The intent of this manual is to establish general criteria to be used in the planning and design process. However, deviations from these accepted criteria may be required in specific instances. Any such deviations from these accepted criteria must be approved by the RTD's Executive Safety & Security Committee. Coordination with local agencies and jurisdictions is still required for the determination and approval for fire protection, life safety, and security measures that will be implemented as part of the planning and design of the light rail system. Conflicting information or directives between the criteria set forth in this manual shall be brought to the attention of RTD and will be addressed and resolved between RTD and the local agencies andlor jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail for All Report
    RAIL FOR ALL Delivering a modern, zero-carbon rail network in Scotland Green GroupofMSPs Policy Briefing SUMMARY Photo: Times, CC BY-SA 2.5 BY-SA Times, CC Photo: The Scottish Greens are proposing the Rail for All investment programme: a 20 year, £22bn investment in Scotland’s railways to build a modern, zero-carbon network that is affordable and accessible to all and that makes rail the natural choice for commuters, business and leisure travellers. This investment should be a central component of Scotland’s green recovery from Covid, creating thousands of jobs whilst delivering infrastructure that is essential to tackle the climate emergency, that supports our long-term economic prosperity, and that will be enjoyed by generations to come. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1 Creating the delivery infrastructure 4 i. Steamline decision-making processes and rebalance 4 them in favour of rail ii. Create one publicly-owned operator 4 iii. Make a strategic decision to deliver a modern, 5 zero-carbon rail network and align behind this iv. Establish a task force to plan and steer the expansion 5 and improvement of the rail network 2 Inter-city services 6 3 Regional services 9 4 Rural routes and rolling stock replacement 10 5 TramTrains for commuters and urban connectivity 12 6 New passenger stations 13 7 Reopening passenger services on freight lines 14 8 Shifting freight on to rail 15 9 Zero-carbon rail 16 10 Rail for All costs 17 11 A green recovery from Covid 18 This briefing is based on the report Rail for All – developing a vision for railway investment in Scotland by Deltix Transport Consulting that was prepared for John Finnie MSP.
    [Show full text]
  • Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B Constraints and Development of Options
    ` Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B Constraints and Development of Options May 2003 BTR3726 28/05/2003 Babtie Group 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7HX Tel 0141 204 2511 Fax 0141 226 3109 Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B – Constraints and Development of Options Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Existing Services and Constraints 3 3.0 Service Options 7 3.1 The Options 7 3.2 The Service frequency 7 4.0 Assessment of Options 11 4.1 The East West Axis 11 4.1.1 Option A: Dundee – Carnoustie 11 4.1.2 Option B: Dundee – Arbroath 14 4.1.3 Option C: Dundee – Montrose 17 4.1.4 Option D: Montrose – Brechin 21 4.1.5 Option E: Perth to Carnoustie and Arbroath 22 4.1.6 Option F: Perth – Montrose 25 4.1.7 Dundee West Service Extensions 27 4.2 The North South Axis 29 4.2.1 Option G: Arbroath – Ladybank 29 4.2.2 Option H: Perth – Dundee – Ladybank 31 4.2.3 Option I: Dundee West – Leuchars 32 4.2.4 Option J: Leuchars - St Andrews 34 5.0 Station Appraisals 36 5.1 General Discussion 36 5.2 The East West Axis Stations 37 5.2.1 Montrose 37 5.2.2 Arbroath 41 5.2.3 Carnoustie 45 5.2.4 Golf Street 48 5.2.5 Barry Links 50 5.2.6 Monifieth 52 5.2.7 Balmossie 55 5.2.8 Broughty Ferry 57 5.2.9 Dundee 59 5.2.10 Dundee West 63 5.2.11 Invergowrie 65 5.2.12 Perth 67 5.3 The North South Axis Stations 70 5.3.1 Leuchars 70 5.3.2 Cupar 73 5.3.3 Springfield 76 5.3.4 Ladybank 79 6.0 Summary of Options and Costs 82 Appendices Appendix A Option Base Timetable Appendix B Station Audit Proforma Appendix C Dundee West – Proposed Station Location \\Douglas\Work\Projects\4900s\4976\Outputs\Reports\Final\WP B (Constraints and Option Development) v5.doc Page 1 Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B – Constraints and Development of Options Copyright Babtie Group Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Building Better Transport
    Building Better Transport CEC02083844_0001 Building Better Transport Ministerial Foreword When I was appointed Tr ansport Minister last spring, Scotland's Transport: Delivering Improvements was not long published. That document identified key priorities for transport that have underpinned our work over the last year. It also promised that we would issue a report on progress. We have taken huge steps forward since then. The key to progress was our decision last year to allocate unprecedented sums to transport over the next three years. Spending on transport will rise by over 50% over three years, with almost £1 billion per annum being spent by 2006. Spending on public transport - which is now top of our priorities - will rise by over 70% in three years. That decision made an enormous impact. There is now money to fund major new infrastructure projects. The sense of momentum is building. People are beginning to believe. Transport improvements that once seemed a pipe dream stand a genuine chance of becoming reality. The new communications links that businesses have been crying out for are just around the corner, and the economy will thrive on them. Resources are not unlimited, but we can be certain that the transformation of Scotland's transport infrastructure will be well under way by the end of the decade. We have been criticised in the past for not committing the funds needed to enable major projects to proceed. That has now changed. All schemes will still have to continue to demonstrate value for money and stand up to rigorous economic and environmental scrutiny. But the security of a £1 billion per annum budget has enabled us over the year to make firm funding commitments, including the MS and M80 motorway upgrades in west central Scotland; the reinstatement of the Airdrie-Bathgate railway line; a new bypass, the Western Peripheral Route, for Aberdeen; and has allowed us to make further progress with rail links to Glasgow and Edinburgh airports.
    [Show full text]