DOCSLIB.ORG

6.2 Model Development

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
6.2 Model Development HS2 Phase Two Model Development Report: PLANET Framework Model version 4.3-5.2 January 2016 CS392J_3 High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has been tasked by the Department for Transport (DfT) with managing the delivery of a new national high speed rail network. It is a non-departmental public body wholly owned by the DfT. High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, One Canada Square, Canary Wharf, London E14 5AB Telephone: 020 7944 4908 General email enquiries: [email protected] Website: www.gov.uk/hs2 High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the HS2 website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. © High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2016, except where otherwise stated. Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. This information is licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ version/2 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least 75% recycled fibre. Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Model Development 2 1.3 Quality Assurance 4 1.4 Report Structure 4 2 PFMv4.4 6 2.1 Summary of Changes 6 2.2 Model Development 6 2.3 Quality Assurance 7 3 PFMv4.5 9 3.1 Summary of Changes 9 3.2 Model Development 9 3.3 Quality Assurance 12 4 PFMv4.6 15 4.1 Summary of Changes 15 4.2 Model Development 15 4.3 Quality Assurance 22 5 PFMv4.7 28 5.1 Summary of Changes 28 5.2 Model Development 28 5.3 Quality Assurance 35 6 PFMv4.8 39 6.1 Summary of Changes 39 6.2 Model Development 39 6.3 Quality Assurance 40 7 PFMv5.0 42 7.1 Summary of Changes 42 7.2 Model Development 42 7.3 Quality Assurance 49 8 PFMv5.1 51 8.1 Summary of Changes 51 8.2 Model Development 51 8.3 Quality Assurance 62 9 PFMv5.2 65 9.1 Summary of Changes 65 9.2 Model Development 65 9.3 Quality Assurance 68 Glossary 71 Appendix A – Model Development Updates: Further Information 74 i PFMv4.3 - 5.2 Model Development Report 1 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 HS2 Ltd is preparing for the Strategic Outline Business Case (SOBC) for Phase 2A of the HS2 scheme. The SOBC is the next iteration of the HS2 Economic Case for publication. The previous publication of the HS2 Economic Case was to support the hybrid Bill for Phase 1 of the HS2 scheme, which was presented to Parliament during the 2013/14 session. 1.1.2 The HS2 scheme comprises a network of new high speed rail lines that are due to be connected and completed in a series of phases: Phase 1 is due for completion in 2026 and will see high speed train services linking London and Birmingham; Phase 2, which is forecast for completion in 2033, completes a Y-shaped network, with lines running on to Manchester and Leeds; and Phase 2A is an intermediate phase, which aims to bring forward high speed services into Crewe to provide a fast link to the West Coast Mainline (WCML) by 2027, just one year after completion of Phase 1. 1.1.3 The PLANET Framework Model (PFM) is the primary tool for forecasting HS2 ridership and calculating associated benefits and revenue to support the HS2 Economic Case. Since the hybrid Bill in 2013/14, the PFM has been enhanced in order to better support the business case. 1.2 Model development 1.2.1 The model development undertaken since the publication of the previous business case has been carried out in a series of step-changes which are presented in chronological order in the remaining chapters of this Model Development Report (MDR). The updates were to PFMv4.3, the version of the model that was used to support the hybrid Bill. 2 PFMv4.3 - 5.2 Model Development Report Table 1 - Model Development Step Changes since PFMv4.3 Step- Description of change and reasoning change PFMv4.4 PFMv4.4 incorporates minor model improvements to address known issues identified during the audit and quality assurance processes carried out on PFMv4.3. PFMv4.4 also includes the automation of the Numerical Integration (NI) appraisal process. PFMv4.5 PFMv4.5 consists of a series of development opportunities which had been identified as part of the previous model audit and quality assurance of PFMv4.3, along with some previously identified automations which improve the running of the model. PFMv4.6 Compared to PFMv4.5, model version PFMv4.6 incorporates minor model improvements to resolve some of the issues raised by the audit and quality assurance process. There are also a number of changes designed to improve the usability and efficiency of the model. PFMv4.7 Compared to PFMv4.6, PFMv4.7 incorporates a number of significant changes, including: updated future-year demand matrices that take account of revised growth forecasts of rail, air and highway demand. The rail growth takes account of the WebTAG update in Autumn 20141, as well as incorporating elements of the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH) v5.1 guidance and the latest forecasts of the economic and cross-modal demand drivers, including gross domestic product (GDP), employment, population and rail fares; as a result of revised rail growth assumptions, the cap year on demand growth has changed from 2036 to 2040; as well as the forecasting models, assumptions within the demand and appraisal models have also been updated to be consistent with the guidance contained within the WebTAG Autumn 2014 release. Most importantly, this involves updating the GDP assumptions used to grow values of time in the appraisal model to be consistent with those used by the demand forecasts; and there have also been updates to the control matrices, highway preloads and air transit lines, together with a number of fixes to small bugs within the model. PFMv4.8 Compared to PFMv4.7, PFMv4.8 incorporates updated HS transit line service coding that takes into account revised reliability assumptions. PFMv5.02 Further to PFMv4.8, PFMv5.0 incorporates a partial ‘Do Minimum’ (DM) network update. These updates to the DM have been derived from: a review of the existing DM networks based around the individual Train Operating Company’s (TOC) coding; and updated DM specifications from the Department for Transport (DfT). PFMv5.1 PFMv5.1 is the model release which combines the following updates: Further updates to the DM transit line coding, in particular focusing on East Coast Mainline (ECML), East Midlands (EM), London Midland (LM) and Chiltern TOCs. Revised HS2 timetable for high speed services in Phase 1 and Phase 2. Revised rail demand forecasts through an amendment to the employment growth driver applied within the forecasting process. Update to the generalised journey time (GJT) elasticity applied in the regional models to be consistent with PDFHv5.1 rather than PDFHv4.1. 1 WebTAG Databook Autumn 2014 Forthcoming Changes 2 It should be noted that this test was originally called 4.9, but was renamed for release as PFMv5.0. 3 PFMv4.3 - 5.2 Model Development Report Step- Description of change and reasoning change PFMv5.2 PFMv5.2 contains changes to the rail fares growth assumptions contained within the model. These changes altered the cap year which became 2037. This change has been made to align with the government’s election manifesto that rail fares will not grow faster than RPI during the 5-year term from May 2015. 1.3 Quality assurance 1.3.1 When model development updates are made to the PFM, the work carried out under these model developments is subject to rigorous quality assurance (QA) processes to ensure that they are correctly implemented. This is carried out by the model developers and HS2 Ltd. 1.3.2 In general, three standard levels of checking that may be used: Yellow check – These are carried out by the model developers and includes checks of the setup of model runs, checks that model run outputs have been produced correctly and checks that results from the model are sensible through a key indicators form; Orange check – Carried out by the model developers, this is a more detailed check of the model inputs and outputs and also involves the production of a note detailing the checks. For changes to model code (macros and batch files, etc), it involves a line-by-line check of changes implemented, documented in tabular form; or Red check – This involves a full QA of all aspects of the model, with a full acceptance criteria note produced by the model developer. This also includes line-by-line checks of all files within the modelling framework. 1.3.3 Further to the above checks, some additional checks may be performed by HS2 Ltd or through an independent peer review. 1.3.4 HS2 Ltd’s independent auditor has also checked the model at each stage of the development process and signed off the changes made. 1.3.5 The QA processes carried out during this period of model development are documented within this MDR.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • XCTL-1001 Passenger Information During Disruption Local Plan
    XCTL-1001 Passenger Information During Disruption Local Plan Synopsis This document demonstrates the process and procedures in place within CrossCountry to comply with the ATOC Code of Practice for providing Passenger Information During Disruption (PIDD). Published by UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN PRINTED Safety Team CrossCountry 5th Floor, Cannon House 18 Priory Queensway © 2016 XCTL Birmingham B4 6BS Contents A Administration ............................................................................................................. 3 B Requirements .............................................................................................................. 4 1. Purpose & Scope ........................................................................................... 4 2. People ........................................................................................................... 4 C Procedure .................................................................................................................... 5 1. Background .................................................................................................... 5 2. Aims and Objectives of PIDD ......................................................................... 5 3. Interface with Network Rail and Other Organisations ..................................... 5 4. Compliance .................................................................................................... 6 5. Key Requirements ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    High-Speed Rail Development Programme 2008/9 Principal Consultant Final Report 9 October 2009 Version 5.7 Contents 1 Introduction 4 1.1 The Study 4 1.2 Study Approach 5 1.3 The Guiding Principles for High Speed Rail Development 8 2 Corridor Status Report 10 2.1 Overview of Corridors 10 2.2 Passenger Travel Market 11 2.3 Rail Infrastructure and Services in the 5 Corridors 13 2.4 Planning Issues/Objectives 21 2.5 Findings from regional workshops 22 2.6 Core objectives for high speed rail 23 3 Network Scenarios: Initial Network Testing 24 3.1 Objective of Initial Network Testing 24 3.2 Strategic Choices and Design Criteria 24 3.3 Conclusions from the Initial Network Scenarios 30 4 Issues addressed by Corridor and Network Studies 36 4.1 Building on the initial network scenario study 36 4.2 Utilising other evidence 36 4.3 Costs of Routes to Scotland 36 4.4 Serving the second corridor north from London 37 4.5 London linkages 37 4.6 Serving South Wales and the South West 38 4.7 Transpennine 38 4.8 Scenario development 38 5 Scenarios Tested 39 5.1 Overview 39 5.2 Scenario Tests 39 5.3 Infrastructure 40 5.4 HS Service Patterns 41 5.5 Changes to Classic Services 42 6 Evaluation of Scenarios 44 6.1 Introduction 44 6.2 Evaluation criteria 44 6.3 High Speed line from London/Heathrow/HS-CT to Birmingham and Manchester 46 Page 2 of 80 6.4 High Speed line from London/ HS-CT to Sheffield/Leeds (via M11) 47 6.5 HS-NW extended to Scotland 49 6.6 Scenario 4: Incremental benefit of Heathrow link 51 6.7 Value of HS-NE to Newcastle (M1 corridor) 53 6.8 How
    [Show full text]
  • Closing the Gap the South West Peninsula Strategic Rail Blueprint
    Closing the gap The South West Peninsula strategic rail blueprint November 2016 For the South West, investment into the rail with other areas. Links to Bristol, Birmingham • Invest £1.5bn to reduce journey times by up to The UK’s record of investment into infrastructure network will unlock a host of benefits, generating and London, as well as other travel hubs such as 14 minutes to Penzance, through infrastructure is mixed; in the South West we strongly believe an additional £7.2bn of GVA and £1.8bn of transport Heathrow, Gatwick and Southampton are vital, as improvements, partial electrification and a new approach is needed. Other countries are benefits in the coming years, transforming the are our interregional provision. The report clearly franchise renewals using different ways to invest and deliver their economy and our communities. With passenger calls for reliable and high quality services, accessible infrastructure, successfully: on time and on budget. • Invest £150m reducing journey times and growth at 128%, we consistently outstrip industry to all, enabling passengers to work and travel in We want to work with Government, Network Rail, increasing core capacity on the Exeter –Waterloo forecasts and our potential is growing. 75% of SW comfort. train operating companies and private sector line businesses stated that rail is vital to their business Since the initial report, we have undertaken partners to explore new avenues and bring benefits and that reducing the journey time to London by 45 • Invest £358m to improve capacity and comfort extensive studies with partners Network Rail, the to the South West as soon as possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Illustrative Option Schemes in CP5 HLOS
    Illustrative Option schemes in CP5 HLOS The Department worked with Network Rail, the train operators and the transport authorities in the major cities to build up shared information on current rail usage. As far as practicable a shared view was also agreed on forecast demand, using standard rail industry models but adjusting these where there was evidence of likely stronger growth. This forecast growth is stated as a peak demand to be met in the HLOS. The forecast growth was assessed against current plans for train service provision in 2019. Illustrative train service enhancements that provided the capacity to meet this demand were identified and modelled for the morning peak services in London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. In many cases these were directly based on the work undertaken by recent rail industry Route Utilisation Strategies (RUS). In some cases, notably in Leeds and Manchester, recent Government commitments to funding electrification and capacity enhancements had happened after the RUS and so the Department worked with key stakeholders to determine the most likely train service patterns the infrastructure changes might produce. The illustrative peak train services are not what will happen; that will be guided both by the rail industry’s response to the HLOS in the Strategic Business Plan for CP5 where the industry will set out how it proposes to meet the HLOS, and by the outcome of future train operator franchise competitions. But the illustrative train services are needed for the Department to confirm that a value for money solution can be provided to meet peak demand. It is likely the rail industry will produce a more detailed and efficient solution, and in this context the illustrative option can be viewed as the simple answer that should be bettered.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrification October 2009  Foreword
    Network RUS Electrification October 2009 2 Foreword I am pleased to present this Electrification Electrification has a potentially significant role Strategy, which forms part of the Network Route to play in reducing carbon emissions from rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS). The Network RUS transport as well as improving air quality and looks at issues affecting the whole network reducing noise. Electric trains, on average, rather than in specific geographical areas. emit 20 to 30 percent less carbon than diesel trains, and their superior performance in Approximately 40 percent of the network in terms of braking and accelerating can help terms of track miles is currently electrified, reduce journey times. In addition, they provide though several main lines, much of the cross- more seats for passengers, making a greater country network, as well as key freight links contribution to increasing the overall capacity of and diversionary routes remain un-electrified. the railway. Passengers and freight operators This document therefore sets out a potential would also both benefit from an improved longer-term strategic approach to further service in other ways, such as through the electrification of the network. creation of more diversionary routes. Electrification presents a huge opportunity for In England and Wales, two options in particular the industry, for those who use the railway and – the Great Western and Midland Main Lines for the country as a whole. Our analysis shows – are shown to have high benefit to cost ratios. the long-term benefits of electrifying key parts These options, along with key strategic infill of the network, in terms of both reducing its schemes, are both presented in the proposed ongoing cost to the country and improving its strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1 FINAL , Item 56. PDF 274 KB
    BACKGROUND TO THE EAST COAST MAIN LINE AND INTERCITY EAST COAST FRANCHISE 1 The East Coast Main Line 1.1 The East Coast Main Line (ECML) is one of two high-capacity north-south trunk routes that run between Scotland and London. Whilst not formally defined, it is broadly accepted as being the rail line from Edinburgh southwards via Newcastle, York, Doncaster, and Peterborough to London Kings Cross. The mainline from Leeds to Doncaster via Wakefield Westgate (often referred to the West Riding section) is also regarded as part of the East Coast Main Line. 1.2 Whilst the route serves an important function for long-distance Anglo-Scottish inter-city passenger trains, the InterCity East Coast franchise operates fewer than half the trains on the route. It is a multi-functional railway, accommodating many other local and regional services, together with freight traffic along various parts of its length. For the City Region this includes: TransPennine Express services on the route north of York to Middlesbrough, Newcastle, and in future, Edinburgh; InterCity Cross Country services north of York to the north east and Scotland, and also south of York and Leeds towards Sheffield, the midlands and south west; open access operators: . Grand Central services between West Yorkshire, Doncaster and London; . Grand Central services between the north east, York and London . Hull Trains services between Hull, Selby, Doncaster and London. Local services between Leeds and Doncaster / Sheffield via Wakefield Westgate. 1.3 The route’s role in the “heavy-lifting” of commuter traffic into Leeds itself, and increasingly into Wakefield, Doncaster and York too, is vital to the economic success of the region, and to providing socially inclusive and sustainable access to work and education opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Cross Country Rail Franchise
    Cross Country rail franchise Consultation response from the Association of Community Rail Partnerships August 2018 About us The Association of Community Rail Partnerships (ACoRP) is a national, not-for-profit umbrella organisation working across Britain to support, advocate and represent the community rail movement. The community rail movement is made up of hundreds of small community groups, such as station adoption groups, and larger and more formal community rail partnerships (CRPs) that work along whole or multiple lines, connecting communities with their railways. Community rail partnerships and groups carry out a wide range of activities, including: • promoting understanding and use of the railways, such as communicating local developments or encouraging rail travel for leisure and tourism purposes; • helping communities support, feed into and influence their railway and station’s development so it better meets their needs, such as coordinating volunteer groups to maintain and enhance stations, or advising train operators on local needs and demand; • bringing disused station property back into community use, such as by achieving renovations, setting up community group spaces, or running social enterprises; • running a range of activities to bring people together and tackle social exclusion linked to the railways, such as local events, creative projects and educational programmes. The value of such work was set out in a 2015 Transport Regeneration report on the value of community rail, commissioned by the Department for Transport-run National Community Rail Steering Group. This found that CRPs more than pay for themselves, contributing £3.4m per annum in volunteering hours alone, bringing social and economic value, and seeing passenger growth well above average1.
    [Show full text]
  • Works Report
    INTERCITY RAILWAY SOCIETY Monthly Magazine http: // icrs.org.uk First ScotRail 158723+158706 with its coupling cover dragging behind and kicking up the snow on departure from Huntly (12.08 to Aberdeen) on a completely calm and sunny 2 February 2008 (what a difference a day makes !!) VOLUME 36 No.2 February 2008 INTER CITY RAILWAY SOCIETY President: Dr. Pete Waterman O.B.E. The content of the magazine is the copyright of the Society No part of this magazine may be reproduced without prior permission of the copyright owner Vice Presidents: Peter King 65 Long John Hill, Norwich NR1 2LX (01603 616298) Jeff Hall – [email protected] 3 Ingham Grove, Hartlepool TS25 2LH (01429 421175) Chairman: Simon Mutten Coppercoin, Blofield Corner Road, Blofield, Norwich NR13 4RT (01603 715701) Secretary/Treasurer: Gary Mutten – [email protected] 1 Corner Cottage, Silfield Street, Silfield, Wymondham NR18 9NS (01953 600445) Editorial Managers: Trevor Roots – [email protected] Mill of Botary, Cairnie, Huntly, Aberdeenshire AB54 4UD (01466 760724) Peter Britcliffe – [email protected] 9 Voltigeur Drive, Hartlepool TS27 3BS (01429 234180) Editorial Assistants: Sightings: James Holloway – [email protected] 246 Longmore Road, Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands B90 3ES. Lincoln/Local Areas: John Barton – [email protected] 46, Arbor Way, Chelmsley Wood, Birmingham B37 7LD Wagons & Trams: Martin Hall – [email protected] 5 Sunninghill Close, West Hallam, Ilkeston, Derbys. DE7 6LS (0115 930 2775) European: Robert Brown – [email protected] 32 Spitalfields, Blyth, Worksop, Notts. S81 8EA (01909 591504) Membership Sec/ Maurice Brown – [email protected] or [email protected] Publication Manager: 192 Alvechurch Road, West Heath, Birmingham B31 3PW (0121 624 8641) Pub.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy and Practice of Taktfahrplan: a Case-Study of the East Coast Main Line
    This is a repository copy of The philosophy and practice of Taktfahrplan: a case-study of the East Coast Main Line.. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/2058/ Monograph: Tyler, Jonathon (2003) The philosophy and practice of Taktfahrplan: a case-study of the East Coast Main Line. Working Paper. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds , Leeds, UK. Working Paper 579 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ White Rose Research Online http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Institute of Transport Studies University of Leeds This is an ITS Working Paper produced and published by the University of Leeds. ITS Working Papers are intended to provide information and encourage discussion on a topic in advance of formal publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Trains – What Will New Cross Country
    Changing trains – what will New Cross Country passengers need? Final Passenger Focus recommendations to the Department for Transport April 2007 Executive summary In order to establish the extent to which passengers would be affected by the Department for Transport’s (DfT) proposed changes to the Cross Country franchise, Passenger Focus commissioned a new and comprehensive piece of research in January 2007. Travelwatch North West and Travelwatch West Midlands were contracted to assist Passenger Focus with the analysis of the collected data, assessing the suitability of suggested interchange stations and developing an interchange strategy looking at marketing and information for passengers, fares and through ticketing issues, and facilities and staffing needed at stations. This report highlights the key findings from the new research, summarises communications between Passenger Focus and the DfT, and presents Passenger Focus’ final recommendations to the DfT on the New Cross Country franchise. Summary of final recommendations: Recommendation one Passenger Focus strongly believes that the DfT must procure the costed 30% increase in capacity on the central, most congested franchise routes. Recommendation two Passenger Focus recommends that the DfT requires the successful operator to develop a robust interchange strategy that mitigates the impact on those passengers who will require an additional change of trains once the new services are introduced. This must include consideration of the following factors: • fares and ticketing • improved marketing and information • improved facilities at interchange stations • improved staff assistance. Recommendation three Passenger Focus recommends that the DfT considers how communicating key messages about new franchises can be improved, and how data enabling an informed analysis of the impact on passengers can be more readily available in future.
    [Show full text]
  • Overarching CP5 Enhancements Plan
    Strategic Business Plan: Definition of CP5 enhancements January 2013 Page Introduction 3 Summary 7 England & Wales CP5 enhancement programme 9 England & Wales - Committed Projects 10 England & Wales - funds to deliver specific outcomes 37 The Electric Spine 51 London and the South East 66 North East 84 London North West 94 Wales 98 Western 101 Scotland CP5 enhancement programme 112 Scotland - Committed Projects 113 Scotland - Funds to deliver specific outcomes 120 Scotland - Other Scottish projects 128 Page 3 Introduction This document provides more detail of the enhancements proposed for Control Period 5 as summarised in Network Rail’s Strategic Business Plan (SBP). Projects within this document are grouped into a number of categories: “Committed” Projects – These are projects that the England & Wales, and Scottish governments committed to providing funding for ahead of publishing their High Level Output Specifications. Funds to Deliver Specific Outcomes – Experience of using funds in CP4 has demonstrated the value of such an approach giving the industry flexibility to determine the most cost effective way to deliver outputs. The Electric Spine - A major north-south rail electrification and capability enhancement, increasing regional and national connectivity and supporting economic development by creating a high-capability 25kV electrified passenger and freight route from the South Coast via Oxford and the Midlands to South Yorkshire. Other projects (those projects “named” in the High Level Output Specifications and projects required
    [Show full text]
  • EAST MIDLANDS COUNCILS CONSULTATION RESPONSE Your
    EAST MIDLANDS COUNCILS CONSULTATION RESPONSE Q1 How do you think closer co-operation between staff in Network Rail and the operator of the next East Midlands franchise can be achieved? A1 Your view: The railway in the UK is split between those who provide and maintain the tracks and those who operate the services, these organisations need to operate alongside the government bodies responsible for the economic and transport strategies and the Department for Transport (DfT) who procure the services. In balancing the needs to maintain and improve the infrastructure and operate the services it is essential that DfT make clear that safety and passenger needs must be given the highest priority. We wish to see a franchise which delivers continued performance improvement, provides a passenger focused approach to service delivery as well as maintenance and enhancement works, and is motivated to support economic growth and the local communities adjoining and served by the franchise. This means there needs to be a very close alignment between all parties to ensure that the services provided supports the economic growth ambition and transport strategy objectives, by providing the right rail infrastructure for the services to meet the community need. The right standard and capacity of services operated to the right timetable and all provided at a price that Treasury can afford. Regular meetings between the winning Train Operating Company (TOC), Network Rail, DfT and East Midlands Councils (EMC) is strategically important to build alignment. EMC can provide the strategic position for the East Midlands Region, as well as being best placed to provide the bridge to local authority partners within the region.
    [Show full text]