Final Report

Fall 08

Final Report

High Speed West – HST Group 3

Email: [email protected] Web: mddp.matrixprojects.net High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Executive Summary

High Speed West (HSW) is a proposal for a new high speed rail line from London to the southwest of England and Wales. The line reduces current rail journey times between London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, and Plymouth to at least 60% of the current duration.

HSW is a wheel on rail system on which a Western Star train service runs. The train sets of Western Star are Siemens Velaro trains, which are made up of 8 cars and have a service capacity of approximately 600 people. Western Star trains will travel at a top service speed of 320 kph. In addition to the cities mentioned above, Western Star trains will also call at Exeter because the route travels through the city and there is sufficient demand to satisfy the creation of another station. The opening of the London to Bristol phase is scheduled for 2023, with Bristol to Plymouth and Bristol to Cardiff opening in 2033 and 2040 respectively.

The route of HSW is 450 km long; 31 % of which is in tunnels and 4 % over bridges. With the exception of London, new stations are proposed to be built in each city. Southampton, Bristol and Exeter stations will be box stations while Cardiff Station consists of four bored tunnels, each with an internal diameter of 7.25 m. Platforms in the new stations will be below ground level, apart from the platforms at Plymouth Station which are at ground level. Each station on the line will have at least four platforms, which are 400 metres in length that can accommodate two trains coupled together. The proposed Western Star depot is situated northeast of Bristol, 9 km from the proposed Bristol Station. The London terminus will utilise the five redundant Waterloo International platforms, previously occupied by Eurostar International prior to the opening of St Pancras International Station in 2007.

From the projected demand, the most popular routes are between Bristol and London and Bristol and Cardiff, with the morning-peak between 7-10 am being the crucial logistical time. In order to handle the demand during this peak period, a minimum of nine trains will be needed with a further two needed to cope with train maintenance and a possible emergency situation.

Western Star trains require a 25 kV AC supply. A new power system will be constructed, with 4,650 substations located every 60 km alongside the track. Using a dual 25 kV AC over-head line system, more power can be transferred to the train, giving HSW provision for future train systems.

Executive Summary 2 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Through the use of rail dampeners, track ballast beds, and trackside noise barriers, rail noise generated from Western Star trains can be absorbed and kept to a minimum. Furthermore, through the use of natural earth noise bunds, the HSW line can also be hidden, reducing the visual impact. By creating additional and compensatory grasslands and woodlands, wildlife and plant life can be

relocated. While HSW is predicted to increase CO2 emissions by 59,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year during its design life, it is envisaged that HSW will be part of a wider UK high speed

network, eventually reducing CO2 emissions through a reduction in air travel.

Projected demand has been modelled using existing survey data and Tempro software, resulting in a estimate of 6.8 million passenger trips per year .With ticket fares fixed at £40 for a single and £70 for a return, income generated from ticket sales is estimated to be £2.4 bn in 2040, when the full HSW line is opened. With the additional construction and operating cost and the income generated through advertising, HSW, without funding through loans or government grants, is estimated to cost £15 bn at the completion year, returning its first profit of £12 m in 2089.

Executive Summary 3 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 2

1. Introduction ...... 15

2. Background ...... 16 2.1. Current Route ...... 16 2.2. Current Systems...... 18 2.2.1. Britain’s Railways ...... 18 2.2.2. High Speed 1 ...... 18 2.2.3. European High Speed Rail ...... 19 2.2.4. Rest of the world ...... 19

3. Project Proposal ...... 20 3.1. HSW ...... 20 3.2. Economic Benefit ...... 21 3.3. Alternatives to HSW ...... 23

4. Demand ...... 25 4.1. Current Demand ...... 25 4.1.1. Data Source ...... 25 4.1.2. The Data ...... 27 4.1.3. Data Processing ...... 27 4.1.4. Results ...... 29 4.1.5. Journey Model ...... 32 4.2. Projected Demand ...... 35

5. Route ...... 44 5.1. Route Selection ...... 44 5.2. Phased Construction ...... 45 5.3. London to Southampton ...... 46 5.4. Southampton to Bristol ...... 49 5.5. Bristol to Cardiff ...... 51 5.6. Bristol to Exeter ...... 53 5.7. Exeter to Plymouth ...... 55

Contents 4 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6. Infrastructure ...... 57 6.1. Track Profile ...... 57 6.1.1. Track Maintenance ...... 58 6.2. Tunnels ...... 60 6.2.1. Bored Tunnels ...... 60 6.2.2. Immersed Tunnel ...... 64 6.3. Bridges ...... 71 6.3.1. Major Bridges...... 71 6.3.2. Minor Bridges ...... 72 6.3.3. Bridge Features ...... 73 6.3.4. Costs ...... 73 6.4. Station Locations ...... 74 6.4.1. Box Stations (Southampton, Bristol, Exeter) ...... 75 6.4.2. Waterloo Station ...... 77 6.4.3. Cardiff Station ...... 77 6.4.4. Plymouth Station ...... 79 6.5. Cuttings and Embankments ...... 79 6.6. Depot ...... 80 6.7. Power Infrastructure ...... 81 6.7.1. Background ...... 81 6.7.2. HSW System ...... 85 6.7.3. Technical Challenges and their associated Risks ...... 90

7. Train System ...... 94 7.1. High-Speed Rail Technology ...... 94 7.1.1. Wheel on Rail Advantages ...... 98 7.2. Train Types ...... 100 7.2.1. Bombardier Zefiro ...... 100 7.2.2. Japanese Shinkansen ...... 101 7.2.3. Siemens Velaro ...... 103 7.2.4. 7.2.3 Velaro D Train set ...... 104 7.3. Power System ...... 107 7.3.1. Risks ...... 108 7.4. Signalling ...... 109 7.4.1. Background ...... 109

Contents 5 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

7.4.2. Automatic Train Control (ATC) ...... 110 7.4.3. The European Train Control System (ETCS) ...... 111 7.4.4. European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS)...... 115

8. System Operations ...... 118 8.1. Rolling Stock Overview ...... 118 8.1.1. Western Star train data ...... 118 8.1.2. The velocity profile for the reference train ...... 119 8.1.3. Predicted travel times of High Speed West journey legs...... 125 8.1.4. Choice of design speed ...... 127 8.2. Logistics...... 128 8.2.1. Objective of train operations ...... 128 8.2.2. Western Star passenger capacity ...... 128 8.2.3. Projected demand statistics ...... 130 8.2.4. Calculation of number of trains required ...... 135 8.2.5. Maintenance ...... 137

9. Environmental Management ...... 139 9.1. Noise and Vibration ...... 139 9.1.1. Rolling Noise ...... 141 9.1.2. Aerodynamic Noise ...... 141 9.1.3. Vibration ...... 144 9.2. Landscaping ...... 145 9.3. Carbon Footprint ...... 146

10. Finance ...... 151 10.1. Revenue ...... 151 10.1.1. Tickets ...... 151 10.1.2. Advertising ...... 154 10.2. Financial Forecast ...... 156 10.3. Other Sources of Funding ...... 159

11. Future Systems ...... 160

12. Conclusion ...... 161

References ...... 162

Contents 6 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

List of Figures Figure 1-1: Proposed Western Star Logo ...... 15 Figure 2-1: Existing Rail Network. Adapted from source: (Network Rail, 2010) ...... 16 Figure 3-1: Economic Benefits of High Speed Rail (Transport for Scotland, 2009) ...... 21 Figure 3-2: Location of Dartmoor National Park. (Google, 2010) . Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4-1: Graph showing the distribution of journeys by time and purpose. (Department for Transport, 2008) ...... 26 Figure 4-2: Station Grouping by City...... 27 Figure 4-3: Record Grouping by Origin-Destination pairs...... 28 Figure 4-4: Interchange station scenarios...... 28 Figure 4-5: Distribution of Journeys by Time...... 28 Figure 4-6: Journeys originating from London...... 29 Figure 4-7: Journeys originating from Southampton...... 29 Figure 4-8: Journeys originating from Bristol...... 30 Figure 4-9: Journeys originating from Cardiff...... 30 Figure 4-10: Journeys originating from Exeter...... 31 Figure 4-11: Journeys originating from Plymouth...... 31 Figure 4-12: Forward journey model visualisation from London to Cardiff and Plymouth...... 33 Figure 4-13: Forward journey model results...... 34 Figure 4-14: Return journey model results...... 34 Figure 4-15: Eastbound weekday passenger numbers ...... 41 Figure 4-16: Eastbound Saturday passenger numbers ...... 41 Figure 4-17: Eastbound Sunday passenger numbers ...... 42 Figure 4-18: Westbound weekday passenger numbers ...... 42 Figure 4-19: Westbound Saturday passenger numbers ...... 43 Figure 4-20: Westbound Sunday passenger numbers ...... 43 Figure 5-1: Phase Map (Google, 2010) ...... 45 Figure 5-2: Bristol Junction (Google, 2010) ...... 45 Figure 5-3: Chessington Portal to Southampton (Google, 2010) ...... 46 Figure 5-4: London Waterloo to Battersea Portal (Google, 2010) ...... 47 Figure 5-5: London Waterloo to Chessington Portal (Google, 2010) ...... 47 Figure 5-6: Elevation Profile of Chessington Portal to Southampton (Google, 2010) ...... 48 Figure 5-7: Southampton to Bristol (Google, 2010) ...... 49 Figure 5-8: Elevation Profile of Southampton to Bristol (Google, 2010) ...... 50 Figure 5-9: Route from Bristol to Cardiff (Google, 2010) ...... 51

Contents 7 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 5-10: Elevation profile from Bristol to Cardiff (Google, 2010)...... 52 Figure 5-11: Route from Bristol to Exeter. (Google, 2010) ...... 53 Figure 5-12: Elevation profile from Bristol to Exeter (Google, 2010) ...... 54 Figure 5-13: Route from Exeter to Plymouth (Google, 2010)...... 55 Figure 5-14: Elevation profile from Exeter to Plymouth (Google, 2010)...... 56 Figure 6-1: Standard Track Layout ...... 57 Figure 6-2: Graph showing the speed vs. resonant wavelength...... 58 Figure 6-3: Rail Profiling System. (MERMEC Group, 2010) ...... 59 Figure 6-4: Twin bore tunnels...... 61 Figure 6-5: Single Bore Tunnel (Yarham, 2010) ...... 62 Figure 6-6: Alignment of the Immersed Tunnel Below the River Severn...... 64 Figure 6-7: Cross-section of the immersed tunnel...... 65 Figure 6-8: Bored to Immersed tunnel connection (Ingerslev, 2006) ...... 68 Figure 6-9: The location of the dry dock in relation to the tunnel. (Google, 2010) ...... 69 Figure 6-10: The site dimensions...... 69 Figure 6-11: A view of the proposed immersed tunnel beneath the River Severn ...... 70 Figure 6-12: Medway Viaduct (Glasspool, 2007) ...... 71 Figure 6-13: Example of a concrete box on HS1 (Dyson, 2004)...... 72 Figure 6-14: Southampton Station Location (Google, 2010) ...... 74 Figure 6-15: Bristol Station Location (Google, 2010) ...... 74 Figure 6-16: Exeter Station Location (Google, 2010) ...... 74 Figure 6-17: Cardiff Station Location (Google, 2010) ...... 74 Figure 6-18: Plymouth Station Location (Google, 2010) ...... 74 Figure 6-19: Stratford International Station (Skanska, 2010) ...... 75 Figure 6-20: Box Station Layout ...... 76 Figure 6-21: Waterloo International (Corbis Images, 1993) ...... 77 Figure 6-22: Cardiff Station Layout ...... 78 Figure 6-23: Depot Location (Google, 2010) ...... 80 Figure 6-24: Map of Europe's rail electrification systems. (Railway Technology, 2010) ...... 81 Figure 6-25: Picture of Overhead Lines (left) and third rail systems (right). (Bonnett, 2005) ...... 82 Figure 6-26: A Dual 25kV System and it‘s equivalent circuit. (Brenna and Foiadelli, 2010) ...... 83 Figure 6-27: Current electrified routes in Britain. (Network Rail, 2009b) ...... 83 Figure 6-28: Diagram of a catenary system. (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010a) ...... 84 Figure 6-29: Top-level power system diagram...... 85 Figure 6-30: Catenary system schematic...... 85

Contents 8 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 6-31: Location of Substation-1. (Google, 2010) ...... 86 Figure 6-32: Location of all substations for HSW.(Google, 2010) ...... 86 Figure 6-33: Estimated Power Costs...... 88 Figure 6-34: Ac traction power reported incidents from 2007 - 2008. (Network Rail, 2009b) ...... 91 Figure 6-35: Diagram illustrating overhead rail...... 92 Figure 6-36: Overhead line assembly vehicles. (Network Rail, 2009b) ...... 93 Figure 7-1: the guide magnet for the Maglev train ...... 94 Figure 7-2: Japan's MLX01-90 maglev train test vehicle (Train of the week 2010) ...... 95 Figure 7-3: Germany's Transrapid (BBC News 1999) ...... 95 Figure 7-4: The shape and location of wheel and rail (Railway Technical Web Pages, 1998- 2010b) ...... 95 Figure 7-5: Space available underneath the Maglev track (Lane 2010) ...... 96 Figure 7-6: The only operating Maglev in the world, Shanghai Maglev (railway-technology.com 2008) ...... 96 Figure 7-7: The example of wheel on rail HST, the TGV train line up at Lyon station.(Speechley 2008) ...... 98 Figure 7-8:Zefiro train (Bombardier Transportation 1997-2011) ...... 100 Figure 7-9: Most of the Shinkansen is designed with longer nose and extremely aerodynamic profile (railway-technology.com 2010a) ...... 102 Figure 7-10: Velaro E run on a tract in Spain (Siemens AG 1996-2011) ...... 103 Figure 7-11:Velaro D has improved in aerodynamic measures (Siemens 2010) ...... 105 Figure 7-12: Velaro D on the test line (Siemens 2010) ...... 106 Figure 7-13The power from grid to the train via three phase (ABB 2010) ...... 107 Figure 7-14: The diagram describes the power from over head line until the traction motor (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010b) ...... 108 Figure 7-15 The figure above illustrates a warning and stopping signal before an obstruction on the line. (Feather 1999) ...... 109 Figure 7-16: The Onboard train cab ...... 111 Figure 7-17: The connection between control centre and onboard train cab is continuously via GSM-R signal. (Siemens AG 2009) ...... 111 Figure 7-18: Trainguard ETCS Level 1 (Siemens AG 2002-2010) ...... 113 Figure 7-19 Trainguard ETCS Level 2 (Siemens AG 2002-2010) ...... 114 Figure 7-20: The signal is transmitted to the train antenna via GSM-R network...... 115 Figure 7-21:The equipment needed at both onboard train and lineside. (Siemens AG, 2010) ..... 116

Contents 9 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 7-22Figure 7.4.9: The position of each equipment for ETCS level 1 and level 2 (Siemens AG, 2010) ...... 117 Figure 8-1 The calculated acceleration profile of Western Star...... 120 Figure 8-2 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from London Waterloo to Plymouth Station...... 121 Figure 8-3 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from London Waterloo to Cardiff Station. 121 Figure 8-4 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from Plymouth Station to London Waterloo...... 122 Figure 8-5 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from Cardiff Station to London Waterloo. 122 Figure 8-6 An example layout of a Siemens Velaro D train. (Siemens, 2008b) ...... 129 Figure 8-7 Adapted phase map, showing journey times (Google, 2010) ...... 135 Figure 9-1: Sound pressure level against train speed (Hemsworth, 2008) ...... 139 Figure 9-2: Wheel ring (left) and rail damper, (Letourneaux et al, 2007) ...... 141 Figure 9-3: Typical pantograph for (left) and single are pantograph for Shinkansen (Wakabayashi et al, 2007) ...... 142 Figure 9-4: Adjusted catenary height and use of low-level noise barriers, left, and timer noise barriers, designed to look liker timer fencing (Johnson, 2003) ...... 143 Figure 9-5: Inverted L-shaped noise barrier for Shinkansen (Cahsrblog.com) , left and photograph of the barrier (Kanda et al, 2007) ...... 143 Figure 9-6: Illustration and photograph of noise barriers with noise bunds (Allett et al, 2002) ... 143 Figure 9-7: Shinkansen ballast mat track (Kanda et al, 2007) ...... 144 Figure 9-8: Illustration of sleeper soffit pad (a) and ballast mat (b) (Thompson, 2009)...... 144

Figure 9-9: Graph showing CO2 emissions per km for different modes of transport (Davis and Thompson, 2009) ...... 146 Figure 10-1: Photo of a 48-sheet large platform advert (left) and a 6-sheet advert (right)...... 155 Figure 10-2: Net Present Value of HSW ...... 158

Contents 10 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

List of Tables Table 2-1: Journey Times (National Rail, 2010) ...... 17 Table 3-1: Adapted from COST316 (European Union, 2006) ...... 21 Table 4-1: List of stations data was obtained for...... 26 Table 4-2: List of utilised fields...... 27 Table 4-3: Survey weekday numbers (Tempro, 2010)...... 35 Table 4-4: Proportion of passengers travelling along route...... 36 Table 4-5: Passenger numbers in 2010...... 36 Table 4-6: Weekday passenger numbers...... 37 Table 4-7: Survey passenger numbers departing from each station and travelling to another station on HSW route...... 38 Table 4-8: Proportion of survey weekday numbers departing from each city...... 38 Table 4-9.: Projected 2033 weekday numbers with HSW ...... 40 Table 4-10: Projected 2033 Saturday numbers with HSW...... 40 Table 4-11: Projected 2033 Sunday numbers with HSW...... 40 Table 5-1: Track parameters. Adapted from (European Union, 2007) and (Lindahl, 2001)...... 44 Table 5-2: London to Southampton Factsheet ...... 46 Table 5-3: Southampton to Bristol Factsheet ...... 49 Table 5-4: Bristol to Cardiff Factsheet...... 51 Table 5-5: Bristol to Exeter Factsheet...... 53 Table 5-6: Exeter to Plymouth Factsheet...... 55 Table 6-1: Values used for HSW (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009) ...... 63 Table 6-2: Immersed Tunnel Costs ...... 70 Table 6-3: Values used for HSW, (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009) ...... 73 Table 6-4: Power Infrastructure technical parameters...... 85 Table 6-5: HSW power infrastructure fact sheet...... 86 Table 6-6: List of substations for HSW...... 87 Table 6-7: Power Calculation assumptions & parameters...... 89 Table 6-8: Power cost calculation split by journey...... 89 Table 7-1: The summary of comparison between Maglev and wheel on rail HST (J Taylor, 2007) (Dr Vuchic, 2001) ...... 99 Table 7-2 The Zefiro‘s train set and their characteristics ...... 101 Table 7-3: The Shinkansen series and its characteristic (Hays 2009) (East Japan Railway Company 2005) (Hughes 2006) (railway-technology.com 2010a) ...... 102

Contents 11 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Table 7-4: The Velaro families and their characteristics (Siemens AG 2002-2007) (railwaygazette.com 2009) ...... 104 Table 7-5: The Technical data for Velaro D train set.(Siemens 2010) ...... 106 Table 7-6: The onboard train equipment. (Siemens AG, 2002-2010) ...... 116 Table 7-7: the line side Equipment. (Siemens AG, 2002-2010) ...... 117 Table 8-1: Initial reference train velocity data points. (Siemens, 2003)...... 118 Table 8-2: Journey times for westbound journey legs. (National Rail, 2010)...... 125 Table 8-3: Journey times for eastbound journey legs (National Rail, 2010) ...... 125 Table 8-4: Weekday number of passengers per hour travelling on HSW in 2033, the table formed from data in the Projected Demand section of Section 4 of this report ...... 130 Table 8-5: Number of passengers per hour travelling on HSW on a Saturday in 2033, the table formed from data in the Projected Demand section of Section 4 of this report ...... 131 Table 8-6: Number of passengers per hour travelling on HSW on a Sunday in 2033, the table formed from data in the Projected Demand section of Section 4 of this report ...... 131 Table 8-7: Number of trains required per hour on HSW on a Weekday in 2033...... 132 Table 8-8: Number of trains required per hour on HSW on a Saturday in 2033...... 133 Table 8-9: Number of trains required per hour on HSW on a Sunday in 2033...... 133 Table 8-10: A table showing peak and off peak services on several journey legs ...... 136 Table 8-11: High Speed Maintenance Service Schedule. Adapted from: (High Speed Two Ltd, 2009a) ...... 138 Table 9-1: Pass-by noise levels at 25 m dB(A) of European high speed trains (Poisson et al, 2007) ...... 140 Table 9-2: The Davis formula‘s constants (Network Rail, 2009a) ...... 147 Table 9-3: Comparison of high-speed and conventional trains with AGV trains still under development and this are estimated (Network Rail, 2009a) ...... 149

Table 9-4: Estimation of CO2 equivalent emission of HSW line construction ...... 150 Table 10-1: Current Rail Fares (trainline, 2010) ...... 151 Table 10-2: Estimated high-speed fares (Greengauge 21, 2010b) ...... 152 Table 10-3: Typical advertising costs. (Transport Media, 2011) (JCDecaux, 2011) (Railway Gazette, 2011)...... 155 Table 10-4: Advertising revenue...... 155 Table 10-5: Construction Time Estimates ...... 156 Table 10-6: Costs Included in Financial Forecast ...... 157

Contents 12 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Acronyms

AC Alternating Current ATC Automatic Train Control ATP Automatic Train Protection AVE Alta Velocidad Española CBTC Communication Based CRH China Railway High-speed CTRL Channel Tunnel Rail Link dB(A) Decibel Average DC Direct Current DMI Driver Machine Interface EMS Electromagnetic Suspension EMU electric multiple unit ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System ETCS European Train Control System EU European Union GDP Gross Domestic Product GPS Global Positioning System GSM Global System for Mobile Communications GSM-R Global System for Mobile Communications-Railway HS1 High Speed 1 HS2 High Speed 2 HSR-350x High Speed Rail 350x HST High Speed Train HSW High Speed West kph Kilometres Per Hour LEU Lineside Electronic Unit LGV Ligne à Grande Vitesse Maglev Magnetic Levitation MDDP Multi Disciplinary Design Project NLC National Location Code NRTS National Rail Travel Survey OHL Overhead Line RBC Radio Block Centre

Contents 13 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

RENFE Red Nacional de los Ferrocarriles Españoles TGV Train à Grande Vitesse tph Trains Per Hour TR Transrapid TSI Technical Specifications for Interoperability

Contents 14 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

1. Introduction

The aim of this report is to assess the feasibility of constructing a high speed rail line to the southwest of England and Wales. Stations will be located in London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff and Plymouth. The report will explore the existing transport networks between these cities and other existing high speed rail systems around the world. Current and projected demand will be investigated to assess the viability of the project.

The report will detail: a recommended route; a design of the train and track; a train service pattern; and details of the train signalling and control. The environmental impact of the route will be assessed, with proposed mitigation measures. An outline of the power systems for the network will be specified. In addition, a financial analysis will be produced, aiding the assessment on the feasibility of the project.

Figure 1-1: Proposed Western Star Logo

[ 1 ] – Introduction 15 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

2. Background

2.1. Current Route Many of the UK‘s railways were constructed over a century ago and, despite some improvements along major routes, much of the network remains unchanged from its original layout. Many of the tracks were constructed with sharp corners or high gradients as it was not possible or cost effective to do otherwise at the time. Much of the network has been widened to allow for increased train frequency and some of the network has been electrified. Other than the third rail electrification between London and Southampton, the remainder of the route under review in this report has seen few improvements and has often been left neglected over the years. Recent upgrades of the network have lead to improvements in service however there is only a limited amount that can be achieved cost effectively. Figure 2-1 below shows a map of the existing rail network in the south west of England.

Figure 2-1: Existing Rail Network. Adapted from source: (Network Rail, 2010)

As is clear from Figure 2-1, the existing rail network in the south west is extensive however, due to the age of the network, even along major rail lines, trains rarely exceed 160 kph. Electrification, new trains and straightening of the track would improve speeds however this will likely come at an extremely high cost, as was experienced on the West Coast Mainline improvements (Railway People, 2009). Table 2-1 shows the current journey times between relevant destinations.

[ 2 ] – Background Written By: Benjamin Warren 16 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Journey Time London Southampton Bristol Cardiff Exeter Plymouth (mins) London — 74 97 120 123 180 Southampton 74 — 98 150 142* 206* Bristol 97 98 — 47 59 119 Cardiff 120 150 47 — 136* 193* Exeter 123 142* 59 136* — 53 Plymouth 180 206* 119 193* 53 — * Requires one interchange Note: Trains from all locations to Plymouth must pass through Exeter. Table 2-1: Journey Times (National Rail, 2010)

As all the locations being considered along the route are major cities, they all have motorway and/or major A road connections. However all of these roads are limited to the national speed limit of 110 kph. Many areas in the south west also suffer from congestion which is detrimental to the economy and air quality of the region (West of England Partnership, 2009). Coach travel is subject to the same restrictions as car travel.

Currently the only flights between locations on this route are an infrequent service from Plymouth airport to Bristol Airport and London Gatwick (Air South West, 2010). Statistics show that for travel times of less than four hours people often prefer to travel by rail then by plane (High Speed Two Ltd, 2010). This is largely due to the ease and convenience of rail, particularly with regard to city centre stations as opposed to out of town airports. Bristol airport and Gatwick airport would both require a further train or bus connection into the city centres which will negate the effects of the faster flight time. Baggage restrictions, check in times and a general dislike of flying are other factors that will reduce the demand for air travel over shorter distances.

[ 2 ] – Background Written By: Benjamin Warren 17 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

2.2. Current Systems

2.2.1. Britain’s Railways As the birthplace of the industrial revolution, England and consequently Britain became the first state to introduce railway systems. These systems at first were used for short distance journeys, but soon grew until they covered the whole of mainland Britain by the end of 19th century (The Railway Archive, 2010).

Britain's railways were nationalised under the Transport Act of 1947. During the 1950s, the focus had moved away from steam power, and diesel and electric engines were clearly seen as the future (British Transport Commission, 1954). This attempted update to the national rail system was unsuccessful and in 1963, ‗The Reshaping of British Railways‘ report was submitted to the government by Dr Richard Beeching. This report suggested the closure of many of the unprofitable branch lines in Britain; this subsequently resulted in a decline in passenger numbers (Department for Transport, 2007). During the 1970s the introduction of the Intercity 125 train to Britain‘s railway system generated some appeal to passengers (Department for Transport, 2007) as it could achieve the fastest speeds by any diesel-powered train in the world (Keating, 2010b). The 1980s conversely saw a decline in passenger numbers again due to government cutbacks. Since the privatisation of the railways in Britain since the mid 1990s, passenger numbers have grown exponentially, and look to be close to their previous high of the 1950s (Department for Transport, 2007).

2.2.2. High Speed 1 According to the EU directive 96/48/EC, new high speed lines are those equipped for speeds equal to or greater than 250 kph (Uic, 2010). High Speed 1 (HS1) is the United Kingdom‘s first high speed railway that was specifically designed for trains to reach over 250 kph. Opened in 2007, HS1 starts in London St Pancras and goes through the Kent countryside to Folkestone, where it then enters the Channel Tunnel.

The 113 km stretch of line came at an estimated cost of £5.8 billion (High Speed One Limited, 2010). This huge outlay of money has been deemed to be worthwhile because of the reduction in travel times and the potential regeneration that the line will create (High Speed One Limited, 2010). The line has resulted in an average saving of 20 minutes from London to destinations on the European continent (The Travel Gateway, 2010). This journey time reduction has been popular with customers, resulting in the Eurostar service from London to Paris having 77 % of the market share for travel between the two cities (Brown, 2008).

[ 2 ] – Background 18 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The line also serves domestic routes that travel from London St Pancras International to Ashford International station. Commuters from Kent to London can now utilise the high speed services, which allow them to travel to the centre of the capital in considerably less time than that which was previously available. The high speed line is believed to have created an economic stimuli to the towns that have these connections to London (High Speed One Limited, 2010). This has led the British government to seriously consider implementing high speed rail lines in other areas (High Speed Two Limited, 2010).

2.2.3. European High Speed Rail The pioneer of high speed rail travel in Europe is France. In 1981 it introduced the Train à Grande Vitesse (TGV), linking Paris and Lyon (Strohl, 1993). This line proved hugely successful, and so the French government commissioned further high speed lines throughout France (Strohl, 1993). Currently it has approximately 1900 km of high speed rail, the second highest amount of high speed rail after Japan (Gourvish, 2010).

The German high speed system runs InterCityExpress (ICE) trains which have a maximum speed of 300 kph, are limited to lower speeds and are half the length of a typical Eurostar train (German Railways, 2007).

Spain was slow behind other countries in Europe with incorporation of high speed rail, mainly due to joining the European Union in 1986, and it having non-standard gauge rail (Gourvish, 2010). The government made an active step to allow trains to travel to French destinations by installing new tracks. It is projected that in the years 2009-2012, Spain will construct another 1600 km of high speed rail doubling its total currently (Gourvish, 2010). This shows a real commitment by the Spanish government into high speed rail.

2.2.4. Rest of the world Japan is currently the world leader in having the largest network of high speed rail lines, some 2,200 km of tracks. The Tokyo – Osaka line was opened in 1964, utilising the Shinkansen ‗Bullet‘ train. The train can reach up to speeds of 275 kph (Strohl, 1993).

China is leading the world currently in terms of construction with 9,000 km of high speed rail planned (Gourvish, 2010). Clearly the government feels this transport is very important in the improvement of its country‘s infrastructure. China has also has a small section of high speed rail from Shanghai airport to the middle of the city, that makes the use of magnetic technology. The Shanghai Maglev train is the most successful example of magnetic train technology in the world; however it is only used on 30 km of track (Shanghai Maglev Transportation Development, 2010).

[ 2 ] – Background 19 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

3. Project Proposal

3.1. HSW Due to long rail journey times experienced in the southwest, the region has not been able to benefit from the economic prosperity that has been experienced in London and the southeast. Improving the transport connections of a region can have a dramatic and positive effect on the development of an area. For example, the redevelopment of Lille and the economic upturn of Ashford can both be attributed to high speed rail.

After consideration of the current and feasible options in addition to the potential prospects of the region, the construction of a new high speed rail line from London to the southwest of England and Wales has been recommended. Locations that will benefit from this new connection include London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff and Plymouth.

The potential new high speed rail line will be called High Speed West (HSW) with trains running on line called Western Star. The star name is common with the already established high speed rail service of Eurostar. It is envisaged that future high rail services across Britain will adopt the ‗Star‘ name suffix, helping passengers associate these services as high speed.

The proposed line will cut rail travel times to at least 60% of their current duration. This will result in large reductions in journey times, which will benefit the people of the region. In order to gain public support for HSW, the environment will need to be protected. As happened in the construction of HS1, compensation measures to cover lost land, such as the creation of new woodlands and grasslands, may be needed to placate public concerns.

[ 3 ] – Project Proposal 20 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

3.2. Economic Benefit New high speed rail lines have experienced great success around the world. TGV Sud-Est, which opened in 1981, was the first high speed rail line in Europe (Strohl, 1993), connecting the French capital, Paris, with the city of Lyon. The line‘s construction saw a large shift to rail travel from other transport types (European Union, 2006). Table 3-1 below shows the modal split along the route before and after construction of the line. It can be seen the share of passengers travelling by rail after the construction of the new line increased significantly. Modal Split Before After Plane 31% 7% Train 40% 72% Car and Bus 29% 21% Table 3-1: Adapted from COST316 (European Union, 2006)

New high speed rail lines in Europe have lead to large economic stimulation in cities. This is especially prominent in the city of Lille in northern France which was a declining manufacturing town before becoming central to the high speed lines connecting Brussels, London and Paris. The city has since seen a vast economic improvement, which is evident from the construction of a new business centre between its two train stations and a considerable rise in tourism (GWE Business West). This success could be mirrored along the HSW route, particularly in Plymouth which currently suffers from poor transport connections and a decline in its once prosperous industries such as marine trade. With regular, fast and reliable journey times to London it would likely see a vast increase in commuting professionals due to low house prices as has been seen in Ashford on High Speed 1 (Telegraph, 2009). This could attract new businesses to the city. Figure 3-1 shows a graph of the economic benefits of high speed rail over time.

Figure 3-1: Economic Benefits of High Speed Rail (Transport for Scotland, 2009)

[ 3 ] – Project Proposal Written By: Benjamin Warren 21 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

As can be seen from Figure 3-1 a new high speed rail link will have an increased monetary benefit over time. The reduced travel times to the other cities along the route will encourage businesses to relocate to Plymouth, stimulating its economy and further increasing the demand for travel. The available capacity on the line will allow for expansion of Plymouth and other cities along the route both due to natural population growth and increasing demand due to the existence of faster travel connections. Many countries have also experienced a reduction in congestion having opened new high speed rail corridors (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2010).

[ 3 ] – Project Proposal Written By: Benjamin Warren 22 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

3.3. Alternatives to HSW Currently, there is a good rail and road network connecting London to the Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff and Exeter. The exception though is Plymouth which, because of its size and its surrounding terrain, has no motorway and a rail service with long journey times to other cities. It is clear a new, more efficient railway and motorway can be constructed to connect Plymouth to other cities.

Unlike HS2‘s primary objective of managing the existing passenger congestion between cities (Department for Transport, 2010b), the primary objective for HSW is to significantly reduce journey times between cities. By car, Bristol to London should take approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes (The Automobile Association Limited, 2010). While this time varies with road works and congestion, the national speed limit is 70 mph (110 kph) which is a limiting factor on what journey times can be achieved. Nevertheless, it is within cities and at motorway junctions where road travel is very slow (Department for Transport, 2010b). From observation, car travel in cities is unlikely to improve because there is a lack of space for new roads. The previous Labour Government largely abandoned the previous road policy of ‗predict and provide‘ as there was evidence suggesting new road construction creates new demand (Spear, 2010). As such, while motorway improvements will decrease journey times, travel times in the city centres will remain similar unless car numbers can be significantly reduced. Consequently, the previous government decided that ―a viable case cannot be made for major new motorways as a sustainable solution to the UK‘s long-term inter-urban transport needs‖ (Department for Transport, 2010b).

An interesting alternative to HSW is the creation of an extensive inter-urban coach network. From observation, coach journeys tend to be for recreational activities as opposed to business activities, as they are slower than car journeys. Furthermore, the coach passengers are typically those who have been put off from using the train due to the cost. In 2006, economist Alan Storkey proposed a practical coach transport network. In this network, coach stations would be at motorway junctions, with passengers changing coaches at these junctions depending on their desired destination. Some coach routes would just go up and down a motorway, while others would take passengers from towns to the motorway junction. Furthermore, in the long term, there would be coach only lanes on the motorway, allowing coach journey times to remain predictable (Storkey, 2006). Storkey‘s coach network gained media support, especially from environmental

campaigners as the proposed coach network can greatly reduce CO2 emissions by reducing car numbers (Monbiot, 2006).

[ 3 ] – Project Proposal Written By: Dylan Marques 23 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

While this coach network is technically feasible, it is probable that there would need to be a significant public perception change that coach travel can be used for business journeys. Still further, it is likely that the speed of this proposed coach network would need to be proven to passengers in order for them to switch from their car to a coach. A large scale coach network is often ignored by government as can be noted from its absence from the Eddington Transport Study 2006 (Department for Transport, 2006). The implementation of a large scale coach network and convincing the public to use the network may in fact be too difficult to achieve, hence its absence from transport debate. More saliently, it appears that this coach network provides an identical service to national rail. Consequently, it may be rail passengers rather than car drivers who would be inclined to change their mode of transport.

Upgrading the existing rail infrastructure is often done to increase capacity rather than reduce journey times. The distance between London and Bristol city centres is similar to the distance between London and Birmingham city centres, approximately 190 km. Despite being different rail lines, HS2‘s most ambitious existing railway upgrade from London to Birmingham would decrease journey times by 22%, considerably short of the required 40% reduction required for HSW (Atkins, 2010). Furthermore, the estimated cost of undertaking these railway upgrades would cost £19.6 billion (Atkins, 2010) whereas HS1 cost only £5.8 billion (High Speed One Limited, 2010), making large scale upgrades financially unfeasible.

Domestic flights appear to be the only faster alternative to HSW. However there is low public and political support for increasing the number of domestic flights in the UK. As noted by HS2, the previous government does not consider increasing domestic flights to be consistent with its objective for sustainable transport (Atkins, 2010). Still further, following the White Paper of the Future of Air Transport in 2003 and the Climate Change Act 2008, the Government has a target to reduce total aviation emissions to below their 2005 levels by 2050 (Atkins, 2010). HS2 states that the domestic flights are only a viable option for where surface journey times are longer than four hours (Atkins, 2010). By this definition, air travel should not be considered as an alternative to HSW as the longest route, between London and Plymouth, can be completed by national rail in less than four hours. Additionally, it must be noted that UK airports are located some distance away from city centres, with the exception of London City Airport. Consequently, passengers would need to take a taxi, train or coach to enter into the city centre, making any air travel, that is less than 300 km, slower than national rail. As such, increasing the number of domestic flights between London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff and Plymouth is not a feasible option.

[ 3 ] – Project Proposal Written By: Dylan Marques 24 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

4. Demand

4.1. Current Demand

4.1.1. Data Source One of the key aspects considered in this study was the current demand to the chosen destinations. Publicly available data only covers entries and exists from train stations, which provides a good estimate of how busy a particular station is (DeltaRail, 2010). This however does not show the demand for the journeys between the destination pairs of interest.

The Department for Transport published the results of the National Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) in 2008 (Department for Transport, 2008). The survey aimed to provide a ―typical weekday‖ snapshot of all 2,500 stations in the country, showing where passengers travelled and why they travelled there. Data was collected from 2001 for London and the South East areas, from 2004 for Wales, and from 2004 and 2005 for Scotland and the rest of England. A total of 873,000 records were collected for this survey that were expanded to 2.7 million rail trips. One of the expansion methods used was to addition of reverse records for return journeys, for instance a person who filled the survey indicating they are on a return journey from London to Guildford, an expansion of this survey would be the addition of another record with equal parameters from Guildford to London. (For more details on how the survey results were expanded please refer to the original report). It‘s also worth noting that the survey only had a 26% return rate, that is most of the surveys that were handed out were not completed or returned.

The published data did not go into details on every destination pair, but rather a summary of all and regional results which included the following key facts:

 36% of all Journeys took place between 6:30 AM and 10:00 AM

 36% of all Journeys took place between 4:00 PM and 8:00 PM

 63% of all Journeys were made for commuting purposes.

 16% of all Journeys were made for business purposes.

 21% of all Journeys were made for leisure purposes.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 25 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 4-1 is extracted from the NRTS report and shows the distribution of journeys by time and purpose.

Figure 4-1: Graph showing the distribution of journeys by time and purpose. (Department for Transport, 2008)

A request was made to obtain a dataset for the stations of interest from the NRTS database. Fortunately, the request was approved and processed. The dataset obtained contained survey records that originated, destined or interchanged at a minimum of two of the following stations: Station City ST PANCRAS LONDON RAIL London EUSTON LONDON RAIL London PADDINGTON LONDON RAIL London LONDON WATERLOO RAIL London SOUTHAMPTON AIRPORT RAIL Southampton SOUTHAMPTON CENTRAL RAIL Southampton BRISTOL PARKWAY RAIL Bristol BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS RAIL Bristol WAUN-GRON PARK (CARDIFF) RAIL Cardiff CARDIFF BAY RAIL Cardiff CARDIFF CENTRAL RAIL Cardiff CARDIFF QUEEN STREET RAIL Cardiff EXETER ST DAVIDS RAIL Exeter EXETER ST THOMAS RAIL Exeter EXETER CENTRAL RAIL Exeter PLYMOUTH RAIL Plymouth Table 4-1: List of stations data was obtained for.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 26 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

4.1.2. The Data Each record in the dataset obtained contained several fields. Table 4-2 lists the ones of interest to HSW. Field Origin Station NLC Destination Station NLC NLC: National Location Code Interchange Station 1 NLC Interchange Station 2 NLC Interchange Station 3 NLC Final Expansion Factor Departure Time Table 4-2: List of utilised fields.

4.1.3. Data Processing The aim of the processing exercise was to obtain the number of journeys between each origin- destination pairs distributed by time. The following steps were taken to process the dataset provided. 1. Mapping Network Location Codes to Station Names All the Network Location Codes (NLC) were translated to readable station names. For Instance:

5598 London Waterloo

Southampton 5922 Airport

2. Grouping of stations by city name. Stations were grouped by city, i.e. all the London stations were represented as London, all the Southampton stations as Southampton etc. This allows providing a total sum per city, which is of interest to HSW.

London Southampton Bristol Cardiff Exeter Plymouth

London Southampton Bristol Waun-Gron Exeter St. Plymouth Euston Airport Parkway Park Thomas

London St. Southampton Bristol Temple Exeter St. Cardiff Bay Pancras Central Meads Davids

London Cardiff Central Exeter Central Paddington

London Cardiff Queen Waterloo Street Figure 4-2: Station Grouping by City.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 27 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

3. Grouping records by origin and destination cities. Survey records were grouped by origin and destination cities, such that a total is obtained for each pair. i.e. all trips made from London to Bristol.

Number of Origin Destination .... Records London Southampton x ... Origin Destination .... London Bristol y ... London Southampton ... London Southampton ... Southampton London z ... London Southampton ...... London Southampton ...

Figure 4-3: Record Grouping by Origin-Destination pairs. It‘s worth noting that the grouping took into account interchanges, such that an interchange at a city of interest from or to another city of interest is included in their grouping. Figure 4-4 illustrates this concept.

O

O O I I I

I D D D

O = Origin, I=Interchange, D=Destination, Blue nodes indicate a city of interest. Figure 4-4: Interchange station scenarios.

4. Expanding results The records were expanded to obtain the total number of journeys they reflect. This is achieved by summing up the expansion factors for each grouped set, as advised from the data guidance document that was supplied with the dataset.

5. Distribution by Time Finally, the total number of journeys was distributed by time. Additional columns were added which held the total number of journeys made within a specified time frame. The time frames ranged from 6:00 in the morning till 23:00 at night with hour-long steps. Journeys made before 6:00 and after 23:00 were grouped separately (see Figure 4-5 below).

Number of Number of Origin Destination <6:00 6:00-7:00 ...... 22:00-23:00 >23:00 Records Journeys

London Southampton x n

......

Figure 4-5: Distribution of Journeys by Time.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 28 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

4.1.4. Results The charts below show the journey distribution by time and destination for each origin, as well as the total percentage of journeys to each destination (shown in the adjacent pie charts).

Figure 4-6: Journeys originating from London.

Figure 4-7: Journeys originating from Southampton.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 29 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The majority of trips from London targeted Bristol and Southampton, while the trips from Southampton mainly targeted London.

Figure 4-8: Journeys originating from Bristol. Trips from Bristol mainly aimed London, Cardiff, and interestingly 7% of trips targeted Exeter that is 4% more than trips that targeted Southampton.

Figure 4-9: Journeys originating from Cardiff.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 30 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Trips from Cardiff mostly targeted London, and Bristol. All other trips are almost negligible, showing there is no need for a direct connection between Cardiff and Exeter or Plymouth.

Figure 4-10: Journeys originating from Exeter.

Figure 4-11: Journeys originating from Plymouth. Finally trips from Exeter and Plymouth mainly targeted London, Bristol and each other. The number of trips from Plymouth is very poor, and this number alone cannot justify extending a high-speed line to it. However when combined with Exeter‘s demand figures it makes the case for Plymouth a bit more viable.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 31 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

4.1.5. Journey Model The results were placed into a model to estimate the number of passengers on board service trains running between HSW stations. The following steps summarise this model:

1. London to Southampton (LS) All passengers wishing to use the HSW service will get on board the London-Southampton train.

This includes passengers going to Southampton ( , Bristol ( ) , Cardiff ( ), Exeter ( ),

and Plymouth ( ).

2. Southampton to Bristol (SB)

Passengers getting on this train at Southampton station will include those going to Bristol ( ),

Cardiff ( ), Exeter ( ), and Plymouth ( ). Passengers from London leave this train.

3. Bristol to Cardiff (BC) Assuming the same train was to terminate in Cardiff, passengers going to Cardiff from Bristol

( ), Exeter and Plymouth will join the train. All other passengers not travelling to Cardiff will leave the train at Bristol. It‘s worth noting, although this particular service has not yet reached Exeter or Plymouth, passengers from there would have used a different service to reach Bristol station and then join this service.

4. Bristol to Exeter (BE) Assuming the service from Southampton was to terminate in Plymouth, Passengers going to Exeter or Plymouth from Bristol and Cardiff will join this service, all other passengers not travelling to these stations leave the train.

5. Exeter to Plymouth (EP) Finally, passengers going to Plymouth from Exeter join this service, and all other passengers not travelling to Plymouth leave at Exeter.

The following diagram visualises all the previously described steps:

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 32 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

PSB PLB PBC P SC PPC P PBE PB SC P PLC C PC PEC P PBP LC P EC PBC C BC

P

P

P L

C B P C C

E L P P B P L PLS E L P P S PLB P B S S P P C PLC P C E B S C P E P P C P S PLE P P E E L C S P P S LP P

P

E

L P L E P L P C P P P P E P L E P LC L B S P P B P P P P P B E S C B P P P P P L L S P BP P L P P P P P E P S S P E L P B EP PSB

PSC P P P EP PSE SE S PBE PSP L PLE P

PCE Figure 4-12: Forward journey model visualisation from London to Cardiff and Plymouth.

The same principles can be applied to obtain the return journey models.

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 33 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14 show the estimated demand for each journey on HSW. Westbound Journeys

1400 LS 1200 SB 1000 BC 800 BE 600 EP Passengers 400 200 0

Time Figure 4-13: Eastbound journeys model results.

Eastbound Journeys

1400 PE 1200 EB 1000 CB 800 BS

600 Passengers 400 SL

200

0

Time

Figure 4-14: Eastbound journeys model results. These results clearly show which trains will be busy and at which time of day. This will help greatly with the system planning and logistics (see section 8), for instance more frequent services will be required in the morning towards London, while more frequent runs from London will be required in the evening

[ 4.1 ] – Current Demand Written By: Kassem Wridan 34 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

4.2. Projected Demand From the survey data provided from the Department for Transport, 2008 passenger numbers between London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Exeter and Plymouth were calculated. Numbers were also obtained, from the survey data, for the total number of passengers departing individual stations. By dividing the number of passengers departing from a city on HSW to another HSW city by the total number departing from that city, the proportion of passengers travelling to a HSW city is found. For example, suppose there were 5,000 passengers who departed from Plymouth but only 1,000 went to a HSW city, 20% of the passengers departing Plymouth go to a HSW city. It was assumed that the proportion of passengers travelling from city to city would remain the same in future years. The proportion of the total passengers departing a HSW city who travel to another HSW city was found to be very low. For example, from the survey data, 108,911 passengers originated daily at London yet only 5,467 passengers from London travelled to stations relevant to the HSW route. Bristol, the most popular destination from London, accounts for just over 1% of journeys from London. Assuming that these proportions of passenger travel remained the same in future years, there would need to be a very large increase in total rail usage for a small increase in rail usage between the HSW cities. Passenger numbers originating in London include only the more popular stations for passengers travelling to HSW destinations. Several central London stations were not obtained in the survey data. Thus, the total percentages, of passengers departing London to a HSW city is likely to be significantly smaller. However, using this survey data in conjunction with Tempro (a passenger forecast software from the Department for Transport), future passenger numbers along the proposed high speed route were calculated. Tempro predicts rail passenger numbers produced at individual areas. In 2008, Tempro predicted the City of London produced 10,700 passengers (Tempro, 2010). With 2,114 passengers travelling from London to Bristol each day, the percentage travelling between these stations in 2008 was 19.8%, as can be seen in Table 4-3. Table 4-3 shows the average weekday number of passengers in 2008 from the survey data.

Survey Weekday Numbers, 2008 London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 1693 2114 498 296 866

Southampton 1715 - 114 35 3 67 Bristol 2417 105 - 261 113 895 Exeter 657 39 326 - 182 18

Producer Plymouth 386 15 132 135 - 4 Cardiff 1215 30 1043 9 3 - Table 4-3: Survey weekday numbers (Department for Transport, 2008).

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 35 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

To check that using the passenger numbers from Tempro, in conjunction with the assumption that the proportions travelling to individual cities remain the same, produced realistic numbers, a prediction of numbers in 2010 was calculated. Tempro predicted that there are 10,585 daily passengers leaving the City of London. Multiplying this 10,585 by the percentages in Table 4-4, the passengers the daily numbers produced in 2010 were calculated. Thus 10,585 multiplying by 0.198 gives the daily passenger flow from London to Bristol, 2091.

Proportion of Passengers Travelling Along Route London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 0.158 0.198 0.047 0.028 0.081

Southampton 0.289 - 0.019 0.006 0.001 0.011 Bristol 0.249 0.011 - 0.027 0.012 0.092 Exeter 0.193 0.011 0.096 - 0.053 0.005

Producer Plymouth 0.067 0.003 0.023 0.023 - 0.001 Cardiff 0.143 0.004 0.123 0.001 0.0004 - Table 4-4: Proportion of passengers travelling along route. Please note that due to rounding, the full ratios used in calculations are not shown. As such, some the calculations described in this Projected Demand section may be slightly out. Please refer to the Projected Demand Appendix on the CD.

2010 Weekday Numbers London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 1675 2091 493 293 857

Southampton 1741 - 116 36 3 68 Bristol 2466 107 - 266 115 913 Exeter 675 40 335 - 187 19

Producer Plymouth 395 15 135 138 - 4 Cardiff 1243 31 1067 9 3 - Table 4-5: Passenger numbers in 2010.

Comparing Tables 4-3 and 4-5, the numbers are similar, with a small decrease in numbers from London and small increases from other stations. This is expected as during a recession, passenger numbers decrease (Wolmar, 2009). At the end of 2010, the UK economy appears to be improving, hence not all passenger numbers have decreased. As the numbers calculated in this way were judged to be realistic, the method was used to predict future passenger numbers.

The future passenger numbers were calculated for the year 2033, the same year chosen for HS2. The Tempro programme is based on the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook which uses a fixed income elasticity to predict future rail demand (HS2 Ltd, 2009). In this way, a percentage increase in GDP results in a percentage increase in demand. As such, demand will grow

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 36 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

indefinitely, with no account made for slowing of growth, market maturity or saturation (HS2 Ltd, 2009). The Department for Transport recommends that, for demand forecasting, growth is capped ten years after the scheme opens. HS2 predicts a 2023 opening, a year that is also feasible for HSW, hence why the year 2033 was chosen for future demand calculations. The Tempro programme does not predict future recessions between 2010 and 2033 and so, using the same method, it can be seen in Table 4-6 that all passenger numbers have increased. So, Tempro predicts 12,616 passengers will depart London in 2033. Using Table 4-5, the of passengers travelling from London to Cardiff is:

From the survey data, the weekday passenger numbers departing each station per hour were obtained. Tempro produces weekday passenger numbers in four segments throughout the day. These segments are: Morning peak, 7am – 10am; Inter peak, 10am – 4pm; Evening peak, 4pm – 7pm; Off peak 7pm – 7am. Again, it was assumed that the proportions of passengers travelling from individual stations would remain the same. Tempro however is not able to divide passenger numbers into segments for the whole of Saturday and Sunday, instead just producing a daily number.

2033 Weekday Numbers Without HSW London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 1996 2493 587 349 1021

Southampton 1779 - 118 36 3 70 Bristol 2705 118 - 292 126 1002 Exeter 782 46 388 - 217 21

Producer Plymouth 435 17 149 152 - 5 Cardiff 1301 32 1117 10 3 - Table 4-6: Weekday passenger numbers.

Calculating passenger numbers per hour is best displayed through an example. From the survey data, the total number of passengers departing each station and going to a station on the HSW line, is the sum of the rows in Table 4-3. These sums are shown in Table 4-7.

By dividing the passenger numbers arriving at each station by the number of passengers who left the station in question, gives the proportion of passengers travelling from one station to another. For example, there are 5,467 (see Table 4-7) passengers who depart from London and arrive at a station along the proposed HSW route every weekday. 2,114 (see Table 4-3) of these 5,467 passengers arrive at Bristol. The proportion of passengers travelling from London and arriving at Bristol each weekday is therefore: 2114 ÷ 5467 = 0.378

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 37 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The proportions for each station are shown in Table 4-8.

It is assumed that these proportions remain constant throughout the day. As such, 38.7% of passengers, leaving London at any time of the day and travelling to a station along the HSW route, arrive in Bristol. It is also assumed that 38.7% of passengers leaving London on a Saturday or Sunday also travel to Bristol.

Departure station Numbers departing from station that are travelling to others station on HSW route London 5467 Southampton 1934 Bristol 3791 Exeter 1222 Plymouth 672 Cardiff 2300 Table 4-7: Survey passenger numbers departing from each station and travelling to another station on HSW route.

Proportion of Survey Weekday Numbers Attractor London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 0.310 0.387 0.091 0.054 0.158

Southampton 0.887 - 0.059 0.018 0.002 0.035 Bristol 0.638 0.028 - 0.069 0.030 0.236 Exeter 0.538 0.032 0.267 - 0.149 0.015

Producer Plymouth 0.574 0.022 0.196 0.201 - 0.006 Cardiff 0.528 0.013 0.453 0.004 0.001 - Table 4-8: Proportion of survey weekday numbers departing from each city. Please note that due to rounding, the full ratios used in calculations are not shown. As such, some the calculations described in this Projected Demand section may be slightly out. Please refer to the Projected Demand Appendix on the CD.

From Tempro, 12,616 passengers depart London each weekday and 1,785 depart during the morning peak (see Appendix). From Table 4-6, the total number of passengers departing London to stations along the HSW route is 6,446. Therefore, the total number of passengers departing London during the morning peak in 2033 to a station along the HSW route is:

From Table 3-6, the proportions of passengers travelling to each city can be found. As mentioned earlier, 38.7% of passengers leaving London on the HSW route travel to Bristol. Therefore, the number of passengers travelling from London to Bristol in the morning peak in 2033 is:

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 38 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The number of passengers travelling between each city during the different time periods is calculated in this way. From the survey data, the number of passengers leaving each station per hour was calculated. This helped create an estimation of the number and size of trains required. The number of passengers leaving each station is an accumulation of passengers. For example, the number of passengers leaving Bristol towards Plymouth include those who are travelling from: London to Exeter and Plymouth; Southampton to Exeter and Plymouth; Cardiff to Exeter and Plymouth; and those passengers getting on the train at Bristol who want to go to Exeter or Plymouth. By summing these passenger numbers, the demand per time period (morning peak, inter peak etc.) between each station was calculated. As Tempro only gives passenger numbers per period of time (morning peak is from 7am – 10am), the numbers in this time period needed to be split per hour. The proportion of passengers leaving each city per time period was assumed to be the same as that from the survey data. For example, from the survey data, the number of passengers leaving Bristol towards Exeter during the morning peak is 247 (see Appendix). Of the 247, 53 leave between 7-8am, 100 left between 8-9am and 94 left between 9-10am. As a proportion per time period, during the morning peak, 21.5% leave between 7-8am, 40.5% leave between 8-9am and 38.0% leave between 9-10am. In 2033, 520 make this trip. Assuming the same proportions, the numbers per hour are:

, ,

The same process was undertaken for each time period in order to calculate the predicted numbers per hour between each city.

It is expected that a new high speed line will create demand in addition to those switch from current rail. According to Greengauge 21, a high speed rail network in 2055 will have 178 million passenger trips a year. From this 178 million, 34.2 million (19%) are generated from a high speed line, 12.6 million (7%) are those who have switched from car, 29.7 million (17%) are those who have switched from air travel and 101.5 million (57%) have switched from conventional rail. As the furthest distance, London to Plymouth can be completed on land in less than four hours, there will be a nominal gain (or even no gain) from passengers travelling by air (HS2, 2009). Removing the air passengers who have switched to high speed rail from Greengauge 21‘s prediction, the generated and modal shift percentages change to: 23% generated, 8.5% from car, 68.5% from conventional rail. It is assumed that these future proportions of passengers will remain be same as that in 2033. The numbers calculated using the HSW line are only the passengers switching from

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 39 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

conventional rail, 68.5% of the total number of passengers. Thus by dividing the numbers predicted by 0.685, the total number of passengers estimated for HSW is calculated.

The same process was undertaken to predict the future demand on Saturdays and Sundays which is shown in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 respectively. In order to predict the hourly demand for the weekend, it was assumed that the proportion of passengers travelling each hour would be identical to the 2033 weekday proportions. For example, the number of passengers travelling on a train between Bristol and Exeter each weekday is 2,592 with 307 predicted to travel between 8-9am. As a percentage, travel at this time. On a Saturday, 1,675 passengers are predicted to travel between Bristol and Exeter. Assuming the same proportions as a weekday, the predicted number travelling between Bristol and Exeter between 8-9am on a Saturday is: . The process is repeated for Sunday travel.

Projected 2033 Weekday Passenger Numbers with HSW London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 2914 3639 857 509 1491

Southampton 2598 - 173 53 5 101

Bristol 3949 172 - 426 185 1462 Exeter 1142 68 567 - 316 31 Producer Plymouth 635 25 217 222 - 7 Cardiff 1899 47 1630 14 5 - Table 4-9.: Projected 2033 weekday numbers with HSW

2033 Saturday Numbers with HSW London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 1466 1831 431 256 750 2309 - 153 47 4 90

Southampton Bristol 3472 151 - 375 162 1286 Exeter 637 38 316 - 177 17 Producer Plymouth 586 23 200 205 - 6 Cardiff 1719 42 1476 13 4 - Table 4-10: Projected 2033 Saturday numbers with HSW.

2033 Sunday Numbers with HSW London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth Cardiff London - 455 568 134 80 233

Southampton 1008 - 67 21 2 39 Bristol 1468 64 - 159 69 544 Exeter 286 17 142 - 79 8

Producer Plymouth 248 10 85 87 - 3 Cardiff 749 19 643 6 2 - Table 4-11: Projected 2033 Sunday numbers with HSW.

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 40 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Eastbound - Weekday

2500

2000

1500 PE EB CB 1000 BS

SL Passenger Numbers

500

0

< 06:00 > 23:00

06:00 - 07:0007:00 - 08:0008:00 - 09:0009:00 - 10:0010:00 - 11:0011:00 - 12:0012:00 - 13:0013:00 - 14:0014:00 - 15:0015:00 - 16:0016:00 - 17:0017:00 - 18:0018:00 - 19:0019:00 - 20:0020:00 - 21:0021:00 - 22:0022:00 - 23:00 Time

Figure 4-15: Eastbound weekday passenger numbers

Eastbound - Saturday

2500

2000

PE 1500 EB CB 1000 BS SL

Passenger Numbers 500

0

< 06:00 > 23:00

06:00 -07:00 07:00 - 08:0008:00 - 09:0009:00 -10:00 10:00 - 11:0011:00 -12:00 12:00 - 13:0013:00 - 14:0014:00 -15:00 15:00 - 16:0016:00 - 17:0017:00 - 18:0018:00 -19:00 19:00 - 20:0020:00 - 21:0021:00 - 22:0022:00 - 23:00 Time

Figure 4-16: Eastbound Saturday passenger numbers

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 41 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Eastbound - Sunday

2500

2000

PE 1500 EB CB 1000 BS SL

Passenger Numbers 500

0

< 06:00 > 23:00

06:00 -07:00 07:00 - 08:0008:00 - 09:0009:00 -10:00 10:00 - 11:0011:00 -12:00 12:00 - 13:0013:00 - 14:0014:00 -15:00 15:00 - 16:0016:00 - 17:0017:00 - 18:0018:00 -19:00 19:00 - 20:0020:00 - 21:0021:00 - 22:0022:00 - 23:00 Time

Figure 4-17: Eastbound Sunday passenger numbers

Westbound - Weekday

2500

2000

LS 1500 SB BC BE 1000

EP Passenger Numbers

500

0

< 06:00 > 23:00

06:00 - 07:0007:00 - 08:0008:00 - 09:0009:00 - 10:0010:00 - 11:0011:00 - 12:0012:00 - 13:0013:00 - 14:0014:00 - 15:0015:00 - 16:0016:00 - 17:0017:00 - 18:0018:00 - 19:0019:00 - 20:0020:00 - 21:0021:00 - 22:0022:00 - 23:00 Time

Figure 4-18: Westbound weekday passenger numbers

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 42 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Westbound - Saturday

2500

2000

LS 1500 SB BC BE 1000

EP Passenger Numbers

500

0

< 06:00 > 23:00

06:00 - 07:0007:00 - 08:0008:00 - 09:0009:00 - 10:0010:00 - 11:0011:00 - 12:0012:00 - 13:0013:00 - 14:0014:00 - 15:0015:00 - 16:0016:00 - 17:0017:00 - 18:0018:00 - 19:0019:00 - 20:0020:00 - 21:0021:00 - 22:0022:00 - 23:00 Time

Figure 4-19: Westbound Saturday passenger numbers

Westbound - Sunday

2500

2000

LS 1500 SB BC BE 1000

EP Passenger Numbers

500

0

< 06:00 > 23:00

06:00 - 07:0007:00 - 08:0008:00 - 09:0009:00 - 10:0010:00 - 11:0011:00 - 12:0012:00 - 13:0013:00 - 14:0014:00 - 15:0015:00 - 16:0016:00 - 17:0017:00 - 18:0018:00 - 19:0019:00 - 20:0020:00 - 21:0021:00 - 22:0022:00 - 23:00 Time

Figure 4-20: Westbound Sunday passenger numbers

[ 4.2 ] – Projected Demand Written By: Dylan Marques 43 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

5. Route

5.1. Route Selection The requirement of this project is to create a high speed rail connection between the cities of London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff and Plymouth. To achieve this, the route design must find a balance between three key aims. The first aim is to provide a route on which trains are able to run safely at high speed. To do this the route must meet the following parameters wherever possible: Track Tunnel Bridge Minimum Horizontal Radius of 8 km Maximum Tunnel Length of 4 km Maximum Bridge Length of 4 km

Minimum Vertical Radius of 16 km Maximum Twin Bore Tunnel Diameter of Horizontal Reinforcement 7.25 km

Maximum Gradients of 4% Maximum Single Bore Tunnel Diameter of 9.80 km Table 5-1: Track parameters. Adapted from (European Union, 2007) and (Lindahl, 2001).

Along sections of track where it is not possible to meet these parameters, trains will have to travel at a reduced speed. This is detrimental to journey times so the route has been designed to comply as frequently as is physically and economically possible. The second key aim is to reduce the environmental impact caused by the line. There are various areas that the route must avoid for both environmental and political reasons. These include national parks, sites of scientific interest, heritage sites, ecologically sensitive areas and others. These sites have been identified using the information provided on the Natural England website (Natural England). Thirdly construction costs must be reasonable to ensure the project is economically viable. These factors often conflict as additional infrastructure, such as tunnels, will reduce the impact on the environmental landscape but will significantly increase the cost of the project. In order to keep infrastructure costs to a minimum, the route has often reached the maximum parameters (Table 5-1) and taken a longer path around difficult terrain to avoid bridges and tunnels wherever possible.

All stations have been placed at the most economically viable location that will provide convenient access to the city centres and other transport links. Most stations will be connected directly to bored tunnels in both directions due to the built up nature of the cities. Out of town ―parkway‖ stations would have provided a much cheaper option however it was determined that the benefits of, and demand for, central stations significantly outweighed the additional construction costs.

[ 5 ] – Route Written By: Benjamin Warren 44 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

5.2. Phased Construction The route has been split into sections within this report; both in terms of construction and cost, so phased construction can be implemented. This will allow for sections of the route to operate while others are still under construction meaning income will be generated earlier. Phased construction also reduces the demand for construction plant and labour at any one time, particularly with regards to the reuse of tunnel boring machines as these are highly expensive. The financial burden of construction will be spread across the separate sections for those funding the project. It is recommended that construction is split into the following three phases:  Phase 1: Bristol – Southampton – London  Phase 2: Bristol – Exeter – Plymouth  Phase 3: Bristol – Cardiff

Figure 5-1: Phase Map (Google, 2010) The majority of the passenger demand for HSW is in Phase 1 (see Section 4) therefore opening this phase first will generate the most profit compared to opening other phases. In terms of construction, Phase 1 has fewer construction risks and costs compared to those found in other phases (e.g. crossing the river Severn between Bristol and Cardiff). Phase 2 is similar in length and construction method to Phase 1 so work can transition smoothly between the two phases. Phase 3 has the greatest risk and construction cost, both overall and per metre, so should be completed last. Bristol Junction is the point where all 3 phases connect (See Figure 5-2). By including the line between Bristol station and Bristol Junction in Phase 1, the running of trains on Phase 1 will not be disrupted by the construction of Phase 2. Phase 1 also includes HSW‘s major depot to the north east of Bristol to allow maintenance and storage of trains running on this phase (see Section 8).

Figure 5-2: Bristol Junction (Google, 2010)

[ 5 ] – Route Written By: Benjamin Warren 45 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

5.3. London to Southampton Stations Major Infrastructure Minor Infrastructure London Station London Tunnel Total Track Length Use of existing Waterloo 18.20 km Long 123 km International Station 5 Existing Platforms 4 Ventilation Shafts (each 600m Long) Some Minor Improvements Connecting Shafts between Bores Required Southampton Station Southampton Tunnel 1 Under Road Crossings New box station 8.45 km Long 32 total (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms 1 Ventilation Shaft (each 400m Long) Connected to Bored Tunnels at Direct connection to Station box both ends of Station Other Tunnels Over Road Crossings 11 Total 40 Total Average length: 1.30 km Range: 0.10 – 3.20 km Bridges Existing Track 10 Total 3.20 km Waterloo – London Tunnel Average length: 0.60 km Some Improvements Required Range: 0.10 – 1.70 km Table 5-2: London to Southampton Factsheet

Figure 5-3: Chessington Portal to Southampton (Google, 2010)

[ 5.3 ] – London to Southampton Written By: Benjamin Warren 46 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 5-4: London Waterloo to Battersea Portal Figure 5-5: London Waterloo to Chessington Portal (Google, 2010) (Google, 2010)

Due to the built up nature of central London it would be expensive and complex to construct a new terminus station. For this reason Waterloo station has been selected as the central London terminus. The main advantage of Waterloo station is the available platform capacity. Platforms 20-24, also known was Waterloo International, were designed for use by 16 carriage high speed trains destined for the Channel Tunnel. This service has now been relocated to St Pancras so the Waterloo platforms are unused. A large, now empty, entrance foyer is also available for these platforms which gives ease of access and will allow for new retail opportunities. Waterloo is currently the London terminus for all trains from Southampton and is only a short underground journey from Paddington which is the currently the terminus for trains to all other destinations along the HSW route. Waterloo‘s location in the south west of central London makes it ideal for a straight route towards Southampton which will minimise the HSW route through the greater London area.

Due to the density of buildings and infrastructure in London it is necessary to tunnel from close to Waterloo until outside of the London urban area near Chessington. The London tunnel will run from Battersea Portal in the north east, to Chessington Portal in the south west at a length of approximately 18.2 km. Constructing the new route at ground level would be met with considerable public opposition as numerous building would need to be demolished so a tunnel is the only economically and politically viable option. The London tunnel will be a straight section and due to the tunnel design (see Section 6-2), trains would only be restricted to 250 kph.

Between Waterloo Station and the entrance to the London Tunnel, the two northernmost existing track routes will be used (see Figure 5-4). New track will be provided along the length and the

[ 5.3 ] – London to Southampton Written By: Benjamin Warren 47 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

area will be straightened as much as possible however trains will be restricted to 70kph between leaving Waterloo and passing Vauxhall station for safety reasons. The Tunnel entrance will be 3.2 km from Waterloo station and will require the removal of a now unused flyover which was once utilised by Eurostar trains.

The line exits Chessington portal into open countryside and maintains a fairly straight line passing alongside woodland before crossing over the M25 on a long viaduct. It then crosses over the A3 and passes slightly to the north of Guildford avoiding multiple golf courses. Curving to the south it passes into a long tunnel under the A31, emerging into a viaduct and then back into a tunnel under The Sands village. Having emerged from the tunnel, the line then passes onto a viaduct over a valley. This is a particularly complex piece of infrastructure but is vital to maintaining the gradient of the route and to avoid damage to this scenic area. The route then passes around the town of Farnham towards the A31 before turning south close to the A32. It follows closely to the A32 for approximately 25 km crossing over and under as is necessary. This alignment was selected over routes to the east or west as it passes through no parks or woodlands and is naturally flatter. In order to save costs in this largely rural area, expensive infrastructure has been avoided in favour of cuttings and embankments. When approaching Southampton the route curves west and bridges over the River Hamble before it enters Southampton Tunnel 1. This twin bore tunnel runs for 8.45 km underneath the urban area and the River Itchen directly into Southampton station. A detailed map of this section will be included in the Appendix. A detailed list of infrastructure locations will be included on the attached CD.

Southampton station will be a ―box‖ station (see section 6.4.1). It will be directly connected to Southampton Tunnel 1 to the east and Southampton Tunnel 2 to the west. Its location is immediately south of the existing Southampton Central station on land currently occupied by retail and warehouses.

Below is the elevation profile of the route between Chessington Portal and Southampton Station:

Figure 5-6: Elevation Profile of Chessington Portal to Southampton (Google, 2010)

[ 5.3 ] – London to Southampton Written By: Benjamin Warren 48 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

5.4. Southampton to Bristol Stations Major Infrastructure Minor Infrastructure Southampton Station Southampton Tunnel 2 Total Track Length New box station 7.10 km Long 124 km (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms Direct connection to Station box (each 400m Long) Connected to Bored Tunnels at both ends of Station Bristol Station Bristol Tunnel 1 Under Road Crossings New box station 9.00 km Long 34 total (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms Direct connection to Station box (each 400m Long) Connected to Bored Tunnels at both ends of Station Other Tunnels Over Road Crossings 7 Total 20 Total Average length: 1.10 km Range: 0.10 – 3.00 km Bridges 5 Total Average length: 0.50 km Range: 0.10 – 1.20 km Table 5-3: Southampton to Bristol Factsheet

Figure 5-7: Southampton to Bristol (Google, 2010)

[ 5.4 ] – Southampton to Bristol Written By: Benjamin Warren 49 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The largest challenge along this section of the route is avoiding Salisbury Plain, a vast area of natural beauty with highly varied terrain. Much of the area is also used as army training land. The area to the south is extremely hilly so the route avoids the plain to the north. From Southampton Station, twin bored tunnels pass under the urban area for 7.10 km until exiting west of the M27. The route then curves north past Romsey and follows close to the River Test towards Andover. It tunnels under the A303 to the west of Andover before cutting through a hilly region up to the Vale of Pewsey. The line then curves west through the Vale and enters into a long tunnel to the north of Devizes. The route then avoids rough terrain via a tunnel and two long viaducts before passing to the south of Chippenham. It curves west before running parallel to the M4, passing through two large tunnels in order to gradually lower the line. It then exits the second tunnel into a cutting before entering Bristol Tunnel 1. This twin bore tunnel passes under the urban area directly into Bristol Box Station. A detailed map of this section will be included in the Appendix. A detailed list of infrastructure locations will be included on the attached CD.

Bristol Station will be a ―box‖ station (see Section 6.4.1). It will be connected directly to Bristol Tunnel 1 to the east and Bristol Tunnel 2 to the west. The station‘s location was selected as it is close to the existing Bristol Temple Meads station on land currently occupied by warehouses. The land around the proposed station is surrounded by a river so new bridges/tunnels will be required for pedestrian access. The station will require a large area of land during construction that can later be developed as retail.

Below is the elevation profile of the route between Southampton Station and Bristol Station:

Figure 5-8: Elevation Profile of Southampton to Bristol (Google, 2010)

[ 5.4 ] – Southampton to Bristol Written By: Benjamin Warren 50 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

5.5. Bristol to Cardiff

Stations Major Infrastructure Minor Infrastructure Bristol Station Bristol Tunnel 2 Total Track Length New box station 13.00 km Long 42.6 km (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms Connecting shafts between bored (each 400m Long) tunnels

Connected to Bored Tunnels at both ends of Station Cardiff Station Bristol Junction Tunnel New underground station 13.00 km long

4 Platforms Connecting shafts between bored (each 400m Long) tunnels

Connected to Bored Tunnels at both ends of Station Cardiff Tunnel 3.75 km Long Connecting Shafts between Bores

Immersed Tunnel 19.89 km Long 2 train tunnels 1 service tunnel Table 5-4: Bristol to Cardiff Factsheet.

Figure 5-9: Route from Bristol to Cardiff (Google, 2010)

[ 5.5 ] – Bristol to Cardiff Written By: Philip Goodall 51

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

From the box station in Bristol the line travels completely underground into the underground station at Cardiff. It is proposed that the station at Cardiff will be situated underneath Cardiff Central Station, allowing a simple interchange between the new and existing services. Bored tunnels will be used for majority of the distance, with an immersed tunnel being used for the crossing of the River Severn.

The line travels under the River Severn. There were two other possible options, either having a shorter crossing further up the river or passing around the river to the north. Having the line head around the river further north would result in the required journey times not being met and hence can be considered unfeasible. Crossing the further up the river would also have increased the journey times between Bristol and Cardiff, with the current Severn Tunnel being impractical to use due to the both the lack of available capacity and electrification. Crossing over the Severn in a straight trajectory between Bristol and Cardiff is the only route that will achieve the required journey times, making the construction of a new line possible. The reasoning for the choice of an immersed tunnel can be seen in Section 6.2.2.

As can be seen from the elevation profile shown below, as the route heads west out of Bristol there is an increase in the height of the land, from 7 m to an average of 128 m. There is a valley 15 km from Bristol before more high ground at the edge of the River Severn. The land then reaches sea level at the River Severn which has a breadth of 18.98 km. With an initial gradient of 8% the ground level rises to 11 m for the final 4 km into the centre of Cardiff.

Figure 5-10: Elevation profile from Bristol to Cardiff (Google, 2010).

[ 5.5 ] – Bristol to Cardiff Written By: Philip Goodall 52 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

5.6. Bristol to Exeter Stations Major Infrastructure Minor Infrastructure Bristol Station Bristol Tunnel 3 Total Track Length New box station 18.00 km Long 120 km (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms Connecting shafts between bored (each 400m Long) tunnels

Connected to Bored Tunnels at both ends of Station Exeter Station Exeter Tunnel 1 Under Road Crossings New box station 3.00 km long 41 total (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms Connecting shafts between bored (each 400m Long) tunnels

Connected to Bored Tunnels at both ends of Station Bridges Over Road Crossings 6 in Total 28 Total Average length of 250 m Range: 100 m – 600 m Table 5-5: Bristol to Exeter Factsheet.

Figure 5-11: Route from Bristol to Exeter. (Google, 2010)

[ 5.6 ] – Bristol to Exeter Written By: Philip Goodall 53 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

From Bristol the line heads south into Somerset and into the city of Exeter. As can be seen from Figure 5-11, the line follows the M5 motorway for the majority of this distance. In total the distance from the Bristol station to Exeter is 120 km, making this section the third longest part of the new high speed network.

As can be seen from the elevation profile below in Figure 5-12, there are two main areas of higher ground for the line to navigate on this section of the route. The first of these is from 4 and 18 km outside Bristol, where the train is within a twin bore tunnel until the line passes until the high ground ends at 18 km. There are then a number of smaller hills before the line passes through a more prolonged higher area of ground between 70 km and 95 km from Bristol. After 95 km this ground slopes downwards with an average gradient of 0.5% to the centre of Exeter. Over the entire 120 km the maximum gradient is 10.7%, with the ground level ranging from a low of 4 m to a high point of 156 m.

Figure 5-12: Elevation profile from Bristol to Exeter (Google, 2010)

The high speed line first reaches ground level 18 km from Bristol station. The 18 km tunnel consists of two bored tunnels that run parallel to each other, each carrying a single high speed line heading in opposite directions. From 18 km the high speed line follows the M5 for the rest of the journey. To keep the number of curves to a minimum and enable the train to run at its full speed, the line crosses under the M5 at several points. An example of this is at the junction between the M5 and the A371, where the line enters a 2.5 km single bore tunnel. The tunnel travels under the road junction and keeps the line on a straight path, unlike the motorway that curves at this point. Along the rest of the route the high speed line runs alongside the motorway. A number of towns are navigated around including both Taunton and Cullompton.

For the second area of high ground, between 70 and 96 km, the line uses a series of tunnels, bridges and cuttings to enable it to travel as straight as possible whilst keeping to a gradient of 4% or less. The first of the two valleys, at 87.8 km outside of Bristol, is traversed with the help of a multiple-span concrete bridge. The high speed line drops into down into the second valley, at 90.9 km outside of Bristol, with a tunnel being used to pass out of the valley before the line starts descending into Exeter. When the line is 3 km outside of Exeter it again enters a twin bore tunnel for the journey into the box station in the centre of Exeter.

[ 5.6 ] – Bristol to Exeter Written By: Philip Goodall 54 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

5.7. Exeter to Plymouth Stations Major Infrastructure Minor Infrastructure Exeter Station Exeter Tunnel 2 Total Track Length New box station 18.20 km Long 61.4 km (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms 4 ventilation shafts (each 400m Long) Connected to Bored Tunnels at Connecting Shafts between Bores both ends of Station Plymouth Station Bridges Under Road Crossings New above ground station 7 in Total 16 total (500 x 50m) 4 Platforms Average length 0.7 km (each 400m Long) Range: 300 m – 1.3 km Over Road Crossings 9 Total

Table 5-6: Exeter to Plymouth Factsheet.

Figure 5-13: Route from Exeter to Plymouth (Google, 2010).

[ 5.7 ] – Exeter to Plymouth Written By: Philip Goodall 55 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The route from Exeter to Plymouth is 61.4 km in length the smallest section of HSW. After exiting Exeter through a twin bored tunnel, the line heads to Plymouth alongside the A38 for majority of its length. The line enters Plymouth at ground level where it reaches the final terminus in the centre of Plymouth, a 4 track over ground station.

Between Exeter and Plymouth, the line passes over the most challenging section of the route. There are no notable flat sections, with the ground continuously changing from a positive to negative gradient. The existing conventional rail line travels along the south coast of Devon due to the terrain. The new high speed line can not follow the existing route and must travel inland to attain the required journey times. Along the HSW route there is an average ground level of 87 m, with a high level of 252 m, at 8.84 km outside of Exeter, and the lowest level of 0 m in Plymouth. The maximum gradient is at 27.7% with an average of 3.8% along this section of HSW.

Figure 5-14: Elevation profile from Exeter to Plymouth (Google, 2010).

Despite following the A38 to Plymouth, the line still has a number of notable pieces of infrastructure that are needed to keep it within the parameters required (see section 5.1) for the trains to run at full speed. The first major challenge is with an area of higher ground between 6.7 and 10.7 km. A single bore tunnel is used to pass under this hill as the gradient would be impassable by high speed trains, making it the longest single bore tunnel on HSW. Another notable piece of infrastructure is a bridge over the town of Buckfastleigh. This bridge is 1.2 km long, with a maximum height above sea level of 96 m. This is the only option for passing Buckfastleigh, with both tunnelling and running at ground level being unfeasible due to the gradients of over 4 % that would be required.

At 40.5 km from Exeter, HSW enters a 5.1 km twin bore tunnel. This is the only twin bore tunnel not located at the entrance or exit of a station. As only one train can run through a single bore tunnel at once whilst travelling at 320 kph (see Section 6.2.1), a twin bore tunnel has been chosen. With a length of 5.1 km it would be unfeasible to allow only one train within the tunnel at any moment. On the entry to Plymouth the route enters the city at ground level. As such, Plymouth station is the only new over ground station along HSW. When running into the city the trains run along the route of a disused railway line.

[ 5.7 ] – Exeter to Plymouth Written By: Philip Goodall 56 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6. Infrastructure

6.1. Track Profile The Track has been designed to the European Standard for Interoperability of the European High Speed Rail System (European Union, 2007). Accordingly, the nominal track gauge will be 1.435 m and the distance between track centres will be 4.9 m. The track has been designed to comply with all the parameters described in section 5.1 as frequently as possible. To ensure the track bed remains level along its entire length, the ground will be stabilised once it has been adjusted to the appropriate height. Ground stiffness varies with the changing geology along the route so cement layers will be used to ensure a gradual transition of stiffness, particularly when transferring onto infrastructure such as bridge decks or tunnels. Drainage is also vital to ensure that the natural ground water table remains below the track sub structure so it does not interfere with the stability of the track.

Once the ground has been adjusted to the required level and stabilized, a sub-grade layer of sand and stone will be laid wider than the track bed with sloped edges to assist with drainage. This will have a blanket layer of impervious plastic on top to prevent clay and silt migrating upwards. A 0.5 m thick layer of ballast will be laid upon the sub-grade to absorb the force applied by the train on the track when travelling at high speeds (Bell, 2004). Ballast provides a structurally sound track bed while still allowing for water drainage. Steel track will be laid above on concrete sleepers. Electrical masts will be placed 63 meters apart along the length of the track to provide power to the train (see section 6.7). The track will be suitable fenced off to prevent trespass. This is vital for high speed travel as stopping distances are significantly higher than at conventional speeds. Figure 6-1 below shows the standard track layout.

Figure 6-1: Standard Track Layout

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 57 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.1.1. Track Maintenance Tracks are one of the critical components that need constant supervision and maintenance. Faults along the track may cause certain sections to resonate (loose parts for instance). This resonance may become harmful if it resonates at the train‘s natural frequency, which is approximately 1 Hz (Narah et al., 2010). Frequency and speed are related as follows

The Velocity ( ) is the product of the Frequency ( ) and the Wavelength ( ). Given the HSW trains will run at 320kph and their resonant frequency is 1 Hz, any faults that cause resonance with a wavelength of 88.89 meters will be problematic to the system.

120 100 80 60 40

wavelength wavelength (m) 20

0

0

20 40 60 80

300 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 320 340

Speed (kph)

Figure 6-2: Graph showing the speed vs. resonant wavelength.

To minimise the risk of encountering such wavelength, multi-purpose vehicles could be deployed to run on the track at regular intervals to check and measure track parameters. Data collected from these vehicles will be analysed and if any of the sections show signs of fault, a repair team will be dispatched to the identified location. Alternatively, units such as the one shown in Figure 6-2 can be mounted onto the train directly. This would allow constant track supervision without the need to run a dedicated vehicle. This would also allow for diversity in the data collected over different periods and times, which would not be possible with the dedicated vehicle solution. HSW will make use of this option, as opposed to a dedicated vehicle, as its can greatly benefit from the constant measurements provided by all its regular services running along the route.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 58 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 6-3: Rail Profiling System. (MERMEC Group, 2010)

Depending on the severity of the fault, the repair team may be sent over night (when no service is running), or immediately for serious faults. In the event of repairs during operations, trains will utilise cross-overs to allow single track operation around the fault where possible, which may incur some delays.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 59 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.2. Tunnels

6.2.1. Bored Tunnels A number of bored tunnels are used along HSW. Some of these are used for entering and exiting the box stations whereas others pass through areas of high ground. Two different tunnel types are to be constructed: a single bore and a twin bore. The single bore tunnel consists of one running tunnel carrying two lines with the twin bore sections consisting of two tunnels with one running rail in each.

Safety Within a tunnel, safety is of paramount importance. There is a risk of passengers becoming trapped inside the tunnel in emergency situations such as a train fire. There needs to be the infrastructure and procedures in place to ensure the safety of the passengers by providing a safe method of exit to ground level.

All of the tunnels have vertical shafts, to provide access to the train tunnels. Both ventilation and electrical services pass through these shafts, together with emergency escape stairs. In the single bore tunnels, the exits will be located along the sides of the tunnel with the passengers exiting through the nearest set. Within in the twin bore tunnels, there will be fewer vertical escape shafts, due to the first method of exit being through one of the cross-passages. The cross-passages have an internal diameter of 3.5 m and are located at 650 m intervals. The tunnel ventilation system is then used to provide a positive air pressure within the safe tunnel and prevent any fire from spreading across the tunnels. There is no emergency ventilation within the single bore tunnels, as simulations have been carried out on similar tunnels which have found that using ventilation within them can make the situation worse (Woods, 2004).

Technical Challenges There are number of challenges that need to be overcome during the design and construction of a bored tunnel. Some of the challenges are easy to design for, such as the geology surrounding the tunnel. For example, in high strength rock, the cutter on the front of the tunnel boring machine will need to be changed at more frequent intervals than if the soil is of low strength. These types of rocks will also slow down the rate of tunnelling (Mott Macdonald). The composition of the ground will also have a bearing on the settlement that will occur above the tunnel. Depending upon the strength of the soil, the ground may settle above the tunnel in such a way as to damage existing properties. In these instances, the tunnel will either be moved lower to reduce the amount of settlement that occurs, or a different tunnel alignment will be used.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 60

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Each of the tunnels are aligned to pass either below or around any existing infrastructure. When travelling through the countryside, the majority of the tunnels will be able pass through the ground without coming into contact with any other infrastructure. However, when entering and exiting the city centre stations there are a number of obstacles that will need to be avoided. For example, within London there are both underground sewers and underground train tunnels which will be avoided. To minimise the impact of the high speed tunnels on existing tunnels, a gap of the diameter of one tunnel will be allowed for.

Twin Bore Tunnels The twin bore tunnels consists of two separate tunnels, each running parallel to each other. Each tunnel has a diameter of 7.25 m and carries a single track. The twin bore tunnels range from 3.85 km (the bored tunnel from the edge of the River Severn into the Cardiff station) to 18.2 km (the tunnel from Chessington into London).

7.25m

7.25m

Figure 6-4: Twin bore tunnels.

The twin bore tunnels have a diameter 7.25 m with a concrete lining width of 200 mm. The cross- passages run at 650 m intervals, with these having identical linings and a diameter of 3.5 m. The maximum speed within a twin bore tunnel will be 250 kph.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 61

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Single Bore Tunnels The single bore tunnels contain two sets of track, each one running in an opposite direction. The single bore tunnels are used for tunnels up to 3.2 km in length, the longest is being between London and Southampton with a length of 3.2 km. A number of single bore tunnels are 100 m in length, the shortest tunnel length along the route. Shorter tunnels are constructed using box sections (see Section 6.3.2).

Figure 6-5: Single Bore Tunnel (Yarham, 2010)

The diameter of the single bore tunnels is 9.8 m. The 9.8 m tunnel diameter allows the trains to run at the full speed of 320 kph but is only possible for one train to travel in the tunnel at a time. With a lower running speed of 250 kph it is possible for two trains to pass through a single bore tunnel if required.

Construction To construct the tunnels a number of Tunnel Boring Machines will be used. These machines bore through the ground as required before the tunnel is fitted out to allow the trains to pass through. An Archimedes screw removes all the spoil that is created by the tunnelling process passing the material out of the tunnel. Once the soil has been cleaned as required, it will be used for number of applications, including the construction of embankments along the route. The soil may need to be frozen if it is found to be not be of a high enough strength. This will be decided on a case by case basis for every bored tunnel along the route.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 62

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The lining of the tunnel consists of two elements. These are both constructed out of reinforced concrete. The first is a simple sprayed concrete layer that will be applied to the tunnel surface as soon as it has been exposed. After this initial layer has cured and gained its required strength, a second layer of precast concrete segments will be attached on top. These segments contain polypropylene fibres that prevent the concrete from spalling (Woods, 2004). This is important for providing a level of fire protection to the tunnel, as standard reinforced concrete may lose its structural integrity when placed under a high level of heat. The fibres prevent spalling by instead creating small surface cracks. These cracks can then be repaired unlike spalled concrete that would need to be completely replaced.

Once the tunnel itself is completed the fit out process will take place. This is similar to the fit out along the rest of the route and includes the laying of the track and the installation of electrical wires, which will hang from the ceiling of the tunnel. Once this has taken place the line will be ready for the high speed trains.

Costs To calculate the costs of the bored tunnels along the new high speed line, the same values have been taken as have been used for HS2 (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009) The HS2 costs are based upon the values found within seven recent European high speed rail projects, including HS1. The costs taken for the bored tunnels are as follows:

Item Cost Single bore 9.8 m internal diameter £ / tunnel route metre £45,050 Twin bore 7.25 m internal diameter £ / tunnel route metre £61,625 Table 6-1: Values used for HSW (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009)

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 63

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.2.2. Immersed Tunnel

Location and Length Between Bristol and Cardiff the new line is situated completely underground. There are two different tunnel types proposed between the two cities. Bored tunnels are used for 21 km of the line, running between both the coastline and Bristol and the coastline and Cardiff. For the crossing of the River Severn, the line runs through a 19.89 km immersed tunnel, which runs through a channel dug into the river bed. Currently, the longest immersed tunnel in the world is the Busan Goeje link tunnel (roadtraffic-technology.com, 2011)in South Korea is 3.24 km in length, whilst a proposed link between Denmark and Germany will be 17.6 km in length (Femern A/S). The River Severn immersed tunnel will therefore be the longest tunnel of its kind in the world, as well as being only the third immersed tunnel in the world which has bored connections.

Figure 6-6: Alignment of the Immersed Tunnel Below the River Severn.

Figure 6-4 shows the alignment and location of the immersed tunnel. The tunnel runs in a straight line from coast to coast to minimise the length of both the immersed section and the overall distance to Cardiff. This keeps both costs and train journey times as low as possible. A more direct route beneath the river is not possible due to the tight corner radii that would need to be obtained, whilst a longer route further upstream would negatively impact on the required journey times.

The immersed tunnel consists of three tunnels that are cast together as one single block (Figure 6- 5). The two outside tunnels are the two train tunnels, each one carrying a single line in one direction. The central tunnel is to be used for service and maintenance vehicles, as well as providing a safe area for passengers in the case of an emergency. This is possible as it will be fire protected from the adjacent live tunnels.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 64

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 6-7: Cross-section of the immersed tunnel.

The internal dimensions of the tunnel allow the trains to run at a maximum speed of 250 kph. An adequate amount of headroom has been included to allow for the installation of both the overhead power lines and the height of the train pantographs. The height of the entire cross section is constant, with the unneeded height at the top of the service tunnel being used to carry ventilation ducts the entire length of the immersed section.

Alternatives To cross the River Severn, there are a number of possible options. Alongside the chosen option of an immersed tunnel, a bored tunnel or a bridge would also have been possible.

A bridge would be the most visually intrusive option for the crossing in comparison to a tunnel which is hidden from view. For the local residents on both sides of the river this may be an undesirable consequence of a bridge, although this could be partly negated by creating an iconic design that complements the landscape. This is further compounded by the need for the bridge deck to be at a high enough level and of a long enough span to allow river traffic to pass beneath the bridge. It should also be noted that on either side of the crossing the line is already running in bored tunnels, with the trains having a maximum allowable gradient of 4 %. This limits the ability of the trains being able to rise from the bored tunnels onto a bridge for the crossing and subsequently back into bored tunnels afterwards. From previous case studies, it has also has been seen that the design and construction of a bridge is more expensive than for an immersed tunnel (Femern A/S, 2010).

Another option is to continue the bored tunnels from Bristol and Cardiff underneath the river, therefore constructing the entire route between Cardiff and Bristol in twin bore tunnels. There are

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 65

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

a number of benefits to use of an immersed tunnel instead. A bored tunnel needs to be at least a distance of 1 diameter below the ground surface whereas the immersed tunnel has only a 2 m gap between the concrete and the riverbed. There is therefore a limited change in height needed between the immersed section and the twin bore tunnels on either side.

It has also been found that the construction time for a bored tunnel is greater than for a comparable immersed tunnel (Tribune, 1999) due to the dredging construction and installation taking place together, unlike a bored tunnel where the construction and fit out are carried out consecutively. This reduces both the risks and costs involved.

Seismic Design Requirements The behaviour of immersed tunnel under seismic loading is of high importance. Within the United Kingdom the majority of structures are not designed to withstand any seismic loading, but for example North Sea oil platforms, Nuclear Power Stations and the Channel Tunnel are designed so as to resist any earthquakes that are likely to occur during their lifespan. This is due to the high loss of life that would occur. As the immersed tunnel may to be subjected to a number of earthquakes during its lifetime, it will also be designed so as to resist any seismic loading it is placed under.

There are two consequences of an earthquake which both impact upon the immersed tunnel in different ways. The first of these consequences is faulting. This is where the earthquake causes bedrock to shear, causing major displacements in the ground. The forces spread out from the epicentre of the earthquake and decrease in magnitude as the travel further away. The displacement of the bedrock causes certain soils, for example sands, to suffer from liquefaction (Johansson, 2000). If the soil were to liquefy below an immersed section, the section would displace downwards. This would create stresses throughout the tunnel and possibly cause a break in the track, stopping services from running. In a worst case scenario a crack of sufficient size would be created in the concrete, which would allow both soil and water into the tunnel. This would necessitate the construction of a new section. If needed, a resin mix may need be applied to soil to increase its‘ strength. This would prevent liquefaction from occurring and hence ensure the structural integrity of the tunnel.

Along with faulting, during an earthquake the ground also shakes. This is due to the transmission of energy waves through the ground, with the amplitude of these waves increasing as the softness of the soil increases. When modelling an immersed tunnel, it is assumed that the soil is always

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 66

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

stiff in comparison to the tunnel structure. This allows most of the energy to be taken by the soil rather than being passed into the reinforced concrete sections. In reality, the joints between each of the concrete sections allow the tunnel to counteract the forces applied to it. Each section has a small amount of independence from the rest and can move under applied stresses rather than having to dissipate all of the force along the tunnel. In this tunnel there are joints every 221m along its length, creating 89 joints in total. If the joints were not in place the stress placed upon the concrete could cause it to crack and lose its structural integrity.

The River Severn is within seismic zone 1 (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997). The proposed Fehmarn Fixed Link- an immersed tunnel between Denmark and Germany- is situated within an identical seismic zone. In seismic zone 1, the expected earthquake peak velocity is 0.1 x gravity and there is a 10% chance that his value will be exceeded within 50 years. With this risk, the same seismic design feature will be incorporated within the River Severn Tunnel as is proposed in the Fehmarn Link. The Fehmarn Link uses the joints between each section to insure against any seismic actions. Identical joints are proposed on the river severn, with each section being of a 221 m in length.

Waterproofing Due to the location of the immersed tunnel, waterproofing is of critical importance. Should water enter the tunnel there is the possibility of the tunnel flooding and the reinforcement in the concrete becoming corroded. To ensure a high level of protection, each section will each be designed as though there are no external water barriers such as a membrane in place. Therefore the porosity of the concrete will be kept to a minimum through the use of additional admixtures. On top of this a membrane will be attached to the outside of the sections creating two layers of protection. This will be in the form of a plastic membrane being attached to all external concrete surfaces, which is both impermeable and flexible so as to accommodate any movements that occur due to both settlement and seismic actions.

The reason for having a high level of protection is due to the fact that once the tunnel is constructed, it will be impossible to repair any problems on the outside of the tunnel. The backfill placed around the tunnels provides a protective zone around the concrete which will not be removed until the tunnel is deconstructed. To protect the joints between each section a Gina Gasket (Trelleborg) will be used on the outside of each one, with a secondary Omega seal (Trelleborg) being placed on the inside. The Omega seal will be maintained and replaced as needed, with the Gina Gaskets designed to be in use for the entire lifespan of 120 years.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 67

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Bored entry and exit from the immersed sections. The proposed tunnel will be only the third in the world in which bored tunnels have been connected to an immersed section. Previously, bored to immersed connections have only been used in Hong Kong and on the Istanbul Straight Immersed Tunnel (Ingerslev, 2006). More commonly, the entry and exit from an immersed tunnel is though a cutting, where either the train line, or road, gradually slopes down through a cutting and into the end of the immersed section. The challenge of using bored connections is that the end of the immersed tunnel will be located within the river itself.

Figure 6-8: Bored to Immersed tunnel connection (Ingerslev, 2006) This creates a weak section through which water or other substances may enter the tunnel. To combat this issue, two special sections will be created and attached to the end concrete sections. These consist of two steel tubes being positioned on the end of the concrete, each with a diameter slightly bigger than that of the bored tunnel. The steel tubes are each filled with sodium silicate, a material more commonly known as water glass (Ingerslev, 2006) with a mix of sand and cement placed around these tubes. The water glass provides a water-tight seal around the connection. The tunnel boring machines will pass straight into the steel tubes from the adjacent rock, with the tubes ensuring that a correct alignment between the two sections is attained.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 68

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Dry dock locations

Figure 6-9: The location of the dry dock in relation to the tunnel. (Google, 2010)

As can be seen from Figure 6-9, the dry dock for the construction of the concrete sections will be within the mouth of the River Severn. Having the dock located close to the tunnel has a number of advantages. As well ensuring a quick transportation time of the sections to their location, the closeness of the dock lowers the chance of weather disrupting the travel of the sections.

Figure 6-10: The site dimensions.

Figure 6-10 shows the layout and dimensions of the dry dock. The area for the site offices and ancillary buildings is shown in blue, with all the storage and concrete production shown in orange. The reinforced concrete sections will be constructed within the red area, with this section being split into two halves. The sections will firstly be produced in one half, being allowed time to cure before that area is flooded by the river. As this section is being flooded a number of other sections will be being produced on the other half of the red area. The site is set up so as to ensure that there will be continuous construction on site in a location as close as possible to the construction site.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 69

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Construction

Figure 6-11: A view of the proposed immersed tunnel beneath the River Severn

The first step in the construction is to dredge a channel within the riverbed. The channel will be the width of the concrete sections with a height of 9.9 m. Backfill from the initial dredging will be placed within these 2 metres to both protect the tunnel and to allow the seabed to regenerate. Whilst the channel is being dredged the concrete sections will be constructed in the dry dock. These activities will overlap, allowing sections to be dropped into the channel as it is dredged along its length. When a section is dropped the water will be pumped out from the gap between each section. With no air to occupy this space, the subsequent low pressure will allow the Gina Gasket to develop a watertight seal. Once all of the sections have been placed, the dredged channel will backfilled with a mixture of gravel and sand before the layer of gravel and stones is placed on top. Once the entire immersed tunnel has been constructed, the bores will enter each end of the immersed tunnel and be connected the tunnel to the rest of the high speed line.

The Cost The cost of the River Severn Immersed Tunnel will be base upon the estimation of the price of the Fehmarnbelt Fixed Link (Fermern A/S, 2010). The proposed cost of the Fehmarnbelt Link is as follows (according to 2008 prices):

Construction €3.5billion Other Works €0.3billion Project Management and Preparation €0.7billion Reserves €0.6billion Total €5.1billion Table 6-2: Immersed Tunnel Costs The €5.1 billion cost can be converted into pound sterling. When converted, the €5.1 billion cost becomes £4.6 billion (Oanda Corporation, 2011). This can be seen to be comparative to our cost, as although the Fehmarnbelt Link has a lower length than the proposed tunnel, it is also wider due to the addition of two road tunnels. Without a more accurate method of pricing of the project, this is the figure that has been used in the calculation of the total project costs.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 70

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.3. Bridges There are two different bridge types used along the route, these being major and minor bridges. Any bridge with a length greater than 100 m is classed as being major. The minor bridges can be placed in two further categories- those in which the railway passes over a single road or river and those where a road passes over the high speed line.

6.3.1. Major Bridges All the bridges along the route that are over 100 m are classed as major pieces of infrastructure. The largest of these bridges is the on the route between London and Southampton and is 1,700 m in length. All of the major bridges differ from the minor bridges by having joints incorporated into both the deck and track. These are situated at 90 m intervals and allow for the deck and track to expand and contract as required, whilst also providing a track with movement in the case of emergency breaking by the trains.

Figure 6-12: Medway Viaduct (Glasspool, 2007)

The maximum span in use along the route is 150 m, with any bridges longer than this being constructed as viaducts with multiple spans. The thickness of the bridge deck is dependent upon the length of each span, with a shorter span resulting in a thinner bridge deck. This results in a lower cost for the construction of the bridge, with a balance being found between the number of supports and the cost. On average, the major bridges along the route will have one support every 100 m.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 71

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Currently the longest high-speed rail bridge in the world is the Medway Viaduct, part of HS1 (see Figure 6-12). This has central span of 152 m with approach spans of 40 m. The bridges between London and Plymouth will have a similar form to the Medway Viaduct. For example, the 1.7 km viaduct near to Southampton will have nine spans of 150 m, with the approach spans being 100 m in length. 6.3.2. Minor Bridges Spans of less than 100 m are classed as minor. There are two minor bridge types along the route. The first of these is where a road or farm track has to cross over the line. This allows the new line to continue on a straight path rather than having to navigate over more obstacles. These bridges are all designed as standard road bridges (The Highways Agency, 1992), either single or double road width as required. These bridges will be reinforced concrete, with parapets included (as discussed in Section 6.3). A concrete pier will be constructed at the each end of the bridge deck, producing what is known as a concrete box (see Figure 6-13). The new high speed line will run through the box that has been created. The boxes are designed so to withstand the impact load of high speed train should the train derails inside a box section.

Figure 6-13: Example of a concrete box on HS1 (Dyson, 2004).

The second type of minor bridge is where the train passes across the bridge deck, with the obstruction passing below. These bridges have a typical span of 20 m, although this may be longer or shorter depending upon the specific location. The bridges pass over important pieces of existing infrastructure including main roads, existing railway lines and waterways. Each minor bridge has two functions; to both allow the trains to pass across at full speed and to ensure that in the event of a derailment the train is incapable of leaving the bridge deck. These will be designed to the same criteria as the main bridges along the route, but with the smaller spans negating the need for deck and track joints.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 72

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.3.3. Bridge Features With the proposed train speed of 320 kph, the bridges suffer from a sudden impact load from the trains as they pass over. This compares to a standard structure in which the loads are applied for longer period of time, allowing the elements within the structure to first deform and then return to their normal state when unloaded. The sudden impact of the train can cause the deck to accelerate downwards and then in essence spring up into position, causing a wave of movement along the deck. To stop this from dynamic movement from occurring, the vertical acceleration of the bridge decks along the route will be limited through t he use of dampeners. These dampeners will limit the acceleration of the decks to a value of 3.5 ms-2 for frequencies of up to 20 Hz, the same as for the bridges on HS1 between London and Kent (Dyson, 2004). A dynamic analysis of each bridge will be undertaken to ensure each bridge satisfies this criteria.

All the bridges along the route are also provided with concrete kerbs. These are designed to withstand either train or vehicle loads depending on specific use. These kerbs are to stops anything falling from the bridge decks and impacting upon the area below. For example, the kerbs on a train bridge are designed to withstand a point load of 200 kN. The kerbs heights are increased on any road bridges crossing over the track through the use of metal railings.

6.3.4. Costs To calculate the costs of the bridges along the new high speed line, the same values have been taken as have been used for HS2 (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009). The HS2 costs are based upon the values found within seven recent European high speed rail projects, including HS1. The costs taken for the bridges are as follows:

Item Cost Single Span Bridge (12.6 m wide) £ / square metre £1,900 2 Span Bridge (12.6 m wide) £ / square metre £1,400 3 Span Bridge (12.6 m wide) £ / square metre £1,300 Table 6-3: Values used for HSW, (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009)

It has been taken that our bridges of less than 100 m in length are of a single span, those between 100 m and 300 m inclusive have 2 spans and those longer incur the cost of a 3 span bridge.

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Philip Goodall 73

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.4. Station Locations

Figure 6-14: Southampton Station Location (Google, 2010) Figure 6-15: Bristol Station Location (Google, 2010)

Figure 6-16: Exeter Station Location (Google, 2010) Figure 6-17: Cardiff Station Location (Google, 2010)

Figure 6-18: Plymouth Station Location (Google, 2010) The locations of all new stations along the route can be seen in the Figures 6-14 to 6-18 above. All stations will require a considerable amount of construction in the vicinity of the new station. This construction area should be used as an opportunity for redevelopment by creating with new housing, retail and parking facilities. Each station has been located on land currently used for industry or retail in order to minimise both the impact on the public and the need to demolish any residential property. [ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 74

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.4.1. Box Stations (Southampton, Bristol, Exeter) Constructing a new high speed rail line into city centres has presented a significant challenge. This challenge has been met by tunnelling into and out of Southampton, Bristol and Exeter. By tunnelling, it is not possible to utilise existing station infrastructure as platforms must be underground. Having platforms at ground level would require either excessive land use from a shallow gradient tunnel exit or high gradients in the tunnel. To allow for underground platforms these cities will use ―box‖ stations based largely on Stratford International Station shown in Figure 6-19 below.

Figure 6-19: Stratford International Station (Skanska, 2010) An appropriate area of land, 500 m long and 50 m wide, has been found in each location (see Figures 6-14 to 6-18 for locations). This land will be excavated to a depth of 20 m and connected to the surrounding bored tunnels to create an underground station. Firstly diaphragm walls must be constructed to support the ground surrounding the proposed excavation area. A 1.5m thick cavity will be excavated, externally lined with an impervious membrane and filled with prepared steel reinforcement before concrete is poured in to create an underground diaphragm wall. High slump, self compacting concrete will be used to ensure the entire cavity is filled. The walls will be constructed in short sections, approximately 7.5 m in length, which are sealed together with water tight movement joints (Skanska, 2010). Once all four walls have set, the area between them will be excavated to a depth of 20 m. Pile foundations will then be bored to strengthen the ground below the structure. After which a reinforced concrete slab will be cast along the base of the excavation over an impermeable membrane creating a water tight concrete lined box. Two tunnels will be bored into each end of the box connecting the station to the line (see Section 6.2.1 for bored tunnel). Concrete platforms will be constructed with reinforced concrete columns and shafts cast from each platform up to ground level. These will act as both lift shafts/stairwells and as a

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 75

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

support for the station foyer which will be span above the box at ground level. The base slab will form the foundation of the track area upon which the track ballast will be laid. The base slab must have appropriate drainage included to allow for the removal of water from the station. To prevent rising groundwater putting excessive pressure on the base slab, submersible pumps will be piled into the ground below and will constantly remove water to 10 m below the base of the structure. Figure 6-20 shows the station design.

Figure 6-20: Box Station Layout Two bored tunnels will gradually rise up to the base of the box at 20 m below ground level and connect to it at each end (see Figure 6-20 Plan View). This gives the trains a natural deceleration when approaching the station and a natural acceleration when leaving, reducing energy consumption and costs. This also reduces station construction costs as the excavation depths do not have to reach the bored tunnel depth. Each station will consist of four platforms, each 400 m in length to accommodate for the maximum train length allowed under European regulations (Atkins, 2010). Using four platforms allows for service flexibility and gives an extra available platform in each direction should a service become delayed or a train break down in the station. Four operating platforms lets through trains overtake services that are yet to commence. Each box station is estimated to cost £210 million to construct (Railway People, 2006). Maintenance of each station is estimated to cost £474,000 per year (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009).

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 76

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.4.2. Waterloo Station As described in Section 5.3, Waterloo station has been selected as the London terminus. The five Waterloo International platforms (20-24) were each designed for use by sixteen carriage, high speed trains so will only require minor improvements to meet the requirements of HSW. The two existing northernmost tracks between Waterloo station and Chessington Portal (the entrance to the London tunnel) will be utilised for Western Star trains. They will be replaced with new track and straightened as much as is possible, given the constraints of surrounding structures and land. Waterloo station provides excellent connections to the Underground network and to central London. It also has a landmark award winning roof structure that will become a symbol of the HSW route. The improvements to Waterloo station and the surrounding track are estimated to cost £10 million. Figure 6-21 below shows a picture of the existing Waterloo International Station.

Figure 6-21: Waterloo International (Corbis Images, 1993) 6.4.3. Cardiff Station The HSW line enters Cardiff via two twin bored tunnels. Other HSW cities in this situation will have ―box‖ stations in areas of land currently used for industry, however in central Cardiff no suitable area could be found to construct a new station without causing significant damage to the existing cityscape. Cardiff station will therefore be entirely underground, located underneath the [ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 77

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

existing mainline rail station. To achieve this, much of the existing station foyer will have to be demolished and rebuilt. The proposed station‘s design is largely based on Crossrail station designs as the requirements are very similar (Crossrail, 2010). As the two bored tunnels approach Cardiff, each will divide creating four bored tunnels which will then terminate under the existing station. The tunnels are identical to all other twin bore tunnels along the route except they will each contain a 400m long platform. Due to the large tunnel diameters needed for high speed travel there is enough space inside the tunnel for the track and a platform when travelling at low speeds approaching the terminus. Just above the centre of the tunnels a large atrium will be constructed with access down to each platform and access up to the station foyer at ground level. The new ground level foyer replaces the existing station foyer with the underground atrium acting as the foundations. Combining the entrances to both the existing and high speed stations incorporates ease of transfer of passengers between the two. Some of the land surrounding the existing station that is currently used for parking will need to be demolished and incorporated into the new building. Figure 6-22 below shows the layout of Cardiff station.

Figure 6-22: Cardiff Station Layout Existing services will continue for as long as possible while the new station is constructed, although some services may need to be diverted elsewhere during major periods of construction, particularly during the expansion of the new station foyer. Cardiff station is estimated to cost £600 million to construct (Crossrail, 2010) and £474,000 per year to maintain (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009).

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 78

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.4.4. Plymouth Station As Plymouth is a terminus station it only requires a suitable route into the city in one direction. This has made it possible to construct a station at ground level in an area currently used for industrial retail on the edge of the city centre. This area has a disused rail line passing into it making it ideal for a new station. The new station is approximately one kilometre south east of the existing Plymouth station, making it the only new station on the route that does not have a direct connection to the existing network. Providing a direct connection to the existing network would require tunnelling or demolition of the existing cityscape. Improved bus and walking connections between the new station location and the existing station are a much more cost effective option. The station will have four platforms each 400 m in length allowing for flexibility of service, particularly as some trains will be stored at the station when not in use. Plymouth station will is estimated to cost £100 million to construct and £474,000 per year to maintain. (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009). 6.5. Cuttings and Embankments Cuttings and embankments have been used along the route for a number of reasons. Firstly they allow the height of the track to be raised or lowered in preparation for an upcoming bridge or tunnel. They also offer a more cost effective method of passing the track through varied terrain that would otherwise require a tunnel or bridge. Finally they can reduce the effects of train noise on the surrounding environment.

Accordingly each infrastructure item will have at least 250 m of cuttings or embankments on both sides to adjust the height of the line at a suitable gradient. This equates to 25,000 m3 of earth per item of infrastructure. The entire route has a similar number of over and under road crossings, so the earth from the cuttings can be reused to construct embankments. The structure of the embankments will need to be reinforced to account for the dynamic effects of high speed rail (Cofra, 1999). Additional cuttings will be used as noise bunds for sensitive areas (see Section 9). Embankments can also be constructed on either side of the line for the same purpose if a cutting is not possible due to line gradients.

Embankments will need to be monitored for dynamic deflection to ensure the safety of the track (Hendry, 2010). Good quality reinforcement is vital to prevent deformation over time. Cuttings will have a natural reinforcement from the surrounding soil if they are compacted correctly however they should still be monitored, particularly with regards to the retaining walls to ensure against collapse. The estimated costs are £21.50 per metre cubed for embankments and £17.85 per metre cubed for cuttings (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009).

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 79

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.6. Depot HSW will have one depot located to the north east of Bristol Station. This location has been selected for a number of reasons. It is within construction Phase 1 (London – Bristol) which will allow it to be used immediately when services commence in the first phase. Figure 6-23 below shows the depot location outside Bristol.

Figure 6-23: Depot Location (Google, 2010) The majority of demand on the HSW route is from Bristol to London (see Section 4). Trains stored in the depot overnight will be available to run between these cities without the need to run empty for a long distance to reach Bristol Station. After the construction of HSW this area of land occupied by the depot will become confined by the new line, an existing dual carriageway and the M5. The proximity to major roads gives the depot excellent road connections and its location just outside Bristol increases the availability of staff. The depot is designed for storage and maintenance of 10 trains each up to 16 carriages in length, allowing for storage of 20 trains of 8 carriages. This is more space than is required for overnight storage so the depot will be able to accommodate longer term maintenance and future expansion of the train fleet. The depot will incorporate connections to the nearby high speed track in both directions however, due to tight corners, the speed limit will be reduced to 70 kph prior to entry. It will be a basic portal frame structure with secure shutter doors to prevent overnight trespass. It will include all the facilities to maintain, test and clean the trains. The depot is estimated to cost £400 million. This cost is based on the new Temple Mills depot on High Speed 1 (Railway Technology, 2007).

[ 6 ] – Infrastructure Written By: Benjamin Warren 80

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.7. Power Infrastructure

6.7.1. Background

Transmission Systems Power transmitted to rail systems can take one of two forms, Direct Current (DC) or Alternating Current (AC). DC systems are typically used for high density, frequent, low speed trains (such as the London underground trains). These systems enable the use of cheaper equipment on-board the locomotive unit and require more expensive fixed equipment (in substations). This is due to the fact the electricity for traction is obtained directly from the grid at high voltages in AC form before being transformed down to lower voltages for transmission to the train. In the past, train motors used to require DC power to operate, hence a conversion from AC to DC was required. It is this conversion process that incurs the additional costs. For DC transmission systems, this conversion is done at the substation relieving the locomotive unit from this task. (Bonnett, 2005).

AC systems are used for infrequent high speed and high power trains. In comparison with DC systems, AC systems have cheaper fixed equipment in the substations (as no conversion to DC is taking place there) and more expensive locomotive equipment as conversion to DC is required for the motors (Bonnett, 2005). Modern trains however have started using three phase AC Motors as opposed to DC motors (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010a).

In recent years, a new dual AC system is being used for high-speed trains, which provides up-to twice the power of a standard AC system. HSW will use a dual AC system, as it is more suited to its requirements and is the standard de-facto system in use for high-speed trains.

Figure 6-24: Map of Europe's rail electrification systems. (Railway Technology, 2010)

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 81

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Distribution There are two main distribution methods for traction power, either through overhead lines (OHL), such as the ones used with the French TGVs, or third rail lines such as the ones used in the London underground, and the south-eastern lines in England.

Figure 6-25: Picture of Overhead Lines (left) and third rail systems (right). (Bonnett, 2005) Power lines from the grid carry high voltages (up-to 400 kV) to minimise loss over vast distance. The same principles apply to power transmissions for rail systems, high voltages are required to reduce power loss, and reduce the number of power substations required along the route.

High-speed lines commonly use 25 kV AC at 50 Hz along overhead lines as opposed to third rail. Third rail systems are not suitable for high-speed lines for several reasons. Firstly, third rail cannot support high voltages, as it is located so close to the ground, allowing current to leak to ground. Secondly, it is seen as a safety hazard to have very high voltages (such as 25 kV) running on the ground where workers, or the public can accidentally come into contact with it. Finally, due to the inability of carrying high voltages, high power train systems would not be supported, and over long distances, more power substations would be required which in turn increases costs (Keating, 1997).

Overhead lines on the other hand can carry higher voltages, and therefore require fewer power substations along the route. Voltage on overhead lines is limited to 25 kV due to the fact that for every kV in use, electricity can travel 1cm in the air, and hence for 25 kV, a minimum separation of 25 cm is required between the conductor line and other objects. This characteristic also specifies the minimum insulation distance of insulators used in the system (Keating, 1997). Dual AC systems are capable of overcoming these limitations and restrictions to provide more power. This is achieved through the use of autotransformers which transmit 25 kV on the contact wire, and transmit another 25 kV with 180° phase on a separate feeder wire (Hobbs, 2007).

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 82

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 6-26: A Dual 25kV System and it‘s equivalent circuit. (Brenna and Foiadelli, 2010)

The Figure 6-27 shows the current electrified routes in Britain, which includes both overhead lines and third rail systems. Currently there are no electrified routes to the southwest, however, plans for electrifying the Western Main Line from London to Swansea are being considered with a potential completion date of 2016. (Department for Transport, 2009)

(Overhead Lines)

Figure 6-27: Current electrified routes in Britain. (Network Rail, 2009b)

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 83

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Substations and Catenary System The main function of a power substation is to act as a step down transformer for power obtained from the national grid (voltages range from 33 kV to 400 kV), to a more suitable level for transmission to the rail system. Each power substation requires up to 4,650 of space, and 40– 60 MW of power from the grid (Bhargava, 1999).The spacing between substations differs between DC and AC systems. For DC systems substations are between 3 to 7 km apart, while for AC systems they are spaced further between 40 to 45 km for standard 25 kV systems, and 60 to 65 km for dual 25 kV systems (Senol et al., 1998). The additional spacing between substations the dual system provides reduces the total number of substations required. This reduction also decreases the overall costs, and is another reason for why HSW has chosen to go for the dual system.

Figure 6-28: Diagram of a catenary system. (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010a) The contact wire is made from hard drawn copper and is suspended from the catenary support wire by dropper wires. The contact wire is zigzagged from the rail centre to reduce the effects of unequal wear to the train‘s pantograph (Bonnett, 2005). Support masts are separated by a distance of 73 m and provide a 4.14–5.95 m clearance between the contact wire and the ground (Bonnett, 2005). A smaller spacing between masts of 63 m is applied on CTRL (Bush, 2003). Contact wires usually have a maximum length of 1.4 km. They are joint using insulated overlap when the contact wires are connected to different power substations, or joint using non-insulated overlaps when connected to the same power substation (Bush, 2003). For dual 25 kV systems, an additional feeder wire is required, as well as autotransformers placed every 10 km (Senol et al., 1998).

For electric systems, a return line is always needed to complete the circuit. For rail systems, a return line for current is the through the running rails themselves. On some systems, booster transformers are connected to the rails to capture return current and transmit it back through a separate return wire that is parallel to the contact wire to reduce interference (Bonnett, 2005).

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 84

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.7.2. HSW System

Overview The proposed transmission system for HSW is a dual 25 kV at 50 Hz AC transmitted via overhead lines. Two catenary lines will exist on the route, one for each rail line. Figures 6-29, 6- 30 and Tables 6-4 and 6-5 summarise the proposed system.

Grid Three Phase Supply (132kV-400kV)

Dual 25kV

V +25 kV

k

0 -25 kV 5

Transmission Substation Catenary System Mast Figure 6-29: Top-level power system diagram.

Figure 6-30: Catenary system schematic. Item Notes Value Grid Supply 132 kV – 400 kV Transmission System Dual 25 kV – 50 Hz AC Contact Wire Length 1.4 km Mast Spacing 63 metres Substation Spacing 30-60 km Autotransformer Spacing 10 km Height of Contact Wire From Ground 5.08 m Table 6-4: Power Infrastructure technical parameters.

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 85

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The following set of requirements is obtained from applying these parameters to HSW, where the total track length is approximately 460 km, 31% of which is in tunnels, and 3.3% of which is under bridges. This leaves an approximate 303.37 km of ―open‖ route. Item Notes Number Contact wires Based on ~460 km route and 1.4 km Contact wire 329 Feeder wires (Assumed to be the same length as contact wires) 329 Masts Based on 303.37 km of ―open‖ route 4,824 Autotransformers Based on ~460 km route 46 Substations Based on ~460 km route 10 Table 6-5: HSW power infrastructure fact sheet.

Substations Where possible, power substation are located near power transmission masts. This would help reduce the cost of extending the grid network to the substations, due to the need of building additional infrastructure to support the additional power cables. For example, Substation-1 (S1) shown below has been placed near the track (red line), and between two transmission masts (circled in orange):

Figure 6-31: Location of Substation-1. (Google, 2010) Figure 6-32 shows the location of all ten substations proposed along the route:

Figure 6-32: Location of all substations for HSW.(Google, 2010) [ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 86

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Code Name Distance from Waterloo Station S1 Chessignton Substation 22.00 km S2 Tilford Substation 61.27 km S3 Curbridge Substation 110.40 km S4 Collingbourne Ducis Substation 171.10 km S5 Hinton Substation 231.50 km S6 Cardiff Substation 287.00 km S7 Walrow Substation 291.30 km S8 Westcott Substation 348.50 km S9 Coldeast Substation 385.00 km S10 Plymouth Substation 428.00 km Table 6-6: List of substations for HSW.

It was not possible to find a suitable location in London for a substation due the congestion and lack of space. Instead a location 22 km along the route was selected for the first power substation. This location was chosen because there is suitable free space, and it is near the national grid‘s distribution route. The spacing between substations is between 60-65 km. However some substations like S2, had different spacing between the substations on either side. S2 is located 60 km from the Waterloo station, and hence on its own could provide power for that route section. This is part of the contingency plan for power substations in the event of any failure. In this setup should S1 fail, S2 can cover the effected route sections. The same applies with S2, should it fail, S1 and S3 could cover the effected sections. Similarly, an additional substation was placed near Cardiff, as the route between Bristol and Cardiff is mainly within the immersed underwater tunnel, and it is especially important to have contingency there. S5 and S6 are both capable of supporting the entire sections between Bristol and Cardiff should any failure occur to either substation or even to the power lines on either side of the tunnel. The utilisation of extra substations also allows the entire system to tolerate adjacent substations being taken offline for routine maintenance without affecting the operational service.

All these substations are managed from a remote control centre. This is located at the same site as the HSW main operational control centre. The control centre allows operators to remotely open/close circuit breakers to let traction power onto select sections of the route. In conjunction with the signalling system it is possible to make use of a completely automated system to control power. Nevertheless there will always be an operator on standby to resume manual control when needed.

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 87

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Requirements The total power requirements from the power system will depend on the trains in use. For the power calculations, the Velaro D trains have been used. These trains consume 8,000 kW of power each 8-car train and just under double the power when two trains are coupled together to form a 16-car train. A 3–4 % reduction in power is seen when coupling two trains due to the reduced aerodynamic effects on the coupled trains in comparison with each individually (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009).

To calculate the maximum power required from the national grid at each power substation, the maximum number of trains per section of the track would need to be determined. During peak hours a train runs every 15 minutes. The minimum headway between trains can be worked out when taking the average speed of 260 kph:

On HSW, the maximum section length supported by a substation is just over 60 km. Given that the minimum headway is 65 km, which is greater than the maximum section length, only two trains would ever be on one section at a time (one train going each way). When coupled trains are used, the power required is:

Catering for the contingency plan where each substation can cover faulty adjacent sections, twice the power would be needed:

Costs Substations (including all its equipment) are estimated at £8.5 m each (Siemens, 2008c). National grid quotes a figure of £90,000 for connecting generators to the grid and a further figure of £15,000 + 100 × MW required (National Grid, 2010). Connecting substations to the grid are assumed to have similar costs. Remaining electrification costs are estimated to start at £700 per track metre for catenary construction (High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2009).

Item Cost Quantity Total Substations £8.5 m 10 £85 m Catenary £700/m £460 km £332 m Connection to Grid £90,000 / Substation 10 £900,000 Further Grid Costs £15,000 + (100 × MW) ~ 63 MW, 10 Substations £213,000 Total £408.13 m Figure 6-33: Estimated Power Costs.

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 88

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

In addition, the variable traction power costs need to be added. A typical charge for non domestic users including the climate change levy for an extra large consumer (> 150,000 MWh a year) is 6.33 pence/kWh (Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2010).

Applying these equations to HSW, the traction power costs are obtained for the different journey legs (using the assumptions outlined in Table 6-7). An average of £3.77/km for traction power is obtained using these estimates.

Item Value Unit Train Power 8,000.00 kW Trainsets 2.00 Percentage Reduction 3% Passengers 970.00 per Coupled Trainset Traction Power 15,520.00 kW Avg Speed 260.00 kph Station Waiting Time 2.00 minutes Power Tariff 6.33 pence / kWh Table 6-7: Power Calculation assumptions & parameters.

Journey Distance Time Power Cost (£) Cost/ (km) Consumption Passenger (£) L-S 123.15 0.47 7,351.11 465.33 0.48 S-B 124.00 0.48 7,401.85 468.54 0.48 B-C 29.50 0.11 1,760.92 111.47 0.11 B-E 119.00 0.46 7,103.38 449.64 0.46 E-P 64.10 0.25 3,826.28 242.20 0.25 Table 6-8: Power cost calculation split by journey.

.

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 89

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

6.7.3. Technical Challenges and their associated Risks

Interference Current flowing through a conductor induces an electromagnetic field around it, which can cause interference to the signalling system and to the passenger mobile communication systems. Modern trains are fail-safe, such that a loss of signalling communications would cause the train to immediately stop. To minimise the interference from the 25 kV lines, booster transformers should be used. These transformers capture return current from the rail and transmit it back to the substation over a return wire that is parallel to the contact wire. This arrangement allows an opposite flow of current in the parallel return wire inducing another field in the opposite direction that cancels out or reduces the strength of the original induced field. Booster transformers however add discontinuities in the lines, as they are sectioned between each booster transformer (Courtois, 1993). These discontinuities are problematic as they cause momentary power loss when passing between the different sections.

The selected dual 25 kV systems manage interference in a different way to the old standard 25 kV systems. This is due to the utilisation of two 25 kV lines at different phases, 180°, resulting in the currents in the lines to flow in opposite directions. This allows them to cancel out each other‘s fields and removes the requirement for booster transformers and their associated disadvantages. (IRFCA, 2010)

Electrical Loading and Unbalancing Power on the grid is transmitted over three wires, each with a different phase. Careful provisioning must be in place to ensure all phases are equally loaded to avoid causing upsets due to unbalances. The traction power systems only utilise one for standard 25 kV systems, or two for dual 25 kV systems of these phases (Brenna and Foiadelli, 2010). High-speed trains consume power in the region of 8 MW per train and hence, pose a risk of causing unbalances to the grid. To overcome this issue, each substation will be connected to a different phase from the grid‘s supply in rotation. For instance, if the three phases are A, B and C, and the substations along the route are labelled S1, S2, S3 etc. S1 will be connected to phases A and B, S2 will be connected to phases B and C, S3 will be connected to phases C and A, and so on. This approach helps evenly distribute the load and minimise unbalances along the entire route. (Bonnett, 2005)

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 90

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Infrastructure Reliability Compared to diesel systems, Electric systems‘ infrastructure is more prone to failure. 48% of all incidents on electric systems in the UK between 2007 and 2008 were due to infrastructure faults, 5% of which were caused by overhead line failure (Network Rail, 2009b).

Figure 6-34: Ac traction power reported incidents from 2007 - 2008. (Network Rail, 2009b) The risk of failure is dramatically increased with severe weather conditions. Overhead lines for instance can freeze once ice builds on them, and could snap when force is applied by passing trains. In some cases, when the line does not snap, the ice acts as an insulator causing current to stop flowing to the train (Bell, 2010b).Such failures could delay scheduled trains, or worse, cause trains to become stranded on the tracks midway. Recent incidents in Britain witnessed both of these scenarios. Passengers in London St. Pancras station formed long queues as they waited for the delayed Eurostar services, and 100 passengers were stranded on a train between Kemsing and Oxford. (Daily Mail, 2010)

Such problems cannot be completely avoided, but what can be done, is to put in place a strong set of contingency and emergency procedures to minimise the effects of such disruptions. For ice build-up on the catenary wire, a few solutions could be applied to resolve the issue. One option would be to transmit higher currents, and hence increase the power loss on the wires, which is dissipated as heat (which should melt the ice) (Lawyer, 2004). Another technique, which has been proposed for the main transmission lines from the gird, is to excite the current within the lines to higher frequencies (Sullivan et al., 2003). This increases power loss further to generate heat. While this is a new and innovative technique, it does incur added costs for fixed equipment within each substation that needs to tolerate high frequencies, as well as the autotransformers along the route. Running trains throughout the night is another potential solution to prevent the build up of ice (Bell, 2010b).

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 91

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

High Speed & Catenary When travelling at high-speed the train‘s pantograph causes a tension force on the contact wire, which causes the contact wire to oscillate. These oscillations may cause a standing wave, which in turn could cause the wire to snap if it oscillates at the train‘s natural frequency (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010a). This has led to some TGV trains in the past to utilise one pantograph in order to avoid losing contact with the contact wire due to oscillations when two pantographs are raised. The solution then was to use another wire that runs along the train to provide power to the rear cart. Such solution however would not be allowed in the UK due to safety concerns of a high power line being so close to the train and its passengers (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010a). HSW will make use of the solution used by the French TGV lines, where tension will be applied to the contact wires (Strohl, 1993). This ensures that oscillations dampen before reaching the second pantograph, and hence eliminates the risk of losing contact, as well as the need for the additional power line that runs through the train.

Connecting overhead lines within the tunnels poses numerous challenges. Additional clearances for overhead lines passing through should be catered for. One solution would be to have an overhead rail (see Figure 6-35).

Figure 6-35: Diagram illustrating overhead rail. Overhead rail however, poses a few operational risks. The pantograph of the train needs to be modified, such that it can adjust to come in to contact with the overhead rail on entering the tunnel. It may not be possible for the adjustments to take place when travelling at high speed. This would then require the train to slow down further before entering or leaving tunnels, which is not a practical option for HSW, especially when 31% of the route is in tunnels. In the event a pantograph was designed to perform the necessary adjustments in time, the sudden loading of the overhead line on exiting the tunnel (see Figure 6-35) may cause the line to snap. The overhead rail solution is not suitable for HSW or for any high-speed trains due to the risks it poses. HSW will use brackets mounted on the tunnel walls to carry the contact wire. This approach has been used in the channel tunnel (Bush, 2003), and has gained several years of trial, which reduces the overall risk.

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 92

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Construction In addition to all the operational risks, there are also some associated with the construction phase. Workers working near the overhead lines are at risk of coming into contact with very high voltages. A number of fatality incidents have been reported during the construction phase of high speed one, one of which was near Westernhanger in 2003 (BBC News, 2003). To minimise these risks, HSW will use new construction techniques. For instance, multipurpose assembly vehicles such as the one shown in the figure below will be used for overhead line construction.

Figure 6-36: Overhead line assembly vehicles. (Network Rail, 2009b) Another measure that will be taken to manage this risk is to ensure sufficient grounding is in place by interconnecting the tracks and masts together to distribute earthing of currents leaving trains. This forms a distributed earth keeping the rail‘s potential close to that of earth. This makes it safer for maintenance workers working near the tracks (Bonnett, 2005). The use of new technologies that have been proven reduces the construction risks significantly. For instance, using 3M‘s cold shrink technology eliminates the need for canisters and blowtorches to join cables using heat, hence provides more safety to the workers. (Railway Strategies, 2007)

[ 6.6 ] – Power Infrastructure Written By: Kassem Wridan 93

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

7. Train System

7.1. High-Speed Rail Technology Currently, there are two possible trains systems that could be used on the HSW network. These systems are Magnetic levitation train (Maglev) and wheel on rail high speed trains.

Maglev is a new train technology system that applies magnetic levitation instead of wheel on rails. It works with magnetism and the magnetic field as the basic motor‘s principle in which the same poles both repel and attract each other. For the maglev train to work, it needs a guideway with the magnetised coil placed along the pathway and a large magnet placed under each carriage of the train, thus allowing the train to levitate above the guideway (Bonsor, 1998-2011). The normal levitation gap between the magnet and track is ranged between 8mm to 12mm (Shanghai Maglev Transportation Development Co.Ltd, 2005).

Figure 7-1: the guide magnet for the Maglev train The electric current from the grid is supplied to the coil in the guideway wall to generate a system that pulls and pushes the onboard levitated train along the guideway. The electric current supply is constantly alternating in the coil, therefore it will change the polarity of the magnetised coils. Due to change in polarity, the magnetic field in front of the train will pull the vehicle forward and magnetic field behind the train will give more forward force (Bonsor, 1998-2011). Maglev trains can be operated at both low and high speed. This systems was first demonstrated by a British Scientist, Eric Laithwaite in 1950 (BBC News, 1999).

Maglev has two different systems, German Maglev and Japanese Maglev. The German Maglev uses Electromagnetic Suspension (EMS) which uses standard electromagnets. It depends on the power supply to make the coils to conduct the electricity (Bonsor, 1998-2011). The EMS system will levitates the train 1 cm above the track and keeps the train flying upwards even if it is not

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 94 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

moving. On the other hand, the Japanese Maglev uses Electrodynamics Suspension (EDS) which is based on the repelling force of magnet and will normally make the train levitate approximately 10 cm above the track. This system still conducts electricity even if the power supply is turned off. It uses super cooled and superconducting electromagnets. (Bonsor, 1998-2011)

Figure 7-2: Japan's MLX01-90 maglev train test Figure 7-3: Germany's Transrapid (BBC News 1999) vehicle (Train of the week 2010)

During a power failure, the German Maglev uses an emergency battery power supply to keep the train levitating on the track. However Japanese Maglev, which uses the EDS system has an auxiliary wheel to keep the train moving after the power is down. When starting up, the EDS system must roll on rubber tyres until it reaches 100 kph (Bonsor, 1998-2011).

The first maglev operated in the UK was in Birmingham in 1984 (BBC News, 1999). It was an airport shuttle operated on 600 m of track. It stopped operation after nearly eleven years due to a problem with the strength of the train body. Thus the service has been replaced by a bus (BBC News, 1999). Today, the only commercially operated maglev is in Shanghai, connecting Shanghai City Centre and Shanghai Pudong International Airport. This service operates over 30 km with top speed 350 kph (Shanghai Daily, 2008)

Figure 7-4: The shape and location of wheel and rail (Railway Technical Web Pages, 1998-2010b)

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 95 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Wheel on rail high speed is actually a conventional train which has a speed of 250 kph and above (Uic, 2010). It differs from a normal train in terms of shape, distance of operation and innovation. Wheel on rail trains work on the force of the engine (electric motor) that is located in the head of train, known as the locomotive. The locomotive is designed to tow the passenger carriages within the allowed speed limit (Railway Technical Web Pages, 1998-2010b). However, the latest method is to place the motor under the passenger carriages. Normally, these high speed trains are built for a specific project such as, HS1, ICE, Renfe, and Shinkansen.

Figure 7-5: Space available underneath the Maglev track (Lane 2010)

The maglev system has several advantages over wheel on rail. Firstly, It is faster, travelling at speeds of up to 581 kph (Sanchanta, 2010). As maglev trains levitate there is no physical contact with the tracks, making it is quieter than wheel on rail (Goodall, 1995). Thirdly, maglev trains can travel over narrower radii, reducing the land required for a route. Fourthly, maglev tracks are run above the ground, allowing the space underneath the track to be used for other purposes such as farming, roads etc. (Lane, 2010). Furthermore, the energy required for maglev systems is around 30% less than for wheel on rail HST (Leung, 2004). As maglev does not use wheels to move on a steel track, it can climb stepper gradients compared to wheel on rail high speed trains (BBC News, 1999).

Figure 7-6: The only operating Maglev in the world, Shanghai Maglev (railway-technology.com 2008)

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 96 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Maglev however has many disadvantages compared to wheel on rail trains. The main problem of maglev is its‘ cost. The Central Japan railway company JR central are planning to construct a maglev system between Tokyo Metropolitan and Chukyo, a distance of approximately 290 km costing $47.7 billion with service starting in 2025 (railway-technology.com, 2008). The only operational maglev system, which connects Pudong Airport to Shanghai City Centre, has cost approximately $1.5 billion for 30 km (railway-technology.com, 2008). The wheel on rail system which links Shanghai, Hangzhou and Beijing has the estimated of budget around $50 billion (Shanghai Daily, 2008). It is equivalent to three times of building a normal train in China. In the UK, it has been reported that the cost of a north to south maglev link will cost between £33million and £37 million per kilometre, with the total cost of the project expected to hit £60 billion (railway-technology.com, 2008).

In Germany, the maglev project which was proposed to link Franz-Josef Strauss airport to Munich Haupthbhnhof has been terminated (Kingsley, 2008). The termination of this project occurred because the cost of construction had risen from cost €1.85 billion to more than €3 billion (Kingsley, 2008).

Another disadvantage of a maglev system is that it runs on a different track to wheel on rail system. Consequently, this would prevent the maglev train linking to HS1 in the future. A further disadvantage of maglev is that is the strong magnetic field used by the train may be hazardous to the public and to other electronics equipment. In China the maglev projects were stopped due to widespread concerns among the public and government, such concerns still remain. (Shanghai Daily, 2008).

Wheel on rail trains use speedometers to monitor their speed and acceleration. However Maglev‘s use radar monitoring to observe speed (BBC News, 1999) which is not precise compared to using speedometers while travelling in snowy weather. This affects the safety of the trains as the displayed speed may rely on inaccurate reading. The reason why radar is not good to observe speed is because the signal will be reflected by falling snowflakes and give an inaccurate reading (BBC News, 1999).

The maglev system is limited to a low number of trains per hour due to headway requirements. For example, one of the reasons for cancelling the Berlin-Hamburg Maglev is due to it only having four trains in each direction. This is very little when compared to the Tokaido Shinkansen which has 15 trains per hour (Railway Gazette International, 2005).

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 97 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Finally, maglev technology has not been commercially tried over distances longer than 30 km. Both Germany and Japan have been investing in maglev for many years, but have yet to make maglev practically viable (McGrath, 2003). 7.1.1. Wheel on Rail Advantages The wheel on rail high speed train system has many advantages. Firstly, wheel on rail is a proven technology that has already been used commercially all over the world. In China, the Ministry of Railways has ordered 100 more train sets from China CNR Corp to supply trains in high speed lines from Shanghai to Beijing (Railway Gazette International, 2009a). China is one of the countries which keeps developing wheel on rail for HST. In Turkey, a new wheel on rail HST has been launched by the Prime Minister in 2009 to cover a 570 km line between Ankara and Istanbul. It has increased the rail market share from 10 % to 78 % (Railway Gazette International, 2009b). In the UK the development of high speed rail network from London to northern England has been supported by the government who have injected £800miilion to the project (Watt, 2010).

This amount will bring the total funding to £25 billion.

Figure 7-7: The example of wheel on rail HST, the TGV train line up at Lyon station.(Speechley 2008)

Wheel on rail has been proven in commercial use over long distances. China now has the world‘s longest high speed network (Railway Gazette International, 2010). This majority of this network is covered by wheel on rail high speed train. In 2012 the network is expected to gain another 13,000 km and more important high speed technology will arrive from overseas after requests from the government.

In terms of speed, wheel on rail HST is not far behind maglev. The fastest speed that has been recorded for wheel on rail HST is 574.8 kph. It was done by a TGV Duplex train set in France (Railway Gazette International, 2010). As mentioned earlier, the highest recorded speed for maglev is 581 kph. However both achievement speeds are under experimental test. Thus, it is not impossible for the wheel on rail HST to achieve a new speed record in the future.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 98 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

A primary reason for not using maglev in this project is because maglev only runs on elevated track as opposed to wheel on rail which normally runs at ground level. It is difficult for maglev to run in tunnels, which is detrimental as this project is likely to require a number of tunnels. Maglev requires two or three times the cost of wheel on rail to build as larger tunnels are required.

The table below summarises the comparisons between maglev and HST:

System Features Maglev Wheel on rail HST

Cost High Low

Intermodal Capabilities/Network Aspect Single line Extensive Network

Compatibility with built-up area New elevated tract and station Used existing line and station

Impacts on surrounding area Low noise Track mostly at grade

System images/passengers attraction Excellent, new innovation Excellent network accessibility

Maximum speeds 581 kph 574 kph

Energy consumptions Higher High, but lower than Maglev Table 7-1: The summary of comparison between Maglev and wheel on rail HST (J Taylor, 2007) (Dr Vuchic, 2001)

As can be seen from Table 7-1, there is strong evidence why this project will not running with maglev technologies.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 99 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

7.2. Train Types There are three train sets that were considered for the Western Star Service. These are Bombardier‘s Zefiro, Siemens‘s Velaro and Hitachi‘s Shinkansen. 7.2.1. Bombardier Zefiro Bombardier is one of the most famous companies in Europe and has participated in the production of many ICE train over the years, today it was become a reference of high speed rail journeys in Germany(International Railway Journal, 2010). The train set that is produced by Bombardier is the Zefiro. There are several interesting things about Zefiro which are different to any other train set. Firstly, Zefiro is the first train to use an aluminium body(Bombardier Transportation, 1997- 2011), which is used in order to cut body weight and reducing track cracking without neglecting the safety requirements. Secondly, these train sets have won the contract to supply trains to Italy. During the tendor it has scored 56.533/70 points for technical and 28.88/30 for price. However, Alstom only got 50.795/70 and 28.61/30 respectively (International Railway Journal, 2010). The Zefiro that will run in Italy is the V300 Zefiro with a maximum speed of 360kph. This has shown that the technical ability is one of the key successes for Zefiro. The first generation of Zefiro which is Zefiro250 is already operating in China (Market Wire, 2010). In 2010 China has ordered the new version of Zefiro which is Zefiro 380. (International Railway Journal, 2010)

Figure 7-8:Zefiro train (Bombardier Transportation 1997-2011)

The other interesting fact about the Zefiro is that Zagato (Italian design house) design the interior section of the train as well as external styling. The idea is to merge the proven design fundamentals with good reliability, low energy spending, safety and simplicity of. The companies had the collaboration with aerospace division to maximise the aerodynamic and acoustic performance of the new high speed trains (Bombardier Transportation, 1997-2011).The cost of a Zefiro train set is approximately €30.8 million (The Globe and Mail, 2010).

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 100 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Bombardier has made Zefiro in three different modules in order to fulfil the demand for 21st century. The modules are different in speed and capacity. The ZEFIRO380 is for ultra high speed, the V300 is for Europe Very High Speed (VHS) network, and ZEFIRO250 for high speed travel means passenger can travel overnight. Table 7-2 below shows the distinguishing features between each Zefiro module. (Bombardier Transportation, 1997-2011)

Zefiro Types ZEFIRO380 V300 ZEFIRO ZEFIRO250 Service Speed Up to 380 kph 300kph to 360 kph Up to 250 kph Voltage 25 kV AC 4 systems ( 25 kV, 15 kV 25 kV AC AC; 3 kV, 1.5 kV DC) Capacity 1336 seats on 16-car train 1200 seats ( 402meter 122seats, 480 beds, 16 trains) luxury beds Bogie FLEXX speed (2.7 meter FLEXX speed(2.85 meter Regina type (2.7 meter wheel base) wheel base) wheelbase) Table 7-2 The Zefiro’s train set and their characteristics

The Zefiro does not fulfil the HSW requirement, because the price is higher than Velaro and it is not Eurostar tested. Therefore other train sets have been looked at.

7.2.2. Japanese Shinkansen Shinkansen also known as the bullet train was established over 35 years ago. It was developed for the first time by Japanese government and was privatised by the Japanese Railways group (JR Group) in 1987 due to a big debt and unprofessional conduct (japan-guide.com, 2008). The Shinkansen covers most of the high speed train network in Japan.

There are many facts about Shinkansen that made it worth considering. Firstly, the train body is made from aluminium alloys (6061 Duralumin or 7075) (Kawasaki Heavy Industry, 1996-2010). This kind of aluminium is different from normal aluminium as it is stronger and lighter, it is also the same material used to build the outer body of a jumbo jet.

Secondly, the Shinkansen service has never suffered a fatal accident and has become a proud accomplishment of the Japanese. The Shinkansen has obtained a desirable record for safety and promptness since it has improved from its second edition (Head, 2004). The signalling and controlling could possibly used for HSW due to the good performance and record.

Another fact about Shinkansen is that it has also implemented aircraft technology to decrease the air resistance. It is designed with a longer nose (which can also absorb 50% of impact during crash) and a mechanism that allows the cars to tilt in corners in order to decrease the deceleration.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 101 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The bodies are covered by aluminium to shrink the vibration.(Hays, 2009).The others inventions are a pantograph design which is like a wing to decrease wind resistance at high speed. It also has extensive soundproofing to lower the sensation of speed within the train (railway-technology.com, 2010).

Figure 7-9: Most of the Shinkansen is designed with longer nose and extremely aerodynamic profile (railway- technology.com 2010a) Finally, the fastest series of the Shinkansen wheel on rail trains can run at 522kph maximum speed. It was the latest series of N700 with improved in cutting edge technology and parts to make it lighter, thus it can go faster (Hays, 2009). However, the new generation of Shinkansen is Fastech 360-Z. It can run at a top speed of 398kpn in tests and will operate at 360kph during normal service. This train will run on the Tohuku line (between Tokyo and Aomori) in 2011 (Hays, 2009). The fastest series cannot be commercially run because of safety reason. Shinkansen technology however, has never been exported to a European country.

Shinkansen also has various series with different features depending on year of production and area of operation. Shinkansen N700 FASTECH 360 300 series 500 series Classifications Service Speed 300 kph 360 kph 270 kph 300 kph Voltage 25 kV AC 25 kV AC 25 kV AC 25 kV AC Features "wine-glass" Device (like ear) to First trains use T-shaped and pantograph increase air resistance 3phase supply aerodynamically to brake optimised pantographs Table 7-3: The Shinkansen series and its characteristic (Hays 2009) (East Japan Railway Company 2005) (Hughes 2006) (railway-technology.com 2010a) The reason why HSW did not select the Shinkansen train set is because; the cost for each train is unknown and this technology never been tested in Europe high speed line. The other reason is that the train shape is not aesthetically pleasing.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 102 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

7.2.3. Siemens Velaro

Siemens is a well known company based in Germany who has been involved in the development of high speed trains for many years. Their great achievement during this time is the Velaro high speed train sets. The Velaro family is already established and has created a worldwide market, for example its already used in Spain, Russia and China.

Figure 7-10: Velaro E run on a tract in Spain (Siemens AG 1996-2011)

There are many interesting facts about this train set. Firstly, the Velaro train set was created by Siemens to guarantee high performance. It is also very cost-effective in operation, where at a speed of 350kph the energy that used by the Velaro is equivalent to 0.33 litres of fuel per seat per kilometre (Siemens AG 2007-2010).

The other fact is that, the Velaro is designed by legendry Italian design firm which is Pininfarina (Bonander, 1996-2009). This firm is famous in designing for lauded car companies such as Ferrari, Rolls-Royce and Alfa Romeo. Paninfarina was also involved in the renovation of the internal area of the 28 existing Eurostar trains.

The most interesting fact about Velaro is that, it is the only high speed train that runs in England. Therefore it has been chosen for HSW to use it to run the Western Star Service. The Velaro design meets the Channel Tunnel safety rules and Eurostar has chosen to run it. Therefore in June 2010, Velaro won the contract which, costs around €600 million. This cost covered a fleet of 10 trains each 400 m long. Siemens has won the bid by obtaining 97.6 point out of 100. The other bidder, Alstom only got 74 points (Wright, 2010a).

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 103 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

In term of speed, the Velaro E train sets able to run about 350 kph with maximum capacity 900 passengers with their baggage. (Depending on what kind of Velaro, other Velaro can go much faster with more capacity). It is different to the current Eurostar trains which can move at a maximum speed of approximately 300kph. (railwaygazette.com, 2010)

Velaro has a state of the art locomotion design as the engine is placed at both ends of the train set, the front (to pull) and at the back (to push) the train‘s car. It is called dispersed traction motors which fulfil modern specifications. This kind of system uses less electricity by placing the motors along the train length. The other features included WIFI in each trains section with an infotainment console for every passengers (railwaygazette.com, 2010).

Velaros have been built with different characteristics according to where it will use and demand of the customers, it is called the Velaro family. The Velaro family consist of Velaro D, Velaro E, Velaro CN, and Velaro RUS.

Velaro VELARO E VELARO CN VELARO RUS VELARO D Speed 350kph 300kph 250kph, can be 320kph upgrade to 300ph Traction Power 8800kW 8800kW 8000kW 8000kW Capacity 405 Passengers 601 passengers 604 Passengers 460 seats Contracting Party Spanish National Chinese Ministry of Russian Railways Can be used in Railway(RENFE) Railways RZD Belgium, Germany, Switzerland Features Up to 50 C temp - Temp ranging -50 to Multi system train +60 Degree Celsius Signal System ETCS Level 2 and Standard ETCS and ATP ETCS level 2 and ATP system ATP ATP Table 7-4: The Velaro families and their characteristics (Siemens AG 2002-2007) (railwaygazette.com 2009)

7.2.4. 7.2.3 Velaro D Train set Since the Siemens trains offer more advantages and more choices compare to the other train sets, HSW will use the Velaro train sets. Out of Velaro family, Velaro D train sets will be used.

The main reason for choosing Velaro D in the High Speed West project is the Velaro D was designed as multi-systems trains. Therefore they can be used in many European countries and can also be designed to suit the local system, especially in the United Kingdom. For example, it can be joined to the ICE3 in Germany.(Siemens, 2010a)

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 104 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The other reason is Velaro D is designed with a multiple-unit train set where the train‘s underfloor is scattered with traction motors and other technical modules. Consequently, more space for passengers is available along the full length of the train giving 20 % more room than other train sets. The equipment inside the train e.g. furniture and fixtures can be transformed quickly depending on passenger comfort requirement (Siemens, 2010a).

Figure 7-11:Velaro D has improved in aerodynamic measures (Siemens 2010)

The Velaro D has new aerodynamic measures which have been tested in wind tunnels and is an evolution from other Velaro train sets operating in Spain, China and Germany. It has improvements on the spoiler, nose and front part of the trains. The other alteration which differ from previous Velaro train sets are the roof mounted equipment, intercar gangways, and bogies that reduce the power consumption (Siemens, 2010a).

The roof concept is designed to reduce the sonic boom when travelling into the tunnels and decrease external air disturbances. The pantograph and air conditioning parts on the roof are also covered by panels, improving aerodynamics (Siemens, 2010a).Thus, this train set suits the HSW project since 31% of the route will go through the tunnels.

In term of energy efficiency, Velaro D has improvements in the braking system with 10 % energy saving and less mechanical wear. Therefore, the train system will operate with maximum effectiveness.(Siemens, 2010a)

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 105 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 7-12: Velaro D on the test line (Siemens 2010)

The Velaro D is environmentally friendly since the CO2 emission is equivalent to 14 g per person. The other train sets may have more than that, since Velaro D is an improvement from others in Velaro family. (Siemens, 2010a) (Bell, 2010a)

The cost for Velaro D is about €30 million per train (Bell, 2010b), the HSW route requires 11 trains. Therefore the total cost for the trains is €330 million.

Velaro D Technical Data Maximum speed 320 kph Train length 200 Voltage system 15/25 kV AC and 1.5/3 kV DC- Maximum Traction Power 8000kW Brake systems Regenerative, eddy-current brake, pneumatic Number of axles 32(16 driven) Number of bogies 16 Axle load <17 t Number of cars/ trains 8 Table 7-5: The Technical data for Velaro D train set.(Siemens 2010)

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 106 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

7.3. Power System The Velaro D requires 8000 kW traction power to run at maximum speed. The Velaro D supports both 15/25 kV AC and 1.5/3 kV DC (Siemens, 2010a).The train has an AC to DC converter to convert supply from the overhead line. Transformers are needed to obtain the desired power to run the train. The purpose of the transformer is to convert the grid voltage to the correct line voltage for the Velaro.

On the HSW route, a third rail is not used as this would impose a speed limit of 145 kph (Railway Technical Web Pages, 1998-2010a) See section 6.7. Therefore, HSW will only use an overhead line to carry AC supply. The Velaro D uses two pantographs for 3kV DC, 15kV AC with 16.6Hz and 25kV AC with 50Hz pantographs (Siemens, 2010a). Therefore, the train is equipped with six pantographs in total.

Figure 7-13The power from grid to the train via three phase (ABB 2010)

The traction transformer is a very important component for the train‘s onboard traction chain. The traction transformers that have been installed onto the Velaro D are actually supplied by ABB (ABB, 2010), therefore any maintenance service related to the power equipment onboard the train will be referred to ABB. The transformers that are installed on the Velaro have to fulfil a number of special criteria. Firstly, the transformer must be a single transfer point for energy between catenaries and the motor, so it must meet high consistency levels. It also has to be compact with a proper size and weight and finally, it must support different voltages and frequencies (ABB, 2010). Thus, this will allow the train to be used in the event of a Western Star Train being connected to other networks, since HSW is using a one system dual AC supply. The traction motor is also an important component for the train, because it will drive the wheel of the vehicle.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 107 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The Velaro D uses an AC traction motor because they can be used to travel at high speed and for long distances.

Figure 7-14: The diagram describes the power from over head line until the traction motor (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010b) The Velaro train set will constantly receive an AC power supply from overhead lines via a pantograph. The electric current then goes to line voltage and is fed to a traction transformer to convert it up or down depending on the amount of current that train needs. A secondary winding is taken off for the AC-DC rectifier to produce a DC output of about e.g. 1500-2000 volt DC (depends on the application). The DC current then goes to an auxiliary power circuit and a DC- AC inverter (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010b).The inverter produces AC current to control the traction motor. However, DC current from auxiliary power circuit goes to lighting, etc. The traction motor will drive the train's wheels. The circuit is complete when the train wheel is in contact with the track.

7.3.1. Risks There are a number of risks associated with power (refer to Section 6.7). In the event of failure, Siemens addresses this issue by using a backup battery onboard the train. This battery can drive the train up to 40 km after a power failure.(Siemens, 2010a).

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 108 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

7.4. Signalling

7.4.1. Background The fundamental purpose of the signalling system is to give the train‘s drivers enough time to stop the vehicle. High speed rail is different from other ground vehicles as it use steel wheels. The train has lower friction and therefore needs more time to stop. High speed trains require at least 2km to fully stop from average speed and need 3 km on a downhill slope. (Feather, 1999)

Figure 7-15 The figure above illustrates a warning and stopping signal before an obstruction on the line. (Feather 1999)

Below are some key definitions for Figure 7-15

1. The distance that driver can see a warning signal and take action on it, is called the sighting distance 2. The distance that the train requires to brake is called the braking distance. It depends on speed limit, gradient and brakes 3. The safety margin between the end of the braking distance and the obstruction is called the overlap distance (Feather, 1999)

There are two principles of signalling which are followed, signal interlocking and fail-safe systems (Bonnett, 2005). The signal interlocking concept ensures that signals are not cleared by other signals until the train has passed it. For instance, for a point set in a particular direction to connect two rails, interlocking prevents conflicting commands which change the orientation of that point until the train has safely cleared the area. The fail-safe concept is used in the event of failure, where the signal would always go to its danger position e.g. red light.

The block system was introduced which splits the rail line between boxes, stations or junction into block sections. The main principle behind this was that no more than one train was allowed on a block section on a single line. The gap for a train (headway) between two blocks is theoretically two minutes (Strohl, 1993), but for HSW the minimum headway that has been set is five minutes due to higher speeds. This allows a maximum of 12 trains per hour running on each

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 109 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

track in each direction. Siemens have implemented a new signalling system for the Velaro which is European Train Control System (ETCS). Further discussions on ETCS are on the following paragraph

7.4.2. Automatic Train Control (ATC) Automatic Train Control is a train protection system. It ensures that the train moves in a safe and smooth operation on the track. It also includes Automatic Train Protection (ATP) for train and passenger safety (Siemens AG, 2009). The ATC also performs Automatic Train Operation (ATO) functions for the operation of each train between the control centre and onboard equipment, that continuously links or transmits the data e.g. speed profile and other events. The ATC also perform the Automatic Train Supervision (ATS) functions which control the traffic for the entire track. The principle that is involved in this system is the fixed block principle and train headway.

The new ATC system that is used for controlling the train network is Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC) system. Fundamental of CBTC is the continuous and bi-directional communication between on-board trains and control centre. (Siemens AG, 2009) The train‘s headway is based on moving blocks principle. In this system, the detection train is computer controlled in which the onboard train computer will send its own position to the control centre rather that being carried out by track circuit laid along the railway. In case of danger points ahead, the control centre will assign the protection to each. The CBTC enforces safe spacing based on moving blocks (Siemens AG, 2009). The onboard ATC sets out the maximum allowed speed profile that trains should follow in order to run safely on the line and stop safely before reaching at the danger point. The interchange information from train to control centre is done via data rate radio. For HSW, the data will be transmitted and received via Global System for Mobile Communications Radio (GSM-R). GSM-R is proven and tested by the GSM standard (Siemens AG, 2009).

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 110 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 7-16: The Onboard train cab Figure 7-17: The connection between control centre and onboard train cab is continuously via GSM-R signal. (Siemens AG 2009)

The CBTC system focuses on the several things. Firstly by optimising the headway, separating trains by a distance corresponding to their stopping distance plus a safe margin. Secondly, to ensure the moving block is free from any physical dividing of the line and from the line side signals. Therefore the maintenance costs will be reduced. Another aim of the CBTC is to make the operation more flexible. It happens by controlling the moving block length to a particular attribute of each train.

For HSW, the automatic train controls that will be used are based on CBTC. This system will ensure the trains are at an acceptable safety level. The further development of High Speed West might travel across the continent such as from Plymouth to Paris or Germany. Therefore the systems that has to meet the requirements for crossing the continent have to be met which is ETCS.

7.4.3. The European Train Control System (ETCS) The European Train Control System is a signalling system that aims to unify all train signalling and control systems across European countries. It has been set to remove the jumbled of signalling technologies when trains cross the continent (Webel, 2010). ETCS is designed to allow trains to cross countries easily without having to change the locomotive, which would adds a significant time to the overall journey (Siemens AG, 2002-2011) (Franz Eber).

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 111 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

This new system is not only focused on changing the train signalling and communication system, it also allows the controlling and monitoring of the infrastructure along the track. The main devices used in this system are antennas, radar systems and signal receiving. It can determine the position and identify each train. To make it work, a few components need to be replaced in each train and along every route in Europe. There are various companies all over Europe that have been involved in producing this system, including Siemens, Bombardier, and Alstom (Webel, 2010). Therefore, the devices used in Europe will be well-matched with one another.

Figure 7-: Velaro D driver cab equipped with latest ATC units (Siemens AG 2002-2011)

The Siemens Trainguard In order to meet the European Train Control System (ETCS) standard, Siemens has created a solution called Trainguard. Trainguard is divided to Trainguard 100 and Trainguard 200, where Trainguard 100 covers level 1 ETCS while level 2 ETCS is covered by Trainguard 200. (Siemens, 2010b)

Trainguard 100 for ETCS Level 1 Trainguard 100 is a control system thats used on tracks which have to be fixed with alternating train control for operational reasons. Trainguard is also used when a cross-border interchange operates and higher safety point is needed. The Trainguard 100 control system works by the driving instruction (standard telegraph form) being transmitted to the train‘s driver via balises. A Lineside Electronic Unit (LEU) integrated within a country-specific signalling system, then picks up the signal straight away at the interlocking. The LEU then selects a signal which has been modified and delivers it to a transparent data balise. The vehicle will receive the driving instruction intermittently from balises to the train‘s balises antenna. The train‘s driver has to keep an eye on the signal when nearing the stop signals because the driving instructions cannot be updated when the train does not get in touch with the next signal (Siemens, 2010b).

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 112 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 7-18: Trainguard ETCS Level 1 (Siemens AG 2002-2010)

If the space between the balises is good for the required operation, infill can be located in between them so that the vehicle will be able to proceed faster than before. This lets the network operator enhance the line operation on certain sections. The infill can be a possible option via a loop at low speed. Therefore, the trains can receive the permission to proceed immediately without having to slow down their speed. Level 1 ETCS is a constant automatic train control system within a loop area (Siemens AG, 2002-2010). The driver will get information continuously about the allowed speed and track profile ahead on the cab display, DMI (part of Trainguard) and ETCS. Thus, uncertainty signal and unusual speed are ignored. In case of the train goes above the allowable maximum speed, firstly visual and audible warnings are transmitted to the driver. If he fails to react, a service brake will be turned on to slow down the train until it stops. In case of a hazard ahead, Trainguard 100 will activate the braking according to a speed level profile (service brake or emergency breaking) (Siemens AG, 2002-2010)

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 113 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Trainguard 200 for ETCS level 2

Figure 7-19 Trainguard ETCS Level 2 (Siemens AG 2002-2010)

For the Trainguard 200 system, the information or driving instructions are transmitted to the train‘s cab by radio via Radio Block Centre (RBC) in type of standard telegrams per (GSM-R)/ Euroradio. The RBC receives the data about the signal settings and position of train from interlocking. It is actually the purpose of Eurobalises type S21 which is serving as reference points to determine the position of the train. The changes of instruction to the driver can be conveyed to the train cab immediately because the RBC/vehicle wirelesses link is permanent (Siemens, 2010b).

In Trainguard 200 mixed operation signals can be used, it does not require pure Level 2 operation only. This means is that, an extended Level 1functinality can also be used by sending the information to the balises instead of radio. The train processes the broadcasted speed profile by using a fixed balises along the track like an electronic milestone for a point of reference. The train also frequently shows its location to RBC therefore its present location can be determined by the RBC. The lineside signalling is no longer used because all relevant control variables are presented in the trains cab to be monitored by the driver (Siemens AG, 2002-2010).

The benefits of the Trainguard 200 are shorter headways, because the train can move in series separately of signal distances. It provides a low cost for infrastructure as it does not require fixed signals. The other benefit is electronic foresight running based on section blocks, therefore permitting a maximum operating speed and maximum headway (Siemens, 2010b). When the Western Star trains travel in tunnels, the trains will switch from ETCS Level 2 to ETCS Level 1 because the signalling that will be receive via antenna may experience distortion. Therefore the signal will be transmitting to the interlocking via balises which are installed with cables. As a result the information received by the train is continuous. HSW will use Trainguard 200 as the main signalling and control system.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 114 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

7.4.4. European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) The ERTMS is the combination of two important elements which are ETCS and GSM-R. The ETCS is a train-based computer which will compare the speed of the train with the maximum allowed speed and will cut down the train speed if it already travels above the maximum permitted speed. GSM-R is based on standard GSM but the frequency used is different depending on the railway company. It was a radio system which receives and transmits data between the train and trackside (interlocking) (European Railway Agency, 2005-2010). Siemens has used the ERTMS in the Trainguard 200 because it was involved ETCS and GSM-R. Therefore this also will be implemented in HSW.

The advantage of using ERTMS is that less infrastructure is needed because every signal will be transmitted wirelessly. However, wireless signals might have interference during transmitting or receiving the signal.

Figure 7-20: The signal is transmitted to the train antenna via GSM-R network.

Equipment involved in the ERTMS For this signalling system to work, there are two things that must be considered, onboard train equipment and trackside equipment. For onboard the train, the equipment that needed is a, Train Control Computer, Control and Display Unit, ETCS train Antenna, Odometer Pulse Generator, and Tools for Configuration, Commissioning and Maintenance.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 115 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The equipment that will be installed on trackside is Trainguard LEU, Trainguard Balises, Trainguard Euroloop and Tools for Configuration, Commissioning and Maintenance.

Equipment Functionality European Vital Computer ETCS level 1 and 2 functionality, communication, Fail-safe and speed measurement Balises channel and antenna Perform basic purpose antenna for all balise system. Driver machine interface ETCS cab signalling and operator control Odometer Pulse Generator Give the central computer the data needed about the direction of wheel rotation Radar Provide range information. Juridical Recorder Unit Recording all data running train and national system. Table 7-6: The onboard train equipment. (Siemens AG, 2002-2010) All the necessary equipments is already available with the Velaro D train set.

Figure 7-21:The equipment needed at both onboard train and lineside. (Siemens AG, 2010)

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 116 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

The Trackside Equipment has to be installed in a specific location in order to make the signal transmission work smoothly.

Equipments Functionality Lineside Electronic Unit Links the data balises or Euroloop with the signal on the line. Eurobalises For intermittent data transmission between tract and train Euroloop To make sure data transmission is continuously receive from fixed system to the train Mini Lineside Electronic Unit Linked the Eurobalises to the lineside signal, convert signal aspect to the ETCS telegrams Modular Decentralized element To decentralized control of signals and train protection systems. operating module Radio Block Centre To secure GSM-R data transmission. Generate the driving instruction from the track data from the interlocking and transmitted to the train Table 7-7: the line side Equipment. (Siemens AG, 2002-2010)

Figure 7-22Figure 7.4.9: The position of each equipment for ETCS level 1 and level 2 (Siemens AG, 2010)

The use of this standard signalling allows HSW to expand to other EU countries e.g. from Plymouth to Paris. It is also allows other wheel on rail high speed trains to use the high speed line.

For HSW, the location for the control centres is determined by the distance that the signal can transmit to the trains. Therefore, one control centre will be built at Bristol (Depot side) and the other one will be built at London which is near end of the London tunnel. However on the each end of tunnel there will have an antenna to receive the information from control centres and send it trough balises in the tunnel to recap by the train during travel within the tunnel.

[ 7 ] – Train System Written By: Mohd Abduallah 117 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

8. System Operations

8.1. Rolling Stock Overview

8.1.1. Western Star train data The Siemens Velaro has been chosen as the Western Star train to run on HSW. Technical data for the Siemens Velaro has been obtained from various sources. One source is a number of technical data sheets for different versions of the Siemens Velaro. These technical data sheets are for the Velaro E (Siemens, 2008a), Velaro CN (Siemens, 2006), Velaro RUS (Siemens, 2007), Velaro D (Siemens, 2008b), and another general Velaro sheet (Siemens, 2003). Another source for the Velaro train information was acquired through private communications with Lance Bell from Siemens (Bell, 2010a).

From these sources, certain characteristics for the proposed rolling stock have been detailed. The Western Star train length is 200 m, and the maximum speed that could be achieved is 350 kph. Each train set will have eight cars, with variable seating capacity; from 400 to 600 seats possible.

It is important to confirm that the train set chosen for the Western Star service would be able to meet the requirements specified in the proposal for the project. In order to predict whether the trains could complete the journeys specified in the HSW route in the required time, the velocity profile of the train has been found.

After consulting with Siemens and taking figures from technical data sheets, velocity data for the Siemens Velaro was collated, and is detailed in Table 8-1.

Time (Seconds) Velocity (kph) 0 0 44 100 120 200 318 300 473 350 Table 8-1: Initial reference train velocity data points. (Siemens, 2003)

An acceleration profile for the Velaro has been created from these data points in order to estimate the journey times of High Speed West.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 118 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

8.1.2. The velocity profile for the reference train Using the velocity data given in Table 8-1, a curve is created to approximate the acceleration of the train. Given the five data points, a fourth order polynomial is created of the form:

Equation 8-1

Equation 8-1 is used to produce an accurate approximation of the curve. In Equation 8-1, y is the velocity and x is the time in seconds. The coefficients a, b, c d and e are unknowns that have to be calculated using numerical methods. Substituting for the time and velocity at each point, the following set of equations are produced:

Equation 8-2 Equation 8-3 Equation 8-4 Equation 8-5 Equation 8-6

Using the Gauss elimination numerical method technique on Equations 8-2 to 8-6, the solutions are found for the five coefficients. Consequently the following fourth order polynomial is created:

This polynomial is used to create a table (See CD Appendix) listing the velocity of the train at each second, from zero to 473 seconds. From this table, a graph of the velocity of the train is produced which is shown in Figure 8-1.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 119 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Acceleration profile 400

350

300

250

200

150 Velocity Velocity (kph) 100

50

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time (s)

Figure 8-1 The calculated acceleration profile of Western Star.

In Figure 8-1 it can be seen that the train accelerates at a fast rate at a low velocity. The air disturbance around the train causes the rate of acceleration to decrease as the train increases in velocity. This can be attributed to large drag forces produced on the train when travelling at high speeds of more than 200 kph.

To complete the velocity profile of the train in service, the rate of deceleration of the Siemens Velaro train also has to be found. The technical data sheets however give only the braking profiles for emergency stopping. These braking profiles are when the train is trying to come to a complete stop in the shortest time possible. Therefore these profiles were of limited help in creating a deceleration rate, as this emergency braking would be uncomfortable for passengers when travelling on the train in normal service.

To find a better estimation of the deceleration rate of high speed trains, the data for other high speed trains was consulted. The Bombardier Zefiro is a similar high speed train to the Siemens Velaro and was chosen to gain information from. The technical data sheet for the Bombardier Zefiro listed the deceleration rate for the train as -0.6 ms-2. (Bombardier, 2005) Using this value as a guideline for the Siemens Velaro, a value of -0.5 ms-2 was chosen and used to create the velocity profile for the train. This more conservative value was chosen, as the Siemens Velaro may not perform in the same manner as the Zefiro.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 120 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Now that the train could be accurately modelled, each journey leg time was estimated in turn using the equations of motion, and using the route and infrastructure identified in Sections 5 and 6. Figures 8-2 to 8-5, show estimated journey times for the Western Star service on High Speed West.

London to Plymouth Velocity Profiles 350

300

250

200

150

Velocity (kph) Velocity 100

50 London Southampton Bristol Exeter Plymouth 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Time (mins)

320 kph max. velocity 350 kph max. velocity

Figure 8-2 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from London Waterloo to Plymouth Station.

London to Cardiff Velocity Profiles 350

300

250

200

150

Velocity (kph) Velocity 100

50 London Southampton Bristol Cardiff 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Time (mins)

320 kph max. velocity 350 kph max. velocity

Figure 8-3 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from London Waterloo to Cardiff Station.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 121 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Plymouth to London Velocity Profiles 350

300

250

200

150

100 Velocity (kph) Velocity 50

0 Plymouth Exeter Bristol Southampton London 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Time (mins)

320 kph max. velocity 350 kph max. velocity

Figure 8-4 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from Plymouth Station to London Waterloo.

Cardiff to London Velocity Profiles 350

300

250

200

150 Velocity (kph) Velocity 100

50

Cardiff Bristol Southampton London 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Time (mins)

320 kph max. velocity 350 kph max. velocity

Figure 8-5 The velocity profiles of the Western Star from Cardiff Station to London Waterloo.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 122 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figures 8-2 and 8-3 show the westbound services of Western Star, and the eastbound services are displayed in Figures 8-4 and 8-5. The figures show the Siemens Velaro train modelled, at a maximum speed of 320 kph (blue line) and at a maximum speed of 350 kph (red line).

Figure 8-2 shows the velocity profile of the Siemens Velaro as it travels from the London terminus of Waterloo station to Plymouth Station. The figure shows the train accelerating from London Waterloo to a maximum speed of 70 kph. This a necessary requirement for the train as it travels on the existing national rail network and through Vauxhall Station before entering the London Tunnel. After this restriction the train accelerates up to a maximum speed of 250 kph in the London Tunnel. This 250 kph restriction is in place because this is the fastest speed the trains are permitted to travel given the design of the tunnel. The train continues at 250 kph for the entire length of the London tunnel. The train travels at 250 kph across the entire network for the extensive tunnel with lengths of more than 4 km. In cuttings and tunnels shorter than this length, it is assumed that the train can travel at maximum design speed. This assumption is based on the infrastructure of the network allowing for the train to travel at maximum speed, see Section 5.

After the train exits the tunnel; it accelerates to its maximum design speed of either 320 kph or 350 kph. The train then travels at top speed until approaching the tunnel at Southampton; it decelerates at a rate of -0.5 ms-2 until reaching the desired 250 kph to travel in the tunnel. After travelling in the tunnel for a short time the train brakes to a stop at Southampton Station. Travelling at 320 kph the train reaches Southampton in 28.5 minutes, and at 350 kph maximum, the train arrives in 27.4 minutes. The train then remains at Southampton Station for two minutes. Two minutes dwell time is used at all stations to allow passengers to board and alight from the train.

Leaving Southampton, the train accelerates to maximum speed. Constant acceleration can be tolerated because the train does not exceed 250 kph in the tunnel following Southampton Station. Once top speed is reached, the train continues at the same speed until being required to decelerate for the tunnel at Bristol. The train travels at 250 kph for approximately one minute and then decelerates to a stop at Bristol Station. Travelling at 320 kph maximum speed, the train completes the leg to Bristol in 57.6 minutes, and at 350 kph maximum speed; the train arrives in 55 minutes.

This velocity profiles, thus far, is similar in both Figure 8-2 and Figure 8-3. After Bristol Station, the train can either travel to Cardiff Station or towards Exeter and Plymouth Stations. Figure 8-2 shows the train travelling to Exeter Station and then onto Plymouth Station, while Figure 8-3

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 123 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

shows the train travelling to Cardiff Station. The journey leg from Bristol to Cardiff is completed entirely in tunnels and therefore the train is restricted to 250 kph. As such, this leg is completed in 9.5 minutes regardless for top speed cannot be reached. This gives a total journey time of 69 minutes travelling at 320 kph maximum from London to Cardiff and a total time of 66.5 minutes travelling at 350 kph maximum.

Figure 8-2 shows the train carrying on from Bristol Station to Plymouth Station via Exeter Station. Travelling at 320 kph maximum, the train reaches Plymouth in 104.2 minutes, at 350 kph maximum the train reaches the station in 100.3 minutes. It can be seen in both figures that the 350 kph train takes less time than the 320 kph train to reach each station from London to Cardiff/ Plymouth.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 124 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

8.1.3. Predicted travel times of High Speed West journey legs From the velocity profiles for the Siemens Velaro, the travel times for each journey leg have been tabulated. Table 8-2 shows journey times of the Siemens Velaro for each possible journey westbound, compared against the current journey times. Table 8-3 is similar, showing the journey times for each possible journey eastbound.

Nomenclature for Table 8-2 and Table 8-3: L – London S – Southampton B – Bristol E – Exeter P – Plymouth C - Cardiff

Journey Leg Current Time 320 kph max. 350 kph max. Current vs. Current vs. (mins) Time (mins) Time (mins) 320 kph (%) 350 kph (%) L - S 74 28.5 27.4 39 37 L - B 97 57.6 55 59 57 L - C 120 69 66.5 58 55 L – E 123 85.7 82 70 62 L - P 180 104.2 100.3 58 56 S – B 98 27.1 25.7 28 26 B – C 47 9.5 9.5 20 20 B – E 59 26.2 25 44 42 E – P 57 16.5 16.3 29 29 S – C 150 38.6 37.2 25.7 29 S – E 142 55.3 52.7 39 37 S – P 206 73.8 71 36 34 B – P 119 44.7 43.3 38 36 Table 8-2: Journey times for westbound journey legs. (National Rail, 2010)

Journey Leg Current Time 320 kph max. 350 kph max. Current vs. Current vs. (mins) Time (mins) Time (mins) 320 kph 350 kph (%) (%) P – L 180 104 100.1 58 56 P - E 53 16.3 16.1 31 30 P – B 119 44.7 43.4 38 36 P – S 204 75.7 72.9 37 36 E – B 61 26.4 25.3 43 41 E – S 142 55.3 52.8 39 37 E – L 125 85.7 82 69 66 B – S 99 26.9 25.5 27 26 B – L 96 57.3 54.7 60 57 C – B 47 9.5 9.5 20 20 C – S 152 38.4 37 25 24 C – L 119 68.7 66.2 58 56 Table 8-3: Journey times for eastbound journey legs (National Rail, 2010)

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 125 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Tables 8-2 and 8-3 list the predicted time savings for the journey legs of HSW against current rail travel times. The majority of the journeys both eastbound and westbound are equal to or less than the required time saving of 60% of the current journey time.

Both Table 8-2 and Table 8-3 show that the only predicted journey times that exceed 60% of the current journey times, are train journeys from London to Exeter, or Exeter to London. It can be seen that even though there is a considerable saving on these journeys of approximately 40 minutes, the predicted times are approximately 60% to 70% of the current journey times. This can attributed to the fact that Western Star service has to reach Exeter Station via both Southampton and Bristol Stations. The current train journey from Central London to Exeter is almost a direct service, stopping only at Reading Station on its journey.

Exeter Station however was not included in the initial proposal and thus reducing the journey time to reach the 60% saving is not a project requirement. Exeter was included as a stop after considering the demand statistics. It was viewed as logical decision because the HSW route needs to pass through Exeter City Centre en route to Plymouth Station. The journey times though to and from Plymouth meet the required 60% even when the train stops at Exeter. Travelling at 320 kph maximum, the train reaches Plymouth from London in 58% of the current time, at 350 kph maximum the train completes the journey in 56% of the current time. These times combined with the favourable demand figures for stopping at Exeter shown in Section 4, lead to the logical decision that Exeter Station should be included in HSW despite the fact that the journey times do not reach the desired standard. As all journeys to and from other station can be completed within the required 60%, it seems logical to keep Exeter, as a destination on the HSW line.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 126 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

8.1.4. Choice of design speed Figures 8-2 to 8-5 show the velocity profiles of two possible maximum speeds: 320 kph or 350 kph. It can be seen from these figures that travelling at 350 kph maximum, the train completes each journey in a faster and more favourable time. Although travelling at 350 kph maximum, the train takes less time, on all the journeys across the network the difference never exceeds five minutes. Despite travelling at 320 kph maximum, the train meets the required journey times.

HS2 has modelled several different maximum speed trains on the London Euston to Birmingham. (High Speed Two Ltd, 2009b) In the document they compare a number of scenarios of trains with a maximum velocity of 300 – 360 kph. The report found that for a saving of 3.5 minutes, 23% more energy is consumed. This value is comparable to some of the journey legs on High Speed West. For example the saving of 3.9 minutes from London to Plymouth, when travelling on the 350 kph maximum train compared to the 320 kph train is similar to the value given in the report.

Martin Lindahl (Lindahl, 2001) describes that in 2010, the technology to run at 350 kph will start to be incorporated. This means that the technology is still being developed, whereas 320 kph is commonly used throughout Europe, with the new rolling stock fleet for Eurostar even being named the e320. (Rail Express, 2010). Taking the extra energy consumption into consideration, along with the fact that the 320 kph trains are commonly used on other high speed networks, and they reach the destinations within the 60% limit (apart from London to Exeter), it leads to the logical decision that the 320 kph train is the best choice for High Speed West. Subsequently the journey times for the 320 kph train will be used when calculating the timetable for High Speed West.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 127 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

8.2. Logistics

8.2.1. Objective of train operations For the HSW system to be a commercial success it must meet the customer‘s needs effectively. This involves operating the system so that the trains transport passengers in the most efficient way possible. High speed trains only create revenue when transporting people. If the trains are used uneconomically; i.e. by leaving them in stations or sidings for example, they are not creating income for the company. Therefore resourceful scheduling is crucial in the operation of aircraft and high speed trains. To produce an effective schedule for high speed trains, there are several factors that need to be considered:  Train capacity and loading capacity;  Demand statistics;  Round trip time;  Headways;  Stabling and maintenance.

8.2.2. Western Star passenger capacity The Western Star trains for HSW are based on the Siemens Velaro; it has 8 cars as standard. The Velaro has a possible capacity of 510 seated and 304 standing passengers for each 8 car train. (Siemens, 2008d) With respect to the Technical Specification of Interoperability (TSI), the train meets its requirements perfectly since it allows for two trains to be coupled together to give a total length of 400 m. (Siemens, 2008b) This capacity could be advantageous in the future for dealing with potential demand growths, and allows the train to be able to travel on the European high speed rail network. Each station on HSW will be supplied with facilities so that trains can be split/ joined for the possibility of coupled trains being run.

An example of the layout of a Siemens Velaro D is shown in Figure 8-6. The diagram shows the seating arrangements in an 8 car train; two of the cars contain first class accommodation with 1+2 seating. The other six cars carry the standard class passengers with 2+2 seating arrangement. The Velaro train can also accommodate two more standing persons per square metre. (Siemens, 2008d)

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 128 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 8-6 An example layout of a Siemens Velaro D train. (Siemens, 2008b)

The predicted train capacity is also dependent on a load factor for the train. Passengers do not fill trains equally from end to end and passengers do not arrive at stations in steadily flowing numbers throughout each hour. (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010c) A load factor of 75 %, for an average of a typical weekday, has been chosen for HSW. This factor is similar to the predictions of HS2 which is 70 %. (High Speed Two Ltd, 2009b) A higher value has been chosen because it is understood that passengers are more likely to stand on short-period train trips, and it is accepted as a cost efficient way of moving large numbers of passengers. (WS Atkins, 2010) According to WS Atkins, a value of 60 % to 80 % means that there will be some standing throughout the day but mainly on peak-hour services. (WS Atkins, 2010) The load factor could be altered in the future; it is dependent on the predicted demand of the services. If the projected demand were to change, the load factor would adjust to reflect this. A load factor of 75 % gives a Western Star train a capacity of 611 passengers.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 129 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

8.2.3. Projected demand statistics To calculate the amount of trains required on HSW, the demand figures that have been proposed for the system were consulted. Tables 8-4 to 8-6, show passenger movements for the HSW system, 10 years after the proposed opening date. Each of the tables shows the amount of movements both westbound and eastbound during a whole day.

Westbound Eastbound LS SB BC BE EP PE EB CB BS SL < 06:00 0 6 0 9 0 0 15 0 47 78 06:00 - 07:00 56 46 13 54 31 59 85 140 409 527 07:00 - 08:00 377 294 344 163 127 213 431 603 1737 2430 08:00 - 09:00 502 378 346 307 86 149 589 570 1130 1294 09:00 - 10:00 452 399 262 289 98 130 227 373 739 934 10:00 - 11:00 713 560 270 240 110 114 221 242 636 853 11:00 - 12:00 534 397 147 158 21 26 89 137 345 502 12:00 - 13:00 459 326 137 80 23 80 120 428 585 711 13:00 - 14:00 674 343 171 77 63 78 174 134 422 537 14:00 - 15:00 628 464 195 136 68 37 141 165 348 416 15:00 - 16:00 1019 804 267 310 100 64 149 189 401 502 16:00 - 17:00 807 728 201 126 57 46 134 167 373 439 17:00 - 18:00 1356 743 236 240 77 41 135 134 312 415 18:00 - 19:00 860 653 219 217 95 34 78 140 248 330 19:00 - 20:00 461 333 122 91 33 13 57 59 120 127 20:00 - 21:00 233 155 89 52 14 10 15 47 64 64 21:00 - 22:00 123 92 36 22 3 7 4 28 19 22 22:00 - 23:00 61 33 37 0 0 4 27 28 0 6 > 23:00 94 74 2 21 14 0 0 12 0 36 Table 8-4: Weekday number of passengers per hour travelling on HSW in 2033, the table formed from data in the Projected Demand section of Section 4 of this report

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 130 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Westbound Eastbound LS SB BC BE EP PE EB CB BS SL < 06:00 0 3 2 6 0 0 10 0 40 67 06:00 - 07:00 28 24 14 35 18 54 58 127 344 450 07:00 - 08:00 190 154 93 105 75 196 292 546 1460 2073 08:00 - 09:00 253 197 119 198 51 138 399 516 950 1104 09:00 - 10:00 228 208 126 186 58 120 154 338 621 797 10:00 - 11:00 359 292 176 155 65 105 150 219 535 728 11:00 - 12:00 269 207 125 102 12 24 60 124 290 428 12:00 - 13:00 231 170 103 52 14 74 82 387 491 607 13:00 - 14:00 339 179 108 50 37 72 118 121 355 458 14:00 - 15:00 316 242 146 88 40 34 95 150 292 355 15:00 - 16:00 513 420 253 200 59 59 101 171 337 428 16:00 - 17:00 406 380 229 81 34 42 91 151 313 374 17:00 - 18:00 683 388 234 155 46 38 91 121 262 354 18:00 - 19:00 433 341 206 140 56 32 53 126 209 282 19:00 - 20:00 232 174 105 59 19 12 39 54 101 109 20:00 - 21:00 117 81 49 33 8 9 10 43 54 55 21:00 - 22:00 62 48 29 14 2 7 3 25 16 19 22:00 - 23:00 30 17 10 0 0 4 18 25 0 5 > 23:00 47 39 23 13 8 0 0 11 0 31 Table 8-5: Number of passengers per hour travelling on HSW on a Saturday in 2033, the table formed from data in the Projected Demand section of Section 4 of this report

Westbound Eastbound LS SB BC BE EP PE EB CB BS SL < 06:00 0 1 0 2 0 0 4 0 17 29 06:00 - 07:00 9 8 3 13 7 23 25 55 147 194 07:00 - 08:00 59 49 92 40 29 83 128 238 626 894 08:00 - 09:00 78 63 92 75 20 58 175 225 407 476 09:00 - 10:00 71 67 70 71 22 51 67 147 266 344 10:00 - 11:00 111 94 72 59 25 45 66 96 229 314 11:00 - 12:00 83 66 39 39 5 10 26 54 124 185 12:00 - 13:00 72 55 37 20 5 31 36 169 211 262 13:00 - 14:00 105 57 46 19 14 31 51 53 152 197 14:00 - 15:00 98 78 52 33 15 14 42 65 125 153 15:00 - 16:00 159 135 71 76 23 25 44 74 145 185 16:00 - 17:00 126 122 54 31 13 18 40 66 134 161 17:00 - 18:00 212 124 63 59 17 16 40 53 113 153 18:00 - 19:00 134 109 59 53 21 13 23 55 90 122 19:00 - 20:00 72 56 33 22 7 5 17 23 43 47 20:00 - 21:00 36 26 24 13 3 4 4 19 23 24 21:00 - 22:00 19 15 10 5 1 3 1 11 7 8 22:00 - 23:00 9 6 10 0 0 2 8 11 0 2 > 23:00 15 12 1 5 3 0 0 5 0 13 Table 8-6: Number of passengers per hour travelling on HSW on a Sunday in 2033, the table formed from data in the Projected Demand section of Section 4 of this report

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 131 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Table 8-4 shows the predicted passenger movements on HSW on a typical weekday during 2033. The largest amount of passenger movement on a weekday is a morning-peak between Southampton Station and London Waterloo at 7 – 8 am, where 2430 have to travel between these two stations. This is the peak of passenger movements between two stations throughout a whole week on HSW, caused by the number of people wishing to commute to London on a weekday morning. It will be crucial that enough trains travel on this section to transport this large amount of passengers. Given our stated train capacity of 611 passengers, this would mean that 4 trains are required to transport these passengers to London. A 4 train per hour headway is equivalent to a 15 minute headway between trains. As shown Section 6, a headway of 12 trains per hour (tph) is the maximum allowed safely on HSW. A 4 tph peak of services does not exceed this maximum. It is important to note that while a high frequency is needed into London at this time, there is also high demand in other sections of the network such as Cardiff to Bristol during the same hour, 7 – 8 am. Therefore effective stabling and balancing of trains will be important in creating an efficient service.

From Figure 8-5, it can be seen that there are also a large number of passengers travelling to London on a Saturday, but these do not quite reach the peak of that on a weekday. At a peak of 2073 passengers, this means 4 trains would be required and a peak service, identical to that required during the week will be run on a Saturday morning.

Weekday Westbound Eastbound LS SB BC BE EP PE EB CB BS SL < 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 06:00 - 07:00 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 07:00 - 08:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 08:00 - 09:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 09:00 - 10:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 10:00 - 11:00 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 11:00 - 12:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 12:00 - 13:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 13:00 - 14:00 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14:00 - 15:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15:00 - 16:00 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16:00 - 17:00 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17:00 - 18:00 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18:00 - 19:00 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19:00 - 20:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 20:00 - 21:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 21:00 - 22:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 - 23:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 23:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 8-7: Number of trains required per hour on HSW on a Weekday in 2033.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 132 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Saturdays Westbound Eastbound LS SB BC BE EP PE EB CB BS SL < 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 06:00 - 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 07:00 - 08:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 08:00 - 09:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 09:00 - 10:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 10:00 - 11:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 11:00 - 12:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 12:00 - 13:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 13:00 - 14:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 14:00 - 15:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 15:00 - 16:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16:00 - 17:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 17:00 - 18:00 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 18:00 - 19:00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19:00 - 20:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 20:00 - 21:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 21:00 - 22:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 - 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 8-8: Number of trains required per hour on HSW on a Saturday in 2033.

Sundays Westbound Eastbound LS SB BC BE EP PE EB CB BS SL < 06:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06:00 - 07:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 07:00 - 08:00 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 08:00 - 09:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 09:00 - 10:00 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 10:00 - 11:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 11:00 - 12:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 12:00 - 13:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 13:00 - 14:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 14:00 - 15:00 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 15:00 - 16:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 16:00 - 17:00 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 17:00 - 18:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 18:00 - 19:00 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 19:00 - 20:00 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20:00 - 21:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21:00 - 22:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22:00 - 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 23:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table 8-9: Number of trains required per hour on HSW on a Sunday in 2033.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 133 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

From Figures 8-7 to 8-9 is has been decided that the operational hours of HSW will be:  5 am until 12 am Monday – Friday;  5 am until 10 pm Saturday;  6 am until 8 pm Sunday; Outside of these times, maintenance and engineering works can be performed on the track and infrastructure of the route. It is assumed no freight services will travel on the line during non- operational hours. It is predicted that the conventional railway will have more time to accommodate freight after the completion of HSW, due to a possible reduction in passenger services.

Figure 8-7 to Figure 8-9 show the number of trains required each hour for a whole week to carry the passengers identified in the demand. If the journey leg has less than 50 predicted passengers travelling during an hour, no service will operate. If a service was operate during such hours, then it would be uneconomical. It is assumed these people would travel to the destinations on other routes such as conventional rail. In Figure 8-7, it can be seen that there is a morning peak for trains around the hours of 7-8 am, where 4 trains are required to reach London during this hour. The following hour is still part of this peak time with 3 trains required. In general, after 10 am, the service pattern decreases, with only 1 train required per journey leg per hour. Then at 3 pm, there is an afternoon-peak time in service requirements for trains leaving London finishing at 7 pm. After this time, the demand for trains decreases considerably until the end of services. It would seem logical to have different patterns of services to cope with the changing demands of the passengers. There will be a peak service run in the morning and afternoon, with a non-peak service operating at all other hours. As stated earlier, Saturdays have a morning peak similar to weekdays. Thus, a peak service will also run on Saturday morning. For the rest of Saturday and for the whole of Sunday, a non-peak service will run.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 134 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

8.2.4. Calculation of number of trains required

10 mins

58 mins

45 mins

Figure 8-7 Adapted phase map, showing journey times (Google, 2010)

To calculate the total number of trains required for HSW, the round trip times of each journey were calculated. To travel from London Waterloo to Plymouth Station takes approximately 1 hr and 45 minutes, the return trip taking approximately the same time. This gives a total time of 3 hrs 30 minutes to travel both journey legs; this however does not account for the turnaround time. The round trip time has to include the dwell time at each terminus for passengers to board and alight from the train. The dwell time is normally longer than is necessary to take account for possible delays of the train. This known as recovery time; the train can spend less time at the station terminus to leave on time as a result of delays. The infrastructure of HSW also allows for the train to travel at a 350 kph maximum speed where possible, thus helping to make up time lost from delays. The dwell time at termini is 6 minutes for peak periods, allowing trains to be utilised effectively. This is possible as the trains are double ended, i.e. there are drivers at each end of the train to improve efficiency. (Railway Technical Web Pages, 2010c) In off-peak periods, the dwell time is 15 minutes as the trains do not need to turnaround as quickly, and to simplify calculations to determine the number of trains required. The London Waterloo to Plymouth journey has a total round trip of 3 hrs 42 minutes during peak times and 4 hrs during off-peak periods. The total round trip time for London Waterloo to Cardiff is 1 hr 30 minutes in peak periods and 1 hr 48 minutes.

Given the total round trip times of London to Plymouth and London to Cardiff and the headways required per hour to meet our demand figures (as shown in Table 8-7), the total number of trains required to provide a sufficient service on HSW was found. From Table 8-7, between 7 - 8 am on

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 135 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

a weekday, 4 trains are required to travel to London from Southampton. From considering this peak and other train locations in the preceding and following hours on the rest of the system, it was calculated that 11 trains (9 in service and 2 spare) are needed to provide a sufficient service across the network to meet the demand headways on all journey legs. This is the peak of operations for the system, and during other times of the week, fewer of trains are needed to meet the projected demand.

Service Approximate Journey Peak Service (tph) Off-Peak Service (tph) Time (mins) From To London Bristol 58 3 2 Bristol Cardiff 10 2 1 Bristol Plymouth 45 2 1 Bristol London 58 4 2 Cardiff Bristol 10 2 1 Plymouth Bristol 45 2 1 Table 8-10: A table showing peak and off peak services on several journey legs

Table 8-10 shows typical off-peak trains per hour on each journey leg westbound and eastbound on HSW. Table 8-10 also shows a peak service for each journey leg. It is important to note that this is the maximum frequency of trains on each section during a particular hour throughout an entire week of operations.

Stabling and balancing rolling stock is an important aspect of effective system operations. Bristol depot and HSW termini are the only stabling points for Western Star trains. Each driver will be given a diagram and a personal timetable that the train must adhere to during each day. This includes timings of when the trains must be moved so they are in the correct places when needed. This timetable for example will include times for the driver to leave the depot so that the train can start its operations for the day on time. Diagrams will detail the locations of trains during stabling. This is important so that trains are stabled in essential areas to give the best service possible. For example, trains will need to be stabled at Bristol depot during the day so that they can be deployed at the right time to deal with peaks in service. This diagram will also detail the resting areas of the trains at non-operational hours. These instructions must be followed, or stock will be unbalanced and train services will be delayed. Each station terminus will have facilities so that trains that are stabled in them can be adequately cleaned, monitored and restocked for the next day.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 136 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Train Number - Journey Number 1-1 1-2 1-3 London Waterloo Station Arrive 06:12 09:46 Depart 06:18 09:52 Southampton Station Arrive 06:47 10:20 Depart 06:49 10:22 Bristol Station Arrive 07:16 10:49 Depart 07:18 10:51 Exeter Station Arrive 07:42 Depart 07:44 Plymouth Station Arrive 07:58 Depart 08:04 Cardiff Station Arrive 11:01 Depart 11:16 Exeter Station Arrive 08:20 Depart 08:22 Bristol Station Arrive 08:47 11:25 Depart 05:15 08:49 Southampton Station Arrive 05:42 09:16 Depart 05:44 09:18 London Waterloo Station Arrive 06:12 09:46 Table 8-11: An example time table for train 1, stating at 5.15 am on a weekday or a Saturday on HSW.

8.2.5. Maintenance To ensure the HSW services continue without any disruptions and to ensure safety, routine maintenance must take place on a regular basis. Maintenance tasks will take place for the rolling stock, as well as the infrastructure.

In addition to the nine trains that are required to ensure smooth operational service, two other trains are required. One train will be kept at Bristol depot for any possible emergency situations where it may be required to be called into service. Such a situation could occur if an operating train fails; the spare train would be required to assist in returning operations to normal.

The other train will be undergoing maintenance work, also at the Bristol depot. Both trains will be alternated within the fleet so each train travels an equal distance throughout an entire year. Maintenance of trains will be completed without disruption to the operational services of the railway. It is assumed that scheduling allows for only one train to be maintained per day. However multiple trains can be maintained at the train depot during non-service times, i.e. 12 am to 5 am on weeknights, 10 pm to 6 am on a Saturday nights and 8 pm to 5 am on Sunday nights.

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 137 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

All rolling stock running on HSW lines will undergo a rigorous maintenance regime that is similar to that used for the Inter City Express (ICE) high-speed trains in Germany. The ICE trains make use of a modern electronic diagnostic system, which transmits faults it detects wirelessly via radio to the service depot in real time. This provides the train crew with time to analyse the data sent to prepare the necessary equipment, service plan and required personnel ahead of train arrival (Strohl, 1993).

The depot for maintenance will have to be constructed two years in advance of opening as it will aid in the testing/commissioning/delivery and acceptance of the rolling stock. (High Speed Two Ltd, 2009a)

The calculated average mileage for a Western Star train in one year is approximately 320,000 km. This translates to an average of 878 km per day. If Western Star trains were to follow a maintenance schedule similar to HS2 trains as shown in Table 8-11, then they would have to come to the depot for an I1 inspection every 4.5 days. And an I2 inspection of roof mounted equipment would occur every 9.1 days. The predicted inspection intervals of the Western Star train are listed in Table 8-11.

Inspection System Task Mileage Inspection Inspection Inspection Man hours interval interval (days) interval interval (years) (km) (weeks) I1 Bogie and 4,000 4.56 0.65 0.01 24 wheels I2 Roof 8,000 9.11 1.30 0.02 48 mounted equipment M1 Majority of 100,000 113.90 16.27 0.31 224 on-board equipment M2 Majority of 400,000 455.58 65.08 1.25 576 on-board equipment M3 Majority of 800,000 911.16 130.17 2.50 on-board equipment R1 First Revision 1,600,00 1,822.32 260.33 4.99 0 R2 Second 3,200,00 3,644.65 520.66 9.98 Revision 0 Wheel re- 200,000 227.79 32.54 0.62 profiling Ultrasonic 200,000 227.79 32.54 0.62 testing Table 8-12: High Speed Maintenance Service Schedule. Adapted from: (High Speed Two Ltd, 2009a)

[ 8 ] – System Operations Written By: Matthew Bond 138 High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

9. Environmental Management

9.1. Noise and Vibration High speed trains create a significant amount of noise which can impact on the quality of life of residents near the railway line. As a consequence, the European noise directive came into force in June 2002, requiring member states to monitor, control and reduce the exposure of noise from transport and industry (Hemsworth, 2008). During the HS1 project, an environmental statement was produced and approved by the government prior to detailed design commencing, with the control of noise and vibration being key points (Johnson, 2003). Noise produced from the trains can be classified according to their sources: rolling noise, aerodynamic noise and power equipment (traction) noise. Figure 9-1 below shows that at high speed, aerodynamic and rolling noise dominates, with power equipment noise of less significance. In fact, power equipment noise is more associated with diesel trains rather than electric high speed trains. Consequently, this noise is ignored for high speed systems, as is evident from its lack of coverage in numerous texts. As such, controlling noise produced by high speed trains should be focused on managing aerodynamic and rolling noise.

Figure 9-1: Sound pressure level against train speed (Hemsworth, 2008) Noise is measured at a distance 25 m away from the centre of the railway track (Poisson et al, 2007). Table 9-1 summaries the noise values of European high speed trains. While the noise of high speed trains are within the EU directive of the Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI), they are significantly higher than the ambient noise level of 65 dB(A) (Thompson, 2009). The chosen Velaro train produce a noise emission of 91 dB(A) at 300 kph (Siemens, 2003).

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 139

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

With HSW anticipated to have trains travelling at 320 kph, the noise emission could exceed the 94 dB(A) TSI limit. Nevertheless, as the noise is significantly above the ambient 65 dB(A), noise reduction measures will be required to maintain public and government support.

Many high speed lines in France and Japan had noise reduction measurements installed after the line was open. In fact, in the late 1970s, the Japanese National Rail had to pay compensation to residents because of the excessive noise from the Shinkansen and then had to significantly reduce the speed of their trains in order to meet new noise limit requirements (Strohl, 1993). It is regularly observed from engineering projects, alterations and redesigns after construction are extremely expensive. By tackling noise reduction at the start of the design, it is possible to reach an ambient noise level, in a more cost effective manner.

Pass-by noise Test site Train speed (kph) values measured at 25 m in dB(A) TSI+ tracks 250 300 320 350 except Belgium TGV Thayls Belgium 88.5 92 93 France 88.5 90 92 Germany 88.5 TGV Duplex France 87 91 92 95 TGV Atlantique France 90.5 94.7 TGV Reseau France 89 81.5 94 (330 kph) 97 ICE3 France 87.5 90 91.5 Germany 85.5 89 92 AVE Spain 86 90 91 ETR480 Italy 90.5 ETR 500 Italy 88 90.5 TSI limits TSI+ 92 94 Table 9-1: Pass-by noise levels at 25 m dB(A) of European high speed trains (Poisson et al, 2007)

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 140

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

9.1.1. Rolling Noise Rolling noise is caused by the rolling of the steel train wheel along a steel track, with the noise dependent on the roughness of the steel. The contact zone between the wheel and track causes the rail and sleepers to vibrate and hence produce a noise (Hemsworth, 2008). Rail dampers are an effective way to mitigate against this noise, reducing up to 3 decibels (UIC, 2008). Rail dampers consists of three parts, two of which are located each side of the railweb, the other located underneath the railfoot. Each part is made of a stack of alternating layers of steel pieces and elastomer (Letourneaux et al, 2007). Wheel rings, as shown in Figure 9.2, are another effective damping device, reducing the vibrations produced by the train wheel. The ring is made of an elastomeric material in between steel circular segments and is put into a groove that is specially machined in the wheel tyre (Letourneaux et al, 2007).

Figure 9-2: Wheel ring (left) and rail damper, (Letourneaux et al, 2007)

Curve squeal is a unique noise to high speed rail, occurring in narrow curves and producing a noise greater than 10 dB(A) (Bulher and Thallemer, 2007). It occurs when ―the wheel cannot take a position in the track channel with sufficient radius difference to allow the wheel set to roll freely through the curve‖ (Bulher and Thallemer, 2007). Long curve radii (HSW uses 8 km radii, significantly more the minimum) and steerable axles are effective measures against curve squeal (Hemsworth, 2008). The use of rail dampers and wheel dampers, as used for rolling noise, further help to prevent curve squeal occurring (Thompson, 2007).

9.1.2. Aerodynamic Noise Aerodynamic noise is produced by the high speed flow of air over a train surface, particularly in the area of pantographs (Hemsworth, 2008). To mitigate against such noise, the Japanese adapted their pantographs significantly as can be seen in Figure 9.3. It can be seen that the ―single arm‖

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 141

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

pantograph is attached to the side of the train rather than onto the roof. Furthermore, there is no hinge in the middle of the arm.

Figure 9-3: Typical pantograph for (left) and single are pantograph for Shinkansen (Wakabayashi et al, 2007)

HS1 dealt with aerodynamic noise in a different way. Altering the pantograph is likely to have been impractical, with the train manufacturer better placed than the HS1 engineers to improve the pantograph. HS1 instead adjusted the catenary geometry and used noise barriers, as can be seen in Figure 9.4. Noise barriers in the past have been placed on the outside of the catenary, probably as a retrofit mitigation measure against noise. In HS1, low-level noise barriers were installed close to the train track, on the inner side of the catenary, something which is unlikely to have been possible as a retrofit. The low-level barriers are galvanised steel panels with absorbent linings, 1.4 m high (Johnson, 2003) . These low-level barriers are as effective as 2 m concrete barriers on the outside of the catenary. Furthermore, they are less visually intrusive and can be used on bridges (Johnson, 2003). These low-level noise barriers could also be used on viaducts without causing problems to the structure or problems for emergency access onto the track (Allett et al, 2002).

Another noise barrier was also used, similar in height to those used in France and Japan at up to 5 m (Strohl, 1993). The HS1 noise barriers are made of 35 mm thick softwood timer planks with occasional perforated steel panels (Johnson, 2003). The appearance is that of a timber fence, as shown in Figure 9.4, however coloured patterns were designed where wanted. These noise barriers were cost effective and easy to erect, requiring only semi-skilled labour (Johnson, 2003). In Japan, the Shinkansen had been built without noise barriers and, in 1980, plaintiffs were awarded compensation because of the excessive noise from trains (Kanda et al, 2007). As a result, expensive inverted L-shaped noise barriers, at 2.2 m high, were erected (Strohl, 1993). Figure 9.5 shows a typical L-shaped wall diagrammatically and a photograph of the wall, clearly more unsightly than the timber fence of HS1.

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 142

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Figure 9-4: Adjusted catenary height and use of low-level noise barriers, left, and timer noise barriers, designed to look liker timer fencing (Johnson, 2003)

Figure 9-5: Inverted L-shaped noise barrier for Shinkansen (Cahsrblog.com) , left and photograph of the barrier (Kanda et al, 2007)

Noise bunds were a popular way managing the noise on HS1. Noise bunds are effectively natural earth walls. These bunds were created using the excess spoil from the excavations. The bunds would then be designed together with the landscape architecture. By using noise bunds, large environmental and financial cost savings were made with less spoil dumped and less haulage required (Allett et al, 2002). The noise bunds also reduced the need for additional drainage. Still further, noise bunds were used in conjunction with noise barriers, hiding unsightly track and noise barrier from residences.

Figure 9-6: Illustration and photograph of noise barriers with noise bunds (Allett et al, 2002)

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 143

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

9.1.3. Vibration Like noise, vibrations can impact on the quality of life of individuals while also causing damage to structures. Between the vibration levels of 30 – 250 Hz, vibrations to walls of nearby structures can be experienced (Thompson, 2009). Railway vibrations are caused through ground, particularly so in tunnels. The vibrations are non-uniform and dependent on the ground geology. Therefore, unlike dealing with noise where barriers can be erected during construction, computer modelling needs to be undertaken to determine the significance of the vibrations and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures (Thompson, 2009). Nevertheless, by altering the design of the railway track, vibrations produced can be absorbed at source (Thompson, 2007). The Japanese Skinkansen tackle vibrations by using a lubber ballast mat.

Figure 9-7: Shinkansen ballast mat track (Kanda et al, 2007)

The ballast mat acts in a similar way to sleeper soffit pads, both systems absorbing noise and vibrations, making it an attractive measure for the Shinkansen system (Kanda et al, 2007)

Figure 9-8: Illustration of sleeper soffit pad (a) and ballast mat (b) (Thompson, 2009) Figure 9-8 shows a typical section of a soft sleeper pad and a ballast mat. Theses designs lower the stiffness of the ballast layer and thus the track resonance frequency (Thompson, 2009). Ballast track, compared with slab tracks, are simple to install, particularly during a re-sleepering maintenance, and allow for normal tampering operations. Furthermore, concrete slab tracks increase the amount of the vibrations produced, making it less desirable (Thompson, 2009). HS1 used a ballast mat track as this was the most cost effective and practical measure (Allett et al, 2002).

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 144

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

9.2. Landscaping With approximately 460 km of new track, the environmental impact will be significant. The route, described in detail in Section 5, despite following existing transport corridors and avoiding national parks and areas of scientific interest, still cuts through vast undeveloped. In France, the TGV-Atlantique line required 1740 hectares of land, approximately 4.5 hectares of land per kilometre of track (Strohl, 1993). To compensate for the loss of this green land, SNCF, the French rail operator, spent FF 413 million (1987 prices) creating walking paths, cycling routes, parks, tennis courts and the like. The total cost of the project was FF 13.215 billion (Strohl, 1993). Consequently, these compensatory landscaping works amounted to 3.15% of the project, a significant amount in order to gain public support for the project. In HS1, an equally large programme of landscaping was undertaken to mitigate against the environmental impact of the railway line. In total there were: 255 hectares of new woodland, 40 km of new hedgerow, 1.2 million planted trees and shrubs, 200 hectares of new, permanent grassland, 45 hectares of grass and wildflower seeding and 3 hectares of new wetland (Armour, 2003). These mitigation measures also allowed for the relocation of wildlife that had lost its habitat. Through collaboration with the Environment Agency and English Nature, HS1 were able to monitor, protect and relocate much wildlife ranging from protected water voles to more common badgers (Johnson, 2003).

Other key areas of environmental impact relate to the construction of the immersed Bristol- Cardiff tunnel. In order to construct this tunnel, a dry dock on the Severn coast in Wales needs to be constructed. This dry dock, with an area of 57 hectares, is in undeveloped land. With such a large area required for the construction of the immersed tunnel, compensation measures of creating new grasslands of equal size may prove impractical. Instead, in order to gain public support, after the immersed tunnel has been installed, the dry dock will need to be converted back into grassland. In addition, as happened with the creation of the TGV-Atlantique line, recreational parks may need to be created for the public to compensate for the temporary loss of 57 hectares of green land. The installation of the immersed tunnel is also likely to be publicly objectionable as the installation requires the river bed to be dredged, potentially impacting on the marine and costal wildlife. As happened in HS1, a large-scale survey of the wildlife and subsequent relocation of much wildlife will be required prior to the installation of the immersed tunnel. Overall, early stage involvement of the Environment Agency and English Nature is essential in the design and construction of HSW, in order to gain public support.

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 145

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

9.3. Carbon Footprint Since the introduction of the Climate Change Act 2008, the UK is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. The Department for Transport estimated in 2008 that 21% of emissions resulted from transport (Greengauge 21, 2010a). A high speed train system must therefore demonstrate that it can actively reduce transport emissions if it is to be

constructed. However, in isolation, a new high speed line may reduce or even increase CO2

emissions by 0.3% (High Speed Two Ltd, 2010). If CO2 emissions are considered per seat kilometre, a single high speed rail line results in a 9.3% increase (Network Rail, 2009a).

However, with a wide network of high speed lines throughout the UK, one million tonnes of CO2 can be saved each year by 2055 (Greengauge 21, 2010a). Such as saving is made because of the great shift away from air travel. Figure 9-9 demonstrates the low carbon impact of high speed trains compared against car and air travel. Despite the predicted widespread use of electric cars from the King Review/CCC review, it can be seen that it will take decades for car travel to be as carbon efficient as high speed trains.

Currently, high speed trains produce on average 30g of CO2 per passenger kilometre with an

optimistic prediction of emissions falling to 1g of CO2 per passenger kilometre (Davis and Thompson, 2009). The optimistic prediction stems from the fact the UK is committed to producing more power from renewable and nuclear sources and hence reducing the carbon footprint of high speed trains (Davis and Thompson, 2009). Such figures though, are not shared

by Network Rail, who predict 30.3g of CO2 per passenger km in 2025 and 15.5g of CO2 per passenger kilometre in 2040 (Network Rail, 2009a). Despite Network Rail being less optimistic about the decarbonising of electricity than others, their predictions are still lower than that of car and air travel, as can be seen in Figure 9-9.

Figure 9-9: Graph showing CO2 emissions per km for different modes of transport (Davis and Thompson, 2009)

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 146

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Nevertheless, carbon emissions from electricity generation account for 80% of total emission, dropping to 70% with a decarbonisation of the power generation (Network Rail, 2009a). While

the CO2 emissions from power production is for the government and power companies to tackle, high speed trains can be designed to use less energy. There are four main areas of energy consumption by electric trains:  ―Energy required to overcome the train‘s resistance to movement;‖  ―Energy lost to inefficiencies in the traction system between pantograph and wheel;"  ―Energy used for on-board passenger comfort functions;‖  ―Losses in the electrical supply system between the substation and pantograph.‖ (Network Rail, 2009a)

Energy required to overcome the train‘s resistance accounts for approximately three quarter‘s of the energy consumed (Network Rail, 2009a). The resistance to the train‘s movements come from two principal sources: inertia; friction and drag (Davis and Thompson, 2009).

The Davis formula for calculating the train‘s resistance on a straight level track is: R  A  Bv  Cv 2 Where:

Principal contributors Example values A Journal resistance; rolling rotational resistance; track resistance 2240 B Flange friction; flange impact; wave action of rail; wheel to rail rolling 43.53 resistance C Head end wind pressure; skin air friction on train sides; rear air drag; 4.41 air turbulence between vehicles; yaw angle of constant wind v Velocity 300 kph Table 9-2: The Davis formula‘s constants (Network Rail, 2009a)

Consequently, at high speed, the energy needed to overcome drag (Cv2) becomes the most significant term. Most of the drag occurs at the front of the train as opposed to the rest of its length. Consequently, it is more efficient to have longer trains with fewer trains running on the track. Reducing drag has resulted in trains having long noses and tails in order to make the train more streamlined (Kanda et al, 2007). Another way to reduce energy wasted is by using regenerative braking. During driving, motors consume energy in order to turn the train‘s wheels but in braking, the wheels now drive the motor, thus turning it into a generator. In this way, the braking can produce electrical energy which can then be stored in batteries (railway-energy.org, 2002). Such braking is more effective on trains with frequent stops, however, 5-7% of energy consumed can be saved through regenerative braking (Network Rail, 2009a).

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 147

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Another effective way of reducing CO2 emissions is by reducing the mass of the train. Reducing the mass of the train reduces the energy needed to overcome inertia and grade resistance (Network Rail, 2009a). By calculating energy consumed per seat kilometre, high speed trains can be as efficient as Pendolinos. Table 9-3 compares different high-speed trains to conventional rail train with an assumption that the high-speed trains are 70% full. As can be seen from Table 9-3, Shinkansen trains are the lightest and consume the least energy, whereas the Velaro appears inefficient in comparison. For the proposed Western Star service, the Velaro trains appear environmentally poor, particularly considering kWh/seat kilometre and mass per seat. However, the Velaro trains can be extended to accommodate an increased capacity, up to 601 passengers on a 200m long train (Siemens, 2006). These trains have a mass of 447 tonnes, making the mass per seat 0.74, comparable to other European high-speed trains (Siemens, 2006). TGV Duplex trains are double-deckers and , with their low top speed and physical size, are unsuitable for the proposed Western Star route. Some trains may be considered a little outdated as Eurostar are proposing to use Velaro trains in the near future (Wright, 2010b). The energy consumption though is based on the service speed of the train, meaning that trains can be more efficient depending on the infrastructure. With the proposed Western Star trains travelling at 320 kph for large sections of the route, the energy consumption per seat kilometre may be less than the Velaro in the table. Furthermore, energy consumption is greatly affected by the gradients and the number of stops on a line. As such, the energy consumption of a train can be misleading, it may be better to compare individual train lines in relation to energy consumption. Despite conventional rail showing that they consume less energy than European high speed trains, the high speed trains carry more passengers and travel greater distances. Furthermore, the justification for using Velaro trains instead of Pendolinos is that it is predicted that a significant number of car drivers will switch to Western Star and, with a national high speed network connecting to the Channel tunnel, it is assumed that air passengers too will switch. The Alstrom AGV, still in development, is a high capacity train with a greatly reduced mass. Many high speed trains have separate, dedicated power carriages at either end of the train. This AGV and Hitachi Super Express, have distributed traction with motors under the floor of the passenger carriages, thus not requiring separate power carriages. These two free carriages are then used as passenger carriages (Network Rail, 2009a).

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 148

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Table 9-3: Comparison of high-speed and conventional trains with AGV trains still under development and this are estimated (Network Rail, 2009a)

While the train and its electrical power cause CO2 emissions, there is also much embodied CO2 in the construction of HSW. ―Embodied energy is defined here as the energy required to manufacture and supply to the point of use, a product, material or service. Embodied carbon

dioxide (CO2) is defined as the CO2 emitted during these processes‖ (Symons and Symons, 2009). Clearly, with the construction of approximately 430 km of track and five new stations, the

embodied CO2 will be greater than the operation CO2 emissions. Using volumes from Spon‘s

Architect‘s Price Book (Davis Langdon, 2009) and CO2 equivalent values from Network Rail

(Network Rail, 2009a), an estimation of CO2 emissions produced from the construction of HSW can be made.

From Table 9-4 it can be seen the construction of HSW will produce 61,603 tonnes of CO2 per

year of operation. In addition to this value will be the CO2 produced from excavation and the

construction of the new stations, bringing the estimated total to 70,000 tonnes of CO2 produced per year of operation. From the projected demand, 8.5% of passenger numbers will have switched from using their car to high speed rail, which amounts to 626,052 passengers per year. Figure 9-9

shows car emission in 2033 will be between 50 – 70 g of CO2 equivalent per passenger kilometre. To simplify calculations, the average distance travelled by each passenger is 76.65 km (the total

length of the track divided by six) and the average CO2 emission of the car is estimated to be 60 g.

Therefore, the CO2 saving made by car drivers switching to high speed rail amounts to 2,879

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 149

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

tonnes of CO2 per year, approximately 4% of the yearly emissions of the line. Consequently, the HSW line, together with a decarbonisation of power generation, would need to be part of a UK

wide high speed rail network in order to cause a reduction in CO2 emissions. In isolation, HSW

will significantly increase CO2 emissions, undermining the aim of the Climate Change Act 2008. The immersed Bristol-Cardiff tunnel has been included in Table 9.4 in the tunnel section. While it may seem that this tunnel should be considered in isolation, it is known that there is disagreement

in the calculation of CO2 emissions, and as such, the immersed tunnel is included in the tunnel section of the table (Network Rail, 2009). A non-tunnel alternative to this proposed immersed tunnel would be a 58 km route (approximately 11km of bridge, 17km of tunnel), increasing the total route to 488.65 km. While such a route will not meet the 60% time target, it would be technically and financially more feasible. Environmentally though, this longer alternative

increases CO2 emissions by 2470 tonnes of CO2 per year of operation. Such an increase occurs

because of the increase in materials required, however, a full study calculating the CO2 emissions caused by the installation of the submersed tunnel would need to be undertaken in order to fully assess the carbon impact of the immersed tunnel. Such a study is beyond the scope of this feasibility study.

Net GHG emission, kg of CO2 eq per tonne of construction material Area Item Tonnes per Life Production Recycling Other Tonnes

rtkm Disposal CO2 eq per rtkm per year Rails Steel 282 30 3100 -1300 10 17.01 Rail driveway Steel 39 30 3100 -1300 10 2.35 (gravel bed, ballast sleepers, etc.) Concrete 990 30 1090 -4 10 36.17 Gravel 7950 15 8 -4 10 7.42 OHLE Structures Steel 500 30 3100 -1300 10 30.17 and Wires Aluminium 70 30 11000 -9000 10 4.69 Copper 138 30 1701 1724 10 15.80 Tunnels Soil 27000 100 4 16 10 8.10 (150.20 km) Concrete 4400 100 1090 -4 10 48.22 Steel 210 100 3100 -1300 10 3.80

Bridges Concrete 890 50 1090 -4 10 19.51 (15.30 km) Steel 49 50 3100 -1300 10 1.77

Total over 459.87km of track 61 603 rtkm – rail track kilometre

Table 9-4: Estimation of CO2 equivalent emission of HSW line construction

[ 9 ] – Environment Written By: Dylan Marques 150

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

10. Finance

10.1. Revenue

10.1.1. Tickets The proposed design is over 400 km long, with several underground stations. The estimated cost for HS2 is £20 bn taking 10 years to construct (Watt and Glover, 2010). As such, it can be expected that HSW will cost a similar amount. The Western Star tickets need to be affordable to the general public in order to encourage travellers to switch from their current mode of transport. The UK already has notoriously expensive rail fares (Milmo, 2010a) and high speed rail fares will need to be comparable to current national rail fares if passengers are willing to switch. Current weekday morning-peak direct tickets to London, if bought one day in advance on the trainline.com, cost a minimum of:

Station Price Southampton £32.70 Bristol £34 Cardiff £30.50 Exeter £34 Plymouth £36 Table 10-1: Current Rail Fares (trainline, 2010)

Return journeys are almost twice the single journey price (trainline, 2010). From Table 9-1, it can be seen that the fares are unrelated to the distance travelled and that the fares are all very similar, varying by only £4.50. Greengauge 21 has suggested single fares between £40-45, fore a new high speed line (Greengauge 21, 2010b). While such fares seems reasonable, from experience and observation, many travellers search for significantly cheaper fares by booking much in advance or purchasing a railcard. Significant discounts can be used to encourage passengers to travel at off- peak hours or to encourage passengers to use the service, thus filling capacity. Many European high speed operators offer fully exchangeable tickets at a premium. The Paris to Lyon route is of a similar distance between London and Plymouth. Along this route, the cheapest morning-peak single, booked in advance, is €34 but a fully exchangeable ticket is €121.50, around 3.5 times more expensive (Greengauge 21, 2010b). As in the UK, very few purchase the most expensive tickets and returns on such fares will thus be low (Association of Train Operating Companies, 2010).

[ 10 ] – Finance 151

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

There are two approaches in relation to creating fare prices: maximising profit or spreading demand. The UK method is the former while in Western Europe, spreading demand is more important (Greengauge 21, 2010b). Such a different approach is likely to arise from differing political views of public transport, whether it should be publicly or privately controlled. These two approaches result in differing train timetables. In the UK, there is a relatively unchanging service frequency throughout the day and year, with a greater frequency during peak times. In France however, the timetable varies according to demand. As such, the timetable varies greatly throughout the day and throughout the year (Greengauge 21, 2010b). While the Western Star will travel on a separate line to conventional rail trains, it is likely that the UK public and politicians will expect a regular service throughout the day and year. In the UK, from observation and experience, this has resulted in a complex system of ticketing, with very cheap long-distance tickets available much in advance on the internet and extremely expensive tickets available on the day at the station. To avoid expensive tickets, unsurprisingly, the Association of Train Operating Companies has found that, ―more than 80% of people travel on some form of discounted ticket‖ and ―only 2% of long-distance passengers travel on a full fare ticket‖ (Association of Train Operating Companies, 2010). Assuming all destinations on HSW are long-distance, 98% of passengers therefore will not be paying the full fare if a wide range of fares were available. Consequently, it may seem better to have a single, constant price with only discounted tickets needed to increase capacity at non-peak travel.

Table 10-2: Estimated high-speed fares (Greengauge 21, 2010b)

[ 10 ] – Finance 152

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

As can be seen from Table 9-2, high speed fares have been estimated according to the current UK ticketing system and consequently, a confusing fare system has been created. Considering London – Bristol only, the fares are very comparable to the current fares available, with a mixture of cheap and very expensive fares. As noted earlier, passengers rarely pay the highest ticket price available and fares do not necessarily reflect distance travelled. Thus, it was decided that a single journey fare along Western Star should cost £40 and a return should cost £70, prices comparable to conventional rail fares. By having a constant price that does not vary over distance and throughout the day, ticket revenues are simplified and revenues can be estimated. It is assumed that:  the passenger numbers will remain constant at 2033 predicted numbers from the opening of the London – Southampton section in 2023 until HSW is completed in 2045 whereupon passenger numbers will increase annually by 2 %;  there are 253 working days, 52 Saturdays, 52 Sundays and 8 bank holidays;  all years have 365 days;  bank holiday numbers will be the same as Sundays;  the difference between the origin and destination numbers of individual cities are passengers travelling on a single ticket;  ticket prices rise in line with inflation so fares will remain at £40 and £70, 2010 prices, for singles and returns respectively.

Predicted future inflation levels have been found for the next five years (Gleeds, 2010). By plotting the values for the next four years, a line of best fit can be drawn. Extrapolating this line of best fit, future inflation after 2014 is predicted to remain at 1.4 %. From the inflation levels, revenues and costs can be discounted back to 2010 prices.

Projected demand has been calculated for 2033 levels, with the reasoning described in Demand Section 4. With the completion of the project estimated in 2045, it is necessary to increase demand further after 2045. It is assumed to be unlikely that passenger numbers will remain constant at 2033 levels over a period of over 70 years. The total journeys on conventional rail along the HSW route in 2010 are predicted to be 15,536, growing to 17,370 in 2033. This increase is equivalent to just over a 2 % annual increase from 2010 to 2033. As such, it is assumed that demand grows annually at 2 % from 2045. Such a growth is further justified as it is expected that the UK will have further high speed rail, encouraging more people to use Western Star, particularly so if Western Star trains are able to travel through the Channel Tunnel.

[ 10 ] – Finance 153

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

10.1.2. Advertising Another revenue resource HSW can utilise is advertising. With projected passenger numbers of nearly 4 million a year, 63% of which are commuters (see Demand Section 4), the advertising scheme can attract several opportunities. Advertising can take one of many forms:

 Large scale station poster advertising;  Station car parks;  In-Train advertising;  Train Exterior advertising;  Gate Advertising;  Advertising on the back of tickets;  Digital advertising, through WiFi (in stations, or on trains);  Online advertising through ticket sales website.

In-Train Adverts Advertising posters within trains are charged per poster for a duration of 12 weeks (Transport Media, 2011). This long duration is due to the fact that these posters will be changed during one of the scheduled maintenance sessions allocated to each train set. HSW will have just two poster slots per carriage at opening in 2023. Given that each train is 8-carriges long, and that 9 operational trains are utilised daily, a total of 144 advertising slots will be available.

Online adverts Online advertising is either charged per impression (each time the advert is displayed to a single user), or per click (number of times users click on adverts) (eBusiness Gateway, 2003). Taking the impressions model, it is assumed that on average 45% of passengers will use the online services to either check train times, or to book tickets. For checking the train times, a minimum of two impressions will be obtained, one from the home page, and one from the search results page. For the ticket sales case, a minimum of five impressions will be obtained, the first two as with the time checking case, another for login or information entry, followed by a verification page, and finally a 5th impression on the confirmation page. Two banners (advert slots), as is observed on many websites, will be available on the HSW ticket sales website, with an estimated average of five impressions per user accessing the site. This results in just over 12 million impressions a year. The same model can be applied when offering free Wi-Fi in train stations, or even within the trains if fitted with the appropriate equipment.

[ 10 ] – Finance 154

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Station Advertising Advertising within train stations is charged per panel for a typical duration of two weeks. Charges vary with the size of the panels in use (usually measured in sheets). (JCDecaux, 2011)

Figure 10-1: Photo of a 48-sheet large platform advert (left) and a 6-sheet advert (right). Each HSW station will house two large platform advertisement panels (48-sheet), capable of displaying two adverts (one on each side), six medium panels (6-sheet), and 3 digital display panels capable of displaying 5 adverts each.

Potential advertising revenue Table 10-3 summarises the costs associated with each advertising scheme envisaged for HSW. Item Description Price Unit (£) In-Train Posters 5,000 Per Poster Per carriage for 12 weeks Medium Size 6-Sheet Advert 450 Per Advert for 2 weeks Medium Size - Digital 6-Sheet Digital 900 Per Advert for 2 weeks Large Size 48-Sheet 1,200 Per Advert for 2 weeks Online Adverts Banners on ticket sales 64 Per 1000 impressions website Table 10-3: Typical advertising costs. (Transport Media, 2011) (JCDecaux, 2011) (Railway Gazette, 2011)

Applying these figures to HSW, an estimated yearly revenue of over £5.9 million is obtained. Item Description Unit Qty Total (£) Duration Total (£)/ Year Price (£) (Days) Platforms 2 Ads per panel 1,200 24 28,800.00 14 750,857.14 In-Train 2 Ads per 5,000 80 400,000.00 84 1,738,095.24 carriage Medium 450 36 16,200.00 14 422,357.14 Digital 5 Ads per panel 950 90 85,500.00 14 2,229,107.14 Display Online Per 1000 64 12,017 769,065.09 365 769,065.09 impressions Total 5,909,481.76 Table 10-4: Advertising revenue.

[ 10 ] – Finance 155

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

10.2. Financial Forecast As mentioned earlier, the construction of HSW is to be phased. The construction (and subsequent testing required prior to opening) of HS1 took nine years, with 113 km of track laid, approximately 12.5 km constructed per year (Department for Transport, 2010a). By assuming that 12.5 km can be constructed a year, the construction phasing is estimated as shown in Table 10-5. The construction time of the immersed tunnel is estimated to be 6.5 years as stated in Route Section 5. Design costs and construction costs are assumed to be evenly distributed over its respective period.

Section Design Start Design Finish Construction Start Operational Start London - 2012 2015 2015 2023 Southampton Bristol – 2012 2015 2015 2023 Southampton Bristol – Exeter 2015 2023 2023 2033 Exeter – Plymouth 2023 2033 2033 2038 Bristol – Cardiff 2033 2038 2038 2045 Table 10-5: Construction Time Estimates

The costs that have been included in the financial assessment, displayed in Figure 10-2, are summarised in Table 10-6. From the financial assessment, the net present value for the project has been assessed. The total estimated cost of HSW is £15 bn, occurring in 2045, the final year of construction, with the project turning in a profit in 2089. However, in the second year of profit in 2090, HSW makes £549 m. With the potential for such large profits, HSW appears financially worthwhile, provided long term funding at the start of the project can be secured.

[ 10 ] – Finance 156

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Type of Cost Item Sub-Item Cost Fixed Cost Preliminary Phase Feasibility Study 3,129,924 Design Design 1,043,037,974 Commissioning Testing 208,607,594 Signalling ERTMS System 4,006,948 Route Equipment 147,120,000 Power Power Substations 85,000,000 Grid Fees 1,113,000 Train Valero Trainsets 280,500,000 Infrastructure Track 1,306,980,000 Bridges 353,152,800 Tunnels 11,627,051,500 Overhead Lines 744,120,000 Earthworks 191,335,000 Stations London Waterloo 10,000,000,000 Southampton 210,000,000 Bristol 210,000,000 Exeter 210,000,000 Plymouth 100,000,000 Cardiff 600,000,000 Depot 400,000,000 TOTAL 20,580,638,741 Operating Costs Salaries Station Staffing 16,620,000 Maintenance Platform Maintenance 3,555,000 Train Maintenance 10,368,000 TOTAL 30,543,000 Variable Costs Power Power Traction 2,936,370 TOTAL 2,936,370 Table 10-6: Costs Included in Financial Forecast

[ 10 ] – Finance 157

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

Discounted Cumulative Cash Flows 20,000,000,000.00

15,000,000,000.00

10,000,000,000.00

5,000,000,000.00

£ 0.00

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 2110

-5,000,000,000.00

-10,000,000,000.00

-15,000,000,000.00

-20,000,000,000.00 Year

Figure 10-2: Net Present Value of HSW

[ 10 ] – Finance 158

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

10.3. Other Sources of Funding With the assumptions made for the Western Star service, the project will take decades to make a profit. As the Department for Transport annual Budget is £13.6 bn for the next five years (BBC News, 2010), funding for such a project would never be entirely from the public sector. Instead, the project is likely to be constructed in the form of a private finance initiative (PFI) or public- private partnership (PPP). HS1 was constructed as a PPP, with the state contributing £1.8 bn of the total £5.2 bn construction and land purchase costs, about 35% of the project costs (Department for Transport, 2010a). For the proposed high speed link between London and Birmingham, the government is planning to spend £2 bn per year between 2015-2023 (Watt and Glover, 2010). Were the government to abandon this proposed high speed line, or were the government to gain further enthusiasm for high speed trains, the funding on a similar scale could be secured for HSW. The total funding for the whole of HSW need not be secured at the start of the project. As the construction of the project has been phased, funding for later sections can be secured at a later date, supplemented by the income made from the open sections.

There are several other ways to make HSW financially more attractive. HS1 has recently been sold for £2.1 bn for 30 years, covering the initial investment by the state, three years after HS1 was opened (Kollewe, 2010). A sale like HS1, particularly after each section of track is constructed is likely to be required to fund the next section of construction. Another source of finance is from the trains stations. As can be observed, all large train station have a significant retail area, often used as restaurants and book shops. If large enough, it is possible to make the train station into a shopping centre, encouraging people to use the station for non-travel purposes. In this way, significant revenue can be made from the rents of the businesses within the stations.

Currently, the state annually subsidies the operation of the railways by £5 bn with an extra £24 bn raised through borrowings and only £6 bn raised from fares (Milmo, 2010b). Eurostar though has managed to keep prices stable and competitive for the past 15 year without state subsidy (Greengauge 21, 2010b). Therefore, it is possible for the Western Star service to operate without the state subsidising fares, allowing the state to invest more in the construction of HSW. As can be observed, the rolling stock on the UK rail network consists of many franchises with each franchise maintaining its own stock. By having Western Star as a private franchise, the cost of the trains and their maintenance costs then fall to the franchisee, reducing the financial burden on the state. With the rail network consisting of numerous franchises, it seems inevitable that Western Star too will be a franchise.

[ 10 ] – Finance 159

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

11. Future Systems

In the period 2009-2012, a total of 25,000 km of high speed rail will be constructed across the globe (Gourvish, 2010). This is double the distance of completed high speed rail from 1964 to 2009. It appears that there is an interest and desire to create high speed rail. In this report, it has been discussed why high speed rail is an important transport option. The future of high speed rail looks promising, with many projects expected to be completed in the near future.

High speed trains are approaching the limits that are feasibly possible by wheel on rail. Vibrations in the overhanging wire and dynamic pressures on the rails become increasingly large as the train accelerates beyond 350 kph (Keating, 2010a). As the train increasingly becomes faster the aerodynamic forces on the train become more prominent. Accelerating beyond 350 kph takes vast amounts of energy to overcome these forces. One of the key factors of why high speed rail is seen

as a better alternative to a car or an aeroplane is that it consumes less CO2 per passenger km. This however may not be the case when trying to reach such speeds, and therefore loses the advantages it has over the alternatives.

Rather than increasing the speed of the trains, high speed rail companies are actually looking into

reducing CO2 emissions on their trains by increasing passenger capacity and lowering the energy demands of the trains. Eurostar International Ltd, one of the largest high speed train operators, has recently announced its‘ bid to increase the speed of its trains from 300 kph to 320 kph by purchasing new e320 trains (Rail Express, 2010). These trains are 16 carriages long and 400 m in length. The trains are manufactured by Siemens and based on the Velaro model, which is has also been chosen for HSW. These trains will carry up to 20% more passengers than the previous Eurostar class 373 trains (Energy Efficiency News, 2010). The new models will also use 10% less energy compared to its previous counterparts.

HSW has provisions for potential future expansion. It is envisaged that HSW will be part of a UK-wide high speed rail network, with connections to other European high speed lines. With international rail connections, demand of Western Star services is expected to increase considerably. To manage this increase in demand, platforms on HSW routes are 400 m long so that trains such as the e320 can be accommodated.

[ 11 ] – Future Systems 160

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

12. Conclusion

This study discussed the potential construction of a high speed line to the southwest of England and Wales. From this study, feasible recommendations for the design of this line have been detailed in this report. Assuming that demand for such a service increases year on year by 2% from 2045 based on the predictions specified in this report, HSW is predicted to be a profitable venture, making back the initial outlay of investment by 2089.

[ 11 ] – Future Systems 161

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

References

ABB 2010. ABB Review 2/10. AIR SOUTH WEST. 2010. Air South West Flight Times [Online]. Available: http://www.airsouthwest.com/flights/ 2010]. ALLETT ET AL 2002. Channel Tunnel Rail Link—high speed, low impact, minimum cost. Proceedings of ICE - Transport, 153 - May 2002, 72 - 78. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS. 2010. Real Transportation Solutions for Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions [Online]. Available: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3F0XPWUrDJoJ:climatechange.transportat ion.org/pdf/RealSolutionsReport.pdf+high+speed+rail+alleviates+congested+ro&hl=en& gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESioPbOj0SDhRrtAlQCz57QasFyaqnuLYon-tB- TAuk7B9ElOftRuxfq21B8cGDSCOcOFG61BJnrbLq5RfjuQL7x16HskIxCc0EupUB8G OjmbklyIRX5WH120bx7OnATTOOAOhDX&sig=AHIEtbRw7mZg9ybInoQhFHSWVh dqVRvrqw. ARMOUR, T. 2003. Landscape Design. Proceedings of ICE - Transport, 156 - November 2003, 54 - 59. ASSOCIATION OF TRAIN OPERATING COMPANIES. 2010. Fares on National Rail. Available: http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/Policydocuments/Fares-2010.pdf. ATKINS. 2010. High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study, Strategic Outline Case [Online]. Available: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/alternativestudy/pdf/strategicoutline.pdf [Accessed 20th October 2010]. BBC NEWS. 1999. The magnetic attraction of trains. 2010. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/488394.stm [Accessed 10th December 2010]. BBC NEWS. 2003. Engineer electrocuted on rail link. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2900293.stm [Accessed 1st January 2011]. BBC NEWS. 2010. Spending Review 2010: Key points at a glance. Available: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11569160 [Accessed 08/12/10]. BELL, F., G 2004. Engineering Geology and Construction, Taylor and Francis. BELL, L. 2010a. RE: Discussion on High Speed Trains. Type to MARQUES, D. BELL, L. 2010b. Private communication with Siemens. BHARGAVA, B. Railway electrification systems and configurations. Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, 1999. IEEE, 18-22 Jul 1999 1999. 445-450 vol.1. BOMBARDIER. 2005. Bombardier Zefiro High-speed Trains for 200 to 350 km/h. Available: http://www.superscooper.com/en/1_0/pdf/Bombardier_Zefiro_Technical_Description_en. pdf [Accessed 1/12/10]. BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION 1997-2011. ZEFIRO A New Sense of Speed. BONANDER, ROSS. 1996-2009. Siemens Velaro: 5 Things Men Should Know. Available: http://uk.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_500/562b_siemens-velaro-5-things- men-should-know.html [Accessed 2nd December 2010]. BONNETT, C. F. 2005. Practical Railway Engineering, London, , GBR, Imperial College Press. BONSOR, KEVIN. 1998-2011. How Maglev Trains Work. Available: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/maglev- train.htm/printable [Accessed 1st December 2010]. BRENNA, M. & FOIADELLI, F. 2010. Sensitivity Analysis of the Constructive Parameters for the 2x25-kV High-Speed Railway Lines Planning. Power Delivery, IEEE Transactions on, 25, 1923-1931.

References 162

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION 1954. Modernisation and Re-Equipment of British Railways. British Transport Commission. BROWN, R. 2008. Towards High Speed 2. BULHER AND THALLEMER. How to Avoid Squeal Noise on Railways State of the Art and Practical Experience. In: AL, B. E., ed. Environmental Noise Reduction of Tokaido Shinkansen and Future Prospect, 2007 Munich, Germany. Springer, 406 - 411. BUSH, D. Channel Tunnel Rail Link section 1: track and power supply. ICE - Transport, 2003. CAHSRBLOG.COM. Cahsrblog.com [Online]. Available: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/la- vitrine/ [Accessed 29/11/2010. COFRA. 1999. Embankment design for high speed trains on soft soil [Online]. Available: http://www.cofra.sk/files/documents/technicke_spravy/highspeedtrain.pdf 2010]. CORBIS IMAGES. 1993. Waterloo International Railroad Platforms [Online]. Available: http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/UB002450.html [Accessed 20th December 2010]. COURTOIS, C. Why the 2x25 kV alternative? [autotransformer traction supply]. 50kV Autotransformer Traction Supply Systems - the French Experience, IEE Colloquium on, 9 Nov 1993 1993. 1/1-1/4. CROSSRAIL. 2010. Stations [Online]. Available: http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/stations/ 2010]. DAILY MAIL. 2010. Thousands of passengers stranded as power failure closes East Coast Main Line 'indefinitely'. Daily Mail. DAVIS AND THOMPSON. 2009. Energy consumption and CO2 impacts of High Speed Rail: ATOC analysis for Greengauge 21. Available: http://www.greengauge21.net/wp- content/uploads/Energy-Consumption-and-CO2-impacts.pdf [Accessed 8th December]. DAVIS LANGDON 2009. Spon's Architect's and Builder's Price Book, Taylor & Francis. DELTARAIL 2010. Station Usage 2008/09. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT 2006. The Eddington Transport Study. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT 2007. Transport Statistics Great Britain. 2007 Edition ed. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT 2008. National Rail Travel Survey. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT 2009. Britain's Transport Infrastructure: Rail Electrification. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT. 2010a. Facts and figures on the CTRL. Available: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/ctrl/factsandfiguresonthectrl [Accessed 08/12/10]. DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT 2010b. High Speed Rail. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY & CLIMATE CHANGE 2010. Quarterly Energy Prices. September 2010 ed. DR VUCHIC. 2001. The Urban Transportation Monitor, Maglev vs High Speed Rail: The Debate. Available: http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~vuchic/maglev-debate.pdf [Accessed 15th November 2010]. DYSON, S. 2004. Bridges, Arup. EBUSINESS GATEWAY. 2003. Internet Advertising Models [Online]. [Accessed 5th January 2011]. ENERGY EFFICIENCY NEWS. 2010. Eurostar invests £700 million in state-of-the art electric trains. Available: http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/transport/i/3466/ [Accessed 1/11/10]. EUROPEAN RAILWAY AGENCY. 2005-2010. ERTMS in 10 question. Available: http://www.era.europa.eu/Core-Activities/ERTMS/Pages/home.aspx. EUROPEAN UNION 2006. Comparative Research into Current Trends in Public Sector Organization. EUROPEAN UNION 2007. A technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‗infrastructure‘ sub-system ofthe trans-European high-speed rail system. FEATHER. 1999. British Railway Signalling, How it work. Available: http://www.davros.org/rail/signalling/articles/intro.html [Accessed 1 December 2010]. References 163

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

FEMERN A/S. Conceptual design for an immersed tunnel [Online]. [Accessed 10th January 2011]. FEMERN A/S. 2010. Construction Estimate [Online]. Available: http://www.femern.com/Home/Project/What+are+the+costs%3f [Accessed 10th January 2011]. FERMERN A/S. 2010. Construction estimate for an immersed tunnel - comparison with the Planning Act. [Accessed 10th January 2011]. GERMAN RAILWAYS. 2007. 15 Years of Speed [Online]. Available: http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/hochgeschwindigkeit/de/start.html. GLASSPOOL, D. 2007. Medway Viaduct [Online]. Available: http://www.kentrail.co.uk/medway%20viaduct.htm [Accessed 10th January 2011]. GLEEDS. 2010. 3rd Quarter Economic Inflation Report 2010. Available: http://www.gleeds.com/documents/news/Gleeds_3rd_quarter_Economic_Regional_Inflati on_Report.pdf. GOODALL, ROGER. 1995. The theory of electromagnetic levitation. Available: http://iopscience.iop.org/0305-4624/16/5/I02/pdf/0305-4624_16_5_I02.pdf [Accessed 1st November 2010]. GOOGLE 2010. Google Earth. GOURVISH, T. 2010. The High Speed Rail Revolution: History and Prospects. Available: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/historyandprospects/pdf/report.pdf [Accessed 18/12/10]. GREENGAUGE 21. 2010a. High Speed Rail (HSR) and Carbon Emissions. Available: http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/HSR-CarbonEmissions.pdf [Accessed 20/11/10]. GREENGAUGE 21. 2010b. High Speed Rail: Fair and Affordable. Available: http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/hsr-affordable-to-all.pdf. GWE BUSINESS WEST Lille - The International Gateway. HAYS, J. 2009. SHINKANSEN (JAPANESE BULLET TRAINS). Available: http://factsanddetails.com/japan.php?itemid=852&catid=23&subcatid=153 [Accessed 3rd December 2010]. HEAD, J. 2004. Japan marks bullet train's 40th. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia- pacific/3707934.stm [Accessed 9th December 2010]. HEMSWORTH, B. 2008. Environmental Noise Directive Development of Action Plans for Railways. HENDRY, M. 2010. Measurement and modelling the train induced dynamic response of a railway track and embankment constructed over a soft peat foundation. [Online]. Queens University Belfast. Available: http://www.qub.ac.uk/ep/research/cannit2/resources/MandM_RTrack.pdf 2010]. HIGH SPEED ONE LIMITED. 2010. Key Facts [Online]. Available: http://www.highspeed1.com/about/facts/ [Accessed 20/10/10 2010]. HIGH SPEED TWO (HS2) LIMITED 2009. High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond : HS2 Cost and Risk Model. HIGH SPEED TWO LIMITED. 2010. High Speed Two (HS2) [Online]. Available: http://www.hs2.org.uk/ [Accessed 22nd October 2010]. HIGH SPEED TWO LTD. 2009a. HS2 Technical Appendix. Available: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/technicalappendix/pdf/report.pdf [Accessed 15/12/10]. HIGH SPEED TWO LTD. 2009b. HS2 Traction Energy Modelling. Available: http://www.hs2.org.uk/assets/x/56774 [Accessed 1/12/10]. HIGH SPEED TWO LTD. 2010. HS2 Demand Model Analysis. Available: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/demandandappraisal/pdf/report.pdf [Accessed 20th November 2010]. References 164

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

HOBBS, I. 2007. High speed power. Power Engineer, 21, 32-35. INGERSLEV, C. 2006. Immersed Tunnels and Marmaray Project. Available: http://www.pbworld.com/news_events/publications/network/issue_62/pb%20network%2 0issue%2062%20-%2027%20-%20immersed%20tunnels%20-%20ingerslev.pdf. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS 1997. Uniform Building Code. USA: Internationa Conference of Building Officials. INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY JOURNAL. 2010. Trenitalia selects Zefiro for new high-speed fleet. Available: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQQ/is_9_50/ai_n55394357/?tag=rel.res1 [Accessed 5th January 2011]. IRFCA. 2010. Electric Traction - II [Online]. Available: http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-elec2.html [Accessed 31st December 2010]. J TAYLOR, COLIN. 2007. TGV Est lifts the record. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/fileadmin/user_upload/railwaygazette.com/PDF/Railway GazetteWorldSpeedSurvey2007.pdf [Accessed 10th December 2010]. JAPAN-GUIDE.COM. 2008. Japanese Trains. Available: http://www.japan- guide.com/e/e2019.html [Accessed 15th December 2010]. JCDECAUX 2011. Private communications: Enquiry about rail advert prices. JOHANSSON, J. 2000. Flow Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility [Online]. University of Washington. Available: http://www.ce.washington.edu/~liquefaction/html/what/what2.html [Accessed 10th January 2011]. JOHNSON, P. 2003. Environmental management during construction. Proceedings of ICE - Transport, 156 - November 2003, 16 - 20. KANDA ET AL. Environmental Noise Reduction of Tokaido Shinkansen and Future Prospect. In: AL, B. E., ed. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Railway Noise, 2007 Munich, Germany. Springer, 1 - 8. KAWASAKI HEAVY INDUSTRY. 1996-2010. Kawasaki Technical Review No. 138 Rolling Stock Engineering. Available: http://www.khi.co.jp/english/rd/tech/138/ne138g06.html [Accessed 5th January 2011]. KEATING, O. 1997. Electrification [Online]. Available: http://www.o- keating.com/hsr/electrification.htm [Accessed 26th December 2010]. KEATING, O. 2010a. The future of high speed rail. Available: http://www.o- keating.com/hsr/future.htm [Accessed 1/12/2010]. KEATING, O. 2010b. The Inter-City 125 [Online]. Available: http://www.o- keating.com/hsr/ic125.htm [Accessed 22nd October 2010]. KINGSLEY, NICK. 2008. Soaring costs undermine München maglev. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/soaring-costs-undermine- muenchen-maglev.html [Accessed 10th December 2010]. KOLLEWE, J. 2010. Channel tunnel rail link sold for £2.1bn to Canadian pension funds. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/channel-tunnel-rail-link-sold. LANE, THOMAS. 2010. Maglev high-speed trains: London to manchester in 55 minutes. Available: http://www.building.co.uk/buildings/maglev-high-speed-trains-london-to- manchester-in-55-minutes/5004925.article [Accessed 6th November 2010]. LAWYER, D. S. 2004. Electric Railroads [Online]. Available: http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/rail/electric_rr.html [Accessed 31st December 2010]. LETOURNEAUX ET AL. High Speed Railway Noise: Assessment of Mitigation Measures. In: AL, B. E., ed. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Railway Noise, 2007 Munich, Germany. Springer, 56 - 62. LEUNG, MIRA. 2004. MagLev Pros and Cons. Available: http://www.odec.ca/projects/2004/leun4m0/public_html/Procon.html [Accessed 7th November 2010]. References 165

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

LINDAHL, M. 2001. Track Geometry for High-Speed Railways. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology. MARKET WIRE. 2010. Bombardier Awarded Contract for 50 V300ZEFIRO Very High Speed Trains in Italy. Available: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_201009/ai_n55425684/?tag=rel.res1 [Accessed 5th January 2011]. MCGRATH, DERMOT. 2003. China Awaits High-Speed 'Maglev'. Available: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2003/01/57163 [Accessed 10th December 2010]. MERMEC GROUP. 2010. Rail Profile Systems - RPS [Online]. Available: http://www.mermecgroup.com/diagnostics/track-inspection/60/1/rail-profile.php [Accessed 3rd January 2010]. MILMO, D. 2010a. Britain's railways named as Europe's most expensive. The Guardian [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/08/britain-railways-most- expensive-europe [Accessed 28/12/10]. MILMO, D. 2010b. Rail network to get 2,000 carriages by 2019 to ease overcrowding. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/25/rail-network-new-carriages [Accessed 08/12/10]. MONBIOT, G. 2006. I'm all for putting more vehicles on our roads. As long as they're coaches. The Guardian. MOTT MACDONALD. Appendix 2.2 Tunnel Construction Methods. Available: http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/register/report/eiareport/eia_1852010/EIA/PDF/Appendices/2 %20Project%20Description/Appendix%202.2%20Tunnel%20Construction%20Methods. pdf [Accessed 10th January 2011]. NARAH, K. I., SOMASEKARA, C. & PRASA, J. 2010. Maintenance Schedule and Practices forHigh Speed corridor. NATIONAL GRID 2010. The Statement of Use of System Charges. NATIONAL RAIL. 2010. Available: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk [Accessed 10/20 2010]. NATURAL ENGLAND. Nature on the Map [Online]. Available: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/publications/maps/default.aspx 2010]. NETWORK RAIL. 2009a. Comparing environmental impact of conventional and high speed rail. Available: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/About%20us/New%20Lines%20Programme/58 78_Comparing%20environmental%20impact%20of%20conventional%20and%20high%2 0speed%20rail.pdf [Accessed 08/12/10]. NETWORK RAIL 2009b. Network RUS: Electrification. NETWORK RAIL 2010. National Rail Map. OANDA CORPORATION. 2011. Oanda Currency Converter [Online]. Available: http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/ [Accessed 10th January 2011]. POISSON ET AL. Noise Sources for High Speed Trains: A Review of Results in the TGV Case. In: AL, B. E., ed. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Railway Noise, 2007 Munich, Germany. Springer. RAIL EXPRESS. 2010. Eurostar unveils e320 trainset. Available: http://www.railexpress.co.uk/news/eurostar-unveils-e320-trainset [Accessed 15/12/2010]. RAILWAY GAZETTE. 2011. Banner Advertising [Online]. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/advertising/online-advertising/banner-advertising.html [Accessed 5th January 2011]. RAILWAY GAZETTE INTERNATIONAL. 2005. Hiden disadvantages of Maglev [Online]. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/Articles/2005/02/01/289/Hidden+disadvantages+of+Mag lev.html [Accessed 25 Nov 2010.

References 166

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

RAILWAY GAZETTE INTERNATIONAL. 2009a. China orders 100 high speed trains. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/china-orders-100- high-speed-trains.html [Accessed 1st January 2011]. RAILWAY GAZETTE INTERNATIONAL. 2009b. Turkey high speed launch. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/turkey-high-speed-launch.html [Accessed 1st January 2009]. RAILWAY GAZETTE INTERNATIONAL. 2010. China hits 486 km/h in high speed trials. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/china-hits-486- kmh-in-high-speed-trials.html [Accessed 11th January 2010]. RAILWAY PEOPLE. 2006. Stratford International Ready to Join Europe [Online]. Available: http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-news-articles/stratford-international-ready-to-join- europe-1045.html [Accessed 15th December 2010]. RAILWAY PEOPLE. 2009. West Coast Route Moderisation [Online]. Available: http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-projects/west-coast-route-modernisation-3.html 2010]. RAILWAY STRATEGIES. 2007. 3M - Why electrification is so essential to the performance of our rail networks [Online]. Available: http://www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article- page.php?contentid=2158&issueid=103 [Accessed 1st January 2011]. RAILWAY TECHNICAL WEB PAGES. 1998-2010a. Electric Traction Power Supplies. Available: http://www.railway-technical.com/etracp.shtml [Accessed 20 December 2010]. RAILWAY TECHNICAL WEB PAGES. 1998-2010b. Wheel and bogies. Available: http://www.railway-technical.com/whlbog.shtml [Accessed 5th January 2010]. RAILWAY TECHNICAL WEB PAGES. 2010a. Electric Traction Power Supplies [Online]. Available: http://www.railway-technical.com/etracp.shtml [Accessed 20th November 2010]. RAILWAY TECHNICAL WEB PAGES. 2010b. Electronic Power for Trains [Online]. Available: http://www.railway-technical.com/tract-02.shtml [Accessed 26th December 2010]. RAILWAY TECHNICAL WEB PAGES. 2010c. Train Operations. Available: http://www.railway-technical.com/tr-ops.shtml [Accessed 1/12/2010]. RAILWAY TECHNOLOGY. 2007. UK Eurostar Depot Opens [Online]. Available: http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news2627.html 2010]. RAILWAY TECHNOLOGY. 2010. Current Developments in UK Rail: An Electrifying Future [Online]. Available: http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature104304/ [Accessed 27th December 2010]. RAILWAY-ENERGY.ORG. 2002. Regenerative braking in DC systems. Available: http://www.railway-energy.org/static/Regenerative_braking_in_DC_systems_103.php [Accessed 08/11/2010]. RAILWAY-TECHNOLOGY.COM. 2008. Maglev – the Great Debate. Available: http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1606/Available: http://www.railway- technology.com/projects/n700-shinkansen/specs.html [Accessed 2nd December 2010]. RAILWAY-TECHNOLOGY.COM. 2010. Shinkansen High-Speed 'Bullet Train', Japan. Available: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/shinkansen/ [Accessed 10th December 2010]. RAILWAYGAZETTE.COM. 2010. DB unveils next-generation ICE. Available: http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/db-unveils-next-generation- ice.html [Accessed 3rd December 2010]. ROADTRAFFIC-TECHNOLOGY.COM. 2011. Busan - Geoje Fixed Link, South Korea. Available: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/busan/ [Accessed 10th January 2011].

References 167

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

SANCHANTA, MARIKO. 2010. High-Speed Rail Approaches Station. Available: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704762904575024611266446690.html [Accessed 10th December 2010]. SENOL, I., GORGUN, H. & AYDENIZ, M. G. General comparison of the electrical transportation systems that are fed with 1x25 kV or 2x25 kV and expectations from these systems. Electrotechnical Conference, 1998. MELECON 98., 9th Mediterranean, 18-20 May 1998 1998. 885-887 vol.2. SHANGHAI DAILY. 2008. Maglev finally given approval. Available: http://www.china.org.cn/china/national/2008-08/18/content_16258686.htm [Accessed 10th December 2010]. SHANGHAI MAGLEV TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT, C. 2010. Shanghai Magle Official Website [Online]. [Accessed 10/22 2010]. SHANGHAI MAGLEV TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CO.LTD. 2005. Principle of Magnetic Levitation. Available: http://www.smtdc.com/en/gycf3.asp [Accessed 1st December 2010]. SIEMENS. 2003. High speed from Siemens: Two systems, one goal: Mobility for the 21st century [Online]. Siemens. Available: http://republicans.transportation.house.gov/Media/File/110th/Rail/3-20-07--roundtable- Brady-siemens.pdf [Accessed 01/12/10 2010]. SIEMENS. 2006. High speed train set Velaro CN. Available: http://www.siemens.pl/upload/images/TS-Velaro%20CN.pdf [Accessed 08/11/10]. SIEMENS. 2007. High speed trainset Velaro RUS. Available: http://www.siemens.com/pool/en/whats_new/features/moscow_to_st_petersburg/velaro_r us.pdf [Accessed 1/12/10]. SIEMENS. 2008a. High Speed Trainset Velaro E. Available: http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/materials/industry/imo/velaro_e_en.pdf [Accessed 1/12/10]. SIEMENS. 2008b. High-Speed Trainset Velaro D. Available: http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/materials/industry/imo/velaro_d_en.pdf [Accessed 1/12/10]. SIEMENS 2008c. Rail Electrification: Answers for energy - Powering Up to Mandurah. SIEMENS. 2008d. Velaro. Available: http://www.mobility.siemens.com/en/data/pdf/ts_internet/ts_tr/velaro_a19100-v800- b796-x-7600.pdf [Accessed 15/12/10]. SIEMENS 2010a. High-Speed Trainset Velaro D(Class 407). SIEMENS, A. 2010b. Trainguard Full interoperability for European railways. SIEMENS AG. 2002-2010. Trainguard – the ETCS solution from Siemens. Available: http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/en/pub/interurban_mobility/rail_solutions/rail _automation/etcs_trainguard.htm#content-zone [Accessed 1 December 2010]. SIEMENS AG. 2002-2011. Pictures of the Future Spring 2006. Available: http://www.siemens.com/innovation/en/publikationen/publications_pof/pof_spring_2006/ infrastructures_articles/high_speed_rail.htm#insert [Accessed 1st January 2011]. SIEMENS AG. 2009. Automated Train Control. Available: https://www.swe.siemens.com/france/web/en/sts/products/our2/mass/automation/atc/Page s/automated_train_control.aspx [Accessed 5th December 2010]. SKANSKA. 2010. CTRL Stratford Box Contract 230 [Online]. Available: http://tmp.www.co.skanska.com/upload/Sevices/Piling/Datasheets/Stratford.pdf 2010]. SPEAR, J. 2010. Transportation Policy – Module Handbook, University of Surrey. STORKEY, A. 2006. A MOTORWAY-BASED NATIONAL COACH SYSTEM. STROHL, M. 1993. Europe's high speed trains: A study in geo-economics, Praeger Publishers.

References 168

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

SULLIVAN, C. R., PETRENKO, V. F., MCCURDY, J. D. & KOZLIOUK, V. 2003. Breaking the ice: de-icing power transmission lines with high-frequency, high-voltage excitation IEEE Industry Applications Magazine. SYMONS AND SYMONS 2009. Embodied energy and carbon – what structural engineers need to know. The Structural Engineer, 19 – 23. TELEGRAPH. 2009. Commuter Property: New High Speed Train Bring Buyers to Kent [Online]. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/5577713/Commuter-property-new-high- speed-train-brings-buyers-to-Kent.html 2010]. TEMPRO. 2010. Available: http://www.dft.gov.uk/tempro/ [Accessed 01/11/10]. THE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION LIMITED. 2010. AA Route Planner [Online]. Available: http://www.theaa.com/route-planner/classic/planner_main.jsp [Accessed 10/20 2010]. THE GLOBE AND MAIL. 2010. Bombardier wins Italian train contract. Available: http://www.rzd-partner.com/press/2010/08/09/356929.html [Accessed 5th January 2011]. THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY 1992. Design manual for roads and bridges, Volume 1, Section 3, Part 2, The Highways Agency. THE RAILWAY ARCHIVE. 2010. Invention and Experiment: up to 1833 [Online]. Available: http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/history0-1833.php [Accessed 10/20 2010]. THE TRAVEL GATEWAY. 2010. Eurostar Tickets [Online]. Available: http://www.aferry.to/eurostar-tickets.htm [Accessed 10/22 2010]. THOMPSON, D. 2007. Rail Interaction Noise Prediction and its Control, John Wiley & Sons. THOMPSON, D. 2009. Railway Noise and Vibration - Mechanisms, Modelling and Means of Control, Elsevier. TRAINLINE. 2010. Available: www.thetrainline.com [Accessed 8th December 2010]. TRANSPORT FOR SCOTLAND 2009. High Speed Rail - Wider Economic Benefits Study. TRANSPORT MEDIA 2011. Private communications: Enquiry about rail advert prices. TRELLEBORG Gina Gasket. Trelleborg Bakker BV. TRELLEBORG Omega Seal. Trelleborg Bakker BV. TRIBUNE. 1999. Immersed Tunnels - a better way to cross waterways [Online]. ITA. Available: http://www.ita- aites.org/index.php?id=75&tx_ttnews%5Byear%5D=2008&tx_ttnews%5Bmonth%5D=0 6&tx_ttnews%5Bday%5D=24&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=407&cHash=8ccf8a44f4c91 9bc9470dfd1a31b2ece [Accessed 10th January 2011]. UIC. 2008. The Environmental Noise Directive. Available: http://www.uic.org/homepage/focus_The%20Environmental%20Noise%20Directive.pdf [Accessed 20/11/10]. UIC. 2010. General definitions of highspeed [Online]. Available: http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971 [Accessed 10/22 2010]. WAKABAYASHI ET AL. Noise Measurement Results of Shinkansen High-Speed Test Train. In: AL, B. E., ed. Noise Measurement Results of Shinkansen High-Speed Test Train, 2007 Munich, Germany. Springer. WATT, N. 2010. High-speed rail link gets £800m more in state funding. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/03/high-speed-rail-network-transport. WATT, N. & GLOVER, J. 2010. High-speed rail link gets £800m more in state funding. The Guardian [Online]. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/03/high-speed- rail-network-transport. WEBEL, S. 2010. Trains on Trial. Siemens. WEST OF ENGLAND PARTNERSHIP. 2009. South Bristol Link -Comment on Options [Online]. Available: http://www.westofengland.org/transport/south-bristol-link/south- bristol-link---comment-on-options 2010]. WOODS, E. 2004. Bored Tunnels. The Arup Journal [Online]. [Accessed 10th January 2011]. WRIGHT, ROBERT 2010a. Points of change. Financial Times (London, England). WRIGHT, R. 2010b. Points of change. References 169

High Speed West Final Report HST-Group 3 (MDDP 2010 – 2011)

WS ATKINS. 2010. Baseline Forecasting Report: A Report for HS2. Available: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/appraisalmaterial/pdf/baselinerepor t.pdf [Accessed 15/12/10]. YARHAM, K. 2010. Southern Portal of North Downs Tunnel [Online]. Available: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1874140 [Accessed 10th January 2011].

References 170