GEML Capacity Study Final Report

GEML Vision Group

30 October 2012

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for GEML Vision Group‟s information and use in relation to the Great Eastern Main Line Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 74 pages including the cover.

Document history

Job number: 5111943 Document ref: Final Report Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 CLIENT DRAFT JB PB WL RB 14/09/12 Rev 1.1 Internal Draft PB PB WL RB 24/09/12 Rev 1.2 Revised Client Draft PB PB WL RB 28/09/12 Rev 1.3 Final Version PB PB WL RB 1/10/12 Rev 1.4 Revised Final Version PB PB WL RB 5/10/12 Rev 1.5 Revised Final Version PB PB WL RB 30/10/12

Client signoff

Client GEML Vision Group

Project GEML Capacity Study

Document title GEML Capacity Study –Final Report

Job no. 5111943

Copy no.

Document Final Report reference

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Table of contents

Chapter Pages Executive Summary 9 1. Introduction 11 1.1. Background 11 1.2. GEML Vision Objectives 11 1.3. Scope of the Challenge 11 1.4. Previous Studies 13 1.5. Reporting To Date 13 1.6. Report Structure 13 2. Findings from the Interim Report 15 2.1. Introduction 15 2.2. GEML Issues, Limitations and Constraints 15 2.3. GEML Opportunities 15 2.4. Intervention Options and Sifting 15 2.5. The Preferred Package of Options 16 2.6. Conclusions 16 3. Rolling Stock 17 3.1. Introduction 17 3.2. Outer Suburban Services 18 3.3. Inter-City Services 19 3.4. Rolling Stock Leasing Costs 25 3.5. Summary 26 4. Infrastructure 29 4.1. Context 29 4.2. Boreham 3-Tracking 29 4.3. Bow Junction Remodelling Scheme 32 4.4. Supporting Infrastructure Schemes 34 4.5. Cost Summary 39 5. Operational Assessment 41 5.1. Background 41 5.2. What is RailSys? 41 5.3. Summary of Assessment Inputs 41 5.4. Findings of the Assessment 42 5.5. Conclusion 42 6. Economic Impacts 43 6.1. Background 43 6.2. Summary of EEDA Study (2010) 43 6.3. 2012 Update of the Economic Impacts Assessment 44 6.4. Updated 2012 Demand Impacts of the Vision 45 6.5. Updated 2012 Economic Benefits of the Vision 46 6.6. Summary 49 7. Stakeholder Feedback 51 7.1. GEML Stakeholder Event 51 7.2. Summary of Feedback 51 8. Delivery Framework 53

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

8.1. Introduction 53 8.2. Funding Sources 53 8.3. Farebox revenue: 53 8.4. Subsidy 54 8.5. Private Funding: 56 8.6. Scheme Development 57 8.7. Delivery Programme 57 8.8. Going Forward 59 8.9. Further development work 61 9. Summary & Conclusions 63 9.1. Summary 63 9.2. Conclusions 64

Appendices 65 Appendix A. TEE, Public Accounts and AMCB Table 67 A.1. TEE Table 67 A.2. Public Accounts Table 68 A.3. AMCB Table 69 Appendix B. PLANET South Modelling Specification 71 B.1. Infrastructure 71 B.2. Future Rolling Stock 71 Appendix C. New Train Services 73

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Tables Table 1. Rolling Stock Assessment Process (Outer Commuter Services) 27 Table 2. Rolling Stock Assessment Process (Inter-City Services) 28 Table 3. Summary of Infrastructure Scheme Costs 39 Table 4. RailSys Operational Assessment Outputs 42 Table 5. Revised Journey Times used in PLANET South 45 Table 6. Change in AM Peak Demand & Capacity (7am – 10am), 2008 – 2021 45 Table 7. Impact of Vision on AM Peak Demand & Capacity (7am – 10am), 2021 45 Table 8. Impact of Vision on AM Peak Demand & Capacity (7am – 10am), 2032 46 Table 9. GEML Vision Economic Benefits by Category 48 Table 10. Estimated Benefits from Rolling Stock Replacement 48

Figures Figure 1. GEML Route Map 12 Figure 2. Class 321 Electric Multiple Unit 18 Figure 3. Siemens Class 360 „Desiro‟ EMU (Courtesy Angel Trains) 19 Figure 4. Artists Impression of Bombardier Traxx UK Locomotive (Courtesy of Porterbrook) 20 Figure 5. Photograph of Siemens Vectron Locomotive (Courtesy of Siemens) 20 Figure 6. A visualisation of a refurbished Mark 3 coach interior (Courtesy of Porterbrook) 21 Figure 7. Example of a DVT converted into a passenger carrying vehicle (Courtesy of Porterbrook) 21 Figure 8. Example of a new build passenger carrying driving trailer (Courtesy of Porterbrook) 22 Figure 9. Proposed internal layout of new DTSO vehicle (Courtesy of Porterbrook) 23 Figure 10. Siemens Class 444 „Desiro‟ EMU (Courtesy Siemens) 24 Figure 11. Hitachi IEP/Super Express Train (Courtesy Hitachi) 24 Figure 12. Location of 3-tracking proposal at Boreham 30 Figure 13. Indicative operational diagram of the 3-tracking proposal 31 Figure 14. Existing Track Usage at Bow Junction (Courtesy Network Rail) 33 Figure 15. Potential Future Usage of Bow Junction (Courtesy Network Rail) 33 Figure 16. Beaulieu Park Station Visualisations 36 Figure 17. Proposed Track Layout at Beaulieu Park Station 36 Figure 18. Diagram of Atkins Proposed Three Tracking at Boreham 37 Figure 19. Enhanced Three Tracking Option with relocated Up Main Line 37 Figure 20. GEML Welfare Impacts by Category 47 Figure 21. Delivery Programme 58

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 8

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Executive Summary

This study has been commissioned by the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) Vision Group to identify suitable enhancements for the GEML which will improve the level of service for rail users across East Anglia. The work is prompted by assertions in the London & South East Route Utilisation Strategy (L&SE RUS) that there a passenger capacity gap of 5,100 will exist for the busiest morning peak hour by 2031. The RUS has however not identified any clear options for mitigating this issue. The GEML Vision Group has defined vision objectives for the route which includes securing faster journey times, increased capacity, better quality travel experiences for users and longer term franchise stability. This commission identifies a package of works which can deliver these vision objectives. This builds on previous studies, completed by the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) and the Vision Group since 2008, into the potential economic impact of investing the GEML. This Study has considered over 30 potential enhancements and appraised the potential feasibility and impacts of each option. The options were appraised with the outcome of the sifting assessment being a „core‟ package and a series of „supplementary schemes‟. The most vital infrastructure measures identified are:

 the remodelling of Bow Junction (to provide additional capacity in/out of London); and  the provision of a new three-tracked section at Boreham, north of Chelmsford. The Bow Junction scheme has secured development funding in Control Period 5 (2014-2019) and will, once implemented, enable up to 28 trains per hour out of London Liverpool Street Station. However, the scheme is not committed so the Vision Group will need to continue their support of this scheme and Network Rail‟s ongoing work to ensure that it gains a high priority for inclusion within the HLOS for CP6. Part of the development spending is to be used to develop and test potential timetables, and in particular to quantify any adverse impact on train service performance. To maximise the benefit of this, the Boreham 3-tracking scheme would allow flexibility for regulation of services. Upgrades to rolling stock and other supporting infrastructure improvements (such as works to structures and level crossings) would also be required to capitalise on the on-going renewal of the OHLE and other rail infrastructure to allow line speeds to be raised and operated from 80-100mph, to 110mph. Supplementary schemes include train lengthening and supporting works to lengthen 3 platforms at main line terminus London Liverpool Street to accommodate 12-car services and adding a new loop on the Braintree Branchline, to double service frequency to half-hourly. An opportunity to integrate with a private developer‟s proposals to build a new main line station in sub-urban Chelmsford at Beaulieu Park could also help to achieve the service performance targeted in the vision objectives. This Study had scrutinised each of these elements in greater detail, assessing the feasibility and benefits which each could offer. A „proof of concept‟ analysis has also been completed to demonstrate that the 3- tracked section would allow up to 28 trains per hour to feasibly operate. The earlier EEDA study concluded that conventional transport related economic benefits of £3.4 billion could be realised over a 60 year appraisal period within the East of England (both NPV 2002 prices and values). This excludes potential benefits in areas outside the East of England, notably in East London. These economic impacts were re-evaluated to reflect the updated package of enhancements put forward by this Study. Over a 60 year appraisal period, conventional transport related economic benefits are calculated to be £2.5 billion. There is clear potential to deliver significant benefits by providing increasing capacity and reducing journey times. This improves the attractiveness of rail for current rail users as well as driving additional suppressed demand on to the rail network. Opportunities to influence Government spending and the 15 year longer term franchise contract specification (due to operate from July 2014) must now be maximised to help ensure that gathering momentum for change is maintained.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 9

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 10

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

1. Introduction

1.1. Background The Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) connects Norwich to London Liverpool Street via Ipswich, Colchester, Chelmsford and Shenfield. The line is presented in Figure 1 and includes electrified feeder lines serving Southend Victoria and Southminster, Braintree, Colchester Town, Clacton, Walton on the Naze and Harwich. It is a crucial transport artery, and one that has suffered from a historic lack of investment.

1.2. GEML Vision Objectives The GEML Vision Group was established to drive forward work to identify enhancements to improve the service offer and has defined vision objectives for the line which will benefit all users.

The vision objectives of the GEML Vision Group are:  Faster journey times; routine journey times to Norwich in 90 minutes, Ipswich in 60 minutes, Colchester in 40 minutes and Chelmsford in 25 minutes.  More train paths to increase capacity; necessary to meet the London & South East Route Utilisation Strategy (L&SE RUS) demand predictions and provide an attractive travel experience for all passengers.  Greater investment in track infrastructure necessary to deliver faster journey times, more train capacity and provide greater network resilience.  Better quality travel experiences, improved carriage environment and including the provision of wi-fi to all passengers.  Improved station environs and facilities.  Longer term franchise stability.  A move towards less disruptive engineering work, less reliance of bus replacement services, and more direct services when engineering work does take place.  Maintaining and improving inter-regional and cross-country connectivity, faster trains and journey times; capacity for more train path.

A study conducted by the East of England Development Agency (EEDA) on behalf of the Great Eastern Main 1 Line Vision Group found that delivering these vision objectives would generate £3.4bn in conventional transport related economic impacts and a further £280m in wider impacts within the East of England (both NPV, 2002 prices and values). This assessment excludes the positive impacts that the vision objectives will have on areas outside the East of England, notably in East London. The Great Eastern Main Line Vision Group recognises delivery of these vision objectives requires a long term investment over the life of several franchises. It is necessary to develop a long term delivery plan to inform the procurement of the longer 15 year franchise and influence Network Rail‟s future investment strategy for Greater Anglia. This Technical Capacity Study is the first step in creating this delivery plan.

1.3. Scope of the Challenge The L&SE RUS provides the evidence base of the need for such an investment plan. It forecasts that by 2031 there will be a high peak hour capacity shortfall of 5,000 seats on Great Eastern Main Line services into London Liverpool Street if nothing is done. The L&SE RUS includes a proposal (Option D2) that is intended to partly address this immediate shortfall, however, the need for a step change in the long term capability of the entire GEML railway infrastructure to improve line capacity, train speed and the journey experience for all passengers is clear. It is envisaged that the preferred solution will consist of a package of incremental improvements that together deliver the vision objectives over a timescale appropriate to the growth aspirations of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk and the predicted demand for travel to London identified in the L&SE RUS.

1 The Great Eastern Main Line Study – The Economic Case for Investment (Atkins, 2010)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 11

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 1. GEML Route Map

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 12

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

1.4. Previous Studies Consideration for improvements to the Great Eastern Main Line has been invested by a number of other studies over a number of years. This Study has been developed drawing on evidence contained within a number of existing documents including:

 The Great Eastern Main Line Study – The Economic Case for Investment (Atkins for EEDA,May2010);  London to Norwich Line speed Improvements Study (Network Rail,Oct2011);  London and South East Route Utilisation Strategy, final report (Network Rail,July2011);  Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy (Network Rail,Dec2007);  Network RUS: Passenger Rolling Stock (Network Rail,Sept2011);  Network RUS: Stations (Network Rail,July2011);  Sustainable transport options for the growing A12/GEML towns (Department for Transport, May 2010);  Transport and the Economy in the East of England: The Transport Economic Evidence Study (TEES) (EEDA,Sept2008);  LOIS - London to Ipswich Multi Modal Study (GO East (DfT),Dec2002); and  Local Development Frameworks and Local Transport Plans for Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. In addition there have been other complimentary engineering studies such as the Braintree Branchline Socio-Economic Study (BBSE, Braintree DC, 2012).

1.5. Reporting To Date Atkins has worked with the GEML Vision Group since February 2012 to progress this Study, developing the package of measures which, if delivered, would help the route meet its passenger capacity gap. The Study was initially looked in detail at the current operational performance of the route, the main issues and constraints which are limiting its operation and the opportunities which should be considered in developing the preferred package of measures. A series of Options were identified and appraised with the outcome being a preferred package of enhancements. An Interim Report was published in June 2012, which provided details of the initial phases of the Study and further information on this Interim Report are provided as Chapter 2 of this Final Report. Since the publication of the Interim Report, the preferred package identified has been further developed, taking into account the operational and economic impacts and general feasibility of those Options. This Final Report is the output of that work.

1.6. Report Structure Following this Introduction, the Final Report is presented as follows:

 Chapter 2 summarises the information reported in the Interim Report (June 2012) which has led to the analysis of the preferred package of schemes assessed in this Final Report;  Chapter 3 details the issues around Rolling Stock, including information on the types of potential replacement rolling stock available for use on the GEML and identifying a preferred rolling stock strategy to deliver the GEML Vision;  Chapter 4 provides details on the infrastructure schemes which will be required to deliver the Vision Group‟s objectives and their general level of feasibility and cost;  Chapter 5 presents an operational assessment which has been carried out on the performance of the proposed rail network. This assessment, completed using RailSys, has been undertaken to provide evidence that the new infrastructure can accommodate the capacity enhancements without adverse impact on performance;  Chapter 6 summarises an economic appraisal which has been completed to forecast the economic impact of the proposals and a first assessment of the Value for Money that investment in the preferred package of schemes offers the public purse;  Chapter 7 provides a summary of the feedback received at the GEML Vision Stakeholder event held during early August 2012; and  Chapter 8 set outs a delivery framework to take the GEML Vision forward.  Chapter 9 provides a summary of the findings of this study together with our overall conclusions.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 13

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 14

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

2. Findings from the Interim Report

2.1. Introduction The primary aim of this Technical Capacity Study has been to identify and assess (existing and new) options which can deliver the required service improvements to the GEML in the three key areas of greatest impact upon the economic growth of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk:

 Meeting peak demand for travel to and from London;  Reducing journey times; and  Introducing rolling stock that provides passengers with an improved journey experience. An Interim Report was published in June 2012, summarising the work completed to that point and which is summarised in this chapter.

2.2. GEML Issues, Limitations and Constraints Problems that were identified on the GEML included the varied mix of rolling stock and the specification of the line overhead equipment (OLE) which prevents services from operating at their peak speeds. The primary limitation in the track is long sections of 2-track (between Shenfield and Norwich) where services have no opportunities to overtake meaning timetables are inflexible and there is little opportunity for operators to recover in the event of service disruption. The GEML also plays a key role supporting ports along the East Anglia coast and the importance of integrating freight services into the passenger service timetable also restricts opportunities for service improvements to be realised. In terms of performance, Office for Rail Regulation data on Public Performance Measures (PPM) shows that for the last two years of data (2010-11 P1 to 2012-13 P1), the moving average PPM for Inter-City GEML services is just 86.7%. This compares with a target of 92%. Punctuality levels are slightly better on GE Outer Services (90.2%), but still below the target of 92%.

2.3. GEML Opportunities Opportunities were also identified which can support the aims of the Vision Group. These include the potential increased capacity on the line when Crossrail opens in 2018. Inner-London services will move onto Crossrail which will potentially free capacity which could be used by extra GEML services. The impending consultation on the future 15-year Greater Anglia franchise is also a key opportunity in the short term and there is potential for the Vision Group to influence the specifications of the future franchise. Another significant opportunity is the proposal, submitted by a private developer, to provide a new station at Beaulieu Park on the outskirts of Chelmsford. This new station and associated tracking offers the potential to integrate with the options being considered in this study and could offer support to the proposed capacity enhancements, in particular the proposed three-tracking at Boreham. As well as providing new turn-back facilities, the new station could help capture rail demand around Chelmsford which is currently thought to be being suppressed by the constraints of Chelmsford Station‟s town centre location and limited parking. Chelmsford is the biggest single station (excepting Liverpool Street) on the GEML route in terms of revenue but has almost zero all-day station car parking, and limited local car parking opportunities. The platform lengthening programme, funded during Control Period 4, will also benefit outer GEML services providing further 12-car capacity within the corridor.

2.4. Intervention Options and Sifting Within this context, the Capacity Study has considered a wide range of interventions, drawing on measures previously identified through existing studies or new initiatives. An appraisal sifting was completed, in line with WebTag Unit 2.1.2 (draft for consultation May 2012) to identify a preferred package of Options. Each Option has been assessed in terms of its role in delivering the

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 15

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

GEML vision objectives, with specific focus on the three priority areas identified at the start of this Chapter. Consideration was also given to:

 the impacts of Crossrail on GEML services and capacity (both positive and negative between Shenfield and London Liverpool Street and how to make best use of capacity released at Liverpool Street Station);  the interaction of proposals with West Anglia and other Liverpool Street Station passenger services;  the interaction with Freight services; and  issues of strategic fit, value for money, deliverability, cost and fundability – in line with the Government‟s „Five Cases Model‟2. Proposals for inner suburban services were not considered, as these will mostly be addressed by the Crossrail scheme.

2.5. The Preferred Package of Options The outcome of the assessment was a „core‟ package with a series of „supplementary‟ schemes. The proposed solution consists of a package of incremental improvements, which include and build upon the L&SE RUS‟s Option D2 and other existing / new projects. Together these schemes can deliver the vision objectives over a timescale appropriate to the rate of growth in Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk and predicted demand identified in the L&SE RUS.

Core Package

 Option H: Raise line speeds between London Liverpool Street and Norwich to a maximum of 110 mph, with associated infrastructure improvements;  Option J: Replace inter-city rolling stock on Anglia Inter-City services;  Option D: Increase GEML Outer Services into London Liverpool Street by up to 28 trains per hour, by undertaking track re-modelling at Bow Junction and elsewhere;  Option B: Three tracking near Chelmsford Parkway (Boreham); and  Option K: Additional/replacement commuter rolling stock.

Supplementary Schemes:

 Option R: Lengthening of Platforms 16 – 18 at London Liverpool Street;  Option G: Braintree branchline capacity increase;  Option L: Longer trains / Ensure all GEML trains operate with 12-cars; and  Option P: New rail station at Chelmsford.

2.6. Conclusions The Interim Report set out the context of the issues and constraints facing the route and identified a series of Options which can bring benefits to the route. These Options were detailed and sifted to identify a Core Package of works and a series of Supplementary Schemes. Subsequent work has expanded on the findings to help understand in greater detail the operational and economic performance options surrounding the Options which were recommended to be taken forward.

2 Public Sector Business Cases using the Five Case (Green Book Toolkit), HM Treasury. (http://www.hm- treasury.gov.uk/data_greenbook_business.htm)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 16

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

3. Rolling Stock

3.1. Introduction The GEML Capacity Study Interim Report identified that the replacement of rolling stock, for inter-city and outer commuter services is likely to be a major issue within the next franchise period. This chapter looks at the rolling stock issues in detail and sets out a recommended strategy, which will form the basis of a vision option that is appraised in a later part of this study.

Summary of issues The previous EEDA report on the GEML, together with the interim report from the capacity study both highlighted the need to upgrade and or replace the passenger rolling stock. Therefore the development of a rolling stock strategy needs to address:

 Additional trains will be required to provide the rolling stock for the additional train paths that the infrastructure improvements provide, although this number will be reduced somewhat if average end to end journey times are reduced and with higher reliability rolling stock;  Faster trains will be required to make use of the increased line speeds on the GEML and to maintain the capacity improvements;  The existing Class 321 fleet does not meet the requirements of the PRM-TSI regulations and will therefore need an extensive refurbishment to meet them and ensure their continued use beyond 2020;  The existing Class 321 fleet are not capable of being upgraded to operate at 110mph;  The current outer commuter EMU stock is considered to have poor on board facilities, with a lack of toilets and a level of comfort not appropriate for outer suburban services;  The class 360 fleet can be upgraded to operate at 110mph. The upgrades of London Midland‟s Class 350 fleet to 110mph running highlights that this is achievable. An estimate for this work has been provided by the ROSCO;  The existing Class 90 and Mark 3 coach operated inter-city services were originally designed to operate at 110mph and have done so on the West Coast mainline, although the practicalities of operating the Class 90‟s (which have a reputation for unreliability) at maximum speeds at this late stage of their lives needs to be closely looked at. There are concerns from NR that the current Class 90‟s and Mark 3 Coaches could not operate at 110mph with the existing signal spacing due to their acceleration and braking characteristics;  The existing Mark 3 coaches will need refurbished to meet the requirements of the PRM-TSI regulations beyond 2020. This is possible as has been demonstrated by Chiltern Railways recent refurbishment of their Mark 3 fleet;  None of the major locomotive manufacturers currently makes a high speed electric locomotive which is compatible with the UK railway system (However, models have been developed for the UK and await an initial order prior to the production of a prototype); and  Most of the main rolling stock manufacturers (Alstom, Bombardier, Hitachi & Siemens) have EMU‟s in UK service or development which could form the basis of a new 110mph outer commuter or inter-city train for the GEML. In addition to the above, a major issue for the GEML Vision Group is that the current fleets of commuter rolling stock are not considered to be appropriate for the services that they operate, i.e. Class 321‟s with 3+2 seating configurations are being used for relatively long journeys of an hour or more. The Vision Group have expressed a preference for future rolling stock which operates the outer suburban services to have a significant proportion of 2+2 seating, small tables and corridor connections. However, the desire to introduce rolling stock that provides passengers with an improved journey experience needs to be balanced against the requirement to provide a significant capacity improvement along the route. Where this balance lies will be a key issue in the future franchising process and a key lobbying point of the GEML Vision Group. The following sections consider the service groups and the associated rolling stock in turn and identify a number of recommendations which can form the basis of a future rolling stock strategy.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 17

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

3.2. Outer Suburban Services These services include the fast and semi-fast services to:

 Ipswich  Walton-on-the-Naze  Colchester

 Harwich  Clacton-on-Sea  Braintree

 Chelmsford  Southend Victoria  Southminster These services are currently operated by the Class 321 and Class 360 units. Additional trains will be required to operate the additional services which the proposed infrastructure improvements will enable. In addition, the fleet which operates services on the GEML north of Shenfield will need to be capable of 110mph to realise the full potential of the route‟s capacity. The Class 321‟s (which are the largest fleet on the GEML) will require extensive internal re-refurbishment to meet the requirements of the PRM-TSI 3regulations. Our view is that it will not be practical to operate the Class 321‟s at anything above their current maximum speed of 100mph. This is because the trains were designed to operate at a maximum of 100mph, which means that the design of the cab and general crash- worthiness/strength of the units might need considerable upgrading to make them able to operate at 110mph. In view of this, we consider that it is likely to become cost effective to consider the procurement of new units to operate outer commuter services North of Shenfield which are capable of 110mph running from the outset. This will enable the capacity improvements provided by the faster line speeds to be achieved whilst also providing an enhanced passenger experience. A further consequence of this will be to provide a significant fleet of 100mph EMU‟s available for cascade to other parts of the UK which will help to support electrification schemes on the GWML and in Northern England. Figure 2. Class 321 Electric Multiple Unit

For services to Southend Victoria and Southminster, which will not require 110mph capability – in large part because the stations are close together, and because the relative impact of having a 110 mph section would be lower on the end to end journeys, the Class 321‟s could see further service through the lifetime of the next Greater Anglia franchise. Refurbishment, together with the potential fitment of a new traction package could improve their acceleration, energy consumption and overall reliability. However, their use on the GEML North of Shenfield would have to be curtailed to maintain paths and headways, which will reduce the operational flexibility of the remaining fleet. The Class 360‟s are relatively „new‟ trains (entering service in 2003) with significant remaining service life. Discussions with Angel Trains, the owners of these units, has confirmed that the 110mph upgrade package that is being developed for London Midland‟s similar Class 350 EMU‟s will also be applicable to the Class

3 PRM TSI is the new European standard for the accessibility of heavy rail vehicles (trains), known as the Technical Specification for Interoperability for Persons with Reduced Mobility.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 18

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

360‟s. Changes required for 110mph operation are likely to include a new pantograph, a minor modification to the bogies and an update of the train management software to permit faster running. The cost of these modifications is estimated by them to be approximately £50,000 per unit. To enable PRM-TSI compliance a modification is required to the onboard toilets. Figure 3. Siemens Class 360 ‘Desiro’ EMU (Courtesy Angel Trains)

The potential for cascaded rolling stock was examined, but no suitable fleet (capable of 110 mph and no worse than the existing fleet in terms of passenger comfort) could be identified that was considered likely to become available in the medium term. This means that to achieve the additional capacity on Outer Commuter services the future franchise will need to consider the procurement of a new EMU fleet to operate these services North of Shenfield. Bombardier, Siemens and Hitachi have products either available or in development which will meet the requirements of having acceleration and braking characteristics to enable them to run at 110mph within the existing signal spacing and the scope to provide improved levels of passenger comfort. This would be a significant procurement with potentially up to 70 new 4-car units being required at a capital cost of approx £560 Million. On the basis of the above, the recommended rolling stock strategy for EMU operated outer-suburban services is as follows:

 All outer-suburban services to Southminster and Southend Victoria remain operated by 100mph rolling stock which has been refurbished to meet PRM-TSI requirements and improve passenger comfort (e.g. Class 321 or equivalent).  All other outer commuter services to London Liverpool Street (which operate on the GEML North of Shenfield) will be operated by EMU‟s capable of 110mph with improved acceleration and braking capability and improved levels of passenger comfort.

3.3. Inter-City Services This service group includes all express Norwich services which are currently operated by Class 90 electric locomotives and rakes of Mark 3 coaches. A major concern for the delivery of the proposed linespeed improvements is the ability of the current Class 90 / Mark 3 trains to operate at a higher speed within the current signal spacing. Based upon the operating characteristics of the locomotive and coaches, it is thought by Network Rail that there is a significant risk that the trains will be not able to operate at 110mph within the existing signal spacing over all signal sections. Therefore to provide the faster linespeed and hence journey times this report has examined the options of either replacing either the locomotives or all of the inter-city rolling stock. In view of this the option of procuring new electric locomotives to haul the existing Mark 3 stock (providing that they are suitably refurbished/re-engineered to meet the PRM-TSI regulations) needs to be examined. Currently there are no new electric locomotives in operation that are suitable for operation on the UK rail network. However, manufacturers maybe able to adapt existing designs to fit within the UK loading gauge, for example:

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 19

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

 Bombardier Traxx;  Siemens Vectron; or  Alstom Prima II. Bombardier have already announced that they have designed a version of the Traxx locomotive (P200 AC UK) to fit within the UK loading gauge, they have previously promoted the use of this locomotive type on the GEML services to replace the Class 90‟s. This UK version of the Traxx locomotive family would have 7500hp and a top speed of 125mph (200kph). Figure 4. Artists Impression of Bombardier Traxx UK Locomotive (Courtesy of Porterbrook)

Figure 5. Photograph of Siemens Vectron Locomotive (Courtesy of Siemens)

The Siemens Vectron is a modular design of locomotive which can be configured to operate across Europe. Discussions with ROSCO‟s have indicated that a version of this locomotive could be built to fit into the UK loading gauge. This locomotive would have 8,600hp and is capable of operating at 125mph (200kph). It was announced in September 2012 that the Vectron locomotive fulfils the TSI HS RST specification for class 2 vehicles operating on the trans-European high-speed rail system (vehicles with a maximum speed from 190 kph to 250 kph). It is understood that this could permit the Vectron to operate in Europe at speeds up to 230 kph (approx 144 mph), where permitted.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 20

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

A new electric locomotive of either the Traxx or Vectron type, with modern power control systems could be set up specifically for operating on the GEML. On this basis Atkins rolling stock engineers are confident that a new locomotive would have the performance required to operate faster Inter-City services with Mark 3 coaching stock. It is estimated that the purchase cost of the new locomotive of these types is circa £4 Million per unit.

Coaching Stock In addition to new locomotives, it is recommended that a significant refurbishment of the current Mark 3 coaching stock is undertaken; this would need to include the electrical (replacement of motor-alternators) and braking systems as well as seating, vehicle accessibility and toilets. The PRM-TSI regulations require all rail vehicles operating from 2020 onwards to be fully accessible. For the Mark 3‟s this could range from providing some or all coaches with sliding „plug‟ doors ( as has recently been implemented by Chiltern Trains), providing high back seating and accessible toilets (with closed tanks for waste storage rather than on-track discharge). The refurbishment of Mark 3 coaches for use on Chiltern and Cross Country services highlights the flexibility of this design of coach. A significant refurbishment of this type could typically add a further 15 years of service life to these coaches and certainly see out the next franchise. ROSCO‟s have estimated that a major refurbishment of the Mark 3‟s, including new plug doors, would cost around £250,000 per coach. Figure 6. A visualisation of a refurbished Mark 3 coach interior (Courtesy of Porterbrook)

In addition to the Mark 3 coach proposals, Porterbrook has come up with a further proposal to replace the DVT‟s with a passenger carrying vehicle. This could either be achieved by converting the existing DVT‟s into passenger carrying vehicles, or preferably building new dedicated passenger vehicles. Figure 7 and 8 provide an example of how these vehicles could look (both pictures courtesy of Porterbrook).

Figure 7. Example of a DVT converted into a passenger carrying vehicle (Courtesy of Porterbrook)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 21

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 8. Example of a new build passenger carrying driving trailer (Courtesy of Porterbrook)

The new vehicles, labelled as a DTSO (Driving Trailer Standard Open), would have 42 standard class seats, 2 wheel chair spaces, a fully accessible disabled toilet and space for bicycle storage (a potential internal configuration of a DTSO is shown on Figure 9). This would mean that a 9 coach + DTSO formation would be able to provide 670 seats, of which 124 would be 1st Class and 546 would be Standard Class. This also assumes that a 1st Class buffet car is included within the formation. This option is therefore provides a significant increase in seating, whilst also meeting stakeholder requirements in terms of passenger comfort and on board facilities.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 22

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Overall it is estimated that the costs of this option are as follows:

 Purchase of new locomotive £4 million each;  Refurbishment of Mk3 coaches - £250k each; and  Purchase of new DTSO‟s £1 million each. Cost per train = £7.25 Million (based on: 1x loco; 9 Mark3’s and 1xDTSO) Figure 9. Proposed internal layout of new DTSO vehicle (Courtesy of Porterbrook)

Therefore, to accommodate growth on the Norwich to London inter-city services the possibility of extending all intercity trains to 9-cars needs to be explored together with the addition of DTSO‟s in place of DVT‟s. The current level of utilisation of the inter-city services suggests that additional services are going to be required to cater for the forecast growth in demand. Additional trains are likely to be required to enable the level of service to be increased from seven Norwich to London services in the current peak period, to at least nine (i.e. on average 3 per hour in the peak period), or up to 10 if there is sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate this many trains, particularly at Liverpool Street Station. A new high performance electric locomotive, together with heavily refurbished Mark 3 rolling stock would enable a cost effective high speed and high quality inter-city service to operate between Norwich and London. Mark 3 coaches provide a very comfortable passenger experience. The extensive refurbishment and re- engineering of these coaches will ensure that the passenger experience, in terms of comfort and overall ambience, will be significantly improved, whilst providing additional seating capacity on this important route. It is understood from previous stakeholder feedback that on-board catering is a much valued service which would be retained and potentially enhanced with this option. In addition this option would also provide up to 124 first class seats per train, meeting the needs for business travel along this key route.

EMU Options Refurbishment of loco-hauled rolling stock is not the only option for the future of inter-city services on the GEML. The Greater Anglia RUS looked at the introduction of EMU‟s to replace the Class 90‟s and Mark 3‟s on the GEML‟s inter-city services. The RUS considered the IEP and also an AC electric version of the Siemens Class 444 EMU currently used on South West Trains long-distance services. The class 444 EMU‟s have 5 carriages which are configured similarly to the Mark 3 coach. Each carriage is 23m long with end doors leading into a vestibule rather than the 1/3, 2/3 positioning of the doors on the current commuter stock. The Class 444‟s are also configured with low-density 2+2 seating with tables and first class seating in a 2+1 configuration. Each unit has 334 seats, which means that a 10 car formation would provide 668 seats (two less than 9 car mark 3 + DTSO). Also each unit only has 35 first class seats, meaning that a 10 car formation would only be able to provide 70 first class seats (as opposed to 124 with Mk3‟s). There is also no buffet car provision in vehicles of this type, meaning the loss of a key customer service, particularly for business travellers. For standard class passengers the ambience would be expected to be similar to that provided by Mark 3 coaches. However, operating two units in multiple to provide a ten coach train is inefficient in terms of space, as there are four driving cabs, two cycle parking areas and double the number of space consuming disabled toilets within the same length of train.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 23

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 10. Siemens Class 444 ‘Desiro’ EMU (Courtesy Siemens)

As a member of the Siemens Desiro family, new build units of this type will be capable of 110mph running as per the Class 350 EMU‟s. It was assumed in the RUS that two units would operate in multiple to provide a 10 coach train. This provides more efficiency for the off-peak periods when units could operate singly in five- car formations, but at the expense of running trains at their full capacity in the peak

Intercity Express Programme (IEP) There is also the potential for the all-electric IEP to be procured for the Norwich services during the next franchise. Current IEP procurement is based on replacing HST‟s on the ECML and GWML, although there is scope for increasing the number of vehicles ordered to provide for other lines if required. As currently proposed4 a 9 car „electric‟ IEP would provide 627 seats (101 First Class and 526 Standard Class) 43 less seats than a 9 car mark 3 + DTSO. Figure 11. Hitachi IEP/Super Express Train (Courtesy Hitachi)

Another potential option would be to obtain a version of the Class 395 „Javelin‟ trains currently operated by SouthEastern. These trains (made by Hitachi) are able to run at up to 140mph on High Speed 1 and up to 125mph on conventional lines (with 25kV OLE – only 100mph on 3rd rail). Two 6 car units would provide

4 http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/iep-train-layouts/iep-train-layouts.pdf

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 24

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

680 seats (10 more than a 9 car mark 3 +DTSO). However, these units do not currently have any first class seating or buffet facilities. Providing this would significantly reduce the available seating and hence therefore removes any advantage that may have in terms of capacity over a rake of refurbished Mark 3 coaches. The cost of purchasing new EMU‟s, particularly in inter-city configurations is expensive. Current estimates5 are that a new inter-city EMU coach costs in the region of £2 Million. The cost of a 10 car EMU will therefore be in the region of £20 Million each. For comparison, recently released figures from the DfT6 show that:

 Pendolino coaches cost on average £2.7 Million each;  IEP electric coaches cost £2.4 Million each; and  IEP bi-mode coaches cost £2.8 Million each. On this basis, the case for refurbishing the Mark 3‟s and purchasing new locomotives and DTSO‟s seems to be good from a financial and passenger comfort viewpoint. Therefore there are two competing options for improving the intercity services on the GEML, these being:

 New 110mph electric locomotives and refurbished Mark 3 stock (extending all trains to 9 car length + DTSO); or  Replace LHCS with new intercity EMU‟s capable of 110mph of 10 coach length. Our research suggests that, in terms of cost, passenger capacity and comfort, ambience and on-board facilities (particularly catering and first class seating), a strategy based around refurbishing the existing Mark 3‟s together with new electric loco‟s and building new DTSO‟s provides the best overall solution for operating inter-city services on the GEML. For the purposes for undertaking the appraisal of the GEML Capacity Study options we will therefore assume the following:

 Assume train seating capacity of 670 seats (9 car + DTSO);  Assume that max speed is 110mph; and  Assume that braking capability enables 110mph running with existing signalling. We further recommend that this option forms part of the future rolling stock strategy for the GEML.

3.4. Rolling Stock Leasing Costs In this section we have highlighted the capital costs of purchasing new rolling stock or of refurbishing the existing. However, the franchisee does not pay these costs directly – conventionally, it is the leasing charges levied by the ROSCO which is used to replay the capital cost financed by the ROSCO. Franchisees can also externalise all rolling stock maintenance requirements through a Train Service Provider (TSP). For example, the Intercity West Coast franchise has an agreement with Alstom for the Pendolino fleet, and users of the new IEP trains will have a similar agreement for the supply of IEP trains. The costs of leasing rolling stock can therefore vary significantly according to the type of lease and type of rolling stock. Rolling stock leases come in several forms, these are categorised within the industry as:

 „Dry‟ leases: - These are where the TOC leases the vehicle from a ROSCO and then undertakes all of the maintenance and servicing activities themselves. Most stock leased in this way is former British Railways (BR) stock. As a ball park figure it would bed expected to pay approx £100,000 a year to lease a former BR DMU on a dry lease.  „Wet‟ leases: - These are where the TOC leases the vehicle from a ROSCO who then undertakes all of the maintenance and servicing activities on behalf of the TOC. Most stock leased in this way are newer vehicles which have been introduced since rail privatisation. It is not possible to provide a ball park cost as it depends upon the level of technical support/service which is purchased by the TOC and also the particular type of rolling stock. However, it will be more expensive than a dry lease.  Train Service Provision Contract: In contracts of this type, an example of which is the IEP; a specific company (in this case Agility Trains) has been set up to design, build and maintain the trains for a period of up to 30 years, this includes the cost of building new maintenance depots. The trains are provided to Train Operators (TOCs) on a pay-as-you-go basis contingent on fully serviceable, clean, reliable train services being delivered. A similar model is also being used to provide the replacement Thameslink

5 Based upon the findings of discussions with Porterbrook and Angel Trains. 6 IEPs better value for money than Pendolinos, says DfT, rail.co, 26 July 2012

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 25

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

fleet. A coarse assessment indicates that the annual cost for the provision of an IEP coach is approximately £250,000 per year. What this section highlights is there is a range of potential costs that the provision of rolling stock for the next Greater Anglia franchise could fall into. This highlights the significant difference between the cost of leasing current and „new‟ rolling stock. The refurbishment and ongoing lease of the Mk3 rolling stock, with new locomotives and DTSOs leased from ROSCOs is going to provide a very cost effective solution for improving the inter-city services within the next franchise. The cost of new / additional 110mph capable rolling stock for the outer suburban services could be significant and will depend to a large degree on the procurement route chosen. The options ranging from traditional wet leases to full train service provision contracts. Atkins view is that either option is likely to represent „value for money‟, however the cost of new rolling stock will be reflected in the level of franchise premium that the new TOC would pay to the DfT and therefore the affordability of new rolling stock within the franchise will be a key consideration and something which the GEML Vision Group should seek to influence with the DfT through the franchise consultation process.

3.5. Summary This section has looked at the options for improving the rolling stock for outer commuter and intercity services on the GEML. More trains will be required to meet the forecast levels of passenger demand. Faster trains will be needed to make use of the proposed line speed improvements, which will also enable more trains to be run in the peak periods. At the same time the passenger experience needs to be improved by improving levels of comfort and ambience whilst ensuring that that all trains are accessible and meet the requirements of the PRM-TSI. This section has produced recommendations which form the basis of a rolling stock strategy for the GEML. The recommendations are as follows:

Outer Suburban Services  All outer-suburban services to Southminster and Southend Victoria remain operated by 100mph rolling stock which has been refurbished to meet PRM-TSI requirements and improve passenger comfort (e.g. Class 321 or equivalent).  All other outer commuter services to London Liverpool Street (which operate on the GEML North of Shenfield) will be operated by EMU‟s capable of 110mph and improved acceleration and braking capability with improved levels of passenger comfort.

Inter-City Services  New High Power AC Electric Locomotive (Bombardier Traxx/Siemens Vectron type) capable of 110mph operation  Refurbish existing Mk3 coaches with new interiors, sliding exterior doors, accessible toilets and new electrical packages.  New passenger carrying driving trailers to replace current DVT‟s.

Tables 1 and 2 set out a summary of the assessment process that has been gone through to arrive at the rolling stock assumptions that will be used for the remainder of this.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 26

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Table 1. Rolling Stock Assessment Process (Outer Commuter Services)

Current Future Future Use on Rolling Stock Upgrade Path specification specifications GEML Class 321 EMU 100mph maximum Internal 100mph maximum Only on Outer speed Refurbishment to speed Commuter services Don‟t meet PRM- meet PRM-TSI Meets PRM-TSI to Southend TSI requirements requirements. requirements Southminster. Potential for new (Operationally, it traction package. may be better to consider cascade of whole fleet and replace with a „new‟ EMU). Class 360 EMU 100mph maximum Internal 110mph maximum Use on all Outer speed Refurbishment to speed Commuter GEML Don‟t meet PRM- meet PRM-TSI Meets PRM-TSI services. TSI requirements (in requirements. requirements relation to toilets New Pantograph, only) modifications to bogies and on- board systems for 110mph running New EMU‟s for 110mph maximum Use on all Outer additional and faster speed Commuter GEML GEML Outer Meets PRM-TSI services. Commuter Services requirements - - Seating capacity similar to Class 360. Passenger comfort to be improvement on current Class 360s.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 27

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Table 2. Rolling Stock Assessment Process (Inter-City Services)

Current Future Future Use on Rolling Stock Upgrade Path specification specifications GEML Class 90 110mph maximum None- replace with - - Locomotive speed new locomotive New electric 125mph maximum Use to haul/propel Locomotive (Class speed. all future intercity 93) Rapid acceleration trains - - technology, Regenerative braking Mark 3 coaches 125mph maximum Major mechanical 125mph maximum Use for all future speed. First and and interior speed. Intercity passenger Standard class refurbishment. High levels of trains. accommodation. Provide new sliding passenger comfort Buffet car provision; „plug‟ doors and and accessibility. Don‟t meet PRM- other changes to 2.5 coaches of first TSI requirements. meet PRM-TSI class seating and requirements. on board catering. Additional vehicles required to enable all existing and additional peak trains to be 9 coach formations. Mark 3 DVT 110mph maximum None – replace with speed. No new vehicle - - passenger provision New Driving Trailer 125mph maximum Use for all future Standard Open speed. Intercity passenger (DTSO) Will have 42 trains. - - standard class seats, cycle storage, disabled toilet and disabled seating positions. New Inter-City EMU 110mph maximum Not recommended speed. Likely to be for use on the in 5 car GEML. Provides no configuration. advantage in terms Limited first class of seating capacity accommodation, no and will potentially - - on board catering provide a lower facilities. Overall level of passenger seating capacity comfort and on likely to be similar or board facilities than less than that available with a provided by Mark 3 refurbished Mark 3 option. coach.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 28

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

4. Infrastructure

4.1. Context As discussed in Chapter 2, the Capacity Study has considered a range of Options which can work together to address the peak hour passenger capacity gap expected for the GEML by 2031. A „core‟ package of measures has been identified with a series of „supplementary‟ options. This Chapter sets out further information about these key infrastructure elements. The most critical infrastructure challenges identified are:

 the need to provide some additional tracking on the most congested section between Shenfield and Colchester (which is currently two track) to allow for regulation and to enable operators to recover service disruption; and  the need to increase the number of services able to operate into London Liverpool Street Station (specifically in the busiest peak hour). Proposed schemes have been identified to meet these challenges, as outlined in sections 4.2 and 4.3. These draw on Options D and B of the „core‟ package. In addition, there are a series of supporting infrastructure schemes which are also necessary to deliver the overall improvement in performance sought for the route. These include improving the line speed, upgrading the rolling stock and lengthening platforms at London Liverpool Street to accommodate additional services. These schemes are discussed in further detail in section 5.4. An indicative cost to delivering each of these infrastructure schemes has been estimated and is summarised in section 4.5.

4.2. Boreham 3-Tracking Between Shenfield and Norwich, the GEML is currently entirely two track, with a limited number of loops available for regulation purposes, including:

 Ingatestone Down Passenger Loop (South of Station) 436m;  Chelmsford Down Passenger Loop (North of Station) 256m;  Witham Down Passenger Loop 263m;  Witham Up Passenger Loop 269m;  Marks Tey Up Passenger Loop (North of Station) 468m;  Colchester Up Passenger Loop (South of Station) 384m;  Colchester Up & Down Goods Loops 1186m;  Colchester Down Passenger Loop 388m;  Ipswich Up& Down Goods Loop (North of Station) 985m;  Claydon Down Goods Loop 269m;  Stowmarket Down & Up Goods Loop 538m; and  Trowse Down & Up Loop 514m. The majority of passenger loops are short and would require a train to stop within them to allow another service to pass. Apart from at Colchester and Ipswich, there is a lack of loops capable of accommodating modern freight trains. Modern inter-modal (container) trains can now exceed 700m in length. The only loops able to accommodate these trains are at Ipswich and Colchester. None of the existing loops are sufficiently long enough to allow trains to use them without having to brake or accelerate on the mainline, which has the significant potential to cause knock-on delays to the following trains. This is particularly true of the loops outside of stations where there is less opportunity for a call at the station to be used to mitigate any braking/acceleration. AT 110 mph a typical passenger train needs just over a mile to brake and accelerate smoothly without causing a knock-on delay. The lack of suitable goods and passenger loops limits timetables and regulation as stopping services and faster non-stopping services must co-exist without passing openings on large sections of the route. Furthermore, this lack of flexibility limits service operators‟ ability to respond in the event of an incident on the network. Resilience is therefore low and service punctuality / reliability are likely to suffer with no little scope to recover from service disruptions. Having considered a range of different scenarios, it has been identified

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 29

GEML Capacity Study Final Report that providing additional tracks between Shenfield and Colchester should be a key element of any future infrastructure package for the GEML. The opportunity to provide new 3 or 4-track sections between Colchester and Shenfield has been considered as a part of the options appraisal process. Providing an additional track over a length of 3 to 5 miles would allow separation of fast and slow services, as well as providing greater flexibility to accommodate freight services along the route. In cost terms, providing 3 tracking is significantly cheaper to deliver than a 4 tracking scheme and, if implemented with a bi-directional line, can deliver the same operational benefits as having a four-tracked section. Opportunities to provide this infrastructure have been investigated and a location close to Boreham as indicated in Figure 12, to the north of Chelmsford has been explored. A new third track would be constructed to the north of the railway and a high-level feasibility assessment of this proposal has been completed to identify any significant existing constraints which could affect the deliverability of this scheme. The turnout locations indicated are approximate and it is the feasibility of developing a scheme in this section of track which is for consideration. A diagram presenting the indicative operation of this additional track is shown in Figure 13. Crucially, the third track section should be a minimum of 3.25 miles long. This is to provide sufficient length for trains to be travelling at full speed at all times on the main line section, and not having to brake prior to leaving the main line. Further assessment suggests that maintaining 110mph would not be achievable as the turnout speed would be limited; however a speed close to 100mph may be achievable. This would depend on the track radii and cant of the track which could be determined through more detailed design work. In addition to the operational alignment shown in Figure 13, a further design option could be considered where the existing Up Main and the new Down Main are the straight through routes on which there could be 110mph throughout. In that scenario, only trains passing onto the new bi-directional line would be subject to a small reduction in speed at each end. Figure 12. Location of 3-tracking proposal at Boreham

N

Existing Rail Station

Approximate location of turnout

Existing GEML Alignment

Proposed new track at 10m offset from Down Main

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012

Options to extend the three track section over a longer distance, north of Hatfield Peverel Station, have also been considered. Lengthening the section would provide greater operational flexibility but would require

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 30

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 13. Indicative operational diagram of the 3-tracking proposal

greater land take, have more impact and increase the cost. The high-level feasibility assessment concluded that positioning of the turnouts for the junctions appears to be slightly easier north-east of the station where the track is straight and there are fewer underbridges and culverts. A number of other points have been noted through the feasibility assessment which could impact the development of the scheme through the Boreham location, as follows:

 There are 14 major structures which cover the route in this area. These include a mix of overbridges, viaducts and underbridges and footbridges. Where there are viaducts and underbridges, separate structures are likely to be required at suitable distances from the existing to carry the new track. In the

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 31

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

case of overbridges, some bridges may be able to be extended to incorporate an additional span whilst in other cases demolition and reconstruction may prove to be more practicable and economic;  Adjacent land use could create issues where acquisition would be required and may prove to be contentious. There are locations where residential properties and sports fields could be impacted;  Where woodland is to be impacted, any ecological impacts would need to be considered. Further investigation would be required to identify how significant these could be. It has been identified that woodlands adjacent to the railway on both sides of Hatfield Peverel Station are subject to English Woodland Grant Schemes; and  An access road runs parallel to the railway up to the driveway to New Hall. This driveway is included in the English Heritage Register of Historic of Parks and Gardens. The need to maximise „blue zone‟ construction (working away from the operating railway) is also deemed critical to any proposal as any work outside of the blue zone will increase costs significantly and quickly. The feasibility assessment deemed that blue zone working should not be a major issue along this section of the railway, except for a single section where the track is in a cutting bounded by residential development. Locating the southern turnout as far from the urban area will help to maximise the amount of „blue zone‟ working. In summary, the assessment deemed that there are no obvious insurmountable barriers to delivering the proposal. Additional track geometry information and further analysis is required before the feasibility and deliverability of the proposals could definitively be confirmed. When considered aside the proposed scheme to allow extra peak hour services in/out of London Liverpool Street (see Bow Junction Remodelling Scheme below), implementing a 3-tracked section in the vicinity of Chelmsford would provide a significant opportunity to improve the level of service along the whole of the GEML. At this point it is worth noting that whilst the “electric lines” and the mainline are largely operated separately from where they form a four track railway between Shenfield and Stratford, Crossrail will effectively formalise this arrangement and will reduce the value of the two track section during emergencies (as the electric lines will be full and required continued running to avoid disrupting the western region). This will therefore mean that the two track railway will effectively be extended from Stratford to Colchester (and ultimately to Norwich).

Implementation Cost: The cost of the three tracking scheme is estimated as:

 3.25 mile long loop = £133 Million  5.25 mile long loop (including Hatfield Peveral Station) = £193 Million (Costs estimated at 2012 Quarter 2 prices and exclude Optimism Bias)

4.3. Bow Junction Remodelling Scheme The London & South East (L&SE) RUS identifies a capacity gap of 5,100 seats on the GEML in the busiest peak hour by 2031. Assuming that rolling stock improvements are made to introduce one new service and longer trains this reduces 3,000, meaning there is still to be significant works required. There is no opportunity for any further trains to operate along with line with the existing infrastructure. One of the key constrictions of the existing infrastructure is at the southern section of the route near to Bow Junction. The L&SE RUS identifies an infrastructure enhancement scheme to remodel this area which would support an increased output of services onto the GEML. The current alignment of the Bow Junction interchange, as presented in 0, allows for 23 services to operate in the busiest peak hour.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 32

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 14. Existing Track Usage at Bow Junction (Courtesy Network Rail)

12 11 Down Temple Mills 10A Up Temple Mills Down Main 10 Up Main 9 Down Electric Up Electric 8 6 DLR Central Line

4 5 3 Central Line Pudding Mill Lane Station Stratford Station (DLR)

The main focus of a scheme would be to make the two Temple Mills lines between Stratford and Bow available to passenger trains. At present, these lines are generally restricted to freight and empty coaching stock. A scheme at Bow Junction could effectively create six, fully usable tracks for the entire route section between Stratford and Liverpool Street, two of which would be in the Crossrail tunnels. Such a scheme would unlock capacity for additional main line services, once services are diverted from the „Electric Lines‟ onto Crossrail in 2018. The proposed scheme could allow up to 28 trains to operate out of London Liverpool Street in the busiest peak hour. This is a significant increase on the 23 trains which can currently operate and would help to address the capacity gap challenge. In increased output of 28 morning peak main line trains could be accommodated with services following two independent alignments before Stratford station, as shown in Figure 15. Half of trains could operate along the existing Up Main line, crossing to the Up Electric line after the Crossrail tunnel portal. These services would run via Stratford Platform 9 and into London Liverpool Street Platforms 13-15. Remaining services could run via Stratford Platform 10 and along a new Reversible Main line leading to the existing Up Main line and arriving into Platforms 8-12 at London Liverpool Street. Figure 15. Potential Future Usage of Bow Junction (Courtesy Network Rail)

ECS out ECS out 12 11 Temple Mills Reversible 10A Down Main 16 Main Reversible 10 Up Main 9 16 12 Down Electric 12+6 Up Electric 8 6 DLR Central Line

Crossrail 4 5 tunnel 3 portal Central Line 6 Stratford Station

Up trains Down trains Pudding Mill Lane Station New trackwork (DLR) Track potentially removed?

The scheme cannot provide benefits in isolation and would require supporting infrastructure to work. For the GEML to run the extra services, new turn back facilities would need to be introduced along the route. Additional infrastructure at Chelmsford and Wickford is assumed in the RUS, but other alternatives exist depending upon where the additional trains are assumed to terminate.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 33

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

The planning of Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) movements would also need to be reconsidered as platforms at London Liverpool Street would need to be cleared to allow for the additional services. Additional ECS moves would be required via the Temple Mills Lines on the West Anglia route to the Orient Way depot area. A potential site has been identified for seven new sidings between Temple Mills Junction and Coppermill North Junction on the west side of the railway to provide additional stabling facilities. Whilst this scheme would deliver on bridging the passenger capacity gap, Implementation of this option would put considerable strain on the main line section between Shenfield and Stratford, however as no trains would call between at the intermediary stations (each of which will have two platforms available for use in the peak direction), this level of service is considered achievable. As a single track section, two minute signalling headways would leave just four minutes total recovery time for all 28 trains (e.g. less than 9 seconds per train). It is therefore considered that additional infrastructure measures which increase the number of tracks are considered alongside this Bow Junction scheme. The Boreham 3-tracking proposal is also discussed in section 4.2. The High Level Output Specification 2012 (HLOS) for Control Period 5 (CP5), released by the Department for Transport in July 2012, endorsed the need for the Bow Junction scheme and named it as an illustrative infrastructure enhancement. There is funding committed to develop (but not implement) the proposal.

Implementation Cost: Network Rail has estimated the overall cost of implementing this scheme as being £37.2 Million. This cost is made up of the following elements:

 Bow Junction changes (£16.62m);  High Meads new sidings (£15.86m);  Turn back infrastructure at Chelmsford East (£3.87m); and  Turn back infrastructure at Wickford (£0.83m). (Costs estimated in 2011 prices and exclude Optimism Bias)

4.4. Supporting Infrastructure Schemes In addition to the two schemes which can meet the most critical infrastructure challenges, there are number of supporting schemes which are also necessary to deliver a faster, higher capacity GEML rail offer. These are summarised in the following sub-sections.

4.4.1. Line Speed Improvements In enhancing the GEML, providing the necessary infrastructure to allow trains to run at 110mph is a key element of an overall package. Services currently operate between 80 and 100mph along most of the route as follows:

 Ruling line speeds are up to 50mph for the first two miles out of Liverpool Street, then up to 80mph as far as Maryland:  After Maryland, line speed increases to 90mph for Electric and Diesel Multiple Units (EMUs and DMUs) but is restricted to 80mph for loco hauled passenger rolling stock as far as Shenfield;  From Shenfield to Chelmsford the ruling line speed increases to 85mph with EMUs allowed up to 90mph on the Down Main Line (DML); and  After Chelmsford, the ruling line speed increases up to a maximum of 100mph as far as the outskirts of Norwich. Speeds achievable are influenced by many factors but primarily rolling stock specification, overhead line equipment (OLE), and signal infrastructure. Presently on the GEML, rolling stock is largely capable of delivering faster speeds, however the OLE and signalling restricts achievable limits. Level crossings and some structures would also need to be amended to allow quicker speeds. To investigate these issues, Network Rail completed a Feasibility Study into the required London to Norwich line speed improvements in March 2011. This study built upon successful efforts by Network Rail to increase the line speed operated by class 90 locomotives over the GEML route between Liverpool Street and Shenfield where historic restrictions had been applied. The Study considered the issues around line speed improvements, discounting the section London Liverpool Street – Stratford section and the Ipswich Tunnel. The section approaching Norwich Station, including Trowse Swing Bridge, was also excluded.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 34

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

The Study reviewed factors which currently restrict line speeds including signalling, electrification & plant material, tracking and building & civils. For example:

 Structures such as overhead bridges with restrictive low clearance which would require special design considerations;  Level crossings present a significant challenge to increasing line speeds as speeds are restricted by law. The braking capability of the rolling stock will determine if signalising systems require substantial changes;  Signal spacing, signal sighting and train protection systems would all be impacted by an increase in line speed. Each signalling design to be assessed to determine minimum stopping distances and to ensure that signal sighting is sufficient. Train protection systems (which initiates braking application if signals are approached at excessive speeds) would also need to be changed;  Track infrastructure curves must be of a sufficient gradient to allow 110mph to be achieved. Whilst in the main the track is sufficient, the Study identified locations where this is not the case. Plans already exist for the OLE equipment between London Liverpool Street and Chelmsford to be replaced by Network Rail for completion early in CP5 which will improve the performance output. The Study recommends further investigation is completed included a full examination of signalling infrastructure and a review of possible power supply and platform clearance issues. Those areas excluded from Network Rail‟s study should be subjected to review. However, it is feasible to provide the necessary enhancements to allow line speed to increase.

Implementation Cost The cost of the line speed improvements between Stratford and Trowse Junction is estimated to be £81 Million. (Costs estimated at 2012 Quarter 2 prices and exclude Optimism Bias)

4.4.2. New Rail Station at Chelmsford Within the GEML corridor, Chelmsford Station is acknowledged to serve one of the most important centres of economic activity. Whilst Chelmsford benefits from a town centre location, the constraints of the current station site are considered to constrain rail user demand; the station is elevated above street level on a viaduct and offers little opportunity for expansion to meet rising passenger numbers. There is little car parking at the station and limited supply in the locality. This limits the catchment area for the station and there is anecdotal evidence of residents from newer estates driving to the other stations with a car park rather than use their local station in Chelmsford. The proposed new station forms part of the proposed development at Beaulieu Park, promoted by Countryside Zest, a partnership of Countryside Properties and L & Q, which forms part of the North Chelmsford Area Action Plan. The proposed development at Beaulieu Park comprises a residential development of up to 3,600 dwellings, mixed uses, including up to 62,300 sq. metres employment floor space, comprising a business park, retail, hotel, leisure and open space, education and community facilities. The proposed station is identified as a key element of Chelmsford City Council‟s planning strategy for north east Chelmsford to deliver the objectives of the Core Strategy.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 35

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 16. Beaulieu Park Station Visualisations

The new station would have good transport links to the A12 and include a large car park (1,100 spaces) to support users who wish to park and ride. The outline planning application for the station will be considered at an October 2012 Planning Committee by Chelmsford City Council and it is understood that it is likely to be given consent. Figure 17 shows in indicative layout of the new station and track work as proposed by the Beaulieu Park developer. This, layout, which was adopted following discussions with Network Rail, has the current Up and Down main line passing through the centre of the station with two new loops located around the outside of the platforms. As currently specified the Up and Down loops will be designed for 50mph running with points and signalling designed to accommodate this method of operation. The new station would provide turn back facilities required to support the Bow Junction remodelling scheme (see section 4.3). Figure 17. Proposed Track Layout at Beaulieu Park Station

Down Station Loop

To London Platform Down Main Line

Platform Up Main Line

Up Station Loop

We have reviewed the details of the proposed Beaulieu Park station associated railway infrastructure to determine the compatibility of these proposals with our own for the three tracking at Boreham, which will pass through the site of the proposed new station. From a strategic viewpoint we have concluded that there are no fundamental incompatibilities between the two schemes. However, there are a number of detailed issues which need to be resolved to avoid significant abortive expenditure on the proposed new station and the associated railway track, signalling and overhead line equipment. Figure 18 provides a diagrammatic view of how the two schemes could be made to fit together.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 36

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 18. Diagram of Atkins Proposed Three Tracking at Boreham

Down Main Line /Loop

Platform Bi-Di Line

To London Platform Up Main Line

Up Station Loop

Figure 18 shows (in red) the changes that would need to be made to accommodate the Boreham Three Tracking scheme. This would extend the proposed Down Station Loop to become the 110mph Down Main / Loop with the three tracking scheme. Also note that the points and crossovers would need to be relocated and upgraded to enable them to operate at 100mph and the proposed bi-directional line to operate at 110mph line speed. Atkins Rail Engineers have highlighted that a potential issue arises from the different line speeds assumed for the Down Station Loop in the developer‟s proposal and the Down Main/Loop in the three tracking scheme. The Down Station Loop is designed for a 50mph ruling linespeed, which means that the radii of the track curves and track cant are designed for this speed which also means that the platform height and width are designed to accommodate this speed accordingly. At 110mph the curve radii will be larger and the level of cant is also likely to be increased which means that there is a real possibility that if the station is constructed to accommodate the lower line speed design, platform heights and widths will need to be altered to accommodate higher speed running on the line with the three tracking scheme incurring abortive expenditure and passenger disruption. Further detailed design work on the Boreham three tracking scheme is needed to develop an outline design to demonstrate that the station and three tracking scheme can be built with the minimum of abortive costs. A further design option, which could provide greater operational flexibility, would be to upgrade the proposed Up Station Loop to become the Up Main Line. This would make the proposed configuration similar to the original proposal developed by the Beaulieu Park developer. The advantage of this configuration would be that it would allow trains from London to be ‟turned-back‟ on the „new‟ inside Up Loop without having to cross the Up Main Line. Station configurations of this type have been adopted at Milton Keynes and Birmingham International. The crossover from the Bi-Di Line to the Up loop would need to be relocated to remove conflicts with the new Up Main and the turnouts would need to be upgraded to enable 100mph operation. This configuration is shown in Figure 19. At this preliminary stage the benefits and feasibility of this option cannot be confirmed, highlighting the need for further work to develop the options for the three tracking scheme. The option shown in Figure 19 has not been costed, with the costs for the three tracking scheme (See Section 4.2) being based upon the layout in Figure 13. Figure 19. Enhanced Three Tracking Option with relocated Up Main Line

Down Main/Loop

Platform Bi-Di Line

To London Platform Up Main

Up Main

In terms of programme, the Beaulieu Park developer currently estimates that the new station will be open in Quarter 1 of 2021. Our Delivery programme for delivering the GEML Vision (see Section 8.7) highlights that construction of the three tracking is likely to follow directly on from the completion of the station, and could be sooner depending upon funding approvals and the Transport & Works Act Order for the scheme being approved within an assumed two year time frame.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 37

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

The funding for the proposed new station will not have to meet any of the costs of the separate three tracking scheme and, for the avoidance of doubt, it is not the intention of the GEML Vision Group that Countryside Properties should have additional financial costs imposed on their development to enable the three tracking scheme to proceed. However, it is clear that more detailed work is required on the three tracking scheme to enable the interface between it and the proposed new station to be understood. The purpose of this work will be to ensure that the resulting new station is designed in such a way that it can be readily adapted, at a later date, to cater for the three track layout without imposing significant abortive or additional costs and disruption onto the rail network. Implementation Cost: Information available from the developer estimates the cost of the new railway station and associated railway infrastructure changes as £50 Million. Discussions with the developers engineering consultant have indicated that the next review of the scheme costs are likely to bring the cost below the £50Million mark. (Costs estimated in 2007 prices and exclude Optimism Bias)

4.4.3. Braintree Branch Loop There are a number of important local/feeder branch routes which link with the GEML and the ambition to increase the capacity of services along the GEML will have a direct impact and benefit to these other branch routes. In making available additional capacity to the GEML, the Witham- Braintree branch line is identified as a specific issue; constricted by only being single track. This means only one service can operate at any one time as there are no opportunities for services to pass. This adversely impacts the network as, on occasion, services are required to „wait‟ on the main line whilst the previous Braintree service completes its journey on the branch line. To investigate the opportunities to provide new tracking to allow a more frequent service to operate on the branch line, Braintree District Council commissioned a „Socio-Economic Study‟ (Mott MacDonald, June 2012). The Study concluded that it is feasible, in principle, to provide a 30 minute train service between Witham and Braintree through the introduction of a new loop. Whilst the study considered different locations and options for providing this facility, a static loop at White Notley Station offered the strongest business case. The analysis concluded this scheme would deliver a BCR of 2.0 with significantly lower costs than a higher-specification dynamic loop option which could accrue higher benefits. The improvement to the rail provision would deliver wider benefits around Braintree in terms of mode share (and reduced road congestion), greater resilience in the network and support to forecast growth and economic development. With the static loop, service frequency between Braintree and Witham can increase to two services per hour; however, the Study expressed reservations that this additional Braintree-London service could be accommodated into the present timetable with the current infrastructure. The second service would therefore only operate as a „shuttle‟ between Braintree and Witham with London-bound users having to change services. There is a grave concern that patronage on these „shuttle‟ services would be low as users would give preference to travel on the hourly direct service to London or drive to a main line station. The proposals are also only viable if they offer a strong business case and the Study stated concerns that the works costs, as assumed in Network Rail‟s GRIP2 study, are too high to deliver the required Value for Money (VfM). The Study concluded that if “costs can be brought down from the levels in the GRIP2 study, then it is possible that there is a strong business case for upgrading the branch with a static loop and moving to a two train per hour service. If the costs of delivering a dynamic loop can be brought significantly below those currently quoted, then it may also be possible to achieve a high-value-for-money business case for this higher-specification enhancement – but the scale of the reduction in costs needed is much greater than for a static loop to achieve the high VfM BCR which is highly desirable”. The Study also concluded that the business case is highly likely to only be viable with the additional service operating in/out of London to offer enough benefits. The proposals put forward by this Technical Capacity Study, most notably the works at Bow Junction and the Boreham 3-track proposal (see sections 4.2 and 4.3), support the aims of the Braintree Branch Loop scheme and would provide the infrastructure and timetable opportunities to integrate an extra Braintree service to operate directly to/from London.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 38

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Implementation Cost: The Braintree Branch Line study quotes costs for the scheme from an earlier Network Rail GRIP 2 report. These costs, assumed to be in 2011 prices, included optimism bias at 50%. For the purposes of compatibility, we have removed the optimism bias value. The overall cost of the scheme is therefore estimated to be £11.2 Million. The cost break down of the scheme is

 £6,240,000 for the constriction of the „static‟ loop;  £202,000 for linespeed improvements; and  £4,767,000 for White Notely station works. (Costs in 2011 prices and exclude Optimism Bias)

4.4.4. Liverpool Street Platforms Lengthening To help address the passenger capacity gap for the busiest peak hour identified in the L&SE RUS, trains shall be required to lengthen and operate as 12-car services. To help facilitate this, works shall be required to lengthen platform 16-18 at terminus station, London Liverpool Street. Currently GE Inner services use platforms 13-18 at London Liverpool Street Station and these platforms will become free when GE Inner services are replaced by Crossrail in 2018. For 12-car GEML services to use these lines, platforms 16-18 would need to be lengthened. It is observed that the current track layout prohibits lengthening of all three platforms, and one platform may need to be lost in order to allow the remaining two to be lengthened sufficiently. Platforms 13-15 are already able to accommodate 12-car services.

Implementation Cost The cost of lengthening platform 16-18 at Liverpool Street Station is estimated to be £20 Million. (Costs estimated at 2012 Quarter 2 prices and exclude Optimism Bias)

4.5. Cost Summary Based on the information presented in this chapter, the costs for the infrastructure elements are outlined in Table 3 and all presented in 2012 prices and exclude Optimism Bias7.

Table 3. Summary of Infrastructure Scheme Costs

Chapter Ref Infrastructure Cost (£m) 5.2 Boreham 3-track 193 5.3 Bow Junction Remodelling Scheme 38 5.4.1 Line Speed Improvements 81 5.4.2 New Rail Station at Chelmsford 51 (1) 5.4.3 Braintree Branch Loop 12 (2) 5.4.4 Liverpool Street Platforms Lengthening 20 TOTAL COST 395 COST OF GEML VISION ELEMENTS 332 (Note: All costs are in 2012 prices and exclude Optimism Bias) (1) The New station for Chelmsford (Beaulieu Parkway) is being funded by a developer and is therefore not a direct capital cost of the GEML Vision; (2) The Braintree Branch Loop has been developed separately from the GEML vision options. It is likely that a local contribution will be provided to enable this scheme to be implemented.

7 Project appraisers have the tendency to be over optimistic. Explicit adjustments are therefore required to be made to the estimates of a project's costs, benefits and duration within the appraisal process. At the current stage of scheme development this could be up to 50%. Optimism bias is separate to risk and both factors will normally be factored into the overall cost of a scheme prior to it being subject to appraisal. Risk is priced into the cost of a project whereas Optimism Bias is used in the economic appraisal of a scheme. As the development of a scheme progresses it is expected that the amount of risk explicitly costed into the scheme will increase together with a corresponding reduction in the amount of optimism bias.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 39

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 40

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

5. Operational Assessment

5.1. Background The capacity study Interim Report identified that a key component of the preferred package of measures to be the installation of a third track between Chelmsford and Witham in the vicinity of Boreham. This additional track will allow the regulation of services and provide greater resilience to the network. To gain a potential understanding of how this scheme would affect the performance of the railway, it has been modelled using the RailSys rail modelling platform. The assessment acts as a „proof of concept‟ for the proposal, identifying if it could feasibly operate with additional services running and offer an improved level of service.

5.2. What is RailSys? RailSys is a standardised planning process used to evaluate rail projects and is the package recognised by Network Rail for use to plan the theoretical operation and performance of railway infrastructure. The tool offers a range of capability including timetable design and construction, assessment of the operational performance, infrastructure planning and operational planning for track work. For the purposes of this study, RailSys has been used to demonstrate performance of the potential network; measured as „average lateness of arrival‟. This provides analytical evidence that delivery of the three tracking scheme would translate into tangible operational benefits. It is important to note at this stage that only preliminary modelling has been undertaken – and only over a the critical section of line; a full RailSys model was outside the scope of this work but it is accepted that if the proposals can be made to wok over this critical section, then it will be possible to implement for the timetable over the whole route. In addition, Network Rail is constructing such a model for the proposed Bow Junction scheme. At that stage it is hoped that further tests can be constructed to examine different alternatives.

5.3. Summary of Assessment Inputs The 3-tracking proposal has been tested using RailSys version 6.10.2. The model specification was as follows:

 The model covers the network section between Shenfield and Witham. For Option 1 and Option 3, a 3- track loop section is included, built over 10.04km (from 30miles, 75 chains to 36miles, 94 chains). An additional platform has also been included at Hatfield Peverel and the stopping locations for different services have been adjusted accordingly to offer best performance;  Line speeds are assumed to be 110mph on plain line.  All points and crossovers used to provide access to and from the new third track are assumed to operate that the maximum speed of 100mph.  Rolling stock is assumed to consist of 110mph capable Class 360‟s and Class 90‟s and Mk 3 Coaches running at 110mph.  The simulation period covers the morning peak; taken from 6.30am to 11.00am; and  For Option 2 and Option 3, three additional services are added to the timetable, these trains start at rest at Chelmsford (as suggested in the L&SE RUS) and pass through Shenfield with journey times: 6:35:00 to 6:43:30; 8:35:00 to 8:44:30; and 8:52:30 to 9:01:00. Note that we have not included Beaulieu Parkway Station within these tests as at the time they were conducted there was insufficient information available to enable it to be modelled within RailSys. Four independent scenarios were tested:

 Base Model (current timetable, current track layout);  Option 1 (current timetable, track layout with extended 3-track loop);  Option 2 (revised timetable with 3 additional services, current layout); and  Option 3 (revised timetable with 3 additional services, track layout with extended 3-track loop) The purpose of these scenarios is to ascertain the benefits that the third track would provide in terms of reducing delays as indicated by the „average lateness of arrival‟ values obtained.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 41

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

5.4. Findings of the Assessment The assessment has considered performance at 4 stations within the network section:

 Shenfield  Ingatestone  Chelmsford  Witham Outputs of the assessment are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. RailSys Operational Assessment Outputs

Arrival delays Shenfield to Witham Arrival delays Witham to Shenfield (Northbound) (Southbound) Base Base Stations Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Model Model Shenfield 00:00:28 00:00:27 00:00:28 00:00:27 00:00:34 00:00:34 00:00:34 00:00:34

Ingatestone 00:00:28 00:00:27 00:00:28 00:00:27 00:01:14 00:01:04 00:01:14 00:00:59

Chelmsford 00:00:30 00:00:25 00:00:30 00:00:25 00:02:11 00:01:49 00:02:12 00:01:50

Witham 00:00:17 00:00:15 00:00:17 00:00:15 00:01:50 00:01:41 00:01:50 00:01:42

The RailSys analysis shows that the 3-track loop reduces the average arrival lateness for trains running between Shenfield and Witham in both directions (Option 1 vs Base Model). This is the case with both current and revised timetables. The infrastructure is shown to provide the greatest performance benefits for southbound services which is not surprising as the AM peak was modelled where there are more services travelling southbound towards London. The assessment also shows that 3 additional trains in the timetable have an insignificant impact on average lateness of arrival. This is consistent for both the current track layout (Option 2 vs Base Model) and a layout which includes a 3-track loop (Option 3 vs Option 1). The only instance where there is a difference is at Chelmsford Station in the southbound direction (where there is a 1 second variation between Option 1 and Option 3); however this is not considered to be significant and is more a reflection on the assumed timetable for the new services from Chelmsford.

5.5. Conclusion A key conclusion from this exercise is that the introduction of the third track at Boreham improves the reliability of the railway as measured by „average lateness of arrival‟. The key thing to note is that these results were obtained from using the existing timetable (Option 1) and a modified timetable (Option 3). The introduction of this third track, together with the line speed improvements and new rolling stock provides the opportunity for a significant recasting of the timetables to maximise the benefits of the third track. In terms of passenger services, this means providing an opportunity for faster trains to pass stopping services whilst maintaining line speed. This means that the actual benefits of this scheme, in terms of performance, reliability and resilience are likely to be significantly greater than indicated by these preliminary results. The main conclusion from this work is that the Boreham Three Tracking Scheme provides a significant degree of additional flexibility into the operation of the GEML. For this to be fully exploited a full recast of the timetable for all services on the GEML will be required. Our work has shown that timetabling services to make the best use of the Boreham Three Tracking scheme enables more services to be operated, more reliably than at present. This is the major benefit of the Boreham Three Tracking Scheme.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 42

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

6. Economic Impacts

6.1. Background The need to deliver enhancements to meet the passenger gap is clear and the economic impacts of the enhancements package has been considered to understand the potential increase in demand and resulting benefits. The former East of England Development Agency (EEDA) considered this subject for a number of years, initially through a „Transport Economic Evidence Study‟ (September 2008). That Study demonstrated that significant productivity gains could be achieved through investment in the GEML. On behalf of the emerging GEML Vision Group, EEDA subsequently commissioned further analytical work to quantify the level of conventional and wider economic benefits that could result from investment in the line in a 2010 Study, as summarised in section 6.2.

6.2. Summary of EEDA Study (2010) „The Economic Case for Investment on the Great Eastern Main Line‟ was a Study commissioned by the former East of England Development Agency (EEDA) to define a more detailed specification of the economic case for investment as the level of return in turn determines the appropriate level of outlay which can be justified. The Study clarified the Vision for the route (in terms of journey time reductions, service group changes and service quality tests) and forecast the future rail demand with this Vision in place, using DfT‟s PLANET South strategic rail demand forecasting model. PLANET South was an appropriate tool for this analysis because macroeconomic driven growth in rail demand can be included in future forecast years. A Reference Case was modelled using government derived growth forecasts from the TEMPRO (Trip End Model) dataset and wider rail network assumptions for 2026 that are consistent with work used in the development of the Business Case for the Thameslink upgrade. The Vision Case was built around travel time savings for longer distance services on the GEML. This assumes significant network-wide infrastructure capacity enhancements and upgrades. Service capacity enhancements are also introduced (both train lengthening and some additional services) and improved rolling stock is used on some services allied to wider improvements in the accessibility of stations in the rural and northern parts of the route. The PLANET South analysis of the Reference Case showed significant growth in demand for rail travel in the AM peak is expected to occur up to 2026 assuming that the anticipated growth in population, employment (especially central London employment) and GVA occur and major rail schemes, most notably Crossrail and Thameslink, are introduced. The Vision Case showed significant demand growth over and above that in the Reference Case. The growth is directly in response to improved journey times and additional capacity. The capacity provided in the Vision Case addresses some of the forecast crowding issues on the GEML, whilst also accommodating the extra travel demand resulting from the introduction of the Vision. The main findings of the Vision Case analysis were:

 Nearly 4,000 extra passengers are travelling towards London Liverpool Street by 2026. This includes 500 more passengers using the route between Norwich and Ipswich, 1,200 more passengers from Colchester and nearly 2,500 from Chelmsford. Some of the additional trips from Norwich are switched from the Norwich – Cambridge line due to improved journey times to North London and Lea Valley destinations;  Large increases in passenger volumes on the Braintree branch (1,900) due to more frequent through services to London. Some 700 of these trips are modelled as switching from Witham (due to relatively coarse zoning in the model although some of this abstraction may well occur); and  Both the Clacton and Southend / Southminster services see increases in demand as a result of the journey time improvements on the main line from Colchester and Shenfield respectively.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 43

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

The economic impact of the Vision Case was then evaluated with the outcomes monetised. In summary, the Vision Case delivered nearly £3.7bn of economic benefits (present value, over 60 years at 2002 prices including both conventional (£3.4bn) and wider economic impacts (£280m). The two most significant benefits arising from the introduction of the Vision are gained from:

 Journey Time Savings for passengers travelling on uncrowded trains (41%); and  Revenue benefits to the train operators as a result of increased demand arising from the introduction of the Vision (30%). Related benefits from crowding relief (6%) and highway decongestion benefits resulting from mode shift to rail (8%) are also significant in value. The benefits gained from enhancing the rolling stock and by improving station accessibility are comparatively small (at 2% each). Agglomeration and productivity benefits (classified as „Wider Impacts‟ by the DfT) deliver 8% of the benefits. Although small by comparison to the conventional benefits, this proportion to overall benefits would typically be expected in a Wider Impact analysis of this nature. It should also be remembered that this analysis does not take account of any London effects and so the proportion may in fact be larger.

6.3. 2012 Update of the Economic Impacts Assessment This Technical Capacity Study has re-visited the 2010 EEDA work and updated the analysis to reflect current information and the preferred package of Options this Study has identified. PLANET South has again been used to model the scenarios. The analysis has updated the conventional benefits of the scheme but has not updated the assessment of the wider economic benefits of the measures. The changes to the Reference and Vision Cases modelled for this Study are detailed in sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2.

6.3.1. Reference Case Two forecast years have been used for the PLANET South Reference Case, these were 2020/21 and 2031/32. The PLANET South reference case model includes the full Thameslink Programme and Crossrail for both forecast years, i.e. 24tph through central London in each direction for both. The reference case also includes HLOS train lengthening to 12 carriages and London Underground upgrades.

6.3.2. Vision Case In the Vision Case the package of schemes described in Chapter 4 have been included in the PLANET South models. We have used the current service specification and passenger loading information (provided by Greater Anglia/Abellio) to ascertain where additional services will be required in the future. On this basis we have determined that nine additional services need to be provided across the peak period to cater for future forecast demand. These services include: Four additional arrivals into Liverpool Street between 7am and 8am from:

 Norwich  Clacton-on-Sea  Colchester Town  Ipswich Five additional arrivals into Liverpool Street between 8am and 9am from:

 Norwich  Clacton-on-Sea  Braintree  2 additional Southend Victoria Details on the Infrastructure and Rolling Stock changes coded into the PLANET South Modal can be found in Appendix B. Details of the new services which have been coded into PLANET South can be found in Appendix C. The Network Rail Linespeed Improvement Study calculated the impact of journey time improvements on a non-stop London to Norwich Service. We have used the information from Network Rails report to calculate the journey time savings which could be obtained by services using typical service stopping patterns. The resulting journey time savings are shown in Table 5.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 44

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Table 5. Revised Journey Times used in PLANET South

Journey time to be Existing Average Journey Time London Liverpool Street to coded into PLANET (Minutes) Saving (Minutes) (Minutes)

Shenfield (For Southend/Southminster) 26 20 6

Chelmsford 33 29 4

Witham (For Braintree) 45 37 8

Colchester (For Clacton/Walton on Naze) 57 47 10

Manningtree (For Harwich) 64 52 12

Ipswich 74 57 17

Norwich 115 90 25

As can be seen from Table 5, significant journey time improvements have been assumed to be possible between London and Colchester, Ipswich and Norwich. Journey time improvements are reliant upon changes in infrastructure and rolling stock, the rolling stock assumptions in the vision test were as follows:

 Class 360 Desiro units (with 110mph capability) are assumed to operate all services on the following routes: o London – Colchester Town/Clacton-on-Sea o London – Chelmsford/Braintree/Witham o London – Ipswich/Stowmarket/Harwich o London – Southend Victoria/Southminster  New AC locomotives with refurbished Mk3 coaches are to replace Class 90 locomotives on Norwich services.

6.4. Updated 2012 Demand Impacts of the Vision Table 6 summarises the change in peak demand arriving at Stratford and Liverpool Street on Greater Anglia franchise services, between the base year of 2007/08 and the 2020/21 forecast year. It can be seen that Crossrail has a significant impact, both as a result of the removal of the Shenfield Metro services from the franchise, (which is shown by the reduction in seated capacity), as well as passengers interchanging onto Crossrail from GEML outer services at Stratford.

Table 6. Change in AM Peak Demand & Capacity (7am – 10am), 2008 – 2021

Flow 2008 Base 2021 Reference Case Change in Passenger Passenger Seated Average Passenger Seated Average Volumes Volumes Capacity Utilisation Volumes Capacity Utilisation Approaching 54,706 55,247 99% 34,978 48,601 72% -19,727 Stratford Approaching 51,062 55,247 92% 26,187 48,601 54% -24,876 Liverpool Street

Table 7 shows the impact of the reduced journey times and increased capacity offered by the GEML Vision Strategy on demand arriving at Stratford and Liverpool Street in the 2020/21 forecast year. The key impacts are an increase in demand of approximately 13% on GEML services arriving at Stratford, as well as a reduction in the average seat utilisation on these services.

Table 7. Impact of Vision on AM Peak Demand & Capacity (7am – 10am), 2021

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 45

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Flow 2021 Reference Case 2021 Vision Additional Passenger Passenger Seated Average Passenger Seated Average Volumes Volumes Capacity Utilisation Volumes Capacity Utilisation Approaching 34,978 48,601 72% 39,569 61,257 65% +4,591 Stratford Approaching 26,187 48,601 54% 29,513 61,257 48% +3,326 Liverpool Street

Table 8 shows the corresponding impact of the reduced journey times and increased capacity in the 2031/32 forecast year. There is an increase in demand of approximately 16% on GEML services arriving at Stratford, as well as a reduction in the average seat utilisation on these services.

Table 8. Impact of Vision on AM Peak Demand & Capacity (7am – 10am), 2032

Flow 2032 Reference Case 2032 Vision Additional Passenger Passenger Seated Average Passenger Seated Average Volumes Volumes Capacity Utilisation Volumes Capacity Utilisation Approaching 41,433 48,601 85% 48,083 61,257 78% +6,650 Stratford Approaching 30,998 48,601 64% 35,729 61,257 58% +4,732 Liverpool Street

6.5. Updated 2012 Economic Benefits of the Vision The Vision Test delivers £2.5bn of economic benefits (present value, over 60 years at 2002 prices. Figure 16 provides a summary breakdown of the derivation of these benefits by type, and shows that the two most significant arising from the introduction of the Vision are gained from:

 Uncrowded Journey Time Savings (of 28%);  Access/Egress Time and Boarding Penalty Savings; and,  Revenue benefits to the train operators as a result of increased demand arising from the introduction of the Vision (of 23%). The above reflects the significant improvements in journey time and capacity which underpin the Vision train service specification. Related benefits from crowding relief (4%) and highway decongestion benefits resulting from mode shift to rail (10%) are also significant in value. The benefits gained from enhancing the rolling stock and by improving station accessibility are comparatively small (at 3% each). Agglomeration and productivity benefits (classified as “Wider Impacts” by the DfT) have been excluded from this analysis; however these were calculated in the previous Economic Evidence Study to be worth £280 million (NPV, 2002 prices and values). These have been carried forward to this assessment and given the similarity of the proposals and journey time impacts; they are not believed to have changed to any significant degree.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 46

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 20. GEML Welfare Impacts by Category

Conventional Economic Appraisal Table 9 summarises the economic benefits calculated for the GEML vision using the revised outputs from PLANET South. The table highlights the following key points:

 The overall Present Value of Benefits is £2.5 billion (in 2002 prices and values, over a 60 year appraisal period from 2026);  Benefits are dominated by the in-vehicle time savings associated with the reduced journey time along the main line. These benefits account for nearly 40% of total benefits and are worth just under £1 billion over the 60 year appraisal period (NPV, 2002 prices and values). Over 60% of the benefits are experienced by business passengers;  The second largest source of benefit shown are access/egress time savings, which account for nearly 25% of total benefits and are worth over £600 million over the 60 year appraisal period (NPV, 2002 prices and values);  The third largest source of benefit shown is the revenue increase generated by the additional demand forecast to be attracted to the line as a result of the Vision. This accounts for nearly 25% of total benefits and is worth over £600 million over the 60 year appraisal period (NPV, 2002 prices and values);  Crowding relief experienced along the main and branch lines as a result of the increased train lengths (accounting for nearly 4% of total benefits, with non business passengers experiencing over 80% of the total);  Vehicle operating cost savings associated with decongestion due to mode switch are worth nearly £300 million (NPV 2002 prices and values) and are fairly evenly split between business and consumer users; and  Net wait time losses worth over £200 million (NPV, 2002 prices and values) are generated by the scheme. This is the net result of reduced wait times on some services with improved frequency and increased wait times at stations where stopping frequencies are reduced to allow the increased main line journey times at the core of the Vision.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 47

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Table 9. GEML Vision Economic Benefits by Category

Benefit NPV £000 (2002 % of Total Benefits* prices/values) Uncrowded Journey Time Savings Business Passengers £625,263 24% Non Business Passengers £353,392 13% Crowding Relief 0% Business Passengers £15,920 1% Non Business Passengers £77,098 3% Access/Egress Time Savings 0% Business Passengers £297,136 11% Non Business Passengers £339,918 13% Wait Time Savings 0% Business Passengers -£167,716 -6% Non Business Passengers -£57,632 -2% Boarding Penalty Savings 0% Business Passengers £13,635 1% Non Business Passengers £97,328 4% Highway Decongestion Benefits 0% Business Passengers £135,692 5% Non Business Passengers £140,681 5% Environmental & Accident Benefits 0% Noise £1,997 0% Local Air Quality £0 0% Accidents £24,210 1% Greenhouse Gases £9,866 0% Revenue 0% Business Passengers £130,105 5% Non Business Passengers £470,957 18% Total £2,507,849 95% * Total benefits also include rolling stock and station accessibility effects not listed in this table

Other Benefits: Rolling Stock Replacement Table 10 below sets out the benefit from replacement of rolling stock on these services groups expressed as revenue changes to the operator, and user benefits for the travellers.

Table 10. Estimated Benefits from Rolling Stock Replacement

Commuting Business Leisure Total Rev change £12,138,485 £9,318,668 £11,117,639 £32,574,792 User benefit £13,759,568 £10,583,605 £12,619,238 £36,962,412 Gross benefit £25,898,053 £19,902,273 £23,736,877 £69,537,204

Table 10 shows that replacement of the rolling stock for the identified service groups could bring just under £70m in benefits over a 30 year period. A 30 year appraisal has been adopted as being reflective of the practical lifespan of rail vehicles though in reality, the value of benefits placed on new rolling stock by passengers is quickly eroded as they deteriorate and require regular renovation. The following assumptions underpin the above calculations:

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 48

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

 It is assumed that there is a step change in the quality of rolling stock; the existing rolling stock is in a poor condition and replacements are in excellent (i.e. brand new) condition.  The calculations of incremental revenue and user benefits followed the latest PDFH guidance (v5. Section B7) which entailed the improvement in train environment and security being converted into equivalent savings of in-vehicle time.  Future demand growth was tied to forecasts of Gross Value Added (GVA) per capita (from WebTAG Unit 3.5.6, Draft April 2010), population (TEMPRO dataset 5.4) and employment (TEMPRO dataset 5.4).  Fares were assumed to rise at RPI+1%, and combined with PDFH5 fares elasticities. GVA was also used to uplift values of time to reflect changes in willingness to pay. Reflecting DfT concerns that PDFH values of time exaggerate real willingness to pay in the business segment, business user benefits have been based on commuter values of time.

Cost Benefit Analysis In addition to the benefits which we have calculated form PLANET South, we have also translated the indicative scheme costs into compatible figures to enable them to form part of the economic assessment. As stated in Table 3, the estimated cost of the infrastructure improvements is £395 Million (2012 Prices). To enable these costs to be used in the Cost Benefit Analysis we have:

 Converted them to 2002 Prices using the RPI8 adjustment factor between 2012 and 2002  Adjusted the costs for Optimism Bias by inflating them by 50%  Discounted the costs to 2002 taking into account their expected year of expenditure; and  Converted them into Market Prices using the government‟s indirect taxation adjustment factor (1.209) This process gives the Present Value of the Costs (PVC) as £280 Million (in 2002 Prices discounted to 2002). As Beaulieu Parkway station is to be funded by the developer the cost of this element of the scheme is excluded from the overall scheme benefits (as per the DfT and HM Treasury Guidance) to provide a revised Present Value of Benefits (PVB) of £2.5 Billion (in 2002 prices, discounted to 2002). This generates a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 8.6. This indicates that this scheme represents Very High Value for Money. The previous Economic Evidence report calculated that the Wider Economic Benefits of improving the GEML were £280 Million (in 2002 prices, discounted to 2002). If we include these wider benefits in the overall appraisal the PVB increases to £2.8 Billion (in 2002 prices, discounted to 2002). This leads to a BCR of 9.5. This again demonstrates the Very High Value for Money that the proposed schemes represent. Copies of the detailed calculations of the PVB, PVC and BCR, including the TEE and AMCB tables are included in Appendix A.

6.6. Summary The results of this revised and more detailed assessment of the GEML has shown that the schemes that we have identified as part of this study process have the ability to generate significant economic benefits. The benefits calculated at this stage are lower than those in the previous economic evidence study, however, this reflects the fact that we have used specific interventions within the PLANET South model of infrastructure improvements, journey time improvements and rolling stock types and capabilities, whereas the previous economic evidence study used broad assumptions based upon the required outputs to ascertain in broad terms the potential level of benefits that are available. These latest calculations have also been undertaken using an updated version of the PLANET South model which assumes lower assumptions of background economic growth (from NTEM 6.29) than those used in the previous study. We have also used the latest WebTAG guidance and parameters to calculate the economic benefits of the Vision Option, some of the latest guidance and parameters are significantly different to those used in the previous assessment (particularly with reference to the assumed future changes in fare levels) which have also contributed the differences in results from this and the previous study. This latest assessment is therefore considerably more robust than the initial assessment presented in the previous Economic Evidence report, even so, the scale of the forecast benefits is significant at £2.5 Billion or £2.8 Billion (both in 2002 prices and values)if the wider economic benefits are included.

8 RPI = Retail Prices Index, 9 National Trip End Model, Data provided by the Department for Transport

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 49

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

When compared to the initial cost estimates for the Vision Option (£395 Million infrastructure improvements, 2012 Prices) it is clear that there is a compelling economic case for investing in the GEML to provide journey time improvements. These results provide an excellent platform to move the scheme forward. As scheme development progresses, more certainty will be gained on both the scheme costs and the level of benefits, leading to the eventual production of a full business case. It is therefore important to note that having a healthy economic assessment of the scheme at this preliminary stage is very encouraging as it indicates that the underlying proposals are sound from both a technical and economic perspective.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 50

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

7. Stakeholder Feedback

7.1. GEML Stakeholder Event The Technical Capacity Study has been developed throughout with the support and in collaboration with the GEML Vision Group. The Group includes key stakeholder groups with representation from each of the Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. A wider Stakeholder event was organised on 15th August 2012 to bring together a wider collection of interested parties from across East Anglia. This included Councillors, Businesses Groups (Chambers of Commerce), Rail User Groups and the „New Anglia‟ and „South East‟ Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). The event was focused around presenting the Technical Capacity work with formal presentations from Atkins and current holders of the short-term Great Anglia franchise, Abellio. The presentations covered:

 the background to the GEML Vision Group‟s work to date;  the existing short-term franchise Abellio are operating until July 2014 (JD);  review of the EEDA Economic Evidence Study; and  the on-going Technical Capacity Study and the emerging proposals. Throughout the event, there was an opportunity to draw feedback from attendees on the Study and the emerging Options including an open Question & Answer.

7.2. Summary of Feedback The primary feedback from the event was that the Counties are keen to progress and push through deliver of the findings of this Technical Capacity Study. Stakeholders are aware that there is a time critical need to act in the present, in light of:

 the Government‟s timetable for deciding spending for Control Period 5; and  the imminent consultation on the re-letting of the Greater Anglia rail franchise contract (expected to operate for 15 years, starting July 2013). To provide the most compelling case, the overwhelming view of stakeholders was backing of the aims of the Study and the agreement with the findings and Options. The group were delighted that detailed discussions around how the GEML can be enhanced are progressing, as a by-product of the „Norwich in 90‟ campaign which has been discussed since 2010. Stakeholders would benefit from further clarity as to how best to try to make the case to and influence key personnel who make decision on funding which could support required detailed development work. Any opportunities to secure funding, even potentially through Controls Period 5, should be maximised. In addition, stakeholders were keen to understand in more detail the forthcoming consultation on the longer term franchise contract with a view to using this to draw benefits. This is especially complex as the franchise contract is likely to run 2013-2028, for when future spending allocations are unknown. Much of the discussion was around the proposed new station at Beaulieu Park, with Chelmsford Borough Council keen to understand how Countryside Properties proposal can link with the work of the Vision Group. A planning committee is being established, which shall include members of the Vision Group, to progress the work and advise on how best to assist the developer to maximise the opportunity.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 51

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 52

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

8. Delivery Framework

8.1. Introduction This report sets out the key issues and quantifies the funding gap for delivering the GEML Vision. This section looks at how rail investment can be funded and outlines a forward programme for delivery of the key schemes in the preferred package of works.

8.2. Funding Sources There are only three sources of railway funding, these are:

 From the fare box;  By way of a subsidy from government (local or central); or  From private funding where the railway is incidental to another development (such as section 106 money where a railway development is a pre-requisite of another private scheme). Financing arrangements, however structured, require a revenue stream to repay the finance, and this can only come from the farebox or as a subsidy or an incidental income stream to a future private development. It is vitally important to make a distinction between funding and financing – as a number of reputed potential sources of funding are not in fact financing (of debt) structured through different types of financial mechanisms. This project is likely to require two types of funding. That is:

 Implementation funding: to close any gap between construction and operation (taking into account the expected cost of any implementation, risk or profit that will be required for the project to be delivered successfully); and  Development funding: to refine and optimise the scheme, and get it to financial close. The funding available for each is different.

Implementation Funding Implementation funding is likely to have three sources:

 Farebox,  Subsidy (Government)  Private sector Each is discussed in turn below:

8.3. Farebox revenue: Running more trains and faster trains on the GEML will generate additional farebox revenue. There will also be an increase in the operating costs of the railway. The net difference is needs to be calculated. This is a financial calculation which determines whether and how far any extra train services have to be subsidised. This financial calculation can be used to hypothecate the net revenue to the extra services. This net figure matters even though farebox income is effectively rebased each time a franchise is let. DfT are reluctant for new services to be introduced where they require extra subsidy to. This is the case regardless of the capital cost involved. This does not mean that it is impossible to secure funding for train services that require an ongoing operational subsidy, but there needs to be a robust economic or political case that is sufficient compelling to compensate. It has been conjectured that one of the reasons why the Northern Hub project has taken so long to be approved is that the extra train services the scheme enables in the Manchester area struggle to attract sufficient incremental revenue to cost their incremental costs. Given that the GEML project is being driven by rising demand which is forecast to leave a capacity gap going forward between the number of trains provided and required in the peak hours, it might be assumed that there may be no net operating subsidy requirement. However it is worth bearing mind that most of the extra trains will run in the peak periods only and that there is no demand for extra infrastructure to facilitate extra off-peak services. The incremental cost of the rolling stock required therefore cannot be spread over a large number of services. Although performance and journey time benefits will spread across a wider range of services and will generate extra income outside of the peak.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 53

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

To quantify the incremental revenue generated and the incremental new operating position a more detailed understanding of the revenue impact potential extra services is required. This requires the individual train service options for testing to be agreed with the client, the timetable to be modelled, the net and gross revenue then to be modelled, for these to be netted against the incremental operational cost, and for the net impact to be broken down on a year by year basis. The preferred option then needs to be selected. This is a detailed and time consuming process and is beyond the remit of this current study. Where the net revenue is positive the money can be hypothecated in the business case and used to off-set the capital expenditure. It is however worth bearing mind that a discount rate needs to be applied. The appropriate level of the discount rate is subject to guidance issued by DfT and HMT. A discount rate is required because the infrastructure has to be built before any trains can run and in particular the revenue gained from train services over a number of years in the future. It is very unusual for the discounted net farebox revenue from any (large scale infrastructure related) rail project to be sufficient to “pay back” all the capital cost. That is large rail project with cash positive businesses cases are likely to have attracted investment previously. Nevertheless farebox revenue (even when discounted and netter against operating costs) is likely to be the single largest source of funding for any project, and it is expected for the GEML project. If that is not the case alternative options will need to be tested, particularly lower cost options.

8.4. Subsidy

Department for Transport The Government‟s White Paper 'Delivering a Sustainable Railway', was published on 24 July 2007. The purpose of this document was to provide strategic direction for the rail industry. The 'Delivering a Sustainable Railway' looks at the potential future challenges for the railway over a 30-year horizon. It identifies three long-term agendas for Government and the rail industry working in partnership:

 Increasing the capacity of the railway;

 Delivering a quality service for passengers; and

 Fulfilling rail's environmental potential. Increases in passenger numbers associated with the planned growth in housing and employment will add to the challenge of improving reliability. It is likely that without enhancements to capacity, rail network performance will begin to decline. Therefore, at the strategic level, increasing rail capacity is critical to delivering better reliability, as well as being an important goal in its own right. At the national level, capacity needs to increase so that rail can continue to contribute to sustainable economic growth. All of the above policy agenda items coincide to a degree with the aims and objectives of the GEML project and hence will also assist the DfT to meet their own objectives in terms of rail. The DfT have indicated that they have an interest in GEML. However, the project was not included in the recently announced High Level Output Specification (HLOS). This is not surprising. Schemes which require funding from the DfT must provide a business case with a positive net present value as defined by the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) indicator. GEML is not sufficiently developed to have business case developed to an appropriate technical level. This business case uses a socioeconomic cost/benefit approach that takes into account of the economic impacts that are expected to be delivered by the scheme. This is described in the following section. Socio-economic cost/benefit appraisal For Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) or public grant funded rail schemes, or enhancement schemes funded through the access charges review the assessment must include consideration of the societal and financial benefits, using an approach agreed with the DfT. This includes consideration of:

 Overall passenger journey time;  Environmental and safety benefits arising from modal shift from car or lorry to rail;  Reliability and crowding for rail users; and  Employment and regeneration impacts.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 54

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

The DfT require there to be a positive business case with a high BCR (defined as being greater than two). They also usually prefer there to be a positive (discounted net) revenue stream (discussed above) so that they can be sure that any investment in infrastructure is sustainable. However it is unusual for DfT to fund large rail projects directly. Instead DfT tends to typically use the HLOS and RAB process and provide funding via Network Rail (although DfT can elect to use the franchise Agreement and fund schemes via the TOC). DfT clearly funds other aspects of local transport indirectly, for example, via the LTP process. But these are not appropriate for large rail schemes.

Network Rail Funding One of Network Rail‟s future key objectives is to provide a major increase in passenger and freight capacity upon the network and have increased availability to reduce the need for line closures during maintenance. GEML meets those objectives. In the medium to long term, financing for GEML could be forthcoming from Network Rail. However, Network Rail has only limited funds to spend at its own discretion. The DfT is required to underwrite the two principal ways in which Network Rail is granted money for rail investment schemes. The first of these is the HLOS process. The second of these is via the RAB. In effect DfT can underwrite the funding of the project and require Network Rail to fund a rail scheme (with support from the Office of the Rail Regulator) through an adjustment to the Regulatory Asset Base (RAB). Although there are some variations in the criteria, dependent on the size of the scheme all schemes seeking RAB funding must demonstrate that:

 Government support the ongoing financial commitment arising from a Regulatory Asset Base (RAB) addition;  The proposed scheme enhances the economic value of the network;  The expenditure will be efficiently incurred;  The outputs specified within the scheme can be delivered; and.  Schemes are generally prioritised on the basis of their BCR.

RAB Funding Potential Network Rail (NR) requires 6% per annum returns on its investment, and the amount it may be willing to invest in a capital scheme depends on the amount it can recover from its investment at the said 6% over a given window of consideration. Depending on the nature of the scheme, this window of consideration varies in length, with large capital schemes tending to entail longer windows of consideration.

European funding: Some rail projects have been funded by European funding. These tend to be larger projects of national importance. For example, the following schemes have recently been awarded funding from the Trans- European Transport Network Executive Agency of the European Commission:

 Priority 1 (Promote the development of an integrated and multi-modal transport system): o Southampton Port to West Coast Main Line: Rail freight upgrade and hinterland connections €5,000,000  Priority 3 (Accelerate/facilitate the implementation of TEN-T projects : o Priority Project 26: Felixstowe to Nuneaton rail freight enhancement, Ely Loops €4,000,000 o Priority Project 26: North West England Electrification, Manchester-Liverpool €5,000,000 The contribution to the Ely Loops project highlights that the GEML project could secure some European funding. However, as seen form the awards highlighted above, the funding available from Europe is unlikely to provide the majority of the funding to a project.

Local Government Funding: Schemes can be funded directly by local government. There are no structural issues about local government funding railway projects and relatively well established procedures. Most local authorities have also historically sought to develop a revenue stream to off-set any grant. For example The City Region of Birmingham, Coventry and the Black Country have undertaken a study, in conjunction with the Core Cities Group (CCG), to examine alternative funding sources for the delivery of new infrastructure to support improvements in productivity and economic growth. This work is described in a joint report called Unlocking

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 55

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

City Growth produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). The report proposes two new funding mechanisms which could be used to deliver new infrastructure, these are: Accelerated Development Zones; and Regional Infrastructure Funds. But both effectively involve taxing either existing or new development. It is not clear that this is appropriate in this context. However, the most appropriate use of Local Government Funding in the context of the GEML will be to support the ongoing development of the scheme to the point that the scheme is approved by the DfT and taken on by Network Rail. This was the case with both the East West Rail and the Western Access to Heathrow projects. Both of these schemes were promoted by consortiums of local authorities who funded the development and design of the scheme up until the point that a robust business case could be produced. Atkins led the design and development work on both of these projects and therefore has an excellent understanding of the amount of work needed to get them approved by the DfT. Both of these schemes have been approved in the past year by the government and form clear commitments for delivery in CP5 after been included in the HLOS announcement.

Regional Funding Prior to the demise of the RDAs rail had historically benefited from regional funding. It was RDA funding in the West Midlands that underpinned the more enhancement elements of the on-going upgrade of Birmingham New Street station. However this option is no longer available. It is unlikely that the LEP will be granted large sums of discretionary money to spend on rail infrastructure projects.

8.5. Private Funding: Historically a number of railways in the UK and overseas were effectively paid for by private developers or by subsidies from those developers keen to improve the connectivity with their developments. The modern equivalent to this has been the section 106 Agreement. Planning Obligations/S106 agreements can be agreed on a site by site basis based upon the policies contained within the relevant authorities Local Development Framework (LDF). However, sections 106 agreements are unlikely to be effective as a funding solution. Firstly this is because there are likely to be other calls on section 106 funding including Highways and Education; secondly the nature of this type of agreement means that it could be difficult to obtain a consistency of approach across all the local authorities (the County Councils, the District councils and the Unitary authorities). Thirdly, the relationship of these agreements to planning permissions means that delays in bringing developments forward could reduce the amount of up-front funding available to enable the scheme to be implemented. The Community Infrastructure Levy provides authorities with the power to introduce a standard charge on most types of new development within their area. In effect CIL places on a statutory basis „roof tax‟ type arrangements that some authorities have been using on an informal basis (via S106 agreements) for a number of years. CIL requires that there is an up to date development plan within an area before it is introduced. The development plan will set out the infrastructure that is required to deliver the plan and the cost to provide it. The total amount which is proposed to be delivered by the CIL should be set taking into account the availability of „traditional‟ funding sources, the aim being that the amount to be raised by the CIL should be equal to the difference between the total cost of the required infrastructure and the total amount available from „traditional‟ funding sources. The CIL charging schedule requires a similar level of testing as other development plan documents prior to its adoption. This is likely to include a public examination of the proposed charging scheme. CIL charges will be expressed as costs per unit of development. However CIL would probably be harder to coordinate – as they do not overcome the needs for a large number of local authorities (both County Councils and districts councils and some unitary authorities) to agree on how a CIL might work across authorities – and require the development plan to be sufficient funding to implement all of the required infrastructure.

Beaulieu Parkway The largest development on the route is at Beaulieu Park. Beaulieu Park will fund significant enhancements through section 106 agreements and conditional planning consents. However no section 106 money is proposed for the railway station and the associated track loops. The exact funding arrangements for the company are unclear but the developer is proposing to pay the £53 million construction cost of the new station and recoup the debt by taking money out of the rail industry for use of the asset via parking revenue and what we assume to be access charges levied on the train operator.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 56

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

8.6. Scheme Development In the short term, funding of the proposed GEML Vision infrastructure works is less important than development funding. Development funding is required to ensure that the business case is optimised and relevant. DfT (and Network Rail) are somewhat reluctant to provide funding for the development of schemes. This is because there is a shortage of development funds in total at least in comparison with the number of potential studies. More significantly DfT officials believe that by forcing organisation to “work hard” for development funding that such funding is not wasted on schemes that have the poorest business cases or least political traction in terms of their ability to secure funding for development. There is no explicit DfT fund for development for third parties but such funding may be made available by exception. The simplest, and probably the most effective approach, is to approach DfT directly. If such an approach is made it is worth explaining that GEML group has funded project to date and that you are seeking match or other funding going forward. The more senior the approach, the better the chance of success. It is worth noting that DfT will be more sympathetic to matching or part funding development work than providing over 50% of such funding. This is not just because DfT has limited development funding and wants to leverage other funds, but because with more than 50% funding they will have to take greater management involvement in the project. There is a concern that very significant DfT development funding may encourage unrealistic assumptions that pre-judge DfT‟s willingness to underwrite any business case and any required investment. NR has some discretionary development funding. These are set out in the HLOS. For example Network Rail has a small budget to develop schemes that will improve performance. However, Network Rail has its own agenda and own issues, and has to meet challenging targets set by the ORR before spending funding on third party schemes. In particular Network Rail is concerned with improving train performance in the short-medium term. In the HLOS for CP5 development funding was identified for the proposed Bow junction scheme. Please note that to extend this development funding that the local region will need to bid internally against other eligible projects from within the UK. Therefore, the best way to guarantee the ongoing funding of the development of the GEML vision is for the GEML Vision Group / local authorities to commit further funding to this project and use this commitment to lever further development funding from the DfT.

8.7. Delivery Programme To place all of the previously discussed into context we have produced an outline delivery programme, Figure 21. The delivery plan highlights the Rail Industry processes which take place prior to the start of a new Control Period. The plan highlights that the GEML Vision Group need to have the GEML Vision package of works progressed to a sufficient level of detail such that they can feed directly into the Initial Industry Plan for CP6, which is expected to be published around Q3 of 2016. In turn, this will feed into the HLOS for CP6 which is expected in Q3 of 2017. Atkins‟ previous experience with major rail schemes, such as East West Rail, suggests that the scheme design needs to be developed to GRIP 4 (single option development in rail industry terms), to provide enough certainty to be included in the IIP and HLOS. Due to the interface between the proposed Boreham Three Tracking and Beaulieu Parkway Station, Atkins consider it prudent to develop this particular scheme to GRIP 3 (option selection) as a matter of priority as it will help to remove any uncertainty which exists about the compatibility and integration of these schemes. The consultation for the Greater Anglia franchise is likely to start in either December 2012 or January 2012. The GEML Vision Group need to be able to provide evidence to support the inclusion of the Vision requirements within the franchise specification. This report will form an important part of this evidence, but more is likely to be required, particularly to support the provision of new outer commuter rolling stock. As discussed in Section 3.4, the costs of new rolling stock will be significant, which will have an impact upon the scale of premium which can be paid to the DfT from the franchisee – the DfT will need to satisfy themselves that this „loss of premium‟ is value for money and that in the wider scheme of public finances, it is affordable. Therefore, the GEML Vision Group will need to set out a detailed case to support the requirement of new outer commuter stock to feed into the franchising consultation process. The campaigning for this is also likely to be a major aim of any advocacy group which is created to promote/support the GEML Vision (See Section 8.8).

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 57

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Figure 21. Delivery Programme

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Industry process IIP X Independent review X HLOA & SOFA X Strageic Business Plan X Draft Determination X Final Determination X

Statutory Process Transport & Works Act T&WA Process

Network Rail Control Period 4 Control Period 5 Control Period 6 Control Period 7 Control Period 8 Further Development, Design + Funding Detailed Design & Liverpool St. platforms Scheme Development Construction Approval planning Further Development, Design + Funding Detailed Design & Bow Junction Scheme Development Construction Approval planning Further Development, Design + Funding Linespeed Improvements Scheme Development Detailed Design & planning Construction Approval Further Development, Design + Funding Boreham three tracking Scheme Development Detailed Design & planning Construction Approval Further Development, Design + Funding Braintree Loop Scheme Development Detailed Design & planning Construction Approval

Great Anglia Franchise Consultation on Franchise PQQ ITT Contract Award Start of Franchise Greater Anglia 15 Year Franchise Outer Suburban rolling stock Procurement of New Stock Intercity coaching stock Refurbish Mk3's + procure DTSO's New locos Procurement Rewrite of timetable Develop, seek approvals, obtain extra paths

Private Sector

Station Construction Construction Beauliue Park Station Open x

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 58

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

8.8. Going Forward There are two key workstreams going forward. They are:

 To develop the organisation of the GEML committee so that they can move progressively from feasibility investigation to an advocacy group when (and if ) appropriate, and  Further scheme development work.

Creation of advocacy group: There is a clear need to further develop the business case and ensure that the business case is optimised and that it covers the Treasury‟s five cases model. That will require further development work – (see below). However, in addition to that there is a need for the current GEML client team to consider how they lobby for the project and whether the existing arrangements are sufficient. Whilst both DfT and Network Rail are supportive of schemes with positive business cases that increase the capacity and the performance of the railway network, it is less clear how such schemes are prioritised for funding. In particular it is not clear whether they will support the GEML project as vigorously as local stakeholders. It is therefore in the interest of local stakeholders to “own” the business case in order to ensure that it is optimised. Politically any business case will have more weight if supported by more organisations (all other matters being equal). A unified approach by all the public bodies on the route will limit any challenge that the options somehow favour one set of users over another. One way this unified response has been organised successfully is through the development of a Public Interest Group (“PIG”). A PIG can have two levels of membership; an organising committee that directs the project and wider group required to facilitate development funding and encourage advocacy. Other projects that have used this approach in the UK include Great Western Access to Heathrow (“WRATH”) client project team and Greengage 21. The approach of these groups is described in the following case studies.

Case Study – Western Access to Heathrow Airport The WRATH client project team started to develop a PIG from the local LEP until DfT announced their intention to support construction of the link in the recent CP5 HLOS, and after meeting with Greengage 21. Initially the client project team consisted of the different unitary authorities in the Thames Valley (Slough, Reading, Windsor and Maidenhead, West Berkshire Bracknell Forest and Wokingham). Although work was commissioned through Slough Borough Council, it was recognised that a more formal structure was required for advocacy work particularly after the abolition of the Thames valley Economic Partnership with changes to regional government. As importantly, it was recognised that the benefits of the projects would be felt much further than in Berkshire only. South Buckinghamshire formally joined the group, as did a number of private sector organisations, and expression of interest came from Swindon, Basingstoke, Birmingham, Wales, parts of the South West and from parts of the Avon area. The WRATH client project team were particularly pleased to have secured support from individual private companies in the Thames Valley and the two largest chambers of commerce locally because it was felt that such involvement helped reinforce the economic credentials of the project. Membership was restricted to those organisations that could contribute financially to the development costs. Membership of the controlling group was restricted the founding organisations and those bodies that showed a particular willingness to consider funding the project. Network Rail, BAA and the DfT were invited to participate as observers only because it was felt that their input might dilute the need for the project to reflect the requirements of the original founding group, rather than the railway industry.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 59

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Case Study: Greengage 21 Greengage 21 is the first and is widely considered to have formed the most effective PIG to date – the HSR (High Speed Rail) Public Interest Group. The Greengage website describes the “HSR Public Interest Group (as) a unique grouping of public sector and rail industry organisations that came together to sponsor a programme of work on high-speed rail. Originally formed in summer 2008 to fund the HSR Development Programme which resulted in the Fast Forward strategy, the group has continued to fund research on high-speed rail. The members of the HSR Public Interest Group between 2008 and 2012 have included:

 Advantage West Midlands  Association of North East Councils  Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC)  BAA  Birmingham City Council  City of Edinburgh Council  City of London Corporation  East of England Development Agency  East Midlands Development Agency  Glasgow City Council  Glasgow-Edinburgh Collaboration Initiative  Greater Manchester PTE  Great Western Partnership  Network Rail  Newcastle City Council  The Northern Way (the partnership of the three northern RDAs)  Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council  pteg (the Passenger Transport Executive Group)  Railway Industry Association  Scottish Enterprise  South East of Scotland Transport Partnership (SEStran)  Sheffield City Region  South East England Development Agency  Strathclyde Partnership for Transport  Transport for London

Whilst formally constituted the High Speed Rail PIG is no longer as important as it once was because government has announced that it wishes to proceed with high speed rail and that announcement was broadly in line with the proposals advocated by Greengage 21.

On the basis of the experience gained by the WRATH and Grengage21 groups it is recommended that a „PIG‟ for GEML would:

 Collect and authorise development funding (even if via existing contractual frameworks);  Act as an advocate for the project seeking to develop a stream of stories to make it clear that the project has political traction;  Act as a formal point of contact for the project and have a collective voice in the political debate;  Formally sign off on the scope and the strategic direction of the project, binding in the membership into a collective response; and  Keep the project progressing in the direction required by the key stakeholders so that the solutions being developed are appropriate to their needs and that the commitment is understood to be for the medium/long term. Given the need for development funding, membership of this group may be restricted to those organisations that contribute funding.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 60

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

8.9. Further development work This study suggests that there is likely to be significant economic benefit in constructing the infrastructure proposals proposed for the GEML and that this is likely to be many times greater than the construction cost. This though is not a detailed business case. In order to secure formal DfT and Network Rail support a more detailed business case will need to be developed. In addition having a forward workstream will help sustain the momentum of the project and give a ready stream of news stories. For this reason it is recommended that a continuous stream of small commissions is of greater value than a single large commission. Having a planned forward workstream signals to funding bodies the serious intent of the project team to keep the political pressure on over the short, medium and longer term. Five extra areas of study are recommended for further investigative work to continue to push forward the GEML Vision Group agenda:

High Priority Actions 1. The GEML Vision Group need to commission preliminary engineering designs of the GEML Vision package to reduce the engineering and cost uncertainty of the component projects, particularly in respect of the interface between the proposed Three Tracking at Boreham and the proposed new station at Beaulieu Park. 2. The GEML Vision Group need to commission further research on the cost of rolling stock leasing which can feed into the upcoming consultation on the Greater Anglia franchise and future business case analysis of the Vision package. In particular this should examine the strong case for the replacement of the current Class 321s on services north of Shenfield and consider the various leasing options (as highlighted in section 3.4) for securing new rolling stock.

Medium Priority Actions 3. The GEML Vision Group need to undertake further consultation and management of stakeholders to keep the process alive and active, and to ensure that as other projects or commercial propositions are developed that they take full account of the component elements proposed in the GEML Capacity study 4. The GEML Vision Group need to consider commissioning detailed timetable modelling of the vision package. Network Rail will be undertaking some timetable modelling as part of their investigation in the options at Bow Junction (funded by the HLOS in CP5). This work should be conducted in parallel with the work undertaken by Atkins at Boreham and expanded to quantify more exactly the benefits in terms of performance (punctuality and reliability) and capacity (the number of trains) that will result from the proposed infrastructure capacity enhancements on the GEML. 5. The GEML Vision Group need to consider commissioning detailed financial modelling to understand the future costs and revenues from operating services on the GEML. In particular this work needs to take account of the additional operating cost arising from operating extra train services using potentially more expensive rolling stock, together with the revenue which will be generated from additional passengers using these services, to identify the net funding position, i.e. will the additional revenue offset the additional operating costs. Further analysis should then consider the net contribution (or deficit) then to be discounted and hypothecated against the infrastructure costs (subject to the different commercial models proposed).

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 61

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 62

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

9. Summary & Conclusions

9.1. Summary The purposes of this study were to move the development of options for improving the GEML further forward from the position identified in 2010‟s Economic Evidence Study and also to provide a direct response to the capacity shortfall identified in the London & South East Route Utilisation Study. This study has reviewed the extensive existing evidence base to determine suitable measures to address the objectives set out in the study brief, these being:

 Meeting the peak demand for travel to and from London  Reducing Journey Times; and  Introducing rolling stock to provide passengers with an improved journey experience;  Providing an evidence base which shows how the vision can be delivered. The Interim Study Report describes the identification of 19 different options for addressing the objectives and issues on the GEML. These options were appraised and sifted down to identify a „core package‟ of schemes which were:

 Raise line speeds between London Liverpool Street and Norwich to a maximum of 110 mph, with associated infrastructure improvements;  Replace inter-city rolling stock on Anglia Inter-City services;  Increase GEML Outer Services into London Liverpool Street by up to 28 trains per hour, by undertaking track re-modelling at Bow Junction and elsewhere;  New option – Three tracking near Chelmsford Parkway (Boreham); and  Additional/replacement commuter rolling stock. In addition to the „core package‟ there are also a number of supplementary schemes which could support or provide enhancements to the core measures, this includes the following schemes:

 Lengthening of Platforms 16 – 18 at London Liverpool Street;  Braintree branchline capacity increase;  Longer trains / Ensure all GEML trains operate with 12-cars; and  New rail station at Chelmsford. The cost of all of these improvements is circa £395 Million. This Final Report has looked in greater depth at the options identified in the Interim Report to enable a more detailed appraisal of the potential benefits of them. This has included:

 A detailed review of the rolling stock issues and options for the GEML following detailed research involving Atkins own Rail experts and the industry we have recommended that: o Inter-City services should be served by refurbished Mark 3 coaches hauled by a new AC electric locomotive (Bombardier Traxx or Siemens Vectron) together with a passenger carrying Driving Trailer; o Outer Commuter services north of Shenfield should make use of the Class 360‟s upgraded for 110mph operation, supplemented by further new 110mph capable EMUs. o Outer Commuter services on the Southend/Southminster Branch can either make use of heavily refurbished Class 321‟s (as 110mph capability not required on branch) or also be served by the new fleet of EMUs recommended for the north of Shenfield services. o This information will help the GEML Vision Group respond to the expected consultation on the Greater Anglia Franchise which is due out before the end of 2012.  An engineering review of the proposed three tracking for Boreham, looking at the option in terms of engineering feasibility and also cost;  A detailed review of the operational characteristics of the proposed Boreham three tracking using the RailSys modelling program to confirm that the new track would improve the reliability and resilience of the network.  An extensive update of the economic impacts of the package of measures that we are recommending for the GEML was undertaken using the PLANET SOUTH rail model. For this assessment we coded into the model all of the changes that we have recommended in 2032 and compared the results of this test to

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 63

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

a Do Minimum specified for the same year. This showed that the schemes that we are recommending as part of the „Core Package‟ will generate benefits of the order of £2.5 Billion.  We have also produced a delivery framework for the GEML improvements, looking at all of the potential sources of funding and identifying how we can secure investment in the development and implementation of the improvements in CP5 and CP6.

9.2. Conclusions Following the completion of this study we conclude that there is a viable package of measures that we have identified which can be taken forward on the GEML which will generate benefits significantly in excess of the capital infrastructure costs, this still remains the case even if the capital costs of the purchasing of new rolling stock is taken into account. We have concluded that the package of measures that was identified in the Interim Report are feasible from an engineering and operational perspective. Furthermore, as discussed previously, when assessed as a package they deliver significant socio-economic benefits and address the study/scheme objectives. We conclude that further work is needed to develop the proposed schemes with a view to getting them a high priority for implementation in Control Period 6. As discussed in Chapter 8, further technical work is required to develop the technical aspects of the study as well as producing a business case for investment. This work is best led by the GEML Vision Group, commissioning a series of discrete studies over the coming years rather than undertaking one large study. However, in some respects, we conclude that the technical work needs to take a secondary position to gathering and shepherding the stakeholder support for this scheme. Our experience in supporting the East West Rail and Western Access to Heathrow schemes shows that having the technical work in place does not carry much weight unless there is very strong and focussed stakeholder backing with targeted lobbying and campaigning. A strong stakeholder group, speaking with one voice which includes the private and public sectors can generate a groundswell of opinion that is hard to resist. The success of the Northern Hub is testament to this approach. We therefore conclude that:

 The objectives of the GEML Vision Group are sound;  The proposed package of schemes will address the objectives and deliver significant economic benefits;  Further technical work is required to develop the schemes, this is important as Network Rail will be developing their Bow Junction proposal during CP5 and the process to award the next Greater Anglia franchise will start before the end of 2012. The GEML Vision Group needs to be able to feed into these processes to ensure that Network Rail and the new franchise specification delivers the maximum benefits to the whole GEML, Section 8.8 highlight the areas of work that the GEML Vision Group should focus on;  The GEML Vision Group needs to create a strong advocacy group to champion the cause of the GEML and effectively lobby and influence the DfT‟s decision making processes.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 64

Appendices

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

(This page is intentionally blank as this document has been formatted for double sided printing)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 66

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Appendix A. TEE, Public Accounts and AMCB Table

A.1. TEE Table

Table 1: Economic Efficiency of Transport System (£mill, revenues are scored as positives, costs as negatives)

Total Road Rail Consumers user benefits - travel time saving 950.8 140.7 810.1 - Vehicle opcost 0.0 0.0 0.0 - user charges 0.0 0.0 0.0 - during construction & maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net (1) 950.8 140.7 810.1

Business User benefits - Travel time 919.9 135.7 784.2 - Vehicle opcost 0.0 0.0 0.0 - user charges 0.0 0.0 0.0 - during construction & maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 Net (2) 919.9 135.7 784.2

Private sector provider impact - revenue 601.1 0.0 601.1 - opcost 0.0 0.0 0.0 - investment cost 0.0 0.0 0.0 - grant/subsidy 0.0 0.0 0.0 - revenue transfer 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sub total (3) 601.1 0.0 601.1

Other impacts - Developer contribution (4) -36.2 0.0 -36.2

Net business impact (5 = 2+3+4) 1484.8 135.7 0.0

Total, PV of transport econ eff. Benefits (6 = 1+5) 2435.6

Note that subtotals (1) and (5) flow into the AMCB table. Subtotal (6) does not.

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 67

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

A.2. Public Accounts Table Table 2 Public Accounts (£mill costs should be recorded as a positive number, surpluses as a negative one) All Modes Road Rail Total Local Government funding - Direct Revenue 0.0 - Op costs 0.0 0.0 - Investment costs 0.0 0.0 - Developer and other contributions -36.2 -36.2 - Grant/Subsidy (k)* 0.0 - Revenue transfer 0.0 Net (7) -36.2 0.0 -36.2

Central Government funding - Direct Revenue 0.0 - Op costs 0.0 - Investment costs* 243.3 243.3 - Developer and other contributions 0.0 - Grant/Subsidy (k)* 0.0 - Indirect Tax Revenues (i) 89.2 14.0 75.2 - Revenue transfer 0.0 Net (8) 332.5 14.0 318.5

Total PV of costs (9 =7+8) 296.3

*The public sector costs in these boxes should exclude developer contribution e.g. developer contribution is subtracted from these figures to give Net (8)

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 68

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

A.3. AMCB Table Table 3: Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits (AMCB) Total Noise 2.0 Local air quality 0.0 Greenhouse gases 9.9 Journey ambience (incl. rolling stock quality, and in 69.5 vehicle crow ding) Accidents (incl. safety) 24.2 Consumer users (sub-total 1, Table 1) 950.8 Business users and providers (sub-total 5, Table 1) 1484.8 Reliability (incl. performance & reliability) 0.0 Option values 0.0 Interchange (station quality and crow ding) 0.0

PVB (a = sum of all benefits) 2541.1

PVC (b = sub-total 9, Table 2) 296.3

Overall impact, total - NPV (a-b) 2244.8 - BCR (a/b) 8.6

PVB (including Wider Impacts) 2821.1

PVC (b = sub-total 9, Table 2) 296.3

Overall impact, total - NPV (a-b) 2524.8 - BCR (a/b) 9.5

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 69

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 70

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Appendix B. PLANET South Modelling Specification

B.1. Infrastructure Assume the following:

 Bow Junction (West of Stratford) to enable 28tph Between LST and SRA  Boreham 3 tracking (with Bi-Di) - for additional capacity and regulation north of Chelmsford  Line Speeds - 100mph LST - SNF, 110mph SNF - NRW  Passing loop on Braintree Branch to allow 2 tph and passing moves (N.B not a core scheme but required to permit an additional Braintree - LST service)  Assume that SNF - SOV; and SNF - SMN remain at current speeds

B.2. Future Rolling Stock

Outer Commuter Services Assume all future EMU's to be similar to Class 360 (i.e. Desiro type Units) with the following capabilities (i.e. a Four Car unit with):

Top Speed 110 mph Seating: 262 Standard 16 First 278 Total Seating Standing Capacity 108

TOTAL Capacity 386 Seating + Standing

Assume all trains consist of 3 units (i.e. 12 cars), therefore:

Seating: 786 Standard 48 First 834 Total Seating

Standing Capacity 324

TOTAL Capacity 1158 Seating + Standing

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 71

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Inter-City Services to Norwich The Intercity (Norwich) trains are to consist of new AC electric loco's and refurbished Mk3 coaches with a passenger carrying DTSO in place of the current DVT Assume All Trains will be 9 coach + DTSO formation e.g.

Loco FO FO RFM TSO TSO TSO TSO TSO TSO DTSO TOTAL Seats 48 48 28 84 84 84 84 84 84 42 670  Loco = Locomotive  RFM = Restaurant First Modular  DTSO = Driving Trailer Standard Open

 FO = First Open  TSO = Tourist Standard Open

Top Speed: 110mph Seating 546 Standard 124 First (assuming retention of RFM's) 670 Total

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 72

GEML Capacity Study Final Report

Appendix C. New Train Services

SOV, PRL, SIA, WIC, RLG, HOC, RFD, BIC, SNF, SRA, LST

SOV, PRL, SIA, WIC, RLG, HOC, RFD, BIC, SNF, SRA, LST

BTR, BTP, BTR, CES, WNY, WTM, HAP, CHM, SRA, LST

CLT, TLS, WIV,TLS, CLT, HYH, KEL,COL, CHM, SRA, LST

NRW, DIS, SMK, IPS, CHM, LST

Calling Pattern Calling

IPS, MNG, COL, MKT, CHM, INT, SRA,IPS, MNG, LST MKT, COL, CHM, INT,

CET, COL, MKT, COL, WTM, CET, CHM, SRA, LST

CLT, TLS, WIV,TLS, CLT, HYH, KEL,COL, CHM, SRA, LST

NRW, DIS, SMK, IPS, CHM, LST

Calling Pattern Calling

PB

PB

IPS3

CLT2

Code

CLT2

Code

BTR2

CET2

SOV1

SOV1

NRW6

NRW6

324

324

Class

Class

Standing

Standing

Standard Standard

Standard Standard

48

48

48

48

48

48

48

124

124

Seats

Seats

1st Class

1st Class

786

786

786

786

546

786

786

786

546

Class

Class

Seats

Seats

Standard Standard

Standard Standard

9

9

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

(No. (No.

(No. (No.

Formation Formation

Formation Formation

Carriages)

Carriages)

360/0

360/0

360/0

360/0

360/0

360/0

360/0

Rolling StockRolling Type/Class

Rolling StockRolling Type/Class

Class 93+9 Mk 3Coaches+DTSO

Class 93+9 Mk 3Coaches+DTSO

58

58

58

85

90

57

65

85

90

Time Time

Time Time

(mins)

(mins)

Journey Journey

Journey Journey

Time Time

Time Time

00:58

00:58

00:58

01:25

01:30

00:57

01:05

01:25

01:30

Journey Journey

Journey Journey

(hh:mm)

(hh:mm)

Time Time

Time Time

08:30

08:10

08:08

08:16

08:15

07:59

07:43

07:55

07:45

(Arrival)

(Arrival)

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

To

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

London Livrpl St Livrpl London

To

Southend VicSouthend

Southend VicSouthend

Braintree Braintree

Clacton Clacton

Norwich Norwich

From

Ipswich Ipswich

Colchester Town Colchester Town

Clacton Clacton

Norwich Norwich

From

SX

SX

SX

SX

SX

Days

SX

SX

SX

SX

Days

Time Time

Time Time

07:32

07:12

07:10

06:51

06:45

07:02

06:38

06:30

06:15

(Origin)

(Origin)

0800 - 0900 0800

0800 - 0900 0800

0800 - 0900 0800

0800 - 0900 0800

0800 - 0900 0800

0700 - 0800 0700

0700 - 0800 0700

0700 - 0800 0700

0700 - 0800 0700

Time Period Time

Time Period Time

1Kxx

1Kxx

1Fxx

1Nxx

1Pxx

1Yxx

1Fxx

1Nxx 1Pxx

5 5 extra arrivals between providing- 0900, 0800 a maximum in of 28tph the peak hour

This proposal provides 4 extraThis arrivalstrains between and - 0800 0700

N.B. N.B. Proposed new calling arepatterns preliminary and may need further refinement

N.B. N.B. Departure and Arrival times to fit inchosen with demand estimates and to select between peak and shoulder peak hour

N.B. N.B. Revised journey times additionalfor basedtrains Lineon NR Speed Study and 110mph runningassume north of Shenfield

HeadCode

Train Train

Extra requiredtrains to match inArrivals capacity LST- 0900 - 0800

HeadCode

Train Train Extra requiredtrains to match inArrivals capacity LST- 0800 - 0700

Atkins GEML Capacity Study | Version 1.5 | 30 October 2012 73

Robert Bayley Atkins 5 Wellbrook Court Girton Road CAMBRIDGE CB3 0NA

Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01223 814173 Fax: 01223 277529

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise.

The Atkins logo, „Carbon Critical Design‟ and the strapline „Plan Design Enable‟ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.