sign in sign up
<<
Home , Brighton main line, Elephant and Castle

Chief Officer Confirmation of Report Submission Cabinet Member Confirmation of Briefing Report for: Mayor Mayor and Cabinet √ May or and Cabinet (Contracts) Executive Director Information Part 1 √ Part 2 Key Decision √

Date of Meeting October 31 st 2007

Title of Report Matters referred by the Sustainable Development Select Committee – Rail Development Review

Originator of Report Ext. At the time of submission for the Agenda, I confirm that the r eport has:

Category Yes No

Financial Comments from Exec Director for Resources √ Legal Comments from the Head of Law √ Crime & Disorder Implications √ Environmental Implications √ Equality Implications/Impact Assessment (as appropriate) √ Confirmed Adherence to Budget & Policy Framework √ Risk Assessment Comments (as appr opriate) N/A Reason for Urgency ( as appropriate) N/A

Signed: ______Executive Member

Date: ______

Signed : ______Director/Head of Service

Date ______

Control Record by Committee Support Action Date Listed on Schedule of Business/Forward Plan (if appropriate) Draft Report Cleared at Agenda Planning Meeting (not delegated decisions) Submitted Report from CO Received by Committee Sup port Scheduled Date for Call -in (if appropriate) To be Referred to Full Council Mayor & Cabi net

Report Title Proposed Response to the Sustainable Development Select Committee – Rail Development Review Key Decision No Item No. 9

Ward Borough -wide

Contributors Executive Director for Regeneration ( Head of Transport )

Class Part 1 Date: 31 October 2007

1 Exclusion of Press and Public

There is no need to exclude the press or public

2 Summary

2.1 This report informs the Mayor and Cabine t about progress on rail and tube developments in the borough, in the six months since the views/comments of the Sustainable Development Select Committee were reported. 2.2 It also sets out the main issues arising from the Government’s White Paper on Rail and ’s draft South Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), both published in July 2007, including a suggested response to Network Rail.

3. Purpose of the Report

To inform the Mayor of the proposals to develop ’s rail services

4 Polic y Context

4.1 The

The London Plan considers forecast for employment and population growth together with main locations which could be developed . Population is predicted to rise by 7.2% between 2006 and 2016 and employment by 11.2%. Most of the predicted development activity takes place in the south east. A number of opportunity areas or areas for intensification are listed , including , Elephant and Castle, Creek/ riverside, and Lewisham//. The conclusion reached by the RUS is that the London Plan favours future public transport improvements which support the development of East London, growth in the Central Activities Zone, the development of opportunity areas and areas of intensification and be tter access to town centres and areas of regeneration. The plan supports schemes such as 1 and 2 , and the extension and implementing a high frequency London wide service on the network

4.2 Tfl Transpor t 2025

4.2.1 In 2006 TfL published its Rail Strategy for London for the rail network up to 2025. The document pointed out the importance of rail in the London economy, that the population is predicted to grow by one million and jobs by 900000.

4.2.2 A number of detailed proposals were put forward by TfL including selective lengthening of Southern inner suburban trains from 8 car to 10 cars by 2013, selective lengthening of SouthEastern TOC’s inners services from 10 cars to 12 car by 2012, implem entation of East Londo n Line Phase 1 and Phase 2, Implementation of Crossrail, implementation of the , integration of services and connection s to provide an orbital route for London, and providing an all day frequency of at least fou r trains per hour on most routes. TfL have also produced a number of Route Corridor Plans to translate the high level vision of Rail 2025 into a more detailed evidence based plan for each corridor. The RCP identified a number of constraints o n the existing network including a mix of services( fast, slow and freight), routing of first capital connect services between and Blackfriars, mix of termini, platform lengths and capacity at main line termini, high number of flat junction s and bottlenecks such as at Lewisham and Norwood Junction.

4.2.3 To cope with predicted overcrowding the RCP proposes train lengthening from 10 to 12 cars on some South Eastern lines, an increase in peak hour services on the Hayes Branch from 4tph to 6t ph, an increase in services at Hill and Ravensbourne, reconfiguring of rolling stock and train lengthening from 8 cars to 10 cars on the southern suburban routes via Sydenham , and Crystal Palace . In general service areas the RCP propose s increases in services from 2 to 4 between north and Grove Park, projecting the peak hour Bellingham to Blackfriars service to start at and continue all day, running 4 tph all day on the , with trains running earlier in the morning and later in the evening .T hese would be in addition to any services operated by phase 2 of the East London extension.

4.3 Lewisham’s Unitary Development Plan/Local Development Framework

Policies in Lewisham’s Unitary Development Plan conta ins a number of policies on transport that have been saved in the new Local Development Framework process. These polices include co -ordination of land use and development with transport and car parking, improvements to public transport, provision for cycli sts, pedestrians and people with disabilities. More detailed policies concern the location of large development, transport by rail, protecting and improving public transport and improving interchange at Lewisham, Catford and elsewhere. 4.4 Lewisham’s L ocal Implementation Plan

Lewisham’s Local Implementation Plan includes the Mayor and Council Objectives of Clean , green and liveable and Strengthening the local economy. Under the latter is the objective to promote public transport. • LIP policy 4C.1 commi ts the Council to work with partners to deliver accessibility improvements to stations on he East London Line extension • LIP measure 4C.1 proposes further actions to improve safety and security around New Cross and New Cross Gate stations • LIP measures 4D. 1 and 4D.2 propose the Deptford Links, Lewisham Gateway proposals and legible Lewisham concept to improve access to the DLR • LIP policy 4D.1 commits the Council to working with TfL to explore the costs and benefits of a number of options for the Hayes Lin e. (Extension of the DLR to Catford has, unfortunately, been ruled out but the Council continues to engage with TfL on the possible extension of the to Lewisham thence down the Hayes Line. Such a project is, at best, 15 years away and as yet there are no conclusions.) • LIP Policy 4D.2 supports the principle of extending Tramlink to Crystal Palace. Public consultation on this has recently concluded • LIP Measure 4E. 1 commits the Council, subject to funding, to work with partners to improve the me tro services in South London Borough of Lewisham • LIP Measures/Programmes 4E. 2,3 and 4 refer to complementary measures to improve security around rail stations • LIP Measure 4E 3 commits Lewisham to promote Lewisham Gateway to improve access and the environm ent around Lewisham Station • LIP Programme 4E 5 proposes a programme, subject to funding, of cycle parking at stations • LIP Measure 4E. 4 proposes, subject to funding, major access improvements at stations and on routes to stations, especially Lewisham and D eptford • LIP Measure 4E. 5 proposes exploring funding to improve existing access across railway lines by bridge or subway for the disabled • LIP Measure 4E. 6 suggests possible extension of parking controls around stations

5. Recommendations

The Mayor is asked to: - 5.1 Note the proposals in the Government’s Rail White Paper affecting the borough, namely: • The proposed acquisition of up to 1000 extra carriages to lengthen trains on the most crowded services around London • The authorisation for the Thameslink pr oject to proceed • The proposed investment of £150m in 150 stations out of the 500 busiest station. Network rail are now developing the programme 5.2 Note the proposals in Network Rail’s draft Route Utilisation Strategy affecting the borough, namely: • The propo sed lengthening of platforms on South Eastern stations where necessary to accommodate 12 car trains • The proposed lengthening of platforms on Southern stations where necessary to accommodate 10 car trains • The options for developing services on the Catford l oop being considered • The retention of current peak levels of service on the Hayes line • The proposed amendments to service patterns at Lewisham • The conclusions about peak service enhancement on the New Cross Gate – Sydenham section of line 5.3 Agree the respon se, as outlined in section 11 of this report for submission to Network Rail as this authority’s comments on the draft RUS 5.4 Note other developments on rail services including DLR three car upgrade, gating of stations, East London Line project, Access for Al l and development schemes around stations. 5.5 Note the forthcoming consultation by SouthEastern on their 2009 timetable plans. 5.6 Agree that this report be submitted to the Sustainable Development Select Committee. 6 Referral by Sustainable Development Select Comm ittee 6.1 Sustainable Development Select Committee carried out a rail development review in March 2007 (Appendix 1 to this report). The Committee recommended that : In respect of plans to increase rail and tube capacity, plans should be made to ensure that ca pacity is improved not only in respect of numbers of trains and longer trains but also exploring better links and interchanges with the aim of providing a more joined up service • While the committee very much welcomes the East London Line extension we do no t believe that this should be used to justify a reduction in services to London Bridge. We therefore recommend that a feasibility study needs to be carried out and published to show the maximum number of trains per hour that can be accommodated in addition to the planned East London Line services • In line with this, with regards to the closure of the East London line between 22 December 2007 -2010, a feasibility study should be carried out to look into the possible impact on existing services • Some considera tion should also be given to carrying out a feasibility study to extend the Bakerloo Line further south from Elephant and Castle TfL information on commuters travel patterns should be made available to the council to assist with transport planning at a lo cal level The problems with disabled access for the tube and rail network is a long standing problem that needs to be resolved with a well thought out strategy and approach. As a short term measure, to improve accessibility to stations, the opportunity for small scale improvements and funding should be investigated. Particularly in respect of the planned re -branding work as part of the new service The rail and tube developments in the borough should also be in line with the Local Developme nt Framework and the council’s policy concerning sustainable development. The committee recommend that progress with the rail and tube developments in the borough is re -visited in six months time This report revisits progress on rail and tube development as suggested by the Committee.

7. The Rail White Paper

The Rail White Paper was published by Government in July 2007. It sets out plans for major investment in rail service across the country, but principally in London. The aim is for a railway that can ha ndle double today’s traffic levels, be even safer and with a lower carbon footprint It is planned to buy about 1000 extra carriages to lengthen trains on the most crowded services around London and the south east by 2014 The long awaited Thameslink progr amme, costed at £5.5bn gets the go - ahead, with the first phase in place by 2012 and the final part by 2015 150 of the busiest stations in Britain will be modernised, and Network Rail will be developing the programme Regulated fares will increase by 1% a y ear above the rate of inflation In the very long term 16 carriage trains in the London area are being contemplated

8. Network Rail’s South London Route Utilisation Strategy

8.1 The draft South London Route Utilisation Strategy for South London (essentially the Southern and SouthEastern Metro services)was published on the 31 st July and consultation runs until the 26 th October 2007. The aim of the Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) programme is to identify a strategy for accommodating growing demand on the rail way in a manner that is deliverable, affordable and consistent with performance and safety improvements. Network Rail now has a statutory planning role for rail infrastructure. 8.2 The RUS broadly encompasses the complex suburban network of both a nd routes . This includes the suburban lines within the London Travel card area, covering all immediate stations on all routes from Victoria, Blackfriars, Charing Cross and Cannon street and the suburban lines on all routes from Victoria(central) an d London Bridge(central/low level) . It addressees the period up to 2019, although it does look further ahead to identify any factors that might need to be addressed within the 2019 period.

8.3 In order to do that it considers the case for different trai n service patterns but it is important to remember that it is the DfT, not Network Rail, that issues franchise specifications to bidders and it is the London Mayor who has powers to add to, or subtract from, that specification.

8.4 The document looks at the gaps in the ability of the railway to cope with existing demand or predicted demand for the future, and evaluates options to bridge these gaps. The options are then evaluated to identify the most promising and value for money solutions. These options will be refined in the light of stakeholder responses and a final document issued later in the year.

The key planning strategies that have informed the development of RUS are: • The London Plan (especially forecast for growth in employment and population) • TfL’s Rail 2025 longer term vision • TfL South London Rail Corridor Plan (RCP) • The South East Plan • The DfT’s South Eastern Regional and Southern Planning Assessment • Other local authorities plans .

8.5 There are a number of rail planning strategies that h ave also been taken into account in the RUS development including: • The Main Line RUS, which concentrated on the use of the fast lines between Victoria, and the south coast • The South West Main Line RUS, which interfaces with Claph am junction and Wimbledon services • The Cross London RUS, which similarly has an interface with these lines • The RUS, which recommended the greater use of 8 car trains in the peak hours for Thameslink Franchise • The Freight RUS, which looke d at key Strategies for freight access

8.6 The following schemes are the uncommitted schemes which if implemented would have a significant impact within the RUS area:

• East London Line Phase 2 • The Crossrail project • Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace • Various station capacity schemes • The Thameslink Programme (This was uncommitted when the draft RUS was written) 8.7 In preparing the base case or do minimum forecast for later years it has been assumed that only committed schemes will go ahead

These include: • East London Line Phase 1 • DLR extensions to Arsenal and increase to 3 car operation on the Lewisham branch in 2009 • Integrated Kent Franchise and domestic services on the Channel tunnel Rail Link -now known as High speed One. The ope ning of the final section of CTRL will see Eurostar services switching from Waterloo to St Pancras, which will mean that Eurostar will not need paths south of the river

8.8 A number of other schemes at varying stages of development were not yet commi tted and were therefore not taken into account in the do minimum scenario. These include: • East London Line Extension Phase 2 • Croydon Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace • Crossrail • The Thameslink Programme (now committed)

8.9 Five passenger train operato rs run scheduled services over the lines :

• Southern Railway provides services along the New Cross Gate - Sydenham Line • SouthEastern covers all the remaining train services in Lewisham • First Capital Connect (FCC) operates the Thameslink service • South West Trains services into Junction • Eurostar International services • (to be absorbed into the Southern franchise)

8.10 Other passenger train services listed include Silverlink (To become London Overground) operating into Clapham Juncti on, London Underground providing interchange at London terminii and services at Elephant and New Cross /New Cross Gate, DLR serving Greenwich and Lewisham and Croydon Tramlink offering a number of interchanges. The railways in the south and south east L ondon perform an important function in parts of the capital where London Underground barely penetrates. Some 66% of all rail trips within the RUS area are for commuting purposes and of these some 43% are to centres of employment in the West End and City.

8.11 The tren d in recent years of the RUS area has a whole has been one of moderate growth with the number of passengers arriving at London terminal rising by 10% between 1997 to 2005. At the same time total capacity rose by 16%. These aggregate fig ures disguise noticeable difference between the two principal operators in Lewisham .

• SouthEastern total capacity was increased by 12% by introducing class 376 rolling stock but the number of passengers has increased by only 1% This is apparently due to th e significant increases in the number of people interchanging at Lewisham and Greenwich for the DLR ( between 2004 and 2006 DLR trips at Lewisham grew by 17%) and to a lesser extent at New Cross for the ELL . • Southern has seen both capacity and passengers grow by around 25%. The highest growth in passenger numbers occur when extra capacity has recently been added. Both capacity and patronage have grown significantly on services from London Bridge in the pm peak .

8.12 Most growth pressures in London have t o be accommodated on the existing local tracks, which mostly have a simple two track layout in the suburbs and flat junctions which limit maximum line frequency . The RUS identifies several existing capacity pinch points which limit the ability of the infrastructure to meet current demand. These include platform capacity at both Victoria and London Bridge (only one platform available at London Bridge for Charing Cross Services), the bottleneck at Metropolitan junction between London Bridge and Waterloo, flat junctions and limited capacity for terminating services in the Croydon area, and flat junctions at both Lewisham and . Passenger footfall at several stations is approaching its maximum limit. This is mainly at London terminal but also Bal ham, East Croydon, Clapham Junction and Lewisham.

8.13 The RUS considered the predicted changes in demand in both passenger and freight , within the RUS area up to 2019 and beyond . It then identified where there is a gap between forecast demand and wh at the network is capable of delivering . The gaps identified focus on crowding, already a significant issue with up to 10% of demand suppressed by it. Background growth of 14% by 2019, together with suppressed demand means that the RUS aims to provide for 25% extra capacity.

8.14 The conclusions drawn are that if only the committed changes take place , then the number of stations at which passengers are unlikely to be able to board certain trains in the morning peak will increase, significant standing w ill increase and the lines which will most noticeably worsen includes the Hayes Branch , the Catford Loop and Victoria via Norbury. So the most significant gap in relation to passenger traffic is during the morning peak for passenger flows into London lead ing to high levels of crowding on most routes and at several stations.

8.15 The RUS lists a number of options to bridge those gaps. These are then subjected to analysis with a view in determining which options represent good value for money.

8.16 For analysis purposes, the gaps identified were subdivided into three categories. The first category concerns the inability of the present railway system fully to cope with existing and predicted passenger demand, and contains 6 gaps: a) existing and predicted overcrowding and inability to meet demand on peak SouthEastern services running via London Bridge to Charing Cross and Cannon street b) existing and predicted overcrowding and inability to meet demand on peak SouthEastern services running to Victoria and Bla ckfriars c) existing and predicted overcrowding and inability to meet demand on peak Southern services to Victoria d) existing and predicted overcrowding and inability to meet demand on peak SouthEastern services running to London bridge and potentially on East London Line services e) existing and predicted overcrowding and inability to meet demand on peak First Capital connect services running via Blackfriars f) existing and predicted overcrowding at certain rail stations

8.17 The second category highlighted gaps i n the train service specification associated with committed schemes. The two gaps are:

g) shortcomings in the timetable specification proposed for Southern metro and East London Line services from December 2009, to which SouthEastern have franchise commitm ents h) shortcomings in the timetable specification proposed for the Southern Metro and East London Line services from December 2009, which is beyond the termination date of the current railway franchise

8.18 The third category considers the disparity betwe en the present utilisation of the network by freight services and what might be more efficient use of the network

i) sub optimal use of capability and capacity in respect of some routes used by freight trains

8.19 The RUS refers to the several large high profile investment schemes are planned or proposed in the RUS area . These include:

• Phase 1 of the East London Line • Integrated Kent Franchise service commitments • Extension of the DLR to Woolwich, and three car operation on the Lewisham branch

8.20 It also deals with the introduction of new suburban services from the Croydon area to the and step free access at a number of stations under the DfT’s Access for All programme

8.21 East London Line Phase 1

A particular problem is the possible incompatibility for the East London Line timetable, with the Brighton main line proposals and the need to accommodate the Thameslink programme. In addition, suburban growth also means the ELL timetable needs enhancement. The draft RUS points out that as part of the development of the ELLX project, a draft timetable specification was prepared as a base case for 2009 London arrivals between 08.00 to 08.59. This envisaged 6 train path s to London Bridge and 8 additional East London Line Trains . T he draft timetable was required in order to test the operational feasibility of the scheme and thus support an application by TfL to the Office of the Rail regulator. As detailed timetable planning took place, it became clear that the specification as or iginally conceived was no longer responding adequately to recent changes in demand , particularly for southern services to via Norbury into Victoria. The timetable was also not capable of being delivered without the use of the fast line paths from Croydon to Victoria, the availability of which is depended on the Brighton Main Line RUS. For this reason the RUS concluded that the ELL feasibility timetable constituted a gap, options for the resolution of which need to be developed. +

8.22 The Integrated Ken t Franchise

The Integrated Kent Franchise contains undertakings to implement in two stages: • Service Level Commitment 1 for 2006 and 2007 • Service Level Commitment 2 which encompasses more widespread changes resulting from the introduction of high speed ser vices from parts of eastern Kent to St Pancras .

As with the East London Line , the draft SLC2 timetable may not address am peak demand on one or two routes. These include : • The large number of trains planned to be routed via Lewisham and the associated co nflicting movements across the flat junctions there • Peak demand on the Hayes Line • Peak demand between Bromley South and Victoria

8.23 Other schemes

The RUS also makes reference to the DLR 3 car enhancement planned for opening in February 2009 and known i mprovements as part of the Access for all programme.

Draft RUS Analysis

8.24 All the options were analysed by Network Rail to determine their effectiveness. They were then recommended or discarded , or proposed for further developmental analysis.

They were considered in groups:

• Options for increasing peak train frequency (Options 1.1 to 2.8) • Options for peak trains lengthening (Options 3.1a to 4.7) • Other options for addressing generic capacity issues (Options 6 & 7) • Options to optimise use of ca pacity at London terminals , the Croydon area, Herne Hill area, and Lewisham area (Options 8.1 to 19.2) • Thameslink Programme (Options 20.1 to 20.5) • Options to address freight issues (Options 21.1 to 21.8) • Options to deal with station congesti on and access issues (Options 22.1 to 23.4)

8.25 Particular conclusions which are relevant to this Borough are: • Hayes line - frequency enhancement in the peak • Sydenham Line – extra 2 trains per hour on top of the previously proposed timetable (i.e. up to six trains in the peak to London Bridge and eight on East London Line) The extra 2 trains on top of these frequencies should ideally run to London Bridge but because of Thameslink works there will have to run on the East London Line. The RUS suggests this could be kept under review. • //Hayes/ stopping services to 12 cars • Greenwich/Woolwich line – further work needed on 12 cars • Sydenham Line – 10 cars, subject to completion of Thameslink • East London Line – to stay at 4 cars • Div ersion of London Bridge -Victoria (Via South London Line) service away from London Bridge to Catford Loop or East London Line phase 2 extension • Further work on diversion of proposed Charing Cross – Plumstead services via Greenwich and Victoria – Dartfo rd services via Sidcup • Reconsideration of Sydenham services operating to Charing Cross at end of Thameslink programme • Passenger congestion relief at London termini, Lewisham, East Croydon, Waterloo East. • New station at High Level is not recom mended • The conclusions in the RUS are that in the SouthEastern metro area, there is very little scope to run extra peak trains, instead lengthening trains to 12 cars, except on Blackfriars and Victoria services, is proposed. Similarly in the Southern Met ro area there is limited opportunity to run extra trains and it is suggested that lengthening of most services to 10 cars should take place. • Further work to be done includes • Consideration of grade separation at Herne Hill or East Croydon • New or better ter minating facilities at East Croydon • Further revisions to services to match demand • Changed service patterns to reduce the number of stations where platforms lengthening is needed • Other infrastructure enhancements .

8.26 The RUS notes that the Thameslink p rogramme will allow many First Capital Connect services to run at 12 cars from 2011, but reduce the number of platforms for terminating trains at London Bridge both during and after construction albeit increasing through capacity for trains to Charing Cro ss and Blackfriars. It is however fully supportive of Thameslink. 8.27 The RUS considers the role of fares policy and reconfiguration of trains to offer less seats and more standing room. Both may have a role but will not of themselves solve the prob lems.

8.28 Studies are to be commissioned into stations where passenger capacity is a concern, including Lewisham.

8.29 The RUS reviews the December 2009 timetable specifications for both Southern (including East London Line) and SouthEastern. It concludes that growth in demand has resulted in shortcomings, and that at some locations the timetables may not work. It looks at options to deal with both these issues, including:

• More services on the Hayes branch (present peak frequency maintained) • Mor e services between Bromley South and Victoria • Reconfiguration or reduction of services through Lewisham

8.30 The suggested timescale for this is:

• To 2009: • Development of 2009 timetable specification • Initial lengthening of peak Thameslink trains • First out put from Thameslink scheme • Smart ticketing

• 2009 -2011: • Extra trains above current plans: Hayes line, Bromley South – Victoria • Thameslink 12 car capacity on core section • East London Line Phase 2 • Train lengthening to 12 car on SouthEastern, and also to 1 0 car on Southern’s Victoria services

• 2011 -2015 • Completion of Thameslink • Train Lengthening to 10 car on Southern London Bridge services

9. Thameslink project

9.1 The Thameslink project has been a long time in gestation. It is now fully funded and has all its powers. The current Thameslink tunnel between City Thameslink and Farringdon was reopened in BR days, linking together former Southern services that terminated at the former Viaduct station with London Midland Region services that formerl y terminated at Moorgate. Of necessity, the BR project was delivered to a very tight budget. That has left the stations unable to cope with more than eight car trains and a capacity of only eight trains an hour through the tunnel. The current Kings Cross Thameslink station is to close in November to be replaced by the new St Pancras station, but platforms at Blackfriars and Farringdon need to be lengthened. Furthermore, the present track layout south of Blackfriars, and the junctions and route through Lo ndon Bridge limit capacity severely.

9.2 The Thameslink Programme is a major enhancement programme that would permit up to 24 trains per hour up to twelve carriages, to run through the core Thameslink route between St Pancras and Blackfriars and thence to various destinations in south London. Among the changes proposed are a new , major remodelling works at , two new tracks to the west of London Bridge, and remodelling of London Bridge itself

9.3 The project is likely to b e delivered in three phases: • Key Output Zero proposed for 2008 would see the closure of the Moorgate Branch with trains diverted instead to a destination south of the river • Key Output 1 proposed for December 20011, would introduce 16 trains per hour throu gh the central section , together with 12 car capability. It is proposed that 12 car trains could run to Dartford on either or both of the routes via Sidcup and Bexleyheath, as well as the route to Brighton • Key Output Two would deliver the full capability from December 2015

10. Other Developments

The above proposals should be seen in the context of other rail investment in South East London

10.1 The DLR is being extended to allow 3 car operation on the Lewisham Branch. Although there are likely to be in t he first instance slightly less trains than now, an increase in capacity of 33% is proposed. Changes to Delta Junction, north of and in the longer term a new train control system offer the prospect of progressive increases in capacity as deman d grows. DLR extension to Woolwich Arsenal is under construction

10.2 National Rail operators are to accept Oyster from 2008 or 2009. This will require either gating of stations or as a minimum, covered exits with card readers.

10.3 Construction on t he East London Line phase 1 has started, to open early in 2010. TfL is planning to spend £0.5m per station to make them fit for purpose – i.e. up to London Underground standards

10.4 Rebuilding of Blackfriars station under the Thameslink plans, of Londo n Bridge and Cannon Street will impact on both trains and passengers.

10.5 Access for All funding for DDA access at New Cross Gate, Lewisham, Blackheath, Forest Hill, Grove Park and New Cross is in place.

10.6 A commencement Order bringing section 17 of the Railways Act 2005 came into force on 8 th August . This allows TfL the ability to better integrate London ‘s inner suburban network, and allow s TfL to propose and pay for improvements on some key commuter routes and reduce the level of train services . Officers understand that TfL has an aspiration for a 15 minute frequency on the Catford loop, with extra trains possibly to Orpington .

10.7 Domestic services on the high speed line from Kent start in 2009, and the new international and Thamesl ink station at St Pancras opens this November

10.8 The proposed extension of the Croydon Tramlink to Crystal Palace

10.9 The Crossrail Bill is proceeding through Parliament and the go -ahead for the project has recently been announced. The Crossrail project would construct a new tunnel from to Liverpool street, enabling through train service to operate from Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Shenfield and to the East, with an additional new station at Woolwich. If approved a nd funding is identified the project is expected to be completed by 2016.

10.10 The campaign to get East London Line Phase 2 built before 2011 is under way (this is suggested in the RUS above). TfL are party to this campaign. The East London Line Phase 2 would provide a service from Quays to Clapham Junction , with a new station proposed at Surrey Canal Road. No date is planned at present for this scheme, although depending on funding and approval it could be delivered at the earliest in 2011

10.1 1 The Southern franchise falls due for renewal in 2009. A new consultation on the changes to the timetable is expected early next year. This will give effect to the conclusions in the final Brighton Line RUS, merging Gatwick Express fully into the train s ervice pattern

10.12 SouthEastern’s review of their 2009 timetable will be out for consultation shortly. However, they have stressed that this is essentially adjustment to the timetable they have already committed to run, not a fundamental rethink.

10.13 Discussions are under way with Network Rail on rebuilding of New Cross Gate, Lewisham, Catford and Forest Hill stations, in part utilising the 150 stations fund in the Rail White Paper

10.14 Taken together, these plans and proposals will trans form the network in Lewisham and the opportunities for travel to destinations outside.

11. Discussion

11. 1 Whilst overall the step change in investment is good news, there remain a number of concerns over the plans and proposals, contained within the dr aft South London Route Utilisation Strategy. a). Options (1.1 to 2.8 in the RUS) were examined for increasing peak train frequencies (relative to the previously planned 2009 timetable specification). Of these 9 were either not recommended or not recomme nded in isolation, mainly because of insufficient capacity of the lines or terminals. It is this lack of capacity, exacerbated by construction works, that is most problematic.

Option 1.1 Increase am peak frequency (relative to 2009 specification) on the Hayes Line to 6 trains per hour. Under the 2009 specification , it was proposed to reduce the current 6 trains per hour to 4. Demand forecasts suggest that this may have resulted in insufficient capacity and increase overcrowding if this was implemented. T he RUS recommend that this option be developed further. It is not stated whether these trains will run via Lewisham and operate to Cannon Street and Charing Cross. We would want the trains to call at Lewisham if at all possible – but there should be a choi ce between Charing Cross and Cannon Street for peak users. b) The RUS highlights that the timetable specification prepared as part of the development process for the East London line (Phase 1) and that recommended by the Brighton main line RUS may hav e potential incompatibilities as they currently stand, particularly as far as the fast line between Croydon and London is concerned. This would be further complicated by the need to accommodate Thameslink services, both during and after the construction pe riod. This is an issue that has been highlighted by the Deputy Mayor, local members, the Forest Hill Society, the Sydenham Society, local residents, MPs and others. The history of correspondence on this issue suggests that initially TfL, like Lewisham, exp ected the existing level of service to London Bridge to remain alongside the new East London Line service of 8 trains per hour. However, TfL stressed that the decision was one for the DfT as part of the new Southern franchise. However, when they had comple ted their Route Corridor Plan, they predicted most crowding pressure on the East London Line and suggested that if there were room for two more trains per hour, they should be ELL trains, not ones to London Bridge. Network Rail’s RUS which is the statutory planning document says that the demand is to London Bridge and in an ideal world that is where the trains should run to, but with the Thameslink works at London Bridge they cannot run there. It has subsequently emerged that if these extra trains can be ti metabled on the line they could run to London Bridge for the first two years from 2009, but would have to be diverted onto the ELL for the period from 2012. Network Rail prefer to keep a constant pattern rather than take the extra trains away in 2012. Howe ver, officers consider that it would be better to provide the extra capacity to London Bridge for the initial period after the ELL opens whilst passengers adjust to the new travel opportunities. As demand grows on the ELL, the transfer in 2012 which would have to happen might well coincide with shifting demand. It is, however, important, that there is not a period between any reduced Sydenham line service to London Bridge (which could be implemented in December 2009) and the opening of East London Line serv ices (which could be early 2010. If the extra peak trains operated to London Bridge in the first instance, this would minimise the risk of problems from any delay to the start of the East London Line service. However, the pattern could be reviewed after 20 15 when the London Bridge works would be completed and there could be an option to divert the extra trains back to London Bridge and possibly adding two further trains on the East London line route as suggested by the East London Line Group. Network Rail h ave not, however accepted that this further expansion of service would be possible. c) Lack of clarity over plans for services on the Catford Loop. There has been a longstanding aspiration from both Lewisham and TfL for a “Metro” frequency 15 minute turn up and go service on the Catford loop. This aspiration has been complicated by the existence of Eurostar paths which restrict timetable flexibility. The Integrated Kent timetable planned from 2009 reduces the level of peak train service south of Bell ingham to a half hourly operation. TfL have expressed an aspiration to provide a half hourly Victoria – Orpington service in addition to the Blackfriars – Sevenoaks service. This is discussed in the RUS, in the context of options for the London Bridge – Vi ctoria via South London Line service. One option is to route it from Victoria via the Catford loop, no longer serving London Bridge. Of the options put forward for the Victoria – South London Line service, including the operation of the service from Victor ia via the South London Line onto the East London Line phase 2 (which would be of concern if it replaced part of the planned service level from Clapham Junction), operation to South East London seems the preferable option. That means a choice of where the extra trains would go after . They could be routed eastwards via Lewisham and onwards to, for example, , improving the frequency from Blackheath and Lewisham to Victoria, or south -eastwards to Catford and Bromley, improving frequencies at Cro fton Park, Catford, Bellingham and Beckenham Hill. From a Lewisham perspective, the latter option seems preferable. d) The cutback on trains through Lewisham. Lack of capacity at Lewisham, both for passenger and trains is an issue. Already, most Charing Cross services do not call at Lewisham. Whilst this is attractive to admittedly the majority of passengers who are travelling through to , it does reduce the benefit of the line as a local link to Lewisham centre. As Lewisham develops and th e Gateway brings the centre to the station, there will be an increasing case to improve the frequency of services to Lewisham. However, in the short term the 2009 Integrated Kent timetable appears, according to the RUS to be unworkable because it routes to o many trains through Lewisham. It suggests that the planned Charing Cross – Plumstead services should operate via Greenwich and the Victoria – Dartford services should operate via Sidcup, thereby reducing crossing movements at Lewisham, but also affecting the pattern of London termini served from stations such as Deptford, Blackheath, Hither Green and Lee. e) The London Bridge – Victoria via Crystal Palace service is proposed to be split at Crystal Palace into two separate services for operational reasons. Whilst this may, unfortunately, be necessary for either timetabling reasons or because of different platform lengths when longer trains are introduced, it is a significant disbenefit to passengers from Sydenham and Forest Hill who wish to travel to Victoria. f) Brockley High Level station is rejected. This is controversial in that not only is there strong pressure from local residents and Brockley Cross Action Group, as well as some officers or Members from Greenwich and Bexley. However, on exami ning the costs and benefits of such a station, officers have to reluctantly agree that, in the absence of a better frequency being proposed on the line, there is no prospect of the station happening.

g) The lack of firm timing for the ELL phase 2 . Lewisham is a member of the East London Line Group which strongly supports its early construction. Ea st London Line phase 2 frees up capacity at London Bridge which will be needed for Thameslink construction after 2012. Whilst the support in the RUS for early construction is welcomed (the scheme has all its powers), there is, as yet, no commitment from Government to fund it

h) Concerns have been expressed in relation to Option 20.4 and the effects on the Sydenham area for access to Charing Cross in t he evenings and at weekends. Th e current off -peak 2 tph services will not operate west of London Bridge from 2009. The RUS points out that in the 2009 base timetable there are no spare paths though London Bridge and continuing to Charing Cross will exace rbate the capacity constraint though Platform 6. As these services are well used , Lewisham would urge Network rail to reconsider the retention of these services.

i) The RUS is planned to cope with 25% growth on both SouthEastern and Southern networks to 2019. Clearly, in view of recent trends (Nationally growth of 7% took place last year) there is the possibility of faster growth especially as the environmental agenda may favour increased charges for car travel and transfer to greener modes. Options fo r more substantial capacity improvement now need to be considered. These include seeking the earlier introduction of 10/12 car platforms on the Forest Hill / Sydenham line, the possibility of further upgrade of the East London Line to provide for longer trains and consideration of plans for the Bakerloo Line Southern Extension via , New Cross Gate to Lewisham thence to Hayes and Beckenham Junction (and possibly also in an easterly direction from Lewisham.

12 Financial Implications

12.1 There ar e no direct financial implications to this Council from the changes outlined in this report

13 Legal Implications

13.1 By virtue of the Railways Act 2005 the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) modified Network Rail’s network licence to include an obligatio n that they establish Route Utilisation Strategies (RUS’S), across the network. Such RUS’S have to be produced in accordance guidelines subsequently published by ORR. Network Rail has to carry out consultation as part of this process. Paragraph 11 of this report forms the Council’s response to this consultation process in respect of the RUS for South London .

13.2 While there are no direct legal implications arising from this report any development needed to implement the, measures outlined in this report will be subject to powers and approvals under the Town and Country Planning Acts or the Transport and Works Act 1992. If planning permission is required, as a result of a transport improvement then this would be considered by the appropriate Plann ing committee of the Council .

13.3 For major schemes, the Transport and works Act contains procedures for authorising major transport projects which previously required Parliamentary approval under the private Bill procedure. Orders made by the Secretary o f State under the Act can authorise a range of powers including, use of CPO powers, the benefit of deemed planning permission, stopping up or diversion of highways, authorising interference with private rights and with the apparatus of statutory undertaker s and obtaining immunity from private nuisance actions in respect of the operation of the works.

13.4 The Secretary of State would normally hold a public inquiry before making an Order although is not obliged to do so unless there are objections to the Order from owners of land to be compulsorily acquired or from local authorities in whose area the Order will take effect. The holding of an inquiry would enable the Council to make representations as to matters such as highways issues or the deemed plann ing permission which would result from the Order and as to any conditions to which such permission should be subject.

14 Crime and Disorder Implications

14.1 Increased use of the railway, improved stations, greater frequencies and better communications will all reduce the fear of crime and the crimes per passenger carried. However, the longer the train, the less supervision on trains staff have and the more vulnerable passengers may feel. It is important that the response to incidents keeps pace and active monito ring of on -train and on -station CCTV with prompt intervention takes place. 14.2 Increased pressure on train accommodation will mean that space for cycles will be at a premium, and restrictions may be further tightened or more strictly enforced. Secure cycle p arking is therefore essential as part of the upgrade of the railway 14.3 The roll - out of Oyster, together with the gating of stations should improve security on the system.

15 Equalities Implications

15.1 Access to jobs in the growing sectors of London’s economy is crucial for opportunity in the Borough. Lewisham residents are very dependent on rail services and therefore adequate capacity and quality is crucial. The improvements planned to the station environment and to security will especially benefit vulnerable us ers. The progress on delivering accessibility will benefit disabled residents and reduce inequality of opportunity.

16 Environmental Implications

16.1 The planned increase in rail capacity is crucial to managing London’s CO2 emissions. New rolling st oc k offers the opportunity to reduce rail’s environmental footprint. There are significant environmental impacts from the major construction planned and it is important that they are mitigated as far as possible.

17 Conclusion

17.1 The current plans and proposals provide a step change in investment in rail in London and Lewisham in particular, which will allow enhanced travel opportunities for travel to destinations outside .

Background Papers

Report to Mayor and Cabinet 18 April 2007: Matters referred by the Sustain able Development Select Committee – Rail Development Review Department for Transport: Delivering a Sustainable Railway Network Rail: South London Route Utilisation Strategy

If you have any queries on this report, please contact Paul Stewart Transport Policy Manager, extension 72269 or Darien Goodwin Head of Transport, extension 49956