Cab.26j 1.2008/13.2 BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

This matter is not a Key Decision within the Council's definition and has not been included in the relevant Forward Plan.

Report of Executive Director, Development Directorate

YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER RAIL UTILISATION STRATEGY

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 This report seeks to ensure members are aware of the Consultation process taking place as part of the Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS).

1.2 This report also seeks approval of the Cabinet to the Council's RUS Consultation response to Network Rail.

2. Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that the cabinet approve the response to the consultation.

3. Introduction

3.1 The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) requires Network Rail to produce Rail Utilisation Strategies (RUS) covering all the rail services in the UK (19 in total).The objective of the various RUS's is to "encourage effective and efficient use and development of capacity available, consistent with funding that is or is reasonably likely to become available during the period of the RUS..."

3.2 A stakeholder consultation process began in October and officec have attended a briefing to discuss the various recommendations within he Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy Draftlhe Consultation will conclude on the 18th December, following which Network Rail will produce a final version likely to be launched early new year. 3.3 Prior to launch of the draft consultation document discussions took place with Network Rail and SYPTE to facilitate the development of the strategy.

4. Proposal and Justification

4.1 Officers from both Transportation and Planning Policy sections of the Development Directorate have reviewed the Yorkshire and Humber RUS and comphed a Barnsley specific response to Network Rail. A summary of which is attached. 4.2 The RUS provides an indication of the future programme of infrastructure and rail service improvements proposed by Network Rail over the coming years. The recommendations to:-

• Strengthen peak time services between Barnsley and by increasing capacity, • Doubling capacity on the line should the tram train not be retained and • The need for bi- directional signalling in the area is most welcome (despite the latter having no implementation date).

4.3 It is however, unfortunate that the improvements do not seem to be in line with the aspirations of the Borough in terms of its connectivity, particularly across the and south towards the capital. It is also of concern that the improvements proposed will not have sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth.

4.4 The combination of increasing road traffic congestion and the success of the existing fast service to Leeds and Sheffield is likely to place significant pressure on capacity.

4.5 Whilst it is recognised that the cost of improving the network will be considerable, the RUS has the potential to make a step change in addressing the long term challenges of increasing costs of congestion on the regional economy and the environment in the sub-region. In our view in its present form the document Is not contributing significantly that much needed step change.

5. Consideration of Alternative Approaches

5.1 An alternative approach would be for the Council not to respond to the Consultation. This approach would be seen as missed opportunity to contribute to the process and consequently could have adverse effects on the future rail services into Barnsley, in particular the boroughs region, national and international connectivity.

6. Local Area Implications

6.1 Consultation response includes reference to improvements to existing rail services across the borough and with no specific local area implications. The aim of the response being to improve rail services throughout.

7. Compatibility with European Convention on Human Rights

7.1 The matters raised in this report comply with convention rights. 8. Promoting Equality and Diversity and Social Inclusion

8.1 Securing and improving social inclusion is a key theme of the SYLTP2 and considerable effort is being devoted to developing a robust strategy for this purpose. The improvements proposed in the consultation response will support the existing strategy.

9. Reduction of Crime and Disorder

9.1 There are no specific considerations at this strategic level of region and local transport planning.

10. Conservation of Biodiversity

10.1 There are no specific considerations at this strategic level.

11. Risk Management Issues, including Health and Safety 11.1 There are no specific risks associated with the RUS. The risks are associated with performance in implementation and delivery against RUS implementation programme and these lie with Network Rail. These include risks which are delays and slippage in spending and failing to meet targets.

12. Financial Implications

12.1 There are no direct financial implications arising from the recommendations contained within this report.

13. Employee Implications

13.1 There are no specific employment implications associated with the RUS.

14. Glossary RUS Rail Utilisation Strategy SYLTP2 Second Local Transport Plan

15. List of Appendices

15.1 Appendix 1 - Barnsley MBC Consultation Response to The Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS). 15.2 Appendix 2- Routes across the Pennines

15.3 Appendix 3 - City region context 16. Background Papers

16.1 Full Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy - this can be found online at wwwnetworkraLog

Officer Contact: Alan West Telephone No: 772598 Date: 4/11/08

Financial Implications/Consultations %, 4t4, 'iibei '&

Lt ANNEX

YORKSHIRE AND HUMBER RAIL UTILISATION STRATEGY

Consultations

(a) Financial Implications Consultations on the financial implications have taken place with the Financial Services Manager of behalf of the Executive Director of Finance.

(b) Employee Implications There are no employee implications directly arising from this report.

(c) Legal Implications There are no implications arising directly from this report.

(d) Policy Implications There are no implications arising directly from this report, however the implications of the Rail Utilisation Strategy will be considered as part of the ongoing Local Transport Plan.

(e) ICT Implications There are no implications arising directly from this report.

(f) Local Members There are no implications arising directly from this report to consult Local Members in detail.

(g) Health and Safety Considerations There are no implications arising directly from this report for BMBC.

(h) Property Implications There are no implications arising directly from this report.

(i) Implications for Other Services There are no implications arising directly from this report, however the implications of the RUS document will be considered as part of the Local Development Framework.

(j) Implications for Service Users There are no implications arising directly from this report.

(k) Communications Implications Press releases will be issued as appropriate. APPENDIX 1

Barnsley MBC Consultation Response to The Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS)

Initial Comments

Passenger Services

The RUS provides an indication of the future programme of infrastructure and rail service improvements proposed by Network Rail over the coming years. The recommendations to: • Strengthen peak time services between Barnsley and Sheffield by increasing capacity, • Doubling capacity on the should the tram train not be retained and • The need for bi- directional signalling in the area is most welcome. (despite the latter having no implementation date.)

It is however, unfortunate that the improvements do not seem to be in line with the aspirations of the Borough in terms of its connectivity, particularly across the Pennines and south towards the capital. It is also of concern that the improvements proposed will not have sufficient capacity to accommodate future growth in the longer term.

The combination of increasing road traffic congestion and the success of the existing fast service to Leeds and Sheffield is likely to place significant pressure on capacity.

Freight

The reference to the limited line gauge and the absence of passing loops is well made in the document. However the potential for reducing the delay on passenger services, particularly those caused by coal trains on the ECML requires more detail. This would clarify the linkage to the Freight RUS and illustrate the influence infrastructure improvements can have in encouraging long distance freight movements as well as improving journey times and reliability for passenger services.

The RUS quite rightly raises the potential growth in intermodal freight. This is particularly relevant as a large number of distribution centres and warehousing units are based in South Yorkshire i.e. major retailers such as B&Q, Next, Aldi etc. This highlights the potential for increasing freight movement by rail to Doncaster rail port, Wakefield Europort and possibly beyond to dedicated freight sidings in the future.

Many of the existing movements currently use local and major trunk roads from the Humber ports and at present the only convenient rail freight facility in South Yorkshire is

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App 1.doc Doncaster rail port. The Freight Facility Grant does however, offer opportunities to increase rail freight movements using the recent improved rail links from the Humber ports to the distribution and warehousing mentioned above. The potential for these grants are more likely to be discuss in detail in the Freight RUS, however it would be useful if the Y&H RUS made reference to their existence and the potential for attracting specific categories of freight such as multi modal freight to rail.

The proposed reopening of the North Midland Mainline could also offer opportunities for freight movements thereby freeing up paths for high speed passenger rail services.

Detailed issues

Short term 2009 -2014(Control period 4)

• Tram Train

The RUS would benefit from an expansion of the details of the Tram/Train and in particular more details of the implementation program for the scheme.

Concerns where expressed at the RUS stakeholder briefing held at York on the 22"' October 08, regarding rolling stock capacity, particularly as the line between Sheffield and is already one the busiest service in South Yorkshire.

These concerns are further reinforced by the fact that the region has one of highest levels of passenger growth in the UK and a further increase patronage may result from the introduction of the new rolling stock (as per the experiences with light rail such as South Yorkshire Supertram and 's Metrolink.).

Based on the above points we have concerns that the tram train have insufficient capacity to accommodate passenger demand

Does the tram train proposal accommodate not only existing capacity but future potential growth in patronage?

Is it proposed to operate a higher frequency shuttle service, particularly into Barnsley to ensure sufficient capacity similar to the proposals for services in the RUS into Leeds from Horsforth, Keighley Halifax and Knottingley, in control period 4 ( 2009 - 20 14)?

• Transpennine Express (TPE)

Despite the recent improvements to Leeds Station platform capacity is at a premium. Consequently the introduction of an additional hourly service between Leeds to

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\08 1126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Uumber Rail Utilisation Strategy App 1.doc Manchester will place further pressure on the Station, increasing to likelihood of further delays to services.

It would be useful to know if consideration has been given to diverting this fifth service per hour at Huddersfield, via the to Wakefield Kirkgate, Normanton and York. .(see appendix 3) This may have the potential to offer the following benefits : - o Free up capacity at Leeds Station, o Provide a faster link to both Manchester and York and o Improve connectivity for passenger from Barnsley across the Pennines.

Medium Term 2014 -2019 (Control period 5)

Under the medium term it is good to see that the RUS recognises the importance of speed improvements between Sheffield, Bamsley and Leeds.

However, there are a number of issues which it is felt need to be addressed:-

• Longer term capacity

It is notable there is only passing reference made, in the RUS to the hourly Nottingham to Leeds Service to be launched in December 2008.( Page 85 Chapter 5 - Chesterfield Line) . This is unfortunate considering the benefits to Bamsley. of the service in terms of capacity, frequency and connectivity.

Based on the success of the Leeds - Sheffield via Barnsley fast service introduced only two years ago and already operating at capacity at peak times, the Nottingham -Leeds service has the potential for major passenger growth.. Considering the forecast 42% growth in passengers in the coming years - as mentioned at the recent RUS stakeholder briefing held at York on the 22' October 08 - the Nottingham service could also be operating at capacity within a similar timescale.- i.e well before the beginning of control period 5 (2014-2019). I Our understanding is that it is for the High Level Output Strategy (HLOS) to accommodate additional train lengthening to accommodate the future growth. It would be useful if the documents clarified this issue in more detail.

Furthermore in the longer term few improvements are planned to the infrastructure between Chesterfield and Leeds, (until control period 5) it is difficult to see how any additional future services could be accommodated in until the 2019 and beyond.

It is, however particularly pleasing to see the inclusion of improvements to Dore and Totley station junction South of Sheffield within the RUS, as this can cause reactionary delays to services serving Barnsley.

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENTO81 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App Idoc

3 • Target Speed Improvements

It is , difficult to understand how the RUS can set targets for speed improvements between Manchester and Leeds and yet does not set out similar targets for Sheffield to Leeds via Barnsley or Sheffield to Manchester.

The RUS does not appear to recognise the relevance of speed restriction due to the small number of blocks in the signalling system in the Ecclesfield area and south of Wakefield in terms of their constraints on future frequency improvements.

Long term, context control period 6 and beyond

It is good to see reference made to aspirations for a Barnsley to Doncaster rail link and the proposals for reinstatement of the North Midland line south of Cudworth - (not Cawthorne as mentioned in the RUS) as a major transport link for the Housing Growth Corridor.(see appendix 3). However, it is disappointing that the aspirations for this service are only mentioned in the appendices and not in the core of the documents as a Yorkshire and Humber aspiration.

Local Development Framework and Regional Spatial Strategy

Surprisingly no reference is made in the RUS to the role of the LDF, and RSS with only limited mention of the Regional Planning Assessment. The role of the RSS and LDF in setting the regional spatial planning agenda which can considerably influence travel and in protecting the former rail alignments where necessary to ease network capacity in terms of freight , passenger local and longer distance services. Does not seem to be recognised.

Prioritisation of Transpenmne Links in the Longer Term

We welcome the reference in the RUS to the Woodhead line and the complexity of reopening the route across the Pennines. The effect such a proposal will have on the already congested track capacity in the Greater Manchester area are particularly significant.

As the RUS is an industry study to identify "gaps" and both future demand and unfunded stakeholder aspirations are not within the remit of the RUS, then in our view a much wider regional study encompassing all routes across the Pennines, regardless of mode, should be commissioned.

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App 1 .doc It is for example appreciated that the RUS will not consider long term reinstatement of disused rail lines across the Pennines. However, multi modal study to establishing the true costs and benefits for major infrastructure improvements across the Pennines would be welcome. Such a study could include all the existing and potential rail and road links for both passengers and freight across the Pennines.

As the a key objective of the Northern Way Business Plan was "to establish the Northern Way Transport Compact as an advisory body on pan northern transport investment, developing robust evidence for prioritised transport investment linked to productivity growth" such a body may be best placed to lead on the study. This would build on the work of the previous multi modal studies such as SWYMMS and using the latest modelling techniques. A single appraisal scheme could be used to provide robust recommendations for multi modal improvements to the network across the Pennines, providing a clear indication of what is achievable. The study would inform the long term strategy of Network Rail in the region and provide evidence to support stakeholder aspirations. It would be particularly useful if in paragraph 2.3 "linkages with other studies "reference could made to the Northern Way Transport Compact and possibly indicate Network Rails support the study proposed above. (See diagram in Appendix 2: Routes Across the Pennines)

It is pleasing to see the reference to the Councils aspirations for the Barnsley Growth Corridor set out in the RUS. However, a little more detail for each of the individual aspirations would be appreciated. In particular potential wider benefits the individual stakeholders see would result. The Barnsley Growth Corridor for example aims to pump prime housing growth in an area to the east of the Borough. However, it may also have considerable benefits I terms of transferring freight trains away form both the ECML and the .

Promotion of services -

It is recognised that the train operators have a major role in promoting rail services. However .in particular were stations have recently been improved such as Bolton on Dearne. A joint Network Rail / Train Operating Company strategy, for the promotion of such stations would be welcome. Furthermore little reference is made to the Community Rail in the RUS.

Connectivity

Section 6.2.4 Access to stations would benefit from reference to the potential for improved connectivity and hence accessibility to employment, education and leisure by encouraging feeder buses to local stations.

The potential for working closely with stakeholders to introduce such services has been clearly illustrated by the to Middlewood Service operated buy Stagecoach. At present the services carry over 7,000 passengers a week all of whom travel onto to their destination by tram and potentially train at Sheffield or Meadowhall.

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\08 1126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App 1.doc There are concerns that despite the document "Investment in Stations - a guide for promoters and developers" produced by Network Rail in June 2008 neither connectivity nor promotion are considered in sufficient detail. The RUS provides the opportunity for such issues to be raised.

Rolling stock

It is appreciated that the replacement of rolling stock is dependent on the Dft's own rolling stock programme, the High Output Level Output Specification (HLOS) and network Rail own Business plan. However, it is pleasing to see reference made to plans for the replacement of the Pacer/Sprinter trains beyond 2014.

In the interim however, consideration should be given to utilising Pacer rolling stock released by the forthcoming Tram Train trial project and deployed to provide additional services. Such as:-

• a regular and frequent feeder service to Wakefield Kirkgate (possibly extended to Castleford) and • in the longer term the proposed new North Midland Line from Cudworth would also use Wakefield Kirkgate..

Redeploying Pacer rolling stack in this manner would have much wider benefits, including:- • Improve connectivity for passengers from Barnsley. • Ensure Wakefield Kirkgate becomes a more viable "hub" station than at present. (Particularly if the proposal for a Manchester/ Huddersfield to York via Wakefield service was introduced) • Enable some of the Sheffield - Leeds slow service to proceed to Leeds. • The feeder service may even be able to take on a Castleford - Leeds role but.

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App l.doc Appendix A Yorkshire and Humber RUS Executive Summary Executive summary introducdon This Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) Draft for Consultation has followed the now well-established RUS process, with extensive stakeholder involvement. The RUS area is characterised by a diversity of both train service and stakeholders. On the one hand, there are heavily used inter-urban and urban services, and on the other, particularly in the eastern part of the area, relatively lightly used rural operations. Some parts of the network, such as lmmingham, are very heavily used by freight traffic whilst others are solely passenger. Similarly, there is no one body responsible for transport planning such as Transport for London or Transport Scotland. Whilst the interests of the principal urban areas are represented by South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (PTE) and West Yorkshire PTE (and to a lesser extent - in terms of geography rather than roles and responsibilities- Greater Manchester PTE), local authorities in the remainder of the area range from geographically very large shire counties such as North Yorkshire to quite compact unitary authorities. The National Park Authorities also have a role to play.

Scope and background The Yorkshire and Humber RUS adjoins the infrastructure covered by the already-published , North West and and Cumbria RUSs, and the East Midlands RUS currently in preparation. Several members of the rail

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App 1 .doc

I industry Stakeholder Management Group (SMG) are common to some or all of these RUSs. There is a considerable interface with the North West RUS in the corridors from South and West Yorkshire to Greater Manchester.

The RUS covers broadly the area from Scarborough, Hull and Cleethorpes in the east to Newark, Chinley, Stalybridge, Rochdale and Skipton in the west, with the exception of the East Coast Main Line (ECML). It considers issues over an 11-year time period from 2008. It has had issues passed to it from the North West RUS, the Lancashire and Cumbria RUS, the ECML RUS and the Freight RUS. The Network RUS currently under development will also address some issues such as electrification, which may impact on the RUS area.

Process The RUS initially analyses the current capability and capacity of the railway in order to measure its ability to cater reliably for existing demand and thereby highlight any present-day "gaps". Forecasts of predicted demand over the coming 11 years are then examined, and forecast future gaps identified. These forecasts take account of committed schemes which are known to be coming on stream in the next few years. A set of options is then generated which could potentially bridge the known and predicted gaps. These options are then analysed in order to gain an understanding about which of them look to offer the most promising and value-for-money solutions. At this stage, the RUS is put out to consultation in order for stakeholder responses to be sought and considered, and thereby for options to be refined. This consultation document has been prepared to support this part of the process. A finalised strategy will then be prepared and published in early 2009. The Yorkshire and Humber RUS process is overseen and directed by the SMG, which comprises representatives from the Train Operating Companies (TOCs), Freight Operating Companies (FOC5), the Department for Transport (DfT), Network Rail, Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), Passenger Focus, the PTEs and the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) (as observers).

Gaps This RUS identified six generic gaps: Peak crowding and suppressed growth: Demand for rail commuting into Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester has been growing strongly in recent years with the result that many trains during the high peak are now close to or in a few cases beyond their nominal capacity. Significant overcrowding in peak hours is forecast if additional capacity is not provided. Off-peak crowding and suppressed growth: Growth in demand for fast cross-Pennine services in the core Manchester - Leeds via Diggle corridor has been exceptionally strong in recent years and significant overcrowding is forecast such that demand management measures will be required if additional capacity is not provided. This prediction is based on growth predictions of an average of 3.6 percent per year and is dependent on a number of assumptions, in particular fares policy (RPI+1 percent is assumed, potentially conservative for unregulated fares) and external effects such as road congestion and motoring costs. There are only very limited opportunities to add services to meet this demand without restructuring the timetable. Engineering access: On certain route sections, present methods of maintenance and renewal imply regular and lengthy possessions to keep the infrastructure fit for purpose. Increasingly, these do not fit comfortably with: demand for passenger services to operate later on weekday evenings and to start earlier on Sunday mornings; growing demand- especially on south Humberside - for 24-hour freight access; and a strong desire that passenger services in key corridors should as far as possible be free from bus substitution.

Regional links: There is a perception of poor connectivity in certain corridors. In particular, the service between Bradford and Manchester is slow by comparison with services between other major centres, as a result of numerous station stops combined with some low speed restrictions. The Sheffield - Manchester service is considered to be unattractive at two

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App I .doc fast trains per hour when compared with the Leeds - Manchester frequency. Freight capability: Parts of the RUS area have restrictive loading gauge clearance when compared with the Freight RUS aspirations for W9, W1O and W12. Such restrictions reduce the suitability of the lines affected for diversionary purposes, as well as hindering development of the intermodal container market. Identified key capacity pinch-points, such as the Hope Valley and Hare Park - South Kirkby, threaten to handicap future growth in the freight business. The absence of any loops of 775 metres within the RUS area limits the options for running the longest freight rains in line with FOG aspirations. Reactionary delays: A number of key locations have been identified where very significant delays occur, notably Whitehall Junction, , Swinton junctions and Rochdale station. Gongestion at these locations is related to the existence of rail infrastructure which has become increasingly inadequate and outdated as train services have grown in response to demand, whilst "quick win" solutions have almost invariably been taken up. The immediate future: 2008 2009 (Control Period 3) The most acute issue in the Yorkshire and Humber area is accommodating growth in peak-period passenger and freight traffic, although a number of performance issues are also apparent. With Gontrol Period 3 (GP3) nearly at an end, the amount of work that can be undertaken within its remaining duration is very limited. • Extension of the Leeds - Brighouse - Hebden Bridge stopping service to Rochdale to meet up with the Manchester stopping service in the December 2008 timetable will provide some additional capacity, as will the introduction of the new Nottingham - Leeds service • The Hull Docks capacity enhancement scheme recently completed has provided significant additional capacity for freight traffic, as has the upgrade of the Barnetby - Gainsborough via Brigg line to a similar timescale * An improved layout will be provided at Bradford Mill Lane, which will assist performance of the Galder Valley service. Higher-speed crossovers will be installed at Ghurch Fenton allowing a small journey time and performance improvement for services in the York - Leeds corridor.

Short-term strategy 2009 - 2014 (Control Period 4) Train services The general approach will be that of progressive train lengthening and, on some corridors, providing additional peak shuttle services to relieve overcrowding, as additional rolling stock becomes available. At Leeds, the capacity provided by the recent remodelling has largely been used up already because of rapid growth. There is room to expand platform capacity on the north side of the station, which will suffice for Airedale, Wharfedale and Harrogate services, but expansion in the centre and south of the station would be very costly. The main solution proposed for the next decade is to introduce more short distance cross-Leeds services, using a new tumback facility to the east (near Micklefield). There will be some journey time improvements between Leeds and Manchester together with the introduction of an additional service each hour as part of a general recast of services on the Diggle route. Possible journey time improvements may be undertaken on other corridors. Additional freight services will be accommodated in line with Freight RUS forecasts. Gauge enhancements in some key freight arteries will help intermodal growth. Introduction of a regular clock-face timetable on the ECML as proposed in the ECML RUS is also expected to assist considerably in terms of improving local and "east - west" services, but may require some infrastructure interventions to maximise the opportunities.

Infrastructure enhancements The following schemes would be needed in order to deliver the changes to services detailed above: * platform lengthening on a number of lines to accommodate increased train length * new and increased passenger train servicing and stabling facilities * new or improved turnback facilities at Horsforth, Keighley, Gastleford, and in the

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App l.doc Micklofield area it some small-scale capacity enhancement in the Calder Valley ii at Leeds, additional bay platforms beside Platform 1 and Platform 17, subject to further development work tit various small-scale capacity enhancements between Leeds and Manchester, notably upgrading and lengthening of Diggle loop and upgrading of Marsden loop it IEP infrastructure works 2 it some W9IW1O/W12 gauge enhancements, funded by Hutchison Ports (UK) Ltd (HPUK) and possibly others identified through the Strategic Freight Network mechanism it remodelling of Shaftholme Junction 3 it a fourth running line at York Holgate andassociated enhancements 3 it small-scale projects to enhance performance, provide marginal capacity improvements and/or journey time reductions. Those schemes that are not funded specifically through the ORR Determination for Control Period 4 (CP4) or other funding sources will need to be deferred to Control Period 5 (CP5),

Mediumterm strategy 2014 - 2019 (Contro' Period 5) The following recommended changes to train services form the proposed strategy for CP5 There would be continued train lengthening on local services, including additional shuttles introduced during CP4. A 43-minute journey time for Leeds - Manchester would become the norm for most fast services, with a further recast of services on the Diggle route to allow this to happen. A "standard hour" service of three fast trains per hour would be introduced between Sheffield and Manchester. Improved journey times would be introduced in the Leeds Sheffield via Barnsley corridor, between Sheffield and Manchester and between Bradford and Manchester. Freight paths are expected to be further increased on those routes highlighted in the Freight RUS,plus routes where further growth is driven by gauge enhancement. Improved capacity, performance, linespeeds and engineering access will be provided between lmmingham and Wrawby Junction and between Hessle Road Junction and Gilberdyke. New rolling stock is expected to begin to bring benefits, such as: greater seating capacity on London- Yorkshire services as the result of Intercity Express Programme (IEP) introduction it IEP dual fuel sub-fleet could provide potential for improved London links for towns/cities not on electrified routes it new generation DMUs starting to replace Pacer/Sprinter fleet possible extension of electrification within the RUS area.

It is envisaged that the following projects will be needed to deliver the aforementioned train service strategy: further platform lengthening • capacity enhancements between Leeds and Manchester via Diggle • any turnback facilities or other projects identified in the short-term strategy section that were not affordable in CP4 • an enhanced layout at Sheffield • doubling of the Dore & Totley station curve and new loops in the Hope Valley it additional crossover at Bradford Interchange and some bi-directional signalling 4 it enhancements between Wrawby Junction and Brocklesby • enhancements between Ulceby and the lmmingham dock complex it possible extension of electrified network within the RUS area it possible incremental improvements to capacity, performance and engineering access in the Doncaster station area prior to more significant enhancement on the back of signalling renewals in the longer term it any further W9iW1O/W12 loading gauge works identified through the Strategic Freight Network mechanism it other schemes identified as representing value for money to reduce reactionary delay and/or improve the balance between engineering access and continuity of service operation.

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\08 1126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App I .doc 0. ) d

The Government's 2007 White Paper suggests a general doubling of both passenger and freight traffic nationally over a 30-year period. However, it is recognised that there may be wide variations on individual routes or parts of routes according to local circumstances. In the event of very rapid growth there is little doubt the strategy for handling demand in the longer term must look first to make best use of the existing infrastructure in the RUS area and then to the opportunities offered by the wider rail network. These could include, for example, making use of any remaining capacity for growth on lines within the RUS area followed by use of the remaining capacity on lines outside the RUS area. There could also be options for reopening currently disused lines where feasible or construction of some completely new sections of railway. The latter could be unconstrained by traditional limitations on maximum speed, loading gauge and other output characteristics.

Cn dt ton We now seek stakeholders' views, particularly on the gaps, options and emerging conclusions presented, before finalising this strategy. Chapter 7 provides contact details.

Appendix B Emerging strategy it' tot' cton The study of the routes in the Yorkshire and Humber area has shown that generally the routes are very well used by both passenger and freight traffic. The most acute issues are accommodating the growth in commuter journeys and providing additional capacity for freight traffic, The strategy therefore primarily seeks to address the question of growth progressively over time. The Route Utilisation Strategy process has considered the current and future freight and passenger markets and assessed the future growth in each. It has then sought to accommodate this growth effectively and efficiently,

The RUS has considered Regional Planning Assessment conclusions and has taken into account other potentially fundable stakeholder aspirations, particularly those of the Department for Transport, Passenger Transport Executives, local authorities and regional bodies. In the course of this investigation, options were developed, tested, sifted and modified until feasible solutions were identified with acceptable performance and meeting value for money criteria, which are consistent with anticipated funding and acceptable to all key stakeholders. To align with the 2007 Government White Paper "Delivering a Sustainable Railwa/', the strategy also looks forward to interventions which will help deliver sustainable transport to support long-term freight and passenger growth.

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\08 1126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App Idoc A number of the key recommendations are reliant upon there being increased amounts of rolling stock available to the Train Operating Companies. Consequently, timescales and final capacity solutions will be dependent on the OfT's rolling stock strategy and subsequent acquisition, cascade and deployment of rolling stock across the network. For Control Period 4 (April 2009 to March 2014) there is a parallel process that is seeking to meet the Government's High Level Output Specification (HLOS) requirements through the Network Rail Strategic Business Plan. This process aims to address peak crowding using the options proposed for recommendations in the RUS subject to the affordability of infrastructure solutions that allow the efficient use of the rolling stock that becomes available via the DfT's Rolling Stock Plan.

General Principles

The general principle adopted throughout the RUS has been to consider simpler and lower cost interventions before turning to more complex and expensive solutions. In the first instance optimising use of existing infrastructure has been examined. Timetabling solutions have always been sought as preferable to infrastructure works, subject to there being no unacceptable performance impact. The next step has been to consider the progressive lengthening of trains where heavy demand exists to the maximum practical size and only then to look towards infrastructure enhancement. Again the range of options is considered in order, from simpler schemes such as platform extensions, through more far-reaching measures such as signalling and power supply upgrades, or capability works for longer freight trains, or increased gauge for intermodal traffic, to more

comprehensive investment in a particular line of route. In many cases, the provision of additional services may offer a solution to peak and inter-peak overcrowding, which offers passengers a better service than simple train lengthening, even taking into account infrastructure capacity improvements. Looking to the medium term, account has been taken of the opportunity presented by the introduction of further new trains to assume improved capacity per train and to consider the part that increased use of electric traction might play. Ultimately, continued and sustained passenger growth means that an increasing number of enhancement projects have the potential to deliver tangible economic benefits for the Yorkshire and Humber region and the UK as a whole.

Short-term strategy 2009 2014 (Controf Pehod 4)

6.4.1 Background In July 2007, the High Level Output Specification was published. The HLOS set out the improvements in the safety, reliability and capacity of the railway system which the Secretary of State for Transport wishes to secure during the period 2009 - 2014. Network Rail's Strategic Business Plan identifies the schemes required to meet these outputs. The strategy in the medium term consists of measures to increase capacity on peak passenger services into Leeds, Sheffield and Manchester, to increase and improve cross-Pennine passenger services throughout the day and to provide capacity for freight growth. In addition, work will commence on the development of measures expected to be required in later years. The emerging strategy for Control Period 4 is set out as follows below, although some initiatives may need to be deferred until Control Period 5 if the associated infrastructure changes are not funded in CP4. 6.4.2 Train services The following changes to train services currently form the recommended strategy for CP4: s the most crowded local services will increasingly be lengthened as additional

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App l.doc rolling stock becomes available • subject to affordability of the provision of turnbacks, additional peak shuttles will be run (a) Leeds to/from Horsforth, Keighley,Halifax and Knottingley and (b) Manchester to/from Rochdale/Todmorden ii some peak services will be extended through Leeds to a turnback facility east of Leeds • an additional all-day hourly service will be operated between Leeds or York and Manchester via Diggle with a timetable recast of all cross-Pennine services cross-Pennine services will be accelerated to move towards the target journey time of 43 minutes Leeds Manchester via Diggle • possible journey time improvements on other key corridors at additional freight services as forecast in the Freight RUS will be accommodated, with re-routeing where appropriate to take advantage of new freight routes such as the recently upgraded Brigg line U additional services from London King's Cross to or through Doncaster as recommended in the East Coast Main Line RUS • existing Doncaster - Lincoln trains may include a stop at a new station at Robin Hood Airport Doncaster Sheffield U performance improvement through reduction in Reactionary Delay. During CP4 there would be the need to undertake development of options for delivery of the medium-term strategy set out in section 6.5 6.4.3 Infrastructure The following schemes would be needed in order to deliver the above strategy: at platform lengthening on a number of lines to accommodate increased train length 1 S new and increased passenger train servicing and stabling facilities 1 S new or improved turnback facilities at Horsforth, Keighley, Castleford, and in the Micklefield area S some small-scale capacity enhancement in the Calder Valley • at Leeds, additional bay platforms beside Platform 1 and Platform 17, subject to further development work • various small-scale capacity enhancements between Leeds and Manchester, notably upgrading and lengthening of Diggle loop and upgrading of Marsden loop

• IEP infrastructure works 1 S some W9/W1O/W12 gauge enhancements, funded by HPUK and possibly others identified through the Strategic Freight Network mechanism • remodelling of Shaftholme Junction S a fourth running line at York Holgate and associated enhancements 2 S small-scale projects to enhance performance, provide marginal capacity improvements and/or journey time improvements funded via the Network Rail Discretionary Fund. Those schemes that are not funded through the ORR Determination for CP4 or other funding source will need to be deferred to CP5. 65 Medium-term strategy 2014 - 2019 (Control Period 5)

6.5.1 Background The general approach will be to continue and further develop initiatives commenced in CP4 in line with the predicted continuing growth in demand. In addition, by this time a number of existing rolling stock fleets will be reaching life-expiry and commencement of a replacement programme will create opportunities for improvements in capacity, performance, fuel efficiency and attractiveness to passengers.

6.5.2 Train services The following recommended changes to train services form the proposed strategy for CP5: at introduction of peak shuttles and associated infrastructure on lines where turnbacks and other infrastructure enhancements were not affordable in CP4 at continued progressive train lengthening of local services, including the shuttles introduced during CP4 at lengthening of London and possibly other LDHS services, mainly as a result of the

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cahinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App idoc ti IEP programme ii increased flexibility provided by the IEP dual fuel sub-fleet could allow improved services between places on the electrified network and towns/cities elsewhere ff1 43 minutes journey time between Leeds and Manchester for most fast services via Diggle progressive introduction of new generation DMUs to replace Pacer/Sprinter vehicles it a further recast of cross-Pennine services via Diggle to provide more capacity it improved journey times between Leeds and Sheffield via Barnsley, Sheffield and Manchester, and Bradford and Manchester 1ff possible increased use of electric trains within the RUS area (extension of electric train operation is a specific area that the Network RUS is examining) it three fast trains per hour between Sheffield and Manchester it further increases in train paths on those routes highlighted in the Freight RUS plus routes where further growth is driven by gauge enhancement it improved capacity, performance, linespeeds and engineering access between lmmingham and Wrawby Junction it improved capacity, performance, linespeeds and engineering access between Hessle Road Junction and Gilberdyke it enhanced service to RHADS it further improvements to train performance through reduction in reactionary delays. As with CP4, during CP5 there would be the need to undertake development of options for continued delivery of the strategy beyond the control period.

6.5.3 Infrastructure It is envisaged that the following projects will be needed to deliver the above strategy: further platform lengthening 1 capacity enhancements between Leeds and Manchester via Diggle • any turnback facilities or other projects identified in 6.4.3 that were not affordable in CP4 it an enhanced layout at Sheffield 3 • doubling of the Dore & Totley station curve and new loops in the Hope Valley 3 * additional crossover at Bradford Interchange and some bi-directional signalling 3 • enhancements between Wrawby Junction and Brocklesby in connection with signalling renewals • enhancements between Ulceby and the lmmingham dock complex • possible extension of electrified network within the RUS area * possible incremental improvements to capacity, performance and engineering access in the Doncaster station area prior to more significant enhancement on the back of signalling renewals in the longer term it any further W9/W1 01W12 loading gauge works identified through the Strategic Freight Network mechanism I other schemes identified as representing value for money to reduce reactionary delay and/or improve the balance between engineering access and continuity of service operation. Delivery of the strategy for the route during Control Periods 4 and 5 will require analysis of the value of the different inputs and outputs to understand better the relationships shown, and to produce a robust staged implementation plan. Some of the inputs might be redefined or

eliminated after further development work, but this is considered unlikely because many of the key dependencies are already clear.

66 Confingent projects

6.6.1 Intercity Express Programme The Intercity Express Programme sponsored by DfT has commenced development and whilst it is currently in its early stages it is clear that it will be a significant element in the long-term development of the railway in the RUS area, given that ECML services are firmly included in the IEP programme scope. Network Rail will support IEP with a range of infrastructure works to accommodate operation of the new trains, and National Express East Coast is committed to operation

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\08 1126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App 1.doc of the pre-series trains. The DfT has received bids for delivery of IEP vehicles, with a view to contract award in April 2009.

6J Lon gterm context (Contro Petlod 6 and beyond)

The Government's 2007 White Paper Delivering a Sustainable RailwaV' aspires to a doubling of both passenger and freight traffic nationally over a 30-year period; however it is recognised there may be wide variations on individual routes or parts of routes according to local circumstances. In the event of very rapid growth there is little doubt the strategy for handling demand in the longer term must look first to make best use of the existing infrastructure in the RUS area and then to the opportunities offered by the wider rail network. These could include, for example, making use of any remaining capacity for growth on lines outside the RUS area. There could also be options for reopening currently disused lines where feasible or construction of some completely new sections of railway. The latter could be unconstrained by traditional limitations on maximum speed, loading gauge and other output characteristics.

This section of the document examines what a doubling of passenger and freight traffic over the 30-year period 2007 to 2O37could mean for the RUS area. It is assumed that all passenger markets would double. However, for freight it is assumed that the majority contribution to a national doubling of freight traffic would be intermodal traffic. This would operate over the key freight arteries connecting the ports, the Channel Tunnel and regional distribution centres and would require typically an additional two or three paths per hour on those arteries. The rate of increase in passenger demand over the last few years, particularly on cross- Pennine services, has been well above the national average. Projected forward (including the impact of the increased passenger trains proposed above) this could well mean that this route would see more than a doubling of passenger numbers and that would suggest that by Control Period 6 (CP6) when all practical options on longer and more frequent trains have been taken up, the cross-Pennine route via Diggle will be operating at capacity. At that stage, the only practical option would appear to centre on four-tracking much more of that corridor unless a section of completely new railway was constructed. Four-tracking would almost certainly entail the renovation and reopening of the former Down and Up slow line tunnels at Stancledge. Additionally, with the restrictions posed by Scout Tunnel and Stalybridge Old Tunnel one way forward might be to re-open some sections of the former railway on the opposite side of the valley and some new alignments. Between Huddersfield and Standedge generally sufficient space already exists to accommodate a tour-track railway - this section having consisted of four tracks in the past - but there is a risk to linespeeds as the current two-track railway makes best use of the old four-track formation to maximise speeds. This risk could be ameliorated by the use of rolling stock with tilt technology. Equally electrification of this route would bring benefits in terms of faster acceleration fromstations and would significantly improve the performance of services over the hilly sections of the route. The Hope Valley route is another corridor where further increases to passenger service levels are a possibility given that it links the Sheffield and Manchester City regions as well as providing longer-distance links. This would entail significant four-tracking of the existing route, which has only ever been a two-track railway for most of its length although the provision of freight loops (as mentioned in 6.5.3) would allow some improvement to the number of services using the route. The alternative would be to reinstate the Buxton to Matlock route, which would allow much of the eastbound aggregates traffic from the to be taken off the , thereby freeing up capacity for an improved passenger timetable offer between Sheffield and Manchester. This option could also provide improvements between the East Midlands and North West, which the East Midlands RUS will be examining. An alternative option to relieve cross-Pennine capacity put forward by various stakeholders is the reopening of the former Woodhead route, involving reinstatement of a twotrack railway between Deepcar, Penistone and Hadfield coupled with upgrading of the existing railway between Sheffield and Deepcar and in the Hadfield area. It is recognised that, unlike the four-tracking of the Diggle route, this offers an additional benefit

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\08 1126 Cabinet\Yorksh ire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App I .doc in providing greatly improved connectivity or the Barnsley, Penistone and Hadfield areas however it would do little to relieve the key capacity shortage between Leeds and Manchester. In addition, there are several significant practical limitations. Most notably, without very major construction work access to the route from the present Sheffield station would require trains to reverse at or near Woodburn Junction and put further pressure on the heavily used two-track section immediately north of Sheffield station.

Furthermore, the considerable density of existing rail traffic over the proposed route at the Manchester end, particularly during the commuter peaks, would potentially limit the amount of additional traffic that could be handled. Almost none of the solum of the disused parts of the former Woodhead railway is currently in Network Rail ownership. The main benefits of this route would arise from dealing with congestion on the cross-Pennine road network rather than solving rail network issues, whilst the size of the project and the existence of less costly short-to-medium term solutions to cross-Pennine rail capacity imply any development would be well into CP6 or beyond. In order to accommodate a doubling of commuter journeys on each rail corridor, the short-to-medium term strategy of either train lengthening or additional services gives the foundation for the longer term. Continued growth could be addressed largely through progressive train lengthening both of existing services and the "peak busting" additional shuttle services and some further service frequency increases. Based on present trends in growth in demand, capacity at Leeds station and its surrounding area is expected to become increasingly critical even with the interventions proposed for CP4 and CP5. The obvious solution is a further major rebuild of the Leeds station area but there are significant engineering complexities associated with this and the potential for a long period of disruption should not be underestimated. Alternatively, consideration will need to be given to the possibility of four-tracking all or part of the route between Leeds and Micklefield to maximise the number of trains from the west and south running through Leeds rather than terminating there. Electrification of this corridor, either in CP5 or the longer term, could bring wider benefits - especially if extending as far as York - by: ! allowing cross-Leeds local services to the proposed turnback facility at Micklefield to be operated by electric traction, releasing capacity by improving their acceleration from intermediate stations t if Leeds - Manchester via Diggle were electrified, allowing cross-Pennine services to be operated by electric traction through to York allowing some London - Newcastle (or beyond) services to operate via Leeds, either for diversionary purposes or as a regular arrangement. The operation of more London - Leeds services through to other destinations would free up some further through-platform capacity at Leeds. The need to commence renewal of the existing Sprinter/Pacer fleet during CP5, into CP6 and perhaps beyond might offer particular opportunities to build a case for electrification, based around the premise that new designs of electric train could be lighter in weight with the numerous benefits that brings. Furthermore, electric traction is generally simpler to maintain than diesel giving potentially more intensive utilisation and lower maintenance costs. Another opportunity to mitigate capacity issues at Leeds station could be by the deployment of TramTrain vehicles on certain local corridors. TramTrain vehicles would be able to leave the heavy rail network close to Leeds city centre and then use street running, both freeing up capacity in Leeds station and offering improved connectivity to city centre destinations. Similar opportunities may also be identified at Sheffield, building on experience gained during the planned TramTrain trial between Sheffield, Penistone and Huddersfield. More widely, steps might be taken to encourage staggering of working hours in Leeds and other major centres - perhaps incentivised by fares policy. This would do much to reduce the adverse effect of relatively short morning and evening peaks in terms of rolling stock assets fully utilised for only a very short period of each day. Longer, less intense peaks would certainly contribute markedly to a reduction in crowding and more economic operation of the local passenger transport network. The development of new ticketing technology to introduce more flexible and sophisticated pricing in the high peak hour and peak shoulders should be accorded a high priority. This will build on the work already done at industry level to identify appropriate standards for the potential national application of future ticketing solutions and other demand management techniques. The lead time in developing and proving such solutions means that while the full benefits are unlikely to be

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 26 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App l.doc realised in the short to medium term, some early impact may be made. As far as freight growth is concerned, as described above, accommodating a significant increase in intermodal growth is necessary. This requires gauge enhancement to W9, W1O and W12, to allow train lengths up to 775 metres (to maximise use of train paths, locomotives and drivers) and to increase freight paths on the key freight arteries through the RUS area, including associated diversionary routes. Those arteries where increased capacity would be the most challenging are: t Rotherham - Swinton - Moorthorpe - Hare Park Junction Cross-Pennine Doncaster - Colton Junction.

The first of these will need four-tracking of significant sections, which would need to be considered in relation to eliminating some of the flat junctions in the Rotherham to Sheffield corridor as well, but this will have benefits for other types of freight traffic growth, increased passenger services, train performance improvement and moving towards a Seven Day Railway. The second is discussed earlier in this section. The third requires solutions to future routeing of passenger and freight traffic through the Doncaster station area and attention given to making most effective use ofthe lines via Hambleton and Askern.

The Doncaster station area needs to be examined not only in the context of the freight growth above but for the longer-term increase in passenger services from London King's Cross to the RUS area, the North-East and Scotland, and for other service improvement aspirations in the Yorkshire and Humber Region. This could lead to a major upgrade of the network in this area when signalling renewals become due.

68 Aiternatve growth scenarios The demand forecasts used in this RUS represent the growth projections derived from the housing, population and employment forecasts contained in DfT's TEMPRO model, overlaid with information from Regional Planning Assessments and some bespoke overlays. Longer-term demand forecasts are very uncertain and extremely sensitive to economic conditions. The RUS strategy is expected to cater adequately for forecast growth in passenger and freight demand in the next decade. In the event that growth in demand does not meet the RUS forecasts, then clearly it would be possible to delay or abandon interventions where appropriate, provided that decisions are made in time to avoid major expenditure commitments. Equally, if growth continues at its current high level and exceeds the forecast over the next decade, then some of the measures for the longer term may have to be accelerated.

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENTO8 1126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App l.doc Appendix C RUS Option Appraisal

This stage in the process takes a limited number of options and compares them to a base case and to each other using, at present, standard Df12 or Scottish Executive3 appraisal methods. Method Members of the panel of consultants used by Network Rail have now mostly had some experience of undertaking appraisals for RUSs. In addition Network Rail is establishing an in-house expert resource base for modelling and business case work. Many of the comments that apply to demand forecasting also apply here - in particular it is essential that a detailed, absolutely clear, specification of the base cases and options is provided. To the extent that a timetable is to be specified, great care must be taken that the analysts in the consultancy fully understands the specification and that consequent benefits and cost predictions are correctly calculated. For the cost side of the equation, a decision must be reached as to whether it is acceptable to use train or vehicle miles related unit costs or whether it is necessary to produce notional diagrams and use diagram related costs as well as train/vehicle mileage based costs. Key passenger elements • Revenue - MOIRA data or PLANET or bespoke model (if available).

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\08 1126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App I .doc • Operating cost - cost based on resource plans (for example the change in the number of diagrams). A reasonably sophisticated spreadsheet is needed for this. • Performance - at present this is modelled outside of PLANET, increasingly using Railsys as the new standard tool. • Load factors - PLATO data can be used, although this has limitations. PLANET data may also be used. • Generalised journey Time (dis-)benefits - PLANET data is normally used for this. Key freight elements 2Appraisal Criteria, SRA, April 2003, and Addendum, SRA, June 2005 3 Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG), Scottish Executive, September 2003 Network Rail RUS technical guide tO October 2005 (2).doc Page 34 of 45 Benefits - these need to include both financial and economic impact. To date freight appraisal has focused on non-user benefits • User benefits - means benefits to both freight operating company and customer. Approach to date has typically taken the view that the user benefits balance with the costs and hence cancel each other out - although in practice this is not the case - it may be appropriate to assume that the 'revenue' (freight changes paid by customers) equates to FOC operating costs plus cost of capital (because it is a competitive market) but there will still be a user surplus on top of this where the customer is paying less than he would be prepared to. The DfT is continuing SRA work that started to attempt to put some values to this surplus. • Non user benefits - environmental, road congestion, accidents. All these can be captured by Sensitive Lorry Miles (SLM), but this is not directly comparable with the non-user benefits required under the DfT (SRA) criteria for passenger appraisal. The DfT is working to converge passenger and freight appraisal methods in this area, but this may take some time. Some argue that SLM overstates benefits, so it would be preferable to include specific assessment of congestion impact using the Mode Diversion Method (MDM) model - but so far this has only been used in parallel with SLM and confidence still needs to be gained in it. Costs - it is possible to model FOC operating costs. However, as noted above, this is usually not of relevance in the appraisal because it is balanced by the freight charges. Where capacity is being considered, it may be appropriate to assess the impact of freight path take-up on performance - it is not acceptable just to say that freight growth can be absorbed in spare standard paths because sometimes this will involve a significant performance worsenment.

Appraisal outputs The appraisal must be good enough to satisfy the ORR and funders that appropriate recommendations are being made by the RUS. As back-checks may take place some Network Rail RUS technical guide 10 October 2005 (2).doc Page 35 of 45 time later, it is essential that the results are well documented with assumptions and issues clearly highlighted. The outputs must be presented in a standard format for each option, for instance structured into an Appraisal Summary Table and a Transport Efficiency Table. These will include lines of entry for each element of the appraisal, but the key indicators are usually:

E:\CABINET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App l.doc • Benefit/cost ratio (BCR) • Net present value of benefits and costs (NPV) • NPV/K (where K is the cost of the option) Each of these can be calculated to take into account purely financial or wider economic factors. A form of the economic BCR is the preferred indicator for DfT. This is defined in the SRA Appraisal Criteria Addendum as PVB/PVC where PVB is the present value of net benefits to the consumers and the private sector, and PVC is the present value of costs to the government. The outputs should also be produced in a less complex format that is appropriate for consultation - both in the Draft RUS document but also in a fuller but still understandable form to discuss with stakeholders. 7.5 Solution selection and refinement The appraisals process is often iterative. Some options will be rejected in the initial shortlisting stage and others will be redefined; some may combine and some may subdivide. Once each option has been appraised then further conclusions can be reached. The appraisal output should tell for each option: (a) whether the option meets its objectives, i.e. does the option deliver against the gap it was intended to meet, and does it deliver a sufficiently large effect given whatever constraints were imposed; (b) what the level of economic and financial benefits of the option are (this is to enable relative efficiency and attractiveness of options to be identified); and (c) whether the model is giving a plausible response or if there is a possibility that the option has been miscoded or misdefined (in which case it will have to be redone). Patterns should be sought in the results from the options. Are similar options producing similar results? Are the results from a sequence of dependent options suggesting that they should be done in a different order? Often it seems desirable to redefine the options and undertake another round of appraisal, but time and resources are scarce and the law of diminishing returns applies. It may be preferable to interpret the results and use the wisdom and experience of others in the industry through the consultation process to check the validity of the conclusions drawn. Whichever process is followed, the output must be described with an 'audit trail' of logic between appraisal results, consultation responses and recommendations. In Network Rail RUS technical guide 10 October 2005 (2).doc Page 36 of 45 particular, it must be clear which options are interdependent (and how) and which are stand-alone. Any options that are sensitive to key assumptions should be flagged as such. It is not the role of a RUS to devise a prescription for certain implementation on a part of the network. Options and their funding implications should be presented as a menu from which funders may select the future outputs of the network. However, the RUS must choose which options make it onto that menu, so each option should be either recommended or rejected. Recommended options should include a view on timescale and form of implementation, e.g. through the replacement franchise specification in year x; through the discretionary fund in year y; or through inclusion in the HLOS for control period z. Recommendations may be qualified if they are sensitive to key assumptions or if a need has been identified for more analysis in a particular area.

E:\CAB1NET REPORTS\3. DEVELOPMENT\081 126 Cabinet\Yorkshire and Humber Rail Utilisation Strategy App I .doc