Freight Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Foreword

The fi rst railways in Great Britain were This strategy is a vital document in the future developed primarily to carry freight traffi c. Since of rail freight in Britain, and is that time freight has always formed a key part of absolutely committed to supporting our freight the overall “business case” for the railway. operating customers as they seek to grow and develop their businesses. The strategy Today, rail freight is a real, and growing, is now open for consultation and we look success story. Over the last ten years, the rail forward to receiving responses from a wide freight industry has grown rapidly, and more range of interested parties and stakeholders. growth is forecast for the next ten years. We anticipate the fi nal RUS will be ready for This Route Utilisation Strategy looks at the publication in spring 2007. entire network, and considers how the rail John Armitt network should develop to cater for the Chief Executive growing demand for rail freight. As it is a draft for consultation, it considers options rather than drawing fi nal conclusions, and has been developed with the full involvement of the freight operating companies and other key industry players.

The strategy looks at fi ve main areas – the level and pattern of future demand, the preferred routes of the freight operators, gauging policy, key capacity constraints, and capability constraints. In relation to demand, the greatest levels of growth over the next ten years are expected in intermodal, construction and coal traffi c.

Correct at time of going to print

2 3 Executive summary

In many parts of Britain, economic growth Despite the unique role of the Freight RUS in electricity supply industry (ESI) coal and ESI Coal is leading to increasing demands on the rail in the RUS programme, the process followed deep sea (intercontinental) intermodal traffi c. The medium to long term demand for rail network. Development of rail capacity to meet is consistent with that taken throughout the Accordingly, the majority of the key capacity based ESI coal movements is dependent the growing demand is a central element of RUS programme. It has involved a detailed issues identifi ed by the study are driven by on the future role of coal in the UK’s energy the Government’s transport policy. It aims understanding of the freight network, signifi cant changes in the pattern of demand in supply mix. There is currently uncertainty to provide well performing services that forecasting freight on the network up to 2015, these two key commodities. surrounding this role and the fi nal RUS will accommodate the aspirations of both freight assessing and agreeing the key gaps with Each of the schemes identifi ed to address the contain scenario testing to ensure the fi ndings and passenger operators to increase their industry stakeholders and optioneering to capacity issues will be subject to an appraisal are robust against alternative assumptions. services, in a way that maximises overall value understand what action can be taken to bridge demonstrating value for money. The funding The majority of the industry’s projected for money and is affordable. the gaps. As with all RUSs a range of solutions of enhancements will be dealt with outside the changes to rail supply patterns are focused are considered in a hierarchical manner The Freight Route Utilisation Strategy (Freight RUS process. The RUS will give the Offi ce on the transport of coal to the Aire Valley and starting with non-infrastructure solutions such RUS) presents a view of the freight growth that of Rail Regulation the opportunity to consider Trent Valley power stations which are likely to as amendments to timetables and operating could reasonably be expected to occur on the the key options to meet freight growth when have at the least a medium term future. Two longer trains and progressing to consideration network by 2015 and considers the key issues considering expenditure on the network. alternative scenarios were examined refl ecting of infrastructure solutions if required. The that arise when addressing what would be Similarly it will enable the Department uncertainty surrounding the balance of coal Freight RUS has been overseen by a required to accommodate that growth. for Transport and Transport Scotland to imports through competing ports. Stakeholder Management Group consisting understand freight’s needs whilst developing Unlike the individual ‘geographical’ RUSs of Network Rail, English Welsh and Scottish ESI Coal: East Coast Ports to the Aire and their High Level Output Specifi cations for the which concentrate on resolving the changing Railways, Freightliner, GB , the Trent Valleys future railway and provide the strategic context demands on fairly self-contained parts of Association of Train Operating Companies, the This fi rst scenario involves increases for Transport Innovation Fund decisions. the network, the Freight RUS considers the , Transport Scotland, in imports through the east coast ports The decisions will be made in the light of any role of freight across the entire network. This the Welsh Assembly Government, Transport (, Hull, Redcar, Tyne Dock and changes which result from the current review is important because freight movements for , the Rail Freight Group and the Blyth) supplanting some current English of the structure of charges. cross operational and political geographical Freight Transport Association. Passenger domestic mined supply, and a proportion of boundaries. A network wide approach ensures Focus has been consulted at regular intervals Importantly, it will provide third party investors current Anglo –Scottish traffi c. that the freight demand forecasts used during its development. with an indication of enhancements that would The RUS highlights resulting capacity within each of the geographical RUSs are be required to meet their aspirations. A 30 per cent growth in freight tonnes lifted is constraints and solutions as follows: consistent. Importantly, it also ensures that key forecast over the study period (the 10 years enhancements to capacity to meet freight’s ■ Immingham imports: The key section of to 2014/15) which equates to an additional requirements to move across the network are constraint is identifi ed as the route from 120 trains per day compared to the base year highlighted for further consideration in the the port through junction and of 2004/05. Whilst growth is predicted in the geographical RUSs alongside the changing , both in terms of pathing volumes of almost all commodities carried, demands of the passenger railway. and maintenance access. The solutions the greatest levels of growth are expected

4 5 proposed include a range of small scale terminals in the , the North Stakeholders have also expressed aspirations schemes including some train lengthening West, the North East and Scotland. for clearance of key parts of the network to the plus the upgrading of the Brigg line. larger W12 and European gauges in order to The RUS highlights resulting key capacity tap into a larger market. ■ Hull imports: The key section of constraint constraints on the Great Eastern and Cross is identifi ed as the Hull docks branch. London routes and on several sections of the Consultation The solutions proposed include partial East and West Coast Main Lines. Consultation with stakeholders is an important re-doubling of the branch, with possible part of the RUS process and we would The proposed solution to the constraints further enhancements on the main line welcome comments on the contents of this highlighted on the Great Eastern, cross between Hessle Road junction and Selby document. Details of how to contact us can be London and on the southern end of the and some train lengthening. found in the fi nal chapter. is the development by A set of further minor schemes are outlined 2014/15 of a W10 gauge cleared Felixstowe in relation to access to the other east coast – Nuneaton route with incremental capacity import facilities. enhancements to allow routeing of some Felixstowe/ Bathside Bay traffi c via Ely, ESI Coal: Anglo-Scottish Coal route Peterborough and to the West Coast This second scenario involves the continuation Main Line. of growth in imported coal into Hunterston and opencast sites in Ayrshire, supplanting Some smaller schemes are also proposed to current English deep mined production. Under handle further growth on the northern end of this scenario there will be further increases in the West Coast mainline including possible Anglo-Scottish coal fl ows. train lengthening and loop enhancement options. The RUS highlights the capacity of the Glasgow and South Western and Settle Gauge clearance & lines as constraints to further The RUS identifi es a number of major gauge signifi cant growth under this scenario. Key clearance issues. Again, each of the issues solutions involve installation of a number of requires further development and their additional signals on the Settle & Carlisle line, recommendation will be subject to a positive doubling all or part of Gretna – Annan (and business case. some additional signals) on the Glasgow and Southampton to West Coast Main Line South Western, and a set of possible smaller ■ Clearance of the core route from scale measures in the Carlisle area. Southampton to the West Coast Main The need for further large scale renewals on Line (via Winchester and Reading) to the Settle & Carlisle line is also examined at least W10 to meet forecast growth in under this scenario. larger container sizes from the Port of Southampton Deep sea intermodal The Freight RUS forecasts a 64% growth ■ Further evaluation of diversionary routes in deep sea intermodal trains by 2014/15 for this fl ow to provide operational fl exibility compared with 2004/05, based on continued South East ports to year on year growth in deep sea container West Midlands/North West throughput at UK ports, and some further ■ Clearance to W10 of the ‘Felixstowe improvements in rail market share. The – Nuneaton route’ from the Haven ports majority of growth is projected to be from to the West Coast Main Line as described the established deep sea ports in the South above to provide additional capacity and East (Felixstowe, Southampton, Tilbury and shorter journey time for intermodal traffi c. Thamesport), and the planned facilities at Bathside Bay and/or Shell Haven. Key inland destinations are projected to continue to be

6 7 Contents

5 Summary of gaps identifi ed 42 1 Background 10 5.1 Capacity gaps 42 1.1 Introduction to Route Utilisation Strategies 10 5.1.1 Approach 42 5.1.2 Methodology 42 1.2 Consultation paper 12 5.1.3 Key gaps defi ned 44 5.1.4 Drivers of capacity gaps 46 2 Scope and planning context 14 5.1.5 Potential constraints arising from developments outside the freight RUS forecasts 49

2.1 The role of the freight RUS within the RUS programme 14 5.2 Capability gaps 50 2.2 Time horizon 15 5.2.1 Gross tonnage 50 5.2.2 Route Availability (RA) and train length 52 2.3 Planning context 15 6 Gauge aspirations 54 3 Current demand and the baseline network 16 6.1 Background 54 3.1 Freight operators 16 6.2 Industry priority gauge aspirations 2014/15 55 3.2 Profi le of the freight market 16 6.3 Summary of gauge gaps 60 3.3 Summary of base year freight demand: actual trains 22 3.4 Freight usage of network paths 24 7 Assessment of options and recommendations for 3.5 Summary of base year freight demand: gross tonnage 26 further analysis 62 3.6 Summary of base year gauge and Route Availability (RA) 26 7.1 Introduction 62

7.2 Identifying options against gaps 62 4 Forecast of change – 7.3 Capacity options 62 Industry demand forecasts trains and tonnage 28 7.3.1 Anglo – Scottish coal route (Ayrshire – Aire Valley/Trent Valley) 65 4.1 Approach to forecasting 28 7.3.2 WCML capacity gaps and options 68 4.1.1 Introduction 28 7.3.3 Southampton – WCML 74 4.1.2 Methodology one: “Bottom up” 28 7.3.4 East coast ports – Aire/Trent Valley 76 4.1.3 Methodology two: “Top down” 29 7.3.5 Hope Valley 78

4.2 Demand results: Rail freight growth to 2014/15 31 7.4 Capacity options: Assessment and recommendations 79 4.2.1 Overview 31 7.4.1 Gross tonnage 79 4.2.2 Demand forecasts: Additional trains mapped to the network: Base case 31 7.5 Gauge options: Assessment and recommendations 80 4.2.3 Sensitivity tests: ESI coal and deep sea intermodal markets 33 4.2.4 Commodity summary 35 8 Stakeholder consultation 86 4.3 Industry 2014/15 demand results: gross tonnage 40 8.1 Introduction 86 4.4 Predicted growth compared to actual 2005/06 fi gures 40 8.2 How you can contribute 87

8.3 Response date 87

Appendices 88 Appendix A: Demand in base year and existing network 88 Appendix B: Assumptions underlying forecast growth 96 Appendix C: Key capacity gaps 106 Appendix D: Options against gaps. Available at www.networkrail.co.uk Glossary 109

8 9 1. Background

1.1 Introduction The “duty” referred to in the objective The process is designed to be inclusive. Joint “the effective and effi cient use 1.1.1 is Network Rail’s general duty under Licence work is encouraged between industry parties, and development of the capacity Following the Rail Review in 2004 and the Condition 7 in relation to the operation, who share ownership of each RUS through available, consistent with funding Railways Act 2005, the Offi ce of Rail Regulation maintenance, renewal and development of the its industry Stakeholder Management Group. (ORR) modifi ed Network Rail’s network licence that is, or is reasonably likely network. The ORR guidelines also identify two There is also extensive informal consultation in June 2005 to require the establishment to become, available during the purposes of RUSs, and state that Network Rail outside the rail industry by means of a Wider of RUSs across the network. Simultaneously, period of the route utilisation should balance the need for predictability with Stakeholder Group. the need to enable innovation. Such strategies ORR published guidelines on RUSs. A RUS strategy and with the licence The ORR guidelines require options to be should: is defi ned in Condition 7 of the network licence holder’s performance of the duty”. appraised. This is initially undertaken using as, in respect of the network or a part of the Extract from ORR Guidelines on Route Utilisation the DfT’s appraisal criteria and, in Scotland, 1 “enable Network Rail and persons network , a strategy which will promote the Strategies, June 2005 the Scottish Executive’s STAG appraisal providing services relating route utilisation objective. The route utilisation criteria. To support this appraisal work RUSs 1 to railways better to plan their objective is defi ned as: The defi nition of network in Condition 7 of Network Rail’s seek to capture implications for all industry network licence includes, where the licence holder has businesses, and funders better any estate or interest in, or right over a station or light parties and wider societal implications in order maintenance depot, such station or light maintenance to plan their activities; and to understand which options maximise net depot. set out feasible options for industry and societal benefi t, rather than that network capacity, timetable of any individual organisation or affected outputs and network capability, group. and funding implications of those RUSs occupy a particular place in the options for persons providing planning activity for the rail industry. They services to railways and funders.” utilise available input from processes such as the DfT’s Regional Planning Assessments and Wales Rail Planning Assessment, and Extract from ORR Guidelines on Route Utilisation Transport Scotland’s Scottish Planning Strategies, June 2005 Assessment. The recommendations of a RUS The guidelines also set out principles for and the evidence of relationships and RUS development and explain how Network dependencies revealed in the work to reach Rail should consider the position of the them in turn form an input to decisions made railway funding authorities, the likely changes by industry funders and suppliers on issues in demand and the potential for changes such as franchise specifi cations, investment in supply. Network Rail has developed a RUS plans or the High Level Output Specifi cations.

Manual which consists of a consultation Network Rail will take account of the guide and a technical guide. These explain recommendations from RUSs when carrying the processes we will use to comply with the out its activities, particularly they will be used Licence Condition and the guidelines. These to help to inform the allocation of capacity and other documents relating to individual on the network through application of the RUSs and the overall RUS programme normal Network Code processes. are available on our website at www.networkrail.co.uk. The ORR will take account of established RUSs when exercising its functions.

10 11 1.2 Consultation paper The South West Main Line (SWML) RUS was the fi rst RUS undertaken by Network Rail and served as a pilot for the new process established following the Rail Review. The consultation document for this RUS was published in October 2005 with the fi nal RUS published in March 2006. In December 2005 the consultation document for the Cross London RUS was published with the fi nal RUS published in August 2006. The consultation document for the Scotland RUS was published in August 2006.

This is therefore the fourth RUS consultation published by Network Rail. The document starts by describing, in Chapter 2, the role of the Freight RUS within the RUS programme, its geographical scope, the time horizon which it addresses, and the key issues which it will consider. Current freight usage of the network is summarised in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 considers estimates of future demand on the network both in terms of the number of trains expected and the associated tonnage which will be carried.

Consideration of the future demand highlights a number of ‘gaps’ between the existing network and the network that would be required to meet the future demand. These gaps are presented in Chapter 5 which considers both capacity and capability issues which would arise if the expected growth materialises. Chapter 6 outlines gauge issues. Chapter 7 presents the options which have been proposed, in conjunction with our Stakeholder Management Group to bridge the potential gaps in network provision. Recommendations are made for further work to develop the options prior to fi nal publication.

The responses from stakeholders to this consultation document will shape the fi nal Freight RUS and Network Rail would accordingly welcome your feedback on it. The key dates and contact details for the consultation process are outlined in Chapter 8.

12 13 2. Scope and planning context

2.1 The role of the freight RUS levels of freight or passenger growth may Network Rail is also carrying out a study within the RUS programme trigger the requirement for consideration of the to investigate the potential for effi cient capacity available. The geographical RUSs engineering access, in conjunction with our The Freight RUS is central to the RUS will have the benefi t of detailed passenger customers. programme and complements the role of the growth projections (produced within their own individual ‘geographical’ RUSs (i.e. RUSs work programme) and detailed freight growth 2.2 Time horizon that concentrate on a particular rail corridor or projections (produced within the Freight RUS). geographical area). It is required for a number The Freight RUS primarily considers a time Taken together, the projections can be used to of reasons. The primary driver is a requirement period of ten years, although a longer time ensure that the appropriate timetable and/or for clarity on the treatment of freight to ensure horizon is taken to identify any major factors infrastructure solutions are recommended. that it is considered appropriately within each that would infl uence strategy. individual geographical RUS and consistently The Freight RUS will also play an important 2.3 Planning context across the RUS programme as a whole. role in providing an ‘early warning’ of where capacity issues are likely to arise on those One of the prime objectives of the RUS is To ensure consistency of treatment, the RUS parts of the network that do not currently have to provide the Offi ce of Rail Regulation with has a network-wide scope. By its very nature, an ongoing geographical RUS. This will aid the the opportunity to consider the key options freight does not observe route or even regional development of RUS scope documents. recommended for meeting anticipated freight boundaries. Many freight fl ows are long by growth when considering future expenditure passenger service standards and cross a The provision of the appropriate physical on the network. number of geographical RUS route areas. network capability to enable projected traffi c to operate is clearly as important as provision of As mentioned in Chapter 1, the RUS outcome A key role is to provide consistent freight the appropriate level of operational capacity. will help to inform the Department for forecasts for input into the geographical RUSs, Consequently the Freight RUS examines the Transport (DfT) and Scottish Executive’s High based on the routeings (and diversionary key capability requirements that exist today or Level Output Specifi cations and to provide an routeings) preferred by freight operators. would be triggered by the expected changes understanding of freight growth to feed into The network-wide scope of the Freight RUS to traffi c. Careful consideration will be given to the Train Operating Company (TOC) franchise ensures that forecasts of fl ows which cross the gauge requirements of the predicted traffi c. specifi cation process. geographical RUS boundaries are treated similarly in each RUS they cross. Unlike the geographical RUSs, the Freight The RUS takes into account the fi ndings of RUS does not consider performance or the programme of planning assessments The Freight RUS will seek to identify key engineering access issues. Clearly both produced for the DfT and the Scottish network capacity constraints to carrying the sets of issues are of prime importance to the Executive to develop understanding of the expected freight fl ows over the preferred freight operators and are central to the RUS priorities for development of transport over routeings, when considered alongside existing programme. In each case, an understanding the next 5-20 years in the wider context of commitments to passenger operators. As such of the detail of local operations is key to planning policy and strategy. It is informed by it will bring together, in one document, the key understanding the issues. To refl ect this they the North East England and strategic capacity issues of concern to freight. are considered in the geographical RUSs Regional Planning Assessments, Part 1 of the To complement this high level consideration, where passenger and freight movements can Scottish Planning Assessment, the relevant the individual geographical RUSs will be examined together and local circumstances transport strategies of the Mayor of London, propose solutions to the important capacity can be taken into account. Welsh Assembly Government and the English issues which are triggered when additional regions. passenger growth is considered alongside freight growth. On some routes, even small

14 15 3. Current demand and the baseline network

3.1 Freight operators Other operators include Advenza Freight The trends in tonne kilometres or freight movement. This refl ects the recent trend of The following Freight Operating Companies Limited, Freight Limited, FM Rail moved (weight of freight lifted multiplied by coal for the electricity supply industry (ESI (FOCs) are currently licensed to run services on Limited and the West Coast Railway Company the distance carried) are shown for the same coal) being carried over greater distances. the network. All are open access operators which are also licensed FOCs. period in Table 3.2. These trends are similar This is the result of a move away from burning means that each operator can bid to run services to those for freight lifted, shown in Table 3.1, deep mined coal from England towards 3.2 Profi le of the freight market on any part of the network. These include: but show more pronounced increases in coal burning imported coal which arrives in the The overall size of the surface land freight ■ English Welsh and Scottish Railway (EWS) market (rail and HGV) in the UK grew by 8 per which is the largest freight operator in cent over the ten years to 2004 to 1,933 million Table 3.1: Rail freight lifted the UK and also has a licence to operate tonnes lifted. Railfreight has a 5 per cent share European services. EWS runs services for of the market in terms of tonnes lifted which Millions of net tonnes lifted 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 a wide range of markets. It is organised has been fairly static over the last ten years. into four market-based groups, each led Coal 37.9 40.4 42.9 45.1 45.5 Railfreight has a 12 per cent share in terms of by their own Managing Director. These are Metals2 20.2 16.6 16.9 18.0 17.4 tonne kilometres (weight of freight multiplied Energy (which includes coal), Construction Construction 19.4 20.9 19.3 21.1 22.8 by the distance carried) which has increased (which includes domestic waste), Industrial 3 from approximately ten per cent in 1994 Petroleum 7.0 7.1 7.0 7.3 7.6 (which includes metals and petroleum) refl ecting an increase in the average distance Channel Tunnel4 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.2 and Network (which includes international, of railfreight movements whilst the average Intermodal 9.4 8.2 7.9 8.0 8.7 automotive, intermodal, infrastructure distance of road hauls has declined. 5 services1 and express parcels services). Other 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.8 1.8 A static share of tonnes lifted of an increasing Total 95.9 95.1 96.0 102.4 105.0 ■ Freightliner which has two divisions: total market leads to an increase in the Freightliner Limited is the largest Source: EWS; Freightliner; Network Rail estimates of DRS and GB Railfreight tonnages from billing data. absolute volume of freight carried by rail. rail haulier of containerised traffi c, Table 3.1 shows the volume of rail freight lifted predominantly in the deep sea market. identifi ed by key commodities. The total grew Table 3.2: Rail freight moved Freightliner Heavy Haul is a signifi cant from 96 million net tonnes lifted in 2000/01 to conveyor of bulk goods, predominantly 105 million net tonnes lifted in 2004/05. The Billions of net tonne km 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 coal, construction materials and petroleum moved profi le of the freight market is assessed up to and operates infrastructure services. 2004/05 as this is the base year for the Freight Coal 4.8 6.2 5.7 5.8 7.0 ■ GB Railfreight which is a signifi cant RUS ten year forecasts discussed in Chapter Metals 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.6 operator of deep sea container trains 4. Data for 2005/06 is now available and Construction 2.4 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.8 and infrastructure services and also runs the way in which this relates to the ten year Petroleum 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 a number of services for bulk market forecasts is commented on in Chapter 4. customers. 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 The growth has not been uniform across all Intermodal 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.5 4.0 ■ (DRS) which commodities. There have been considerable Other 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.5 transports a variety of commodities. In the increases in the haulage of coal (20 per cent last few years the company has expanded over fi ve years) and construction products Total 18.1 19.4 18.7 18.9 20.7 into running services for the domestic (17 per cent) while some commodities have Source: Trends, Yearbook 2004-2005; SRA June 2005. intermodal and short sea intermodal declined or shown little change. markets. 2Includes ore 3Includes oil 4Includes all commodities which have originated at or are destined for the Channel Tunnel. 1 Services used as part of railway infrastructure renewals and enhancements work. 5 Includes automotive and waste services. Excludes railway engineering trains so overall total is lower than freight defi nitions including these services.

16 17 UK through deep water ports and coal from Given that, the ESI coal and intermodal sulphur coal (which is primarily imported) in number of small ports served and most lack opencast sites in south west Scotland which markets have been subject to fundamental order to meet emissions targets and so reduce suffi cient volumes to make rail competitive are generally further from the power stations shifts in the last decade. The next part of this costs. Coal imports have increased by more against road haulage. than the English pits. ESI coal accounts for section includes more information about recent than 35 per cent since 2000/01. In theory the transportation of deep sea 90 per cent of the total tonnes lifted of coal trends in these key rail freight sectors. The rail market share of ESI coal haulage in containers is well suited to rail. A large number carried by rail with industrial coal making up 3.2.1 ESI coal the UK has increased by 18 per cent between of containers arrive at a small number of UK the remainder. Industrial coal is used in the The increase in the price of gas combined 2000/01 and 2004/05. Around 90 per cent of ports for long distance onward shipment to production of steel and construction products with relatively low prices for coal has resulted all ESI coal is now hauled by rail. inland distribution centres, making rail transport and has not experienced the same level of in a shift for electricity generation from gas to viable. Rail is a competitive mode for the inland growth over the last fi ve years. 3.2.2 Maritime intermodal container market coal burn. This has produced a three per cent journeys to population centres outside the The number of maritime containers arriving at Strong growth in the commodity sectors increase in coal burn for electricity generation South East (where the major deep sea ports UK ports has increased at an average rate of outlined above has led to the present network over the last fi ve years to 51.1 million tonnes themselves are presently located), enabling a around 5 per cent a year since 2001 reaching being more heavily used by freight services in 2004/05. modal share of nearly 25 per cent in 2005/06. 7.7 million twenty foot equivalent units (TEU) than at any time since the de-industrialisation The main inland destinations are located near Despite this modest increase in market size, in 2004. TEU is the standard measurement of the 1970s and early 1980s. That period saw Birmingham, , and Glasgow. the volume of ESI coal carried by rail has in the container market for quantum of boxes large decreases in the demand for transport of Road haulage is dominant for short-distance increased by more than a quarter over fi ve taking into account variations in length (a 20ft bulk products by rail such as iron ore, industrial movements. The deep sea shipping market years to 41 million tonnes in 2004/05. This length box is one TEU, a 40ft length box is and domestic coal, metals and, as the pipeline growth has been driven by a continuing trend of growth trend is shown in Table 3.3. This is two TEUs). Table 3.5 shows that around two network developed, petroleum. migration of manufacturing activity from Europe a result of a switch towards more electricity thirds of the growth occurred between 2003 to Asia coupled with strong domestic demand. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate that the being generated at rail served power stations and 2004. The volume of deep sea traffi c carried on rail railfreight business has been based upon and rail’s competitive position improving as the These volumes can be separated into two has increased greatly since 1995/96 the year of bulk commodity markets. Coal, metals and average distance between coal supply points categories: short sea (intra European routes privatisation of rail freight, when market share construction constitute 82 per cent of rail and power stations increases. only) and deep sea (intercontinental). Rail was only 17 per cent. freight lifted and 60 per cent of rail freight Table 3.4 shows how the balance between has less than a fi ve per cent market share of moved. Petroleum constitutes seven per cent The container volumes at the largest GB domestically produced and imported coal has onward transportation of short sea container of tonnes lifted and six per cent of freight ports are shown in Table 3.6. Volumes fell changed over the last fi ve years. The volume movements. This is because there is a large moved. slightly at Felixstowe before returning in 2004 of coal mined in the UK has fallen by around Intermodal traffi c (predominantly deep sea a quarter over the period. The decline of deep containers at present) is also now established mined coal has been particularly pronounced, Table 3.4: UK coal supply since 2000 as a major market. In 2004/05 it accounted falling by a third. There has been a shift by for eight per cent of rail freight lifted and electricity generators to burning more low 40000 19 per cent of rail freight moved refl ecting the signifi cant distances over which it is transported. 30000

Table 3.3: GB coal lifted by rail for electricity supply since 2000/01 20000

2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Tonnes (thousands) 31,900 34,400 36,900 40,600 40,996 Thousdands of tonnes 10000 Indexed to FY2001=100 100 108 116 127 129 Source: EWS; Freightliner. 0 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 Deep Mined 17031 18089 15785 14669 11513 Opencast 13249 14285 13101 11629 11778 Imported 27084 33799 28194 34482 36863 Source: DTI digest of Energy Statistics and Energy Trends, 2005.

18 19 whilst Southampton has experienced steady This is signifi cant as these containers require originating from quarries in the South West, accounts for approximately 55 per cent of all increases, totalling 24 per cent over three W10 gauge clearance to be moved on and the Peak District to a large rail hauled petroleum traffi c. years. The next largest ports (in terms of TEU conventional wagons. Gauge clearance is number of unloading terminals where onward The recent fi re at the major petroleum storage throughput) have all experienced growth in discussed in Chapter 6. local transportation is usually by road. Very and distribution facility at Buncefi eld (near excess of the national average since 2001. large construction projects such as Heathrow 3.2.3 Other key markets Hemel Hempstead) has led to a growth in Terminal 5 and the CTRL have contributed to Table 3.7 shows rail modal share at Britain’s petroleum traffi c on rail since the base year Construction the overall demand in recent years. two largest deep sea ports of Felixstowe and 2004/05 statistics (see Table B8). It is possible The construction market has been the other Southampton. About 80 per cent of maritime Metals that some of this growth will be retained long key driver of growth in the last fi ve years, container trains serve these two main ports, Volumes of metals have remained broadly term as customers seek to keep a range of having seen approximately 17 per cent growth which themselves handled 74 per cent of static over the last fi ve years. The metals transport options open. in both tonnes lifted and tonne kilometres. the total deep sea throughput in the UK in market includes large volumes of steel Growth has occurred nationwide, but rail has Infastructure 2004/05. transported within South Wales and the North a particularly strong share of the market for Infrastructure services include all trains East/South Humberside and also between A growing proportion of the deep sea traffi c the movement of products to London and the on the network conveying materials for/or these regions. is transported in High Cube containers which South East with approximately 40 per cent engaged in the maintenance and renewal of are 9’6” high. The recent growth is shown in market share of aggregates destined within the Petroleum the railway. These services currently account Table 3.8. M25 ring. Long distance fl ows include those Petroleum and oil traffi c hauled by rail has also for approximately seven per cent of all freight remained broadly constant. In addition to road gross tonnes on the network. Services in haulage, rail competes with an underground this category are not confi ned to specifi c Table 3.5: Container volumes at GB Ports since 2001 (Twenty foot pipeline network. Rail fl ows are predominately route corridors and operate across the entire equivalent units), Index 2001=100 between refi neries located at deep sea ports network. There are however particularly heavy and major inland distribution centres including fl ows between key infrastructure materials 2001 2002 2003 2003 sites in the Midlands and along the M4 depots. Trends in this traffi c sector are TEU (thousands) 6,770 7,004 7,074 7,744 corridor. The most signifi cant of the refi neries intrinsically linked to maintenance and renewal is Lindsey near the Port of Immingham which activity on the network. Indexed to 100 103 104 114 FY2001=100

Source: Maritime Statistics 2004, Department for Transport. Table 3.7: Rail modal share at the largest deep sea ports

2004 Table 3.6: Largest GB ports by TEU throughput Felixstowe TEU (thousands) 2001 2002 2003 2004 TEU on rail (thousands) 652

TEU Deep TEU Deep TEU Deep TEU Deep Rail modal share at port 24% sea sea sea sea Southampton share share share share TEU on rail (thousands) 448 Felixstowe* 2,839 56% 2,683 59% 2,482 63% 2,717 63% Rail modal share at port 31% Southampton 1,170 87% 1,275 87% 1,374 90% 1,446 93% Source: Maritime Statistics 2004; Network Rail. London ports 752 32% 873 28% 911 20% 979 35% Seaforth (Liverpool) 512 45% 487 45% 566 47% 603 43% Table 3.8: High Cube (9’6”) containers as proportion of all deep sea Medway 493 84% 530 84% 518 86% 632 83% containers arriving at GB ports ALL GB PORTS 6,770 52% 7,004 52% 7,074 53% 7,744 55% 2002 2003 2004 Source: Maritime Statistics 2001-04, Department for Transport. Deep sea percentage refl ects proportion of total TEU throughput at port. High cube deep sea 28% 31% 35% *Felixstowe Port estimates that deep sea share of total TEU throughout is approximately 7 per cent higher containers than statistics indicate due to assignment of empty containers for export. Source: Maritime Statistics 2004.

20 21 Channel Tunnel The busiest sections of the network for freight Freight volumes through the Channel Tunnel are set out in red. These sections see in Figure 3.1: Average daily freight trains in declined sharply in 2001/02 when there were excess of 50 trains per day in each direction. single direction 2004/05 security problems which disrupted traffi c. The following table summarises the busiest Volumes have struggled to recover (particularly freight route sections on the network. Key long-distance fl ows) and are yet to exceed the As shown in Table 3.9, the South Humberside pre-security crisis levels. 0 - 4.9 trains per day Main Line at Barnetby is the busiest in the Domestic intermodal country, providing a vital artery for coal, iron ore, 5 - 9.9 trains per day

Domestic intermodal and general distribution petroleum and steel movements between the 10 - 19.9 trains per day traffi c has shown some growth in recent years. port of Immingham and Scunthorpe steelworks. Inverness 20 - 29.9 trains per day In particular domestic intermodal services The route also plays an increasing role in the 30 - 39.9 trains per day between the West Midlands and Scotland have supply of imported coal to the Aire and Trent Aberdeen Fort William grown signifi cantly with a number of major Valley power stations7. 40 - 49.9 trains per day supermarket chains now making regular use The WCML experiences heavy freight usage 50 or more trains per day rail services. throughout its length with the section between Perth Warrington and Nuneaton via the Trent Valley 3.3 Summary of base year freight the heaviest used. This route is a key corridor demand: Actual trains for intercontinental and domestic intermodal Edinburgh Glasgow Figure 3.1 displays average actual weekday traffi c, much of it to/from the major deep sea usage of the network by freight trains in ports in the South East, in particular Felixstowe. fi nancial year 2004/05. 2004/05 is selected as Other key routes for freight include the North it is the base year for the ten year forecasts East – South West axis linking the heavy Carlisle detailed later in this document. Newcastle industry of Teesside and the north east ports with the Midlands and South West/ South Wales via York, Moorthorpe, Chesterfi eld, Burton, , Barnt Green and Gloucester.

York Hull Table 3.9: Freight hotspots Manchester Immingham Liverpool Route section Area Average Maximum Main commodities

Crewe Immingham – Barnetby South Humberside 54 70 Metals, petroleum, coal

Stafford – Crewe West Coast 52 67 Intermodal Norwich Water Orton West Midlands 51 65 Intermodal, metals, coal Birmingham East Coast 50 86 Coal, metals Ipswich Colton Jn – Holgate East Coast 44 55 Coal, metals Felixstowe Rugby – Brinklow West Coast 42 52 Intermodal Swindon Thorne Jn – Scunthorpe Trans-Pennine 40 57 Metals Reading Bristol Camden Road North London 38 52 Intermodal Cardiff Gretna – Carlisle West Coast 36 46 Coal, intermodal Ashford Southampton Burton-on-Trent 36 51 Construction, metals, petroleum Plymouth Ealing Great Western 36 52 Construction Average and maximum are daily freight trains in busier direction on a Thursday in the base year (2004/05). Maximum is often much higher than the average due partly to additional traffi c related to diversions. Source: ACTRAFF 7 These are: Aire Valley: Eggborough, Ferrybridge, Drax. Trent Valley: West Burton, Cottam, West Burton, Ratcliffe. Busiest weekday used (Thursday), highest direction shown. Source: ACTRAFF

22 23 The South Wales Main Line, particularly Utilisation of paths can vary for a wide between Swansea and Newport remains range of reasons. WTT paths need to be Figure 3.2: Actual freight train utilisation a vital freight route, with metals and coal booked months in advance and for some of WTT paths on key freight sections traffi c predominating. The route between commodities a range of supply scenarios have Southampton Port and the WCML via Reading to be covered. For example paths for ESI Key and Oxford is the key route for deep sea coal will often be booked to a power station container services from Southampton and has from a range of mines and ports to cover for below 40% seen growing use in recent years. fl uctuations in the choice of coal supplier. 40% - 49% Additional paths may also be booked to cover Aggregates for the construction industry 50% - 59% seasonal variations in demand for electricity. originating in the Mendips account for much Inverness 60% - 79% of the freight traffi c between the West Country Paths for a construction customer may be 80% and over and London on the . booked in the timetable for fi ve days per Aberdeen week, but the customer may in reality require Fort William The orbital routes around London are all fl uctuating volumes, with a fi ve days per week heavily used with the (NLL) service on occasions and a two or three days between Stratford and Camden Road having a week service at other times of the year. Perth particularly signifi cant volumes of freight traffi c. These routes currently accommodate traffi c In addition to the market driven fl uctuations

from all of the south east ports and the Channel discussed above, paths for diversionary Edinburgh Glasgow Tunnel destined nationwide in addition to traffi c purposes allowing operational fl exibility for the destined for London freight terminals. railway also drive low WTT path utilisation.

Much of the freight traffi c shares routes with Unlike passenger trains, for most commodities, high frequency passenger services including the if there is little or no demand for a particular Carlisle Newcastle Stranraer main lines radiating out of London and many of booked service on a particular day, the service the suburban networks around the major cities, is cancelled and does not run. Intermodal including London and Birmingham. trains are an exception. They operate like passenger trains (i.e. to a fi xed timetable) Figures A1 to A4 in Appendix A set out in more with services rarely cancelled due to demand York detail the current routes by key commodities fl uctuations. Consequently, when there is less Hull across the network. demand the train usually still operates but with Manchester Immingham Liverpool 3.4 Freight usage of network paths lower utilisation of wagon space.

Freight trains require more booked paths in The quantum of Channel Tunnel WTT paths Crewe the Working Timetable (WTT) than are actually was set before the decline in international used to provide operational fl exibility. Table 3.10 traffi c in recent years. Consequently, there is Norwich Birmingham summarises, by commodity, the proportion of currently a low utilisation of paths which has booked WTT paths that are actually utilised. improved slightly as traffi c has returned. Ipswich Felixstowe Table 3.10: Path take-up by key commodities Swindon Reading Commodity Take-up Bristol Cardiff

Intermodal over 90% Ashford

Petroleum 56% Southampton Metals 51% Exeter Coal 45% Plymouth Construction 37% Channel Tunnel 21% Source: ACTRAFF for base year (2004/05) Ratio of average actual trains run on Thursdays throughout the 2004/05 against WTT booked paths (winter 2004/05 timetable). Duplicate paths have been excluded.

24 25 Figure 3.2 displays path utilisation by freight (both width and height) that could operate at services in the base year for the industry normal speed through structures on the route Figure 3.3: Gross freight tonnage on the forecasts of 2004/05. such as tunnels, bridges and station platforms. network in the base year (2004/05) Generally routes with the highest take-up of The UK network has a more constricted gauge

paths have high levels of intermodal traffi c with than most European countries. This is partly Key other freight routes with lower take-up having due to the earlier development of railways in 0-0.9 million freight tonnes more bulk product traffi c. On mixed use routes the UK with relatively few new lines built since with competing demands for limited spare the 19th Century. 1-1.9 million freight tonnes capacity (e.g. the , The main drivers of schemes to increase 2-3.9 million freight tonnes parts of the (ECML) gauge clearance in recent years have been Inverness 4-7.9 million freight tonnes and the Manchester Piccadilly – Deansgate the evolution of larger deep sea containers corridor) utilisation of freight paths tends to be 8 million freight tonnes or more and to a lesser extent the opening of the Aberdeen higher than average, with limited ability to book Channel Tunnel in the early 1990s. These a range of slots for an individual service. Fort William developments are discussed further in Chapter 6. 3.5 Summary of base year freight Perth demand: gross tonnage Figure A7 in Appendix A displays base year 2004/05 gauge clearance across the network. Glasgow Figure 3.3 highlights many of the same Edinburgh sections of network as the actual usage map The Route Availability (RA) measure used displaying train numbers8. The heaviest trains by Network Rail sets out the maximum axle operated on the network are aggregate trains weight permitted on a route. Dispensations to from the Mendips to London via the Great run heavier than published axle weights can be Newcastle Western Main Line which can exceed 3,000 granted by Network Rail given specifi c asset Carlisle tonnes each. Most bulk traffi c is conveyed in and business conditions. Lower RA values are heavier trains than other commodities with generally driven by condition of assets such many coal trains hauling around 20 wagons as bridges where structural damage could be weighing over 2000 tonnes in total when caused by a heavy freight train. laden. York RA values for routes are primarily of concern Hull For information Figure A5 in Appendix A to operators of bulk traffi c which tend to be Manchester displays how tonnage levels have evolved heavier per axle. For example, a typical loaded Liverpool in the last fi nancial year (2005/06). The map coal train requires routes of RA109 for the Crewe displays the signifi cant uplift in tonnage that entire length of its journey. If the shortest route has recently taken place on the key Anglo – between supply point and end customer has Norwich Scottish coal route via the Glasgow and South insuffi cient RA rating then the train would need Birmingham Western (GSW) and Settle & Carlisle lines. to be routed over a longer distance which could reduce productivity for the operator. In Net tonnage (the weight of the freight Ipswich this example, it may be possible for the same Felixstowe excluding locomotive and wagons) is normally train to make its return journey empty over the in the range of 65 to 75 per cent of the gross shortest route as its weight per axle would be Swindon LONDON tonnage in the loaded direction. Cardiff Reading signifi cantly reduced when unloaded. Bristol Ashford 3.6 Summary of base year gauge RA8 is generally required for non-bulk trains Southampton and Route Availability (RA) such as intermodal services. Figure A6 in Appendix A displays the kinetic envelope for the various freight Plymouth gauges currently used on the network. This measurement represents the maximum size

8Table B8 in Appendix B provides an update on the 2004/05 base year, with 2005/06 actual freight tonne km growth statistics. 9 Track and structures which permit in excess of 25.5 tonnes per axle

26 27 4. Forecast of change – Industry demand forecasts trains and tonnage

4.1 Approach to forecasting Interestingly, these two separate methods base year fl ows. For example, fl ows with factors resulting from this process for each of 4.1.1 Introduction produced closely aligned projections. known expiry dates, such as the movement the key sub markets. of construction materials for Heathrow This chapter provides a summary of the external The consistency between the forecasts exists Table B2 sets out the high level background Terminal 5, were removed from the forecasts drivers of change and the way in which they are both at a high level and, in most cases, when assumptions behind the bottom up forecasts at specifi ed future dates when the fl ows were expected to infl uence the demand for rail freight disaggregated down to route level. In addition in relation to GDP, HGV weights, lorry road expected to terminate. Flows with known over a ten year period. As explained in Chapter they are broadly consistent with freight user charging, rail productivity, rail network changes in volume as a result of the winding 2, the forecasts will be used to inform the Freight demand as described in the Scottish Planning enhancements and Channel Tunnel access down or expansion of a particular plant were RUS and throughout the RUS programme in Assessment and the Regional Planning charges. amended from the expected date of change. each individual geographical RUS. Assessments covering England and Wales Finally Tables B3 and B4 cover further specifi c that have been published to date. 2B: Where no specifi c market intelligence existed The forecasts have been developed in assumptions made in the key markets of coal conjunction with the freight operators and The methodology of each forecast is described For each market sector there is usually a and deep sea intermodal including overall other stakeholders. Both the Rail Freight in this chapter (in both cases the base year range of sub markets each with their own market growth rates and assumptions on Operators’ Association (RFOA) who represent was 2004/05). An integrated set of growth particular driver. Each current fl ow was Company Neutral Revenue Support (CNRS) the FOCs and the Rail Freight Group and scenarios on the network is subsequently therefore assigned to the correct sub market and Rail Environmental Benefi t Procurement the Freight Transport Association (RFG/FTA) produced to identify capacity gaps. with growth factors applied accordingly. Schemes (REPS) grant rates. who represent the freight industry contributed 4.1.2 Methodology one: “Bottom Up” For each sub market an appropriate driver or 4.1.3 Methodology two: “Top Down” forecasts to the process. The results have been The Rail Freight Operators’ Association combination of drivers was then selected from The RFG/FTA adopted a top down approach. peer reviewed by other stakeholders through (RFOA) developed freight forecasts building on the following options: They based their analysis on outputs from the the processes of the Stakeholder Management each operator’s experience of its markets. The GB Freight Model, an established modelling Group and its sub-groups. ■ Analysis of past trends. process tapped into a vast amount of industry tool employed by the Department for Forecasting of future freight demand is a experience and was carefully coordinated to ■ Company specifi c factors. Some markets Transport (and formerly the SRA) to forecast particularly complex process. Future traffi c ensure there was no double counting where are dominated by large customers, e.g. for freight growth. patterns are diffi cult to link to high level two competing operators both identifi ed the metals; Corus. In these cases the internal The GB Freight Model is designed to forecast economic indicators. Demand is highly same market. policies of that company are crucial. freight moved within and in and out of Great dependent on the decisions of a small number The approach followed was a two stage ■ Regional factors. Markets such as Britain by mode, route and, where applicable, of decision makers who determine the mode ‘bottom up’ process. construction are driven primarily by port. The model itself forecasts on the basis used on the basis of a wide range of market regional factors, in particular the local of relative transport costs (which are similar specifi c information and commercial deals Stage 1 involved developing a matrix of all rate of new housebuilding and general to those used for rail grant purposes), trends which do not lend themselves easily to current rail freight services between each infrastructure development. and econometric analysis of the drivers behind economic modelling. origin and destination in the 2004/05 base freight market growth. year. The resulting matrix was subsequently ■ General factors. GDP, RPI, balance of Whilst rail passenger forecasting exercises validated against Network Rail’s data. trade, industry output forecasts. Use of The base year matrices of freight traffi c by benefi t from the accumulation of years of these general factors has been limited to commodity, origin and destination, port and shared experience of practitioners reported In Stage 2 the forecasting process was then only a few sub markets current mode are derived from a wide range in the widely accepted Passenger Demand carried out separately for those fl ows with specifi c of data sources including the Continuing Forecasting Handbook, equivalent guidance current market intelligence and those without. ■ Specifi c forecasts. Publicly available Survey of Road Goods Transport, UK is not available for the development of freight market forecasts, from government, SRA, 2A: Where specifi c market intelligence existed Maritime Statistics, Network Rail and HM demand. academic research, etc. This employed specifi c existing market Customs & Revenue. The growth factors applied are outlined in Two alternative approaches to forecasting intelligence from within the business units Appendix B. Table B1 sets out the growth were adopted – each with its own merits. of the FOCs to predict the changes to the

28 29 This established model was updated to provide RFG/FTA’s consultants discussed the results 4.2 Demand results: Rail freight Forecast results were close for both RFG and the FTA’s input into the RUS. A revised of their models with a number of industry growth to 2014/15 methodologies even when mapped at a base consisting of all freight train movements sector consultation groups, consisting of a route by route level. Detailed route and origin 4.2.1 Overview over a time period in 2004/05 was developed. range of companies and representatives of to destination mapping from the bottom up The two methodologies described led to Data was classifi ed by origin and destination, each sector of rail freight industry. Feedback approach has been used for further analysis. broadly similar ten year forecasts. The high route, commodity and net tonnes carried. from these groups was used to sense-check However, where signifi cant differences do arise level fi gures are shown in Table 4.1 below. The the assumptions and the resulting forecasts. between the two methodologies at a route level, This process resulted in a ‘base year’ matrix bottom up approach gives a tonnage growth sensitivity tests have been presented to ensure and an assignment of traffi c to routes which Table B2 in Appendix B sets out the high level of 27 per cent whilst the top down approach the impact of both scenarios is fully considered. corresponded well with Network Rail data of assumptions behind the forecasts on GDP, gives 31 per cent. There is also a clear what actually ran on the network. The model HGV weights, lorry road user charging, rail consensus on which commodities will be the In the case of ESI coal the RFOA offered two was then employed to forecast changes in the productivity, rail network enhancements and key drivers of change. separate scenarios and these also have been share of the future market for each commodity Channel Tunnel access charges. presented as a base and sensitivity test as Table 4.1 displays the 10 year projections for that rail would be expected to win by origin outlined below. Table B3 in Appendix B covers further specifi c tonnes lifted in each commodity category. and destination county. A growth rate for each assumptions made in the deep sea intermodal 4.2.2 Demand forecasts: Additional trains origin/destination/commodity combination was The trends outlined are explored in detail in market, including overall market growth rates mapped to the network: Base Case then applied by year to each corresponding 4.2.4. and assumptions on CNRS/REPs. Figure 4.1 sets out where the additional trains train movement. In addition to this high level tonnes lifted data, are projected to fall on the network in 2014/15 The resulting forecasts of number of trains on the bottom up forecasts contained the ultimate in the Base Case. All commodities are included. each section of the route therefore refl ects origins and destinations based breakdown of In all cases the preferred routeings of the FOCs realistic base year routeings and tonnes per how demand is envisaged to translate onto the have been applied unconstrained by capacity train, increased by assumptions on the level of network in both tonnage and train numbers. at this stage. Base Case assumptions on which underlying growth. The RFOA has also provided a routeings routes are available for W10 traffi c are applied. The underlying market growth rates used in preference statement, by exception, Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B display key the model are based on econometric exercises highlighting where they have aspirations assumptions for deep sea intermodal and ESI using factors derived from market trends. to alter their existing traffi c routeings. This coal underpinning the Base Case. The international cargo growth assumptions statement was used to help map future fl ows correspond with the UK port forecasts to the network. published by the DfT in their May 2006 Ports Policy consultation document. Table 4.1: Industry ten year forecast to 2014/15: Tonnes Lifted

Commodity Bottom up Top down Rate of growth forecast forecast over 2004/05 2014/15 mt 2014/15 mt base²

Coal1 50.5 52.9 +10 to 15% Metals 14.6 12.1 +15 to 39% Ore 5.9 5.7 -3 to -7% Construction 23.6 24.9 +20 to 26% Waste 1.8 2.0 -9 to -18% Petroleum and 7.1 7.2 +4 to 6% chemicals Channel Tunnel 6.0 7.2 +200 to 260% Domestic Intermodal 2.5 4.7 +177 to 422% Maritime Containers2 20.3 21.1 +82 to 90% Auto 0.5 0.4 +0 to 25% Total 132.8 138.2 +27 to 31%

1 The top down forecasts have recently been revised to 43.1mt for coal 2 The commodity categorisation used by the industry to produce the tonnes lifted 10 year forecasts was slightly more disaggregated than that set out for the historical tonnes lifted data in Table 3.1. The methodology used for calculating tonnes lifted for the base year was also slightly different. For example, tonnes lifted for intermodal traffi c includes container as well as cargo weights. 30 31 The ‘Other commodities’ section within this Figure 4.2 sets out where the additional Figure 4.1: Additional trains by 2014/15 chapter considers the geographical distribution trains are forecast on the network in 2014/15 compared to base year for Base Case of growth in more detail by commodity. with Sensitivities 1, 2 and 3 displayed. Each Sensitivity is independent, and has impacts 4.2.3 Sensitivity tests: ESI coal and deep independent of the other two. All commodities sea intermodal markets are displayed. Again in all cases the preferred It became clear during the forecasting routeings of the FOCs have been applied process, and in subsequent discussions of the unconstrained by capacity at this stage. forecasts with the Stakeholder Management Group, that there was scope to test three In both Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2, the orange 0 - 4.9 extra trains per day sensitivities specifi c to the markets of ESI coal and red lines indicating growth of more than ten 5 - 9.9 extra trains per day and deep sea intermodal. The sensitivities are and more than 15 trains per day respectively are

10 - 14.9 extra trains per day set out in Table 4.2 below: primarily driven by deep sea intermodal growth and changes in the supply sources of ESI coal. Inverness 15 and over extra trains per day Sensitivity 1 has been developed to explore These factors are considered in more detail by Aberdeen the impact of further growth in Anglo – Scottish Fort William market sector below. coal (imported and opencast) to the Aire and Trent Valley power stations. The Base Case The unconstrained forecasts are based on the

Perth scenario assumes the east coast ports of current track access charging regime. If these Immingham, Hull, Redcar, Tyne and Blyth pick charges change, for example using differential up future shortfall in domestic English ESI coal pricing based on commodity type, then a Edinburgh Glasgow production for the Aire and Trent Valley power different demand profi le would result. Gospel Oak

Willesden Stratford Barking stations. Section 4.2.4 details how additional High Level trains are distributed on the network in the LONDON Carlisle Newcastle Base Case and Sensitivity 1. Clapham Junction Sensitivity 2 has been developed to display the impact of Shell Haven port opening and the abstraction from Haven Ports (Felixstowe

York and Bathside Bay) growth that would result. Hull Sensitivity 3 has been developed to display Manchester Immingham Liverpool the impact of W10 enhancement between Southampton and the WCML. Section 4.2.4 Crewe details how additional trains fall on network in Norwich the Base Case and Sensitivity 2 and 3. Birmingham

Ipswich Felixstowe Table 4.2: Sensitivity tests: ESI coal and deep sea intermodal Swindon Reading Bristol Sensitivity 1 ESI coal: The predicted further decline in domestic ESI coal Cardiff production serving Aire and Trent Valley power stations is met by Ashford further Anglo Scottish growth from Hunterston and Ayrshire opencast Southampton sites at the expense of Base Case east coast ports import growth Plymouth Sensitivity 2 Deep sea intermodal: Shell Haven opens in 2011. 8 trains per day (tpd) run in each direction by 2014/15. Growth replaces 8 tpd of growth from Felixstowe and Bathside Bay in Base Case Sensitivity 3 W10 gauge clearance is delivered by 2011 between Southampton and the WCML. Clearance generates an extra 6 internodal trains per day by 2014/15 over Base Case Additional trains are for a single direction.

32 33 4.2.4 Commodity summary: Network Rail is currently carrying out a review Figure 4.2: Additional trains by 2014/15 ESI Coal of the coal market. Although there is still work compared to base year for Sensitivities 1, 2 and 3 Figure B1 in Appendix B sets out all current to be done, initial fi ndings suggest that it may ESI coal import facilities, domestic pits and be sensible to include a lower coal growth power stations in the UK along with the key sensitivity in the fi nal version of the RUS. routes used for coal transport by rail. The main What is clear from the range in forecasts routes where additional trains are projected presently available is that currently it is only on the network in both the Base Case and possible to draw limited conclusions on the Sensitivity test 1 are marked. likely overall size of the ESI coal market in Tables B1 and B4 in Appendix B set out the 2014/15. 0 - 4.9 extra trains per day Base Case assumptions for ESI coal within the 5 - 9.9 extra trains per day Despite this some clear patterns are forecasts. 10 - 14.9 extra trains per day emerging that enable initial conclusions to

Inverness Both the Base Case and Sensitivity 1 assume be drawn. A further factor is EC Sulphur 15 or over extra trains per day that ESI coal at least maintains its existing emissions regulations from 20085 which will Aberdeen Fort William share of the electricity market. They also effectively limit the volume of coal burned assume that there will be further increases in in power stations not fi tted with Flue Gas rail market share of ESI coal business, driven Desulphurisation (FGD) equipment6. Table Perth primarily by the closure of the two water only B6 in Appendix B sets out the current and served power stations and the trend toward expected position with regard to FGD fi tment Edinburgh longer distance hauls from coal source to at UK power stations. Without such equipment, Glasgow Gospel Oak

Willesden Stratford Barking High Level power station. They also assume the trend stations operating at full capacity will over of ESI coal supply away from domestic time be in breach of EC Sulphur emissions LONDON production toward imports will continue over regulations and hence will be granted only a Carlisle Newcastle Clapham Junction the ten year study period. limited volume of coal burn post 2008.

Table B5 in Appendix B sets out the RFOA FGD equipment is therefore one of a number Change related to Sensitivity 1 ESI coal lifted by rail forecast in 2014/15 of key indicators in understanding which power alongside the most recent projections from stations are likely to be in operation up to York Hull the DTI for total ESI coal burn. and beyond the ten year horizon of the RUS

Manchester Immingham and both the industry forecasts and the DTI Liverpool The industry is taking a slightly more optimistic assessments take this emerging picture into view of ESI coal demand than the DTI studies Crewe account. at present. Demand for ESI coal in 2014/15

Norwich will be heavily infl uenced by the carbon trading The information in Table B6 in Appendix B on

Birmingham arrangements in place and the market price FGD is key to the demand and gaps exercise of carbon credits at the time. Wholesale gas of the RUS, as all six major Aire and Trent Ipswich 7 Felixstowe prices will also be key. The Government’s Valley stations are predicted to have FGD recent Energy Review4 confi rms that reduction fi tment by 2010. This suggests that regardless Swindon Reading of CO2 emissions in the energy sector remains of projections for overall ESI coal burn, the Bristol

Cardiff Change related to a key target and cites the emissions trading key drivers of the Base Case and Sensitivity 1 Sensitivity 2 Ashford regime as the means of achieving this. This routeing changes, (i.e. the continued operation Southampton Review may lead to new future predictions of of these six stations), are likely to remain in Change related to coal traffi c and these will need to be taken into the medium term future. Plymouth Sensitivity 3 account. The Base Case envisages that a post 2004/05 shortfall in domestic production and some increase in rail market share is met by growth

4 Energy Review: DTI. July 2006. 5 These are a part of the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD), which takes effect in 2008. 6 Flue gas desulphurisation equipment. Equipment designed to reduce emissions of noxious gases including nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide. Additional trains are for a single direction 7 1 of these 6 stations, Eggborough, is currently expected to have only 1 its 2 GW of production capacity fi tted with FGD equipment.

34 35 from a combination of import facilities on the Deep sea intermodal The Freight RUS gaps and optioneering Most metals traffi c is generated by a east coast, namely Immingham, Hull, Redcar, The industry predicts a 64 per cent growth in the exercise outlined in Chapters 6 and 7 takes small number of very large customers so Tyne Dock and Blyth, with Anglo Scottish number of intermodal trains on the network over account of the impacts of the Base Case and a few key decisions drive most changes volumes at 2004/05 levels8. This effectively the ten years in the Base Case. In Sensitivity 3 Sensitivities 1-3. of signifi cance in this sector. The industry results in a net gain of 18 trains per day from with W10 gauge from Southampton this climbs projects approximately 19 per cent growth The forecasts have not included a scenario the east coast ports to the Aire and Trent to a 74 per cent growth overall. in train numbers over the ten years. As with that involves major development of Valley power stations over 2004/05 volumes. construction, the traffi c does not represent The level and distribution of this growth will be Hunterston, Teesport or Hull as ports handling Table B7 in Appendix B sets out current step changes in demand on any given route dependent on a number of factors including large volumes of deep sea traffi c or for capacity and proposed increases in handling section. the timing and location of new port capacity, example further development of a deep sea capability at the key east coast ports for import the level of REPS grant available and the container facility in Wales. This is because the Figure B3 in Appendix B details this pattern coal. annual growth rate of the deep sea business. likely future market share of deep sea traffi c nationwide. The biggest single change on The Base Case also drives additional trains at these ports is not yet clear. Developments any given route section for metals is actually In the Base Case the highest levels of growth on the South Humberside mainline, the ECML at these ports, however, have been discussed a decrease of approximately 6 trains per are projected to be to/from the proposed new between Joan Croft Junction and Hambleton with stakeholders in recent weeks and further day on the North East – South West axis deep sea developments at the Haven Ports of Juntion and the route from Hull docks to reference is made in Chapter 5. between Teesside and South Wales. This Felixstowe and Bathside Bay. This growth is the Aire Valley via Selby and Milford. The traffi c decrease is a result of changes to the prime driver of the high levels of additional Other commodities route between Stainforth and Brancliffe East interworks movements for Corus resulting from trains (shown by orange and red lines) on Figures 4.1 and 4.2 incorporate growth Junction (the Joint line) is also a production upgrade at Port Talbot. Figure 4.1 on the Great Eastern, WCML and projected in all other commodities. Figures projected to see further growth as a key route ECML (between Peterborough – Doncaster). B2 – B4 in Appendix B show the additional The largest increase on a single route to the Trent Valley power stations from the trains projected on the network in 2014/15 section for metals is approximately two Humber ports. The same network sections are affected in by commodity for other key markets of additional trains per day additional on Sensitivity 2 displayed in Figure 4.2, though Sensitivity 1 envisages that the majority of the construction, metals and petroleum traffi c. the South Humberside mainline serving this sensitivity involves a proportion of post 2004/05 shortfall in domestic production Scunthorpe steelworks. The growth coming through Shell Haven on North Construction traffi c is expected to grow by and some increase in rail market share will in Birmingham is also predicted to see an Thameside rather than the Haven Ports. 20% in tonnes lifted over the period, and be made up by increased imports through the increase of around two trains per day. The principal change the sensitivity drives is approximately 25% in train numbers. The port of Hunterston allied with continued growth slightly fewer additional trains on the Great train numbers growth tends to be relatively Figure B4 in Appendix B details the changes in Scottish opencast forwardings and some Eastern and between the incremental rather than delivering a step projected in the petroleum market. The market limited growth through the east coast ports. Haven Ports and Peterborough. change in demand levels on any given route. is regarded to be largely stable and static with The principal destination of this traffi c is the Figure B2 in Appendix B displays this position. no routes in the country showing an increase Aire and Trent Valley Power stations. One additional impact not displayed on the of more than two trains per day over the ten map is that the additional services from Shell The highest level of growth for construction This scenario consequentially drives continued years. The long term impact of the Buncefi eld Haven would be forced to make fl at junction services is projected to be on the heavily used uplift in coal demand on the Glasgow and fi re on rail demand is yet to be clear, but crossing movements at Forest Gate to access routes from the west of England to Acton via South Western and Settle & Carlisle (serving as Chapter 3 highlights, presently rail is the W10 cleared North London Line, unless the GWML. Three or four additional trunk both the Aire and Trent Valley). This amounts continuing to move increased volumes as a W10 clearance and routeing via the Tottenham services from South Wales and the Mendips to an additional 13 trunk services per day over result of the incident. and Hampstead line can be achieved (see are projected and consequentially additional trip the 2004/05 base, on the core Glasgow and Chapters 6 and 7). workings from Acton to the receiving terminals in Domestic intermodal traffi c is predicted to South Western / Settle & Carlisle axis and the London area are also expected. see continued growth in line with the last few some increased demand of approximately In Sensitivity 3 an additional six trains per years, with supermarkets and other retail six or more trains per day on routes from day from Southampton to the West Coast The other key area of growth for construction distributors increasingly making regular use of Yorkshire to the Trent Valley as imported coal Main Line are predicted contingent on W10 traffi c is projected to be the Hope Valley south rail. The WCML London – Midlands – Scotland continues to supplant locally mined sources clearance taking place. It is assumed that trans-Pennine route, with approximately three corridor is highlighted as the key route for this close to the Trent Valley. the preferred routeing of these trains is via to four additional trains daily. Limestone from traffi c, with traffi c between Scottish terminals Reading West, Leamington and Nuneaton the area to de-sulphurisation plants at The Freight RUS capacity gaps and at Mossend, Coatbridge and Grangemouth (see Figure 4.2). power stations, cement from Hope and further optioneering exercise outlined in Chapters 5 and intermodal terminals in the Midlands general aggregates traffi c from the Buxton/ and 7 clearly sets out the impact of both the projected to show further growth. area to various destinations are Base Case and Sensitivity 1. the components of the forecast.

8 2005/06 has seen growth already on the Anglo – Scottish route via the GSW/ Settle & Carlisle (5tpd) and a similar level from east coast ports against 2004/05 volumes.

36 37 Figure 4.3: Tonnage on the network in 2014/15 Figure 4.4: Tonnage on the network in 2014/15 for Base Case for sensitivities 1, 2 and 3

Key Key

0-2.9 million tonnes 0-2.9 million tonnes

3-5.9 million tonnes 3-5.9 million tonnes

6-8.9 million tonnes 6-8.9 million tonnes

Inverness 9-11.9 million tonnes Inverness 9-11.9 million tonnes

12 million tonnes and over 12 million tonnes and over Aberdeen Aberdeen

Fort William Fort William

Perth Perth

Glasgow Glasgow Edinburgh Edinburgh

Change related to Newcastle Sensitivity 1 Carlisle Carlisle

York York

Hull Hull

Immingham Liverpool Manchester Manchester Holyhead

Crewe Crewe

Norwich Norwich Birmingham Birmingham

Ipswich Ipswich Felixstowe Felixstowe

Swindon Swindon Reading LONDON Cardiff Reading Cardiff LONDON Bristol Bristol Change related to Ashford Ashford Sensitivity 2

Southampton Southampton

Change related to Sensitivity 3 Plymouth Plymouth

Annual tonnage shown in both directions. Annual tonnage shown in both directions.

38 39 4.3 Industry 2014/15 demand 4.4 Predicted growth compared to results: gross tonnage actual 2005/06 fi gures Gross tonnage forecasts are displayed in Since the Freight RUS forecasts were Figure 4.3 for the Base Case and Figure 4.4 produced based on 2004/05, information for for Sensitivity 1, 2 and 3. Sensitivities 2 and 3 the most recent fi nancial year is now available. do not drive any signifi cant changes in gross This has allowed a comparison between the tonnage on the network. ten year forecasts outlined in this chapter with actual freight train movements which occurred The tonnage maps illustrate a similar pattern in 2005/06. to that displayed by Figures 4.1 and 4.2 showing additional trains in 2014/15 compared This fi rst year of the forecasts has largely to the base year. The routes with a higher supported the overall growth over ten years number of bulk services e.g. coal, aggregates explained in this chapter. Growth by commodity and petroleum, will show a higher ratio of is shown in Table B8 in Appendix B. gross tonnage to additional trains projected. For example in Sensitivity 1, the Glasgow and South Western and Settle & Carlisle axis has considerably fewer additional services projected to run than most sections of the WCML, however the tonnage uplift on these lines is projected to be as high as that on many sections of the WCML where lighter intermodal growth tends to predominate.

40 41 5. Summary of gaps identifi ed

5.1 Capacity gaps To do this, it has clearly been necessary to The capacity gaps which fall on a route B: Analysis of current path take-up on high 5.1.1 Approach make some assumptions about passenger section where major change in the passenger growth corridors One of the main objectives of the Freight demand growth. The Government’s Regional timetable is also likely are highlighted as This stage involved detailed analysis of the RUS is to highlight the key capacity issues Planning Assessments and the RUS eligible for further study within the designated utilisation of freight paths on the route sections which would need to be addressed in order programme forecast widespread growth in geographical RUS which will also consider the selected following sift A to establish whether to accommodate the forecast growth in the passenger demand. However, for much of the passenger timetable implications. Table C1 in there were some sections of the network rail freight market. As discussed in Chapter network there are not yet fi rm commitments to Appendix C shows which gaps are considered where high growth levels could be comfortably 2, capacity issues are best considered in translate this growth into amended timetables. in the Freight RUS, and which gaps are accommodated within the existing WTT path geographical RUSs which benefi t from detailed In the absence of this, the Freight RUS has considered in the geographical RUSs. provision. assumed that the passenger growth will be passenger growth estimates alongside the The methodology for identifying key freight Care was taken to avoid a blanket assumption accommodated without reducing the working established freight forecasts from the Freight capacity constraints follows a four stage that a low path take-up means that spare timetable (WTT) paths that are currently RUS. These RUSs will ensure that both freight process as described below. capacity exists for growth within the current available to freight. On the WCML where and passenger traffi c are considered when quantum of booked paths. This was because the emerging picture on 2008 standard hour A: Focus on high growth corridors developing timetable and/or infrastructure the existing quantum on any given section freight paths is available against the revised An initial ‘sift A’ identifi ed corridors with high solutions. may contain spare paths for a particular passenger specifi cation, this has been forecast growth. For this exercise, ‘high operational reason. For example, spare paths The Freight RUS complements this approach adopted. growth’ was defi ned as occurring on route may be included to cover for the particular by bringing together the key strategic capacity sections where eight or more additional supply arrangements of a power station, paths constraints of concern to freight users in trains per day were projected (in the busiest booked to cover operations of services with one document. By doing this, it enables direction). A variety of levels of demand were a less than daily pattern or paths booked for operators and funders to understand the considered as hurdles for this test and it was diversionary purposes. In all these cases network-wide implications of constraints and concluded that eight trains per day growth assumptions that these slots could be used for looks at solutions for areas not covered by picked up most of the strategic changes new fl ows of traffi c would be spurious. geographical RUSs. including those on key routes to and from

This fi rst Freight RUS also highlights some major sea ports and coal import terminals. Nonetheless, it has been possible to eliminate some route sections from the study at this of the key constraints that will warrant This process was followed up by a review with stage. For example, the primary route for further consideration in the forthcoming RUS stakeholders of further sections where there Channel Tunnel traffi c between Dollands Moor programme, but could have been overlooked was diffi culty in securing paths on today’s and Wembley via Maidstone East is forecast without a network-wide view of freight railway where these had not been captured to have high growth. However, the utilisation requirements. in the fi rst sift. The further sections identifi ed of booked WTT freight paths on the route over were: the , the Sutton Park 5.1.2 Methodology the last two years has never been higher than line, crossing moves at Coventry station and a The analysis in the Freight RUS uses 40 per cent per day on any section, and the number of route sections linking the north east forecasts of trains/tonnage classifi ed by regularly unused paths available are suitable ports with the Aire/Trent Valley power stations. origin to destination pairs (as detailed in for the predicted future growth, in terms of Chapter 4) on a trains per day basis. A range Routes in South Wales (such as Cwnbargoed sectional running times and the times of day of key indicators have then been assessed to Aberthaw) were also highlighted as potential they are available. In this, and similar cases, to determine the critical pinch points on the gaps not picked up by sift A. On consultation it was concluded that it was not necessary network against these projections. The results it was agreed that these were best examined to identify the route as a potential capacity of this assessment have been consulted further in the Wales RUS due to close constraint to the forecasts. widely both internally at Network Rail and with linkages with changes in passenger service the Stakeholder Management Group. frequencies.

42 43 C: Analysis of remaining available capacity 5.1.3 Key gaps defi ned over and above WTT provision Figure 5.1 illustrates the key capacity gaps Figure 5.1: Key capacity gaps For the route sections sifted through processes against the 2014/15 forecasts as defi ned A and B a further analysis was undertaken to by the methodology and peer group review assess likely available capacity for freight over outlined above. The fi gure highlights those Key and above that reserved in the current WTT. gaps driven by the sensitivities as well as the The peak and off peak Capacity Utilisation Index Base Case demand forecast. Base case (CUI) measure for each section was reviewed. Table C1 in Appendix C sets out further WTT, Sensitivity 1

The CUI is a measure of the usage of a route ACTRAFF and CUI data for each of the route Sensitivity 3 section against its capacity and consequently sections highlighted. For the cases where the Inverness gives a broad indication of where additional Freight RUS will not be taking analysis of the

capacity may be available, over and above gap further, the relevant geographical RUS is Aberdeen that traffi c which currently runs. also shown. Fort William

The CUI is not, however, always appropriate

for indicating spare capacity likely to be Perth available for freight. This is partly due to the complex nature of freight movements at many J of the key points of constraint, particularly Edinburgh crossing moves at junctions. Glasgow

Consequently, its use as an indicator I of potentially available capacity was Carlisle Newcastle supplemented by a review of each individual 1 route section and the service mix and 12 routeing. CUI data was only used as a basis 4 2 for removing route sections from the study if the nature of movements on the section in 3 question did not involve confl icting movements York Hull at junctions or other known operational issues. 11 B 10 A Liverpool Manchester Immingham D: Full peer group review K The process and results of sifts A to C were 5 13 shared at the Freight RUS Stakeholder Crewe Management Group (SMG) and subsequently C 6 Norwich reviewed in two separate working groups H Birmingham made up of attendees determined at the SMG. 8 G

Ipswich 9 F Felixstowe

7 Swindon E Reading D Bristol Cardiff

Ashford

Southampton

Exeter

Plymouth

Numbers 1 to 13 are capacity gaps considered within the Freight RUS. Letters A to K are capacity gaps considered within the appropriate geographical RUS. Sensitivity 2 does not drive any additional capacity gap route sections. 44 45 5.1.4 Drivers of capacity gaps The group of gaps driven by deep sea Table 5.2: Growth driver 2: Intermodal base case: The key capacity gaps can be divided into two intermodal growth in the base case and Haven Ports – Midlands, the North West, Scotland distinct groups. Sensitivities 2 and 3 are shown in Tables 5.2, 5.3, 5.5 and 5.6. In the Base Case these Up to 19 additional trains per day in busiest direction by 2014/15 Firstly there is a set of gaps arising from the gaps include sections on the Great Eastern forecast growth in imported coal and coal Main Line, the West Coast Main Line, the Gap number Resulting key capacity gaps: Driver of gap from opencast sites. The gaps include route southern part of the East Coast Main Line and (geographical) sections between the east coast ports and the cross country route between Ipswich and the Aire and Trent Valley power stations in the WCML: Lancaster – Carlisle ■ Speed differential between passenger services and Peterborough. Base Case, and between the Scottish port of 4 diesel hauled freight services over Shap summit Hunterston and Ayrshire opencast sites and Sensitivity 2 introduces an additional gap ■ Sub optimal positioning and length of some loops the Aire and Trent Valley power stations in between Forest Gate and Stratford on the WCML: Winsford –Weaver ■ Speed differential between passenger services Sensitivity 1 GEML, and in Sensitivity 3 there is a group of Junction and freight services on two track section between capacity gaps between Southampton and the 5 Winsford South and Weaver The key coal growth fl ows in Sensitivity 1 and WCML. the Base Case and the key capacity gaps they ■ Slow entry/exit speeds to existing loops drive are shown in Tables 5.1 and 5.4 covering WCML: Stafford ■ Confl icting movements at southern end of Stafford the Anglo-Scottish route and the lines from the 6 station between Down/Up slow and Down/Up east coast ports respectively. Birmingham lines. WCML: Daventry – Wembley ■ Available class 4 & 6 slots between off peak 7 passenger service. Table 5.1: Growth driver 1: Coal: Stratford – Channelsea North ■ Interface with access to / from the GEML at Stratford Sensitivity 1: Hunterston/ Ayrshire – Aire Valley/Trent Valley D Junction – Camden Road

13 additional trains per day in busiest direction by 2014/15 GE Main Line ■ Available class 4 & 6 slots between off peak E F passenger service Gap identifi er Resulting key gaps Driver of gap ■ interface with access to/from the NLL at Stratford

Glasgow South Western: ■ Single line section Gretna – Annan Manchester Piccadilly ■ Available freight paths across Ardwick Junction, (Mauchline Junction – Gretna K – Deansgate through platforms 13 & 14 at Manchester Piccadilly ■ Signalling headways in particular at Ardoch (between I Junction) and along the Deansgate corridor. Thornhill and Kirkconnel) and Auchinleck (between New Cumnock and Mauchline) Table 5.3: Growth driver 3: Intermodal Sensitivity 3: WCML: (Gretna Junction ■ Confl icting movements at Gretna Junction – Petteril Bridge Junction) Southampton –WCML W10 cleared 1 ■ Speed differentials freight – passenger, including entering/leaving loops Six additional trains per day in busiest direction by 2014/15 over base scenario ■ Confl icting movements south of Carlisle station Gap number Resulting key capacity gaps: Driver of gap Settle & Carlisle: (Petteril Bridge ■ Long signalling headways, in particular at Horton in 2 Junction – Settle Junction) Ribblesdale, Long Meg and Mallerstang. Southampton – WCML: ■ Confl icting freight and passenger movements at Settle Junction – Milford ■ Insuffi cient paths across Whitehall Junction Basingstoke/Reading West Reading West Junction 3 ■ Lack of regulating points in Whitehall Junction area. 8 9 Junction/Cherwell Valley, ■ Up movements to Coventry at Nuneaton Leamington – Nuneaton ■ Crossing movements at Coventry

■ Signalling headways Reading – Oxford.

46 47 Table 5.6 shows the additional gap introduced Table 5.4: Growth driver 4: Coal: by Sensitivity 2. The gaps shown in Table 5.2 Base Case: East coast ports1 – Aire/Trent Valley would also apply. 18 additional trains per day2 in busiest direction by 2014/15 Table 5.6: Growth driver 6: Intermodal Sensitivity 2: Shell Haven – Midlands/the Gap number Resulting key gaps: Driver of gap North West/Scotland & Haven Ports – Midlands/the North West/Scotland Wrawby – Scunthorpe ■ Signalling headways Wrawby – Scunthorpe 11 additional trains per day from Haven Ports and eight additional trains per day from Shell Haven, 10 ■ Available time for maintenance access in busiest direction by 2014/15. ■ Junction speeds at Wrawby. Gap number Resulting additional Driver of gap Hull docks branch ■ Single line and signalling system on the Docks key gaps: 11 branch. Forest Gate – Channelsea ■ Confl icting movements at Forest Gate with GE Tyne Yard – Tursdale Junction3 ■ 2 track section of ECML: speed differential between E service on both Main and Electric lines. 12 freight and high speed passenger services.

Under Sensitivity 2 there are fi ve additional sites to Longannet. This change is as a result trains per day from Haven Ports, and two of the reopening of the Stirling – Alloa line Table 5.5: Growth driver 5: Intermodal Base Case: additional trains per day from Shell Haven to and will be considered as part of the Scotland Haven Ports – Yorkshire/the North East Yorkshire/the North East in busiest direction RUS. Eight additional trains per day in busiest direction by 2014/15 by 2014/15. The gaps on the route to Table C1 in Appendix C sets out each of Yorkshire/the North East are the same the route sections identifi ed as representing Gap number Resulting key gaps: Driver of gap as those in Table 5.4. a capacity gap above, alongside the ECML: Hare Park Junction ■ Confl icting freight crossing movements between There are a small number of key constraints geographical RUS that will take forward further A – South Kirby Junction Moorthorpe and Crofton Junction. that are not driven by coal traffi c pattern analysis of the gap. alterations or deep sea intermodal growth. ECML: Joan Croft Junction ■ Freight crossing movements to the Down line at Joan 5.1.5 Potential constraints arising from – Hambleton Junction Croft Junction The South Trans Pennine route is included as developments outside the Freight RUS B further growth is projected in aggregates and ■ Freight crossing movements to the Up line at forecasts construction materials from terminals on the Hambleton Junction. As noted in Chapter 4, the industry forecasts route. There are already diffi culties in pathing ECML: Peterborough – ■ Access from Up Slow and Peterborough Yard to Up do not include all possible future deep sea port slow moving freight services in-between Doncaster March line developments. A number of port developments C passenger services on the route. ■ Speed differential freight to passenger on two track are currently under consideration. It will be section Stoke Junction – Doncaster. In addition to the deep sea growth highlighted necessary to look at implications for capacity Haughley Junction – ■ Single lead junction at Haughley above, the inclusion of the section of the when decisions on these developments are Peterborough WCML between Carlisle and Lancaster is made. G H ■ Signalling headways at Kennett partly driven by projected growth in domestic ■ Confl icting movements through Ely station. Teesport is currently progressing plans for intermodal traffi c between England and a deep sea berth. The projected volumes Scotland, as well as the predicted continuation are approximately 1.5 million TEUs. There of demand for Class 6 (60 mph) freight on are no obvious capacity constraints to some the route, which can cause confl icts with additional rail traffi c from the port. passenger services on the steep gradients. It is possible that a large share of projected rail Capacity Gap 13: Hope Valley Line is primarily traffi c would be to/from the North West. The driven by existing freight capacity issues as trans Pennine route via Diggle which links the opposed to being driven by the Freight RUS east coast ports with the North West could be forecasts. Capacity Gap J: Larbert – Stirling a constraint to daytime freight pathing but only 1 Immingham, Hull, Redcar, Tyne, Blyth is driven by the change to existing routeing of 2 if a signifi cant number of additional trains were This number refl ects the total trains per day additional from all the east coast ports coal traffi c from Hunterston/Ayrshire opencast 3 Likely to be a constraint only at times when coal diversions are also on this section away from the Settle & Carlisle projected.

48 49 In connection with these trans Pennine fl ows, The Welsh Assembly Government is currently there could be localised capacity implications carrying out a Wales Transport Strategy, Table 5.7: Freight issues to be dealt with in the Wales RUS between Ardwick Junction and Deansgate looking at the possibility of development of a Route Commodity if there is a particular requirement to have deep sea container facility in South Wales. multiple daytime services to/from the Trafford Should these plans come to fruition any likely Cwnbargoed – Aberthaw Coal Park terminal in Manchester. capacity gaps will need to be considered alongside Welsh Assembly plans for future Intermodal (contains W12 gauge aspiration/WAG’s Clydeport have expressed an aspiration to To and from Welsh ports passenger service changes. Wales Transport strategy develop their port at Hunterston as a deep sea container port. At present aspirations are for Blaenau Ffestiniog – Llandudno Junction 5.2 Capability gaps Slate waste a 1 million TEU throughput by 2015, rising to (Conwy Valley) 2 million TEU by 2020. For gauging reasons 5.2.1 Gross tonnage Machynlleth – Chirk Timber (see Chapter 6), initial routeing of container Figures 4.3 and 4.4 in Chapter 4 set out the traffi c between Hunterston and the WCML expected demand profi le in additional gross would probably be via Paisley and Rutherglen tonnes on the network in 2014/15. The maps (in the Glasgow suburbs). highlight signifi cant additional tonnage across a wide range of routes. Predominantly the Should this development go ahead, an growth falls on main lines such as the East assessment of the likely number of container and West Coast. However, signifi cant uplift services generated will need to be made is also forecast on less heavily used routes and considered alongside the forecast for including the Settle & Carlisle and the Glasgow coal services from Hunterston/Ayrshire and South Western. This continues the trend in – Longannet/Cockenzie and the plans of freight growth on these lines in recent years. Transport Scotland for suburban services on the Ayr route. Using a base year of 2004/05, Network Rail has reviewed the network to identify those An alternative routeing via the Glasgow and sections of route which are most likely to South Western line to the WCML at Gretna have a near term requirement for signifi cant could be used, though this route would require volumes of track or structure renewals in the substantial gauge clearance work, and also event of further additional tonnage. the signalling schemes and partial re-doubling of Gretna – Annan (as outlined in the Scotland RUS).

It is noteworthy that there are no signifi cant capacity gaps identifi ed in Wales and comparatively few in Scotland. No signifi cant strategic issues were identifi ed that might impede the growth currently expected by the operators in either country.

The Scotland RUS contains an analysis of those sections of route where freight and passenger growth necessitates capacity enhancement. Table 5.7 shows the issues which will be examined by the Wales RUS

50 51 Table 5.8 sets out the projected additional through Woodgrange Park (on the Tottenham gross tonnage on each of the route sections & Hampstead Line) is mostly intermodal and which falls into the category set out above aggregates traffi c to/from North Thameside. The where growth projected exceeds 1 million additional tonnage projected on Larbert – Stirling gross tonnes per annum. These are all is a result of the proposed re-routeing of regarded as key strategic route sections. Longannet coal traffi c via the Sirling – Alloa line.

The route sections shown in bold are all on Chapter 7 (section 7.4) sets out indicative cost the Settle & Carlisle or Glasgow and South estimates for accommodating the tonnage Western Lines, all see signifi cant tonnage projections set out in Table 5.7. growth only in Sensitivity 1. 5.2.2 Route Availability (RA) and train Both lines have already seen substantial length tonnage growth in this fl ow up to, and indeed Stakeholders have raised aspirations for specifi c since the base year 2004/05. In 2005/06 increases axle weight limits (improved RA). around 2 million gross tonnes of the 2014/15 Where a capacity gap has been identifi ed in per annum projected growth (of 5.7 million this chapter, Chapter 7 considers options for tonnes) had already occurred. relieving those gaps, including improvements All other route sections in the table are projected to axle weight limits, where these to see growth in the base case and Sensitivities improvements would be likely to constrain 1-3. Growth projected on the Freight lines demand for train paths. via the Crewe Independent line represents a By the same criteria, improvements in train whole range of traffi c traversing the WCML length are also considered in Chapter 7 as but avoiding Crewe station. Growth projected options against a number of capacity gaps.

Table 5.8: Route sections with changes in tonnage over 1 million and likely to require accelerated renewals

Gross freight tonnes (m) Route section Growth tonnes (m) 2004/05 2014/15 Eastriggs – Bank Junction 2.0 5.1 3.1 Bank Junction – Mauchline 3.2 5.2 2.0 Mauchline – Bank Junction 4.8 9.2 4.4 – Eastriggs

Gretna Junction – Carlisle 10.8 19.0 8.2 Carlisle – Gretna Junction 6.2 10.2 4.0 Carlisle – Kirkby Thore 3.5 9.2 5.7 Kirkby Thore – Carlisle 1.2 3.4 2.2 Kirkby Thore – Settle Junction 4.0 9.7 5.7 Settle Junction – Kirkby Thore 2.2 3.4 1.2 Larbert Junction – Stirling 0.8 2.2 1.4 Stirling – Larbert Junction 0.5 2.0 1.5 Crewe Independent Up 0.6 6.2 5.6 Crewe Independent Down 8.9 15.6 6.7 Woodgrange Park to Barking 5.3 6.6 1.3 Barking to Woodgrange Park 5.1 6.4 1.3

52 53 6. Gauge aspirations

6.1 Background forecast to continue over the next 10 years. The market for the movement of continental Unlike deep sea boxes, which (with the This chapter considers the gauge aspirations The standard container sizes for deep sea and gauge conventional wagons through the exception of refrigerated ‘reefers’) are of the rail freight operators. It examines the short sea differ and are considered separately Channel Tunnel is currently constrained by restricted to 2.5m in width, an increasing aspirations which arise from the intermodal below. Table A1 in Appendix A sets out the UK gauges. This is explored in the European number of short sea units are of 2.55m and market (both deep sea and short sea) and most common box dimensions in operation in gauge section in this chapter. 2.6m width. These units if 9ft 6in high are not both these markets. Rail freight operators have compatible with W10 on a standard wagon Channel Tunnel traffi c. Deep sea maritime intermodal aspirations to increase their modal share of (1000mm platform) and can only be conveyed Productivity gains for intercontinental shipping The recent trend towards larger containers in these markets. within W12 gauge (see Appendix A for gauge lines of using taller boxes are driving a both the deep sea and short sea markets is measurements). continuing rise in market share of High Cube containers (9’6” tall). 6.2 Industry priority gauge Figure 6.1: Projected proportion of 40ft deep The future growth in 9ft 6in units was aspirations 2014/15 discussed at the planning inquiries for sea boxes at 9ft 6in In the light of the trend towards larger Bathside Bay and Felixstowe South in 2004. container sizes in the intermodal market, Figure 6.1 charts the anticipated growth as a Key the FOCs have proposed amendments proportion of the 40ft long deep sea box fl eet High Cube % by TEU (High Case) to the SRA’s Gauging Policy (published projected between 2007 and 2023. Since High Cube % by TEU (Low Case) 2005) highest priority routes for future these projections were published, the share gauge enhancement schemes. The Base of 9ft 6in high boxes within the deep sea Case forecasts assumed no further gauge container fl eet has grown to 35% in mid 2004, enhancements (except those already up from 28% in 2002, suggesting that the ‘high committed as part of port developments) scenario’ is likely to be closer to what would be with Sensitivity 3 being W10 clearance forecast today. The estimates used to underpin 80 from Southampton to the West Coast via the forecasts in Chapter 4 are closer to the Winchester. Gauge clearance of the routes ‘high scenario’ in Figure 6.1. 70 highlighted in Figure 6.2 would not be required Whilst 8ft 6in containers can be to accommodate the 2014/15 forecasts 60 accommodated on standard wagons within W8 (except Sensitivity 3), but would be expected gauge (see Appendix A for description of each to act as generators for additional demand. 50 gauge measurement), High Cube containers Deep sea maritime intermodal priority on standard wagons require W10 gauge. routes 40 Short sea (including maritime and Channel The Stakeholder Management Group Tunnel intermodal) discussed and proposed a priority network

% share of market 30 There is greater diversity in the range of box for W10. The priority routes for further W10 clearance are overlaid on the existing W10 20 dimensions for intra European containers. This is partly due to the wider range of methods of network. container transportation used for the shorter 10 Figure 6.2 shows current W10 cleared routes intra European hauls. Both container width and consisting mainly of the Haven ports to 0 container height are constraints for handling London via the Great Eastern Main Line, North 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 some box types within the UK gauges. London Line and the entire West Coast Main Year Line including branches to freight terminals

54 55 around Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester On port size criteria it is not expected that Figure 6.2: W10 Gauge priorities and Glasgow. There already are some limited these developments would supplant the routes W10 diversionary routes around Birmingham to Southampton and the Haven Ports as the and between the Midlands and Manchester. highest priority for W10 clearance. However the prioritisation set out in Figure 6.2 may Key The routes designated as the highest priority need to be reviewed if either of these schemes core routes represent optimum routeing from Existing W10 routes or indeed any other new proposals for large the largest deep sea container ports (by deep sea facilities realise their full projected Committed W10 clearance routes* TEU throughput, see Table 3.2, Chapter 3) capacity. Highest priority core W10 routes to depots in the West Midlands, the North West and the North East. These routes are In addition to these possible developments, Inverness Highest priority diversionary/ capacity generating W10 routes supplemented with further capacity generating the Welsh Assembly Government is currently Additional priority W10 routes Aberdeen routes and diversionary routes for the same producing a Wales Transport Strategy and the Fort William * To be funded by 3rd party as part of planning permission for fl ows. The latter were viewed as important Scottish Executive intends to produce its own expansion of Felixstowe South because a high proportion of intermodal traffi c Ports Strategy. Any conclusions on new deep runs overnight when engineering possessions sea port capacity in Wales and Scotland or as Perth are normally taken. Also in some cases the an output of the National Ports Policy will be diversionary routes can act as generators of refl ected in the fi nal version of this document. additional regular capacity (for example the Edinburgh Low platform wagon options Hunterston Glasgow route between Peterborough and Nuneaton, High Cube containers can be accommodated although a duplication of the current core route within a smaller gauge such as W8 if from the Haven Ports to the WCML via the transported on a well wagon (usually heavier) Great Eastern, would be a signifi cant capacity Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle where the container is loaded into a ‘well’ generator as well as a diversionary route, located between the bogies, at a lower height if gauge works are combined with capacity than on a standard fl at bed wagon. Although Teesport schemes). Chapter 7 deals with this particular the wagons are approximately the same project in more detail. Whilst the existing W10 length, they can only carry 2 TEUs instead network is electrifi ed, some of the diversionary of the 3 TEUs which can be accommodated York routes would require operators to use diesel Hull on standard wagons. This is because the locomotives. Further analysis of the options in loading area is limited to the space between Manchester Immingham Chapter 7 takes this into account. Liverpool the bogies as opposed to the full length of The additional priorities represent connections the wagon. Therefore fewer containers can Crewe to smaller existing deep sea ports and be transported per train given the same train alternative diversionary routeings. These length. Norwich routes are to be considered as an increment Birmingham Given a typical maximum train length of 24 on the highest priority routes. wagons (governed by depot/ ports track

Ipswich Stakeholders have provided information on lengths and maximum length that can be Felixstowe potential further deep sea port developments hauled by a single locomotive), using well

Swindon over and above the committed developments wagons would reduce maximum load factors Reading Shellhaven assumed in the industry base case forecasts. from 72 TEUs to 48 TEUs per train. This Bristol Thamesport Cardiff A 1.5 million TEU per annum development reduction in productivity effi ciency explains

Ashford of deep sea capacity at Teesport and a 1 why freight train operators have not invested in

Southampton million TEU per annum by 2015 (rising to 2 signifi cant numbers of well wagons and favour

Exeter million TEU by 2020) development of deep gauge clearance on the busiest core routes to Plymouth sea capacity at the port of Hunterston would and from the biggest ports. drive aspirations for W10 gauge clearance on A fl eet of small wheeled lowliner wagons routes linking the ports to ECML and WCML exists that can convey 9ft 6in tall by 2.5m respectively.

56 57 containers within W8 without the length Figure 6.3 shows the freight industry’s agreed penalties associated with well wagons. These W12 gauge clearance aspiration. Figure 6.3: W12 gauge clearance aspiration wagons however tend to be more expensive to As explained in Chapter 3.2, rail’s market purchase and maintain. share of short sea boxes is relatively low so Finally an intermediate platform height wagon the industry’s W12 aspiration is focussed design called a Megafret exists that allows on the biggest short sea ports and onward 9ft 6in high units to be conveyed at a lower routes from the Channel Tunnel. The routes height but not in a ‘well’ although this solution highlighted link from the main short sea ports requires W9 clearance (few existing routes are and the Channel Tunnel to a range of freight cleared to this gauge). These wagons consist terminals in the North East, West Midlands Inverness of two 50ft long platforms so do not match the and the North West and include diversionary

space effi ciency of standard 60ft wagons when routes. The main short sea ports are defi ned Aberdeen Fort William accommodating 20ft and 40ft containers. as those with the largest TEU throughput of domestic and intra-European traffi c. These are Chapter 7 examines the trade off between shown in Table 6.1 which shows the volume of gauge clearance and use of well wagons/ Perth containerised traffi c. lowliners/Megafrets on a route specifi c basis. Wagons have a lifespan of around 20 years so The Wales Transport Strategy assesses any option which requires a change on FOCs’ possible future container traffi c through Edinburgh Glasgow wagon use can only be achieved over the long Holyhead, Milford Haven, Swansea and term. Port Talbot. If these ports are developed then potentially routes to these ports would Short sea maritime and Channel Tunnel be added to the industry gauge clearance Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle intermodal aspirations. The freight industry has expressed a desire for W12 gauge clearance for sections of the network which could be used to transport short sea traffi c. This gauge maintains the height of W10 (9ft 6in on a standard platform) but the York Hull increased width to 2.6m would accommodate

Manchester Immingham additional containers sizes (eg refrigerated Liverpool units).

Crewe

Norwich

Birmingham

Ipswich Felixstowe

Swindon Table 6.1: Largest short sea container ports in GB (thousand TEUs in 2004) Reading Bristol

Cardiff Domestic Intra-European Total Ashford

Felixstowe 79 753 832 Southampton Exeter London (Purfl eet/ Tilbury) 1 629 630 Plymouth Hull - 309 309 Teesport 3 128 131 Southampton 11 83 94 Source:Maritime Statistics 2004

It should also be noted that the Dover Straits ports have signifi cant volumes of unitised Roll-on /Roll-off traffi c.

58 59 European gauge 6.3 Summary of gauge gaps Whilst W12 is suffi cient to accommodate all Demand likely to be generated by W10 Figure 6.4: European gauge aspirations short sea containers that operate currently clearance is closely linked to the increasing 1 in the European container fl eet , there is use of High Cube containers in the enlarging an aspiration for the much larger UIC GB+ deep sea container market. European gauge. This clearance would allow transit of all variations of box sizes As Table 3.2 in Chapter 3 and Table 6.1 in this currently hauled by rail within Europe. As this chapter display, it is at the largest deep sea is much larger than existing UK gauges, the ports where the critical mass of containers for inland transport is concentrated. These ports incremental costs of clearance compared to Inverness clearing to W12 could be signifi cant. Currently also have the highest rail market shares. For only the CTRL is cleared to this gauge on the this reason the routes to and from the major Aberdeen Fort William network. deep sea ports represent the highest priority ‘gaps’ in gauge provision terms. The industry’s aspiration for UIC GB+ is W12 accommodates all short sea boxes1 in highlighted in Figure 6.4.1. It is focussed on Perth primary routes between the CTRL and the addition to deep sea boxes although costs are main freight depot locations near Birmingham, likely to be higher as additional work is usually Manchester and Leeds. required. The work usually relates to lineside Edinburgh equipment and arched structures (where the Glasgow top corner restricts W12 but not W10) and also a greater number of structure rebuilds instead

of track slewing solutions. Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle

Any project to rebuild a structure will consider building to the largest available gauge subject to physical and fi nancial considerations. For example, when developing a route to a W10

specifi cation, consideration would be given York to rebuilding those structures that require Hull

alterations to W12. Manchester Immingham Liverpool European gauge (GB+) is signifi cantly

larger than W12 and few existing structures Crewe outside the CTRL already meet the required dimensions. New build and rebuild to Norwich European gauge is considered for structures Birmingham on TEN (Trans European Network) routes.

Most of the routes identifi ed shown in Figure Ipswich Felixstowe 6.4 for clearance to this gauge are on

TEN routes. Current structure rebuilds are Swindon Reading therefore not neccessarily precluding future Bristol development of a European gauge route. Cardiff

Ashford Outside of this, the costs for bespoke clearance compared to clearing to W10/ W12 Southampton Exeter could be signifi cant particularly in the case of Plymouth routes with tunnels.

1 With the exception of a very small fl eet of specialist 10ft 6in high equipment

60 61 7. Assessment of options and recommendations for further analysis

7.1 Introduction ■ to deliver a strategy which provides Option 2 – Haulage alternatives Option 6 – Signalling headways The fi nal RUS will recommend options on the optimum value for money and falls within Shorter journey times provide opportunities More signals or modernising existing basis of their business case. The funding of the affordability criteria to increase the quantum of paths, and can equipment (e.g. increasing the signal aspect) be achieved by more powerful locomotives or would allow trains to operate closer together enhancements will be dealt with outside the ■ in doing so, to ensure that RUS process. The decisions will be made in double heading. Where the track is electrifi ed, and therefore increase the capacity of the • the performance impact on all users is the light of the outcome of the current review freight haulage has the option of using diesel route. The cost of enhancing signalling can be considered of the structure of charges. The RUS will give or electric powered locomotives. Electric reduced if combined with renewals. haulage provides shorter journey times, the Offi ce of Rail Regulation the opportunity • the impact on engineering access is Option 7 – Axle weight improvements largely as a result of quicker acceleration and to consider key options to meet freight considered Hauling more tonnage per wagon would permit better performance, particularly on routes with growth when considering expenditure on the • the best use of existing capacity is some growth in demand for bulk products to signifi cant gradients. However, there may be network. Similarly it will enable the Department considered before preferred options be met without increasing capacity utilisation. journey time penalties if a change to diesel for Transport and Transport Scotland to involving investment are proposed Infrastructure enhancement may be required power is required for part of the journey (i.e. understand freights’ needs whilst developing if the increase in weight increased the RA • opportunities for enhancements in a fl ow over both electrifi ed and non electrifi ed their High Level Output Specifi cations for the requirement of the route. future railway and provide the strategic context conjunction with renewals are highlighted, track). Option 9 covers new electrifi cation of Option 8 – Capacity generating gauge for Transport Innovation Fund decisions. where appropriate. track. schemes Option 3 – Routeing alternatives This section identifi es options to meet each 7.3 Capacity options Increasing the through tunnels, of the gaps outlined in Chapters 5 and Changing the routeing of a train can free up The principal gaps between the network’s bridges, stations and other structures would 6. Recommendations on each option are capacity on the original route. Often this will existing capacity and a) existing and projected allow larger wagons/containers (especially for then made based on available information. increase the journey time with associated demand and b) other stakeholder aspirations the intermodal market) to operate on the route, Those options which could usefully be taken resource cost impact on the FOC. were identifi ed and discussed in previous thereby facilitating routeing alternatives and forward into the formal appraisal process are chapters. Option 4 – Train lengthening hence potentially additional capacity. highlighted. The full appraisal of the options Train lengthening potentially enables hauling Option 9 – Bespoke infrastructure agreed following the consultation will be To address these gaps, key stakeholders have more freight per train without changing the If Options 1 to 8 do not produce suffi cient reported in the fi nal Freight RUS publication. produced a set of options for testing against weight per axle (see Option 7). This permits capacity, it may be appropriate to consider each of the key gaps. The options fall into some growth in demand to be met without In a number of cases third party funders larger infrastructure options such as new lines, nine categories. It should be noted that these increasing capacity utilisation although may be sponsoring development and/or doubling track and new electrifi cation. Smaller options are not mutually exclusive, and might infrastructure spend may be required (see implementation work on listed options. Except bespoke infrastructure projects would include therefore be considered in combination. Option 5). Signifi cant train lengthening may where implementation funding is already slewing the track layout or reinstating former require an increase in motive power in order committed, no assumptions or comment is Option 1 – Optimising timetables lines. made about the source of funding. Alterations to existing timetables for freight and to maintain sectional running times. This may passenger services can often yield additional have an operational cost impact on the FOC.

7.2 Identifying options against gaps capacity without infrastructure enhancement. Option 5 – Provision of additional and/or The development of options has been This may involve retiming of existing paths, longer loops undertaken with the following aims: changes to routeings (see Option 3), stopping Loops provide additional capacity for traffi c patterns and fl ighting of services. Optimising of varying speeds operating on a given ■ to present potential solutions to resolving timetables is managed through standard route. If train lengthening is introduced, loops the capacity and gauge gaps identifi ed industry processes and may be initiated by may need to be extended. Dynamic loops from the 2014/15 forecasts of railfreight geographical RUSs. (with higher entry/exit speeds) often require under the different demand sensitivities increased length and/or renewal of associated switches and crossings.

62 63 Table 7.1 summarises the gaps and the partially addressed by individual options, and Tables 7.2 to 7.14, take the analysis one step 7.3.1 Anglo – Scottish Coal Route (Ayrshire option categories to address each one. It conversely that some options may address further by providing details of the potential – Aire Valley/Trent Valley) should be noted that some gaps may only be more than one gap. options available for resolution and by Capacity gaps on the Anglo - Scottish coal recommending which options should be taken route (between Hunterston and Ayrshire forward for further development. The tables are opencast sites in south-west Scotland and the Table 7.1: Capacity gap/Option matrix organised by the key routes where the capacity power stations in the Aire and Trent Valleys) gaps are predicted. The options have been are driven by the growth forecast in Sensitivity No. Route/Route section Option by which gap addressed divided between short/medium term solutions Test 1. The test predicts an additional 12 to 13

1 Gretna Junction – Carlisle station – Petteril Bridge Optimising timetables which tend to comprise smaller scale schemes coal trains per day over the 2004/05 volumes and those likely to be required only towards the in each direction between Hunterston/ Ayrshire Junction Train lengthening end of the ten year period and beyond. opencast sites and the Aire/Trent Valley via Loop enhancements Gretna Junction, Carlisle, Settle Junction and Bespoke infrastructure In each case a more detailed description of the Whitehall Junction (Leeds). 2 Petteril Bridge Junction – Settle Junction Optimising timetables options against each gap, the outputs of each Train lengthening of the options, and the links between each gap In the fi rst full year since the base year for Signalling headways is set out in Table D1 in Appendix D. Table C1 the forecasts, approximately 40 per cent (an 3 Settle Junction – Skipton – Whitehall Junction Optimising timetables in Appendix C lists further capacity gaps which additional fi ve trains per day) of this predicted Train lengthening were identifi ed in Chapters 4 and 5, but will be growth has already taken place. Part of the considered in one of the geographical RUSs business case for the options identifi ed below 4 Carlisle – Lancaster Haulage alternatives due to the critical interface with passenger depends on the ability of Hunterston imports Train lengthening timetables on the route in question. The table and Ayrshire opencast coal to continue to Routeing alternatives identifi es which RUS is, or will be, considering grow market share to the Aire and Trent power Loop enhancements the gap. stations in the face of competition from the 5 Winsford South Junction – Weaver Junction Train lengthening east coast ports which have well advanced All cost indications set out below represent pre- Loop enhancements plans for additional capacity. feasibility estimates except where indicated. The 6 Stafford Station Train lengthening costs are likely to be subject to change during Tables 7.2 to 7.4 display options for key Routeing alternatives scheme development. sections of the route and recommendations Bespoke infrastructure for consideration to accommodate the forecast 7 Rugby – Wembley Central Optimising timetables demand. The Glasgow and South Western Train lengthening Line is not included as this is being covered in Capacity generating gauge schemes the Scotland RUS. Bespoke infrastructure 8 Nuneaton – Coventry –Leamington Routeing alternatives Loop enhancements Capacity generating gauge schemes Signalling headways 9 Leamington – Didcot East – Reading West Routeing alternatives – Basingstoke – Southampton Signalling headways 10 Wrawby – Scunthorpe Optimising timetables Train lengthening Routeing alternatives Signalling headways Axle weight improvements Bespoke infrastructure 11 Hull Hedon Road – Hessle Road Junction Train lengthening Signalling headways Bespoke infrastructure 12 Tyne Yard – Tursdale Junction Routeing alternatives 13 Hope Valley Line ( East Junction – Dore West Loop enhancements Junction)

64 65 Table 7.2: Gap 1: Gretna Junction – Carlisle station – Petteril Bridge Junction Table 7.3: Gap 2: Settle & Carlisle: Petteril Bridge Junction – Settle Junction

Option Indicative Further work Recommendations Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations description capital costs proposed capital costs proposed (scope & (scope & appraisal) appraisal)

Short/Medium term options: Short/Medium term options: 1.1: Optimise - - Option already delivered. 22 through paths per day 2.1. Optimise - - Option delivered as part of the December 2005 existing timetable available in the post December 2005 WTT. Suffi cient existing timetable timetable change. 22 through paths per day now to maximise to meet current demand but would not be suffi cient to maximise available in the WTT. Suffi cient to meet current through Anglo to meet full ten year demand in Sensitivity 1. through Anglo demand. Would not be suffi cient to meet full ten – Scottish paths – Scottish paths year demand in Sensitivity 1. 1.2: Higher speeds Not yet Indicative costs Option allows quicker clearance of slow moving 2.2. Six £3m (GRIP Scheme Implementation of scheme would be suffi cient on Up arrival line available to be confi rmed freight services in the Up direction at Mossband Intermediate Block 1) already to meet ten year demand on route section, from Mossband Junction. To be taken forward subject to business Signals (IBS) under although through pathing from Ayrshire requires (Mossband Junc case. installed on route development partial/full doubling of Gretna – Annan also (See – Kingmoor Up to GRIP Scotland RUS). Dependent on timetabling work, fl yover) level 4 improved ability to regulate the enabled additional 1.3: Higher exit Dependent on Appraisal to Consider delivery of options as and when renewals trains at Whitehall Junction (Leeds) may also be Appraisal in speed on Down timing of work: be undertaken of associated loops and junctions are due. necessary. progress Goods lines with renewals. as and when at Kingmoor & renewals Floriston schemes are 2.3: Train - - 900m option tested for diversions and being taken forward lengthening of considered further. Incremental length increases Anglo - Scottish to 21 – 27 HTAs (376 – 483m) will continue to be 1.4: Re-creation Not yet Under This option is presently being assessed, and coal services to up progressed with FOCs where practical. of route off the available development further information will be reported in the fi nal RUS to 900m Kingmoor Up document. fl yover to Kingmoor Up loops 1.5: Relocation of Dependent on Appraisal is Consider delivery of options as and when renewals Caldew Junction timing of work: same as 1.3 of associated loops and junctions are due. Table 7.4: Gap 3: Settle Junction – Skipton – Whitehall Junction to north end of with renewals. Caldew viaduct to Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations capital costs increase speeds proposed (scope & 1.6:Improvements Being Not required Improvements to go ahead in 2006/07 appraisal) to signal progressed acceptances in under West Short/Medium term options: Gretna junc. area. Coast project 3.1: Optimise - - Option delivered as part of the December 2005 1.7: Doubling of Not yet Not at present Further understanding required of benefi ts of existing TT to timetable change. 22 through paths per day now single lead junction available scheme in isolation. maximise through available in the WTT. Suffi cient to meet current at London Road Anglo – Scottish demand. Would not be suffi cient to meet full ten 1.8: Train N/A Not required 900m option tested for diversions and being paths year demand in Sensitivity 1. lengthening of coal considered further. Incremental length increases 3.2. Train - - 900m option tested for diversions and being trains up to 900m to 21 – 27 HTAs (376 – 483m) will continue to be lengthening of considered further. Incremental length increases progressed with FOCs where practical. Anglo - Scottish to 21 – 27 HTAs (376 – 483m) will continue to be 2014/15 and beyond: coal services to up progressed with FOCs where practical. to 900m 1.9 Re-instatement Not yet Not required at Not required to meet ten year forecasts, but may well of Carlisle avoiding available present be necessary at some point beyond 2014/15. Would lines have clear performance and capacity benefi ts.

66 67 Network Rail made modifi cations to the 7.3.2 WCML capacity gaps and options December 2005 timetable on the Glasgow and The key fl ows driving the identifi ed gaps on the Table 7.5: Gap 4: Carlisle South Junction – Lancaster South Western and Settle & Carlisle lines to West Coast Main Line are: Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations increase the paths available for coal traffi c to ■ northern end of the route (Table 7.5) capital costs proposed 22 paths per weekday from Ayrshire to the Aire – continued operation of class 6 services (scope & Valley. The 2005/06 winter peak saw an upturn appraisal) over the Lake District gradients plus some of around 30-40 per cent in coal traffi c over class 4 intermodal growth. Short/Medium term options: average 2004/05 volumes to around 18 coal trains per day in each direction. ■ further south (Tables 7.6 – 7.8) – the 4.1: Flighting of - Timetable This option would deliver suffi cient provision for volume of the additional class 4 deep sea passenger services under existing freight traffi c with some limited room for The industry has predicted in Sensitivity 1 that in WCML 2008 TT development Class 4 growth. If this can be achieved, provision of intermodal services projected (extra 18 some further growth may occur from Scotland to optimise freight at present. signifi cant new infrastructure should not be necessary trains per day in each direction on some over the 10 year period, but in the Base Case capacity. in the short term. The timetable is presently under sections). development. volumes are predicted to drop back to just above 2004/05 averages (to about 9 – 12 Tables 7.5 to 7.8 show key sections 4.2: Looping New/extended 4.2 Further The West Coast project is progressing, where through coal trains per day in each direction). of constraint and display options and strategy: Strategic loop(s): work to be appropriate, improvements to entry and exit speeds recommendations for meeting the ten year extension and/or new £4 – 15m undertaken of existing loops. Currently the timetable recast of December loop between Penrith (dependent to identify forecast. Considering freight growth alone and the emerging 2005 is suffi cient to meet demand. Some and Lancaster. on option favoured picture of the 2008 timetable, it is unlikely that new minor enhancements are likely to be sensible selection) options. loops will be immediately required. However further Improvements in the Carlisle area on the back of planned developments in passenger demand post 2008 and to entry/ exit renewals to improve performance, subject freight growth projected to 2014/15 are likely to drive speeds on the need for at least one new loop and/or extensions to a value for money case. Network Rail is existing loops: to existing loops (allied with option 4.3) also committed to working with the FOCs to £1 – 4m This option along with 4.3 will need to be assessed facilitate incremental increases in train lengths dependent on against alternative options 4.4 and 4.5 as and when and loadings on the route, where this is location. required. practicable. 4.3: Lengthening Not yet Further work As Option 4.2 above. To be developed in tandem. Full Network Rail is continuing a major programme intermodal services. available. required implications for loop lengths north of Carlisle and on of track and structures renewals works on the on scope other route sections, as well as terminal constraints, Settle & Carlisle line to ensure the line is fi t of works will need to be considered. necessary. to carry current volumes in the medium term. Section 7.4 sets out an initial assessment of 4.4: Electric haulage Not yet Trials As 4.2/4.3, not likely to be initially required. If growth further renewals that would be necessary to of remaining daytime available. conducted. continues as predicted, however one of option 4.2/4.3 Class 6 services/ Further – 4.5 will be required by 2014/15. The resource cost accommodate volumes in Sensitivity test 1. diesel hauled class development impacts on operators will need to be considered 4s. not required at alongside issues of electricity supply. To be appraised this stage. against options 4.1/4.2 and 4.5 as and when required.

4.5: Route 3-4 Approx £0.5m Better Again not likely to be initially required. This option Up daytime Class per year extra understanding may add a small additional journey time to daytime 6 non container maintenance of full costs of services and 19 additional miles. To be appraised services via Settle & costs on this option to against option 4.1/4.2 & 4.3, 4.4 as and when Carlisle and Hellifi eld Hellifi eld be developed. required. – Clitheroe instead of – Clitheroe If Sensitivity test 1 for coal occurs, this option also over Shap summit. (plus operator requires option 2.3 to be delivered on the Settle & costs and Carlisle Line. other possible structure/ formation items to be identifi ed)

68 69 Table 7.5: Gap 4: Carlisle South Junction – Lancaster (continued) Table 7.7: Gap 6: Stafford station

2014/15 and Beyond Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations 4.6 Further new/ Not yet No further Long term options to be considered at time of capital proposed extended loops available development resignalling costs (scope & as and when area at present appraisal) signalling north of Preston takes place Short/Medium term options: 6.1 Diversion of up No new Impact on A short term solution that should be implemented to 12 Manchester infrastructure Stoke line subject to the outcome of the West Coast 2008 (Trafford park/ required. renewals to timetable process. Further Up direction services Table 7.6: Gap 5: Winsford South Junction – Weaver Junction Euroterminal) be assessed. not from Manchester which currently run via Crewe services via Stoke and Stafford could also be routed Crewe – Alsager Clarifi cation – Stoke – Colwich. Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations of looping capital proposed strategy in the costs (scope & Stoke area appraisal) required 6.2 Lengthening of Not yet Further work As the vast majority of growth projected on the Short/ Medium term options: some intermodal available required on section is deep sea intermodal traffi c, a train 5.1 New loop at Being - Enhancement is being implemented as part services scope to be lengthening programme for this traffi c would be Hartford (>1000m) progressed of WCML upgrade. Project to be completed in undertaken, benefi cial for congestion in the Stafford area, but with higher under West 2007/08. The 2008 WCML timetable is likely to including may not be necessary initially if 6.1 is implemented. entrance/exit Coast provide three daytime standard hour paths per impact at key speeds (60mph). project. hour on this section. This should be suffi cient terminals Effectively replaces for initial growth projected but by the end of the 2014/15 and beyond: Winsford down ten year period, demand as projected is likely to loop. exceed capacity. 6.3 Enhanced route Not yet Specifi c This would constitute a longer term solution. capacity in the available options Unlikely to be justifi ed on freight growth alone. 5.2 Lengthening of Not yet Further Further infrastructure improvements are likely to Stafford area. currently some intermodal available. work to be be expensive on this section, in particular four under services. undertaken tracking throughout would be diffi cult to achieve. development on scope As the vast majority of growth projected on the by DfT/ and costs of section is deep sea intermodal traffi c, a train Network Rail option. lengthening programme between the Haven Ports and key inland terminals in the North West/ Scotland would be likely to be a cheaper option should capacity be reached.

70 71 Tables 7.5 to 7.8 show a range of route section London/ southern end of the WCML leg of Table 7.8: Gap 7: Rugby – Wembley Central specifi c solutions that are recommended for services to and from the Haven Ports. It further development. would also offer some new paths for regular Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations scheduled services between the Haven capital proposed The key driver of growth on the WCML is Ports and Lawley Street/Hams Hall. Confl icts costs (scope & the Freight RUS’s deep sea intermodal appraisal) generated by the fl at junction in the Down projections. The need for infrastructure direction at Nuneaton mean that regular paths Short/ Medium term options: enhancements therefore is very closely to/from the North West and Scottish terminals linked to the development of that market over 7.1: Deliver - N/A Target result of the WCML 2008 timetable process. under a gauge only scheme will be hard to minimum three Suffi cient to meet the majority of growth projected to the next ten years and the precise timing of deliver during the daytime. off peak standard 2014/15 on this section step changes in deep sea port capacity. As paths per hour in the precise timing is currently unknown, it For this reason it is proposed that a gauge WCML 2008 TT is diffi cult to give fi rm recommendations at and incremental capacity scheme (Option 7.2: Lengthening Not yet Further work to As the vast majority of growth projected on the this stage. However, it would be sensible to 7.4) is assessed for implementation by of some intermodal available be undertaken section is deep sea intermodal traffi c, a train progress work on certain options in particular 2014/15, in order to ensure suffi cient paths services on scope and lengthening programme for this traffi c would be increasing train lengths. Further work to can be found on the route to accommodate costs including benefi cial in reducing path demand. establish the cost and scope of lengthening projected demand to 2014/15 and beyond. impact at key terminals of deep sea intermodal services will be By 2014/15 Haven Ports demand via London undertaken. It is recognised that aspirations is projected to be an additional 19 trains per 7.3: Peterborough Gauge: Not required Delivers an alternative route for Haven Ports traffi c to Nuneaton W10 £40-50m 7.4 is being to the WCML avoiding the GE and NLL as well as will be infl uenced by feasible alterations at end day in the Base Case. In line with the Cross gauge clearance (GRIP 1) progressed as the southern end of the WCML. Gauge clearance in terminals and optimal haulage arrangements London RUS, it is assumed that the next ten only. an alternative. isolation however will not offer a signifi cant number for the freight operating companies. ‘growth’ services from the Haven Ports can be of paths on the Ipswich – Nuneaton route – WCML accommodated via the Great Eastern and the Although not included as a gap in Tables 7.5 to route, though some through paths to/from the West North London Line, leaving up to nine services Midlands could be delivered. 7.8, it is recognised that the three track route needing to be routed via the Felixstowe section between Brinklow and Attleborough 7.4: Peterborough £133.3m Appraisal The option covers gauge and capacity works – Nuneaton route by 2014/15. to Nuneaton (includes currently under to deliver suffi cient paths to handle projected (north of Rugby) could become a further W10 gauge gauge costs development to intermodal growth from the Haven Ports by 2014/15 constraint towards the end of the ten year It is considered that a minimum incremental and Felixstowe in 7.3) support TIF bid. (an additional 9 tpd not accomodatable via London period, if further passenger service growth capacity scheme on the Felixstowe to – Nuneaton in base case). Minimum works in addition to gauge + Further post 2008 is combined with the projected Nuneaton route is likely to include the Northern incremental would include the Northern Chord at Nuneaton and work to be freight growth. Chord at Nuneaton and a number of other capacity. Possible improvements to signalling headways at Kennett. undertaken on further The extent of further works required depends partly more minor schemes including improvement of infrastructure Felixstowe – Nuneaton (F2N) via Ely & infrastructure on the future passenger timetable Nuneaton to signalling headways in the Kennett area on the options and Leicester: Specifi c conclusions items to be Leicester and Ipswich to Peterborough. This option Anglia route. Further operations planning work pathing in Capacity constraints on the Great Eastern developed is preferable to a gauge only scheme (7.3), but does is required to confi rm this and may highlight the conjunction and Cross London routes (addressed in the on capacity require further development of capacity options and with Anglia need for further capacity works. This work will an assessment of their impact on through pathing. Anglia and Cross London RUSs respectively) RUS. need to be co-ordinated with the new franchise are likely to drive the need for freight capacity specifi cations for passenger services on the 2014/15 and beyond: solutions for Haven Ports traffi c earlier than route. 7.5: Peterborough Estimates Further This option covers capacity works to deliver a constraints on the southern end of the WCML. to Nuneaton not available identifi cation of minimum hourly ‘through’ Ipswich to WCML path Nevertheless the Freight RUS projections Option 7.5 to deliver a minimum additional W10 gauge and at this stage infrastructure throughout the day. On Freight RUS projections this indicate that by 2014/15 it will be diffi cult to hourly slot between the WCML and Ipswich Felixstowe to options would not be required until post 2014/15, but will be fi t the demand into a three paths per hour is unlikely to be required to meet the forecast Nuneaton ‘full required to required earlier if diversion of signifi cant numbers capacity’. deliver a step of services away from GE and NLL to facilitate specifi cation between the Midlands and freight demand in the lifetime of the RUS. change in an improved passenger timetable is agreed by all Wembley via the WCML. Despite this, the option will be required if capacity. To parties. Signifi cant further infrastructure enhancement existing London routed Haven Ports services A Peterborough to Nuneaton W10 gauge be undertaken (over and above option 7.4) could be required to 2 were to be routed via the Felixstowe to in conjunction deliver this step change in cross country capacity, clearance only scheme would provide a Nuneaton route to free up additional capacity with Anglia including level crossing upgrades, and a range of diversionary route for the Great Eastern/Cross for further improvements to passenger RUS. loops and signalling improvements. A review of the capability of the route to handle large long term increases in gross tonnage would also be necessary. 1 Cost estimate includes + 66% optimism biase used in the appraisal process to refl ect the early stage of development of some elements of the scheme. 2 Felixstowe – Peterborough W10 gauge clearance is presently assumed as a committed enhancement funded by HPUK.

72 73 services on the NLL. The Cross London RUS 7.3.3 Southampton – WCML The extension of a double track railway further In addition to this an alternative route examines this possibility in more detail. This route only becomes a potential constraint south on the Coventry to Kenilworth line will between Leamington and the WCML for W10 under Sensitivity 3, which assumes W10 improve performance for passenger and traffi c is neccessary to retain the options for Routeing of Haven Ports intermodal services gauge clearance of the route between the freight traffi c as well as aiding the regulation maintanance access. via the Felixstowe – Nuneaton route in either WCML and Southampton Port and resultant of crossing moves at Coventry, critical to Option 7.4 or 7.5 has implications for traction Reading West Junction will continue to be growth of six trains per day. Southampton container fl ows. This option is policy. At present many of the exsiting services a key constraint to signifi cant growth from being taken forward. via London use electric traction, but would have Tables 7.9 and 7.10 show constrained sections Southampton. The option of routeing some to use diesel traction to make use of the F2N and display options and recommendations for The Nuneaton – Coventry – Leamington growth via Melksham is being assessed but route. This has some implications for Gap 4 meeting the ten year forecast. section of the route between Southampton and this could have journey time and operating (Lancaster – Carlisle) and its associated options. the WCML has been identifi ed as a priority cost penalties. for W10 gauge clearance. If this is to be In the longer term, though possibly outside progressed, a potential diversionary access the lifetime of the RUS, signifi cant further via Dorridge and the Sutton Park Line should alterations to the network at Reading West be considered alongside. This would address may be necessary. the capacity constraint which occurs when Up Southampton services (accessing the W10 route at Nuneaton) have to cross all four through lines to access the Coventry Line.

Table 7.9: Gap 8: Leamington – Coventry – Nuneaton

Option Indicative Further work Recommendations description capital costs proposed (scope & Table 7.10: Gap 9: Leamington – Didcot – Reading West – Basingstoke appraisal) – Southampton

Short/Medium term options: Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations 8.1 Partial diversion Not yet available. Indicative cost This option removes crossing moves from capital proposed of services via assessments Coventry station and in the Up direction costs (scope & Solihull, Water for capacity at Nuneaton. If for example the full growth appraisal) Orton and Sutton improvements projected were diverted this way, it would drive Park. to the Sutton the need for W10 clearance of the Sutton Park Short/Medium term options: Park line to be Line and some capacity improvements on that 9.1 Further Not yet Indicative cost This option would relieve remaining constraints developed. route section. (see further comment in 7.5 improvements available. assessments to through the Cherwell Valley but, key constraint on Gauge). to the longest be developed route remains Reading West (see below). signalling 8.2 Extension £4.94m (GRIP 7) N/A Scheme being taken forward in 2007/08 under Not required unless W10 gauge clearance goes of loop South the NRDF fund. Aids regulation of existing and headways between Enhancement ahead. In this instance it would be a second order of Coventry on future Southampton services making crossing Didcot East and cost on the back priority to constraints at Reading West. Kenilworth Line moves at Coventry. Leamington of renewals. 9.2 Diversion of Under To be appraised This routeing strategy removes the projected 2014/15 and beyond: projected growth development on the basis of growth from Reading West Junction. There is 8.3 Re-routeing of Not yet available. No further Not required at this stage as 2008 WCML via Salisbury/ July 2006. performance limited capacity for crossing movements on Up and possibly development timetable will seek to accommodate up crossing Melksham, Didcot benefi ts and the GWML to/from Reading West Junction Down NW/Scotland required at this moves for Southampton at Nuneaton. Option West extra capacity. currently and present moves are causing some to Southampton stage. would constitute an additional benefi t (in performance impacts. In some off peak hours Container services performance and capacity and engineering the two paths per hour available for freight are via Bletchley access terms) to be added to any future long already fully utilised. Future growth is likely to be Flyover – Claydon term case for re-opening Claydon – Winslow accommodated only at particular times of day. – Oxford – Bletchley for passengers, but would need to Further analysis of this option is proposed but this be assessed with FOCs to establish journey will need to include consideration of any additional time and resource penalties. journey time and operating costs for the FOCs.

74 75 7.3.4: East coast ports – generated by closure of domestic supply Aire/Trent Valley sources combined with some limited growth in Table 7.12:Gap 11: Hull Hedon Road – Hessle Road Junction Capacity gaps between the east coast ports demand and rail market share. Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations and the Aire and Trent Valley are driven by As discussed in Chapter 4 there are well capital proposed the Base Case coal scenario. The Base Case advanced plans for increased capacity at a costs (scope & predicts an additional 18 coal trains per day appraisal) number of the east coast ports. in each direction (over 2004/05 volumes) Short/ Medium term options: between the east coast ports of Immingham, Tables 7.11 to 7.13 show key constraints to Hull, Redcar, Tyne, Blyth and the Aire and meeting the base ten year forecast. 11.1: Hull docks £14.7m Appraisal The Port of Hull has aspirations to handle a branch partial (GRIP 2) underway further growth in traffi c, in particular coal. An Trent Valley power stations. The growth is double tracking upgrade of signalling and layout on the single line branch to the docks will provide enough paths to meet the projected growth. Options for improvements relating to onward pathing Table 7.11: Gap 10: Wrawby Jn – Scunthorpe and capability between Hessle Road Junction and the Aire Valley require further assessment, Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations including changes from three to four aspect capital proposed signalling between Hull and Gilberdyke. costs (scope & 11.2: Incremental Not yet - May require the extension of Barlby loops. 23 appraisal) train length available HTA coal trains already being investigated with improvements FOCs. Short/Medium term options: 10.1 Timetable - - Network Rail has recently completed a recast recast Immingham of freight paths out of Immingham to deliver a Port – Wrawby standard hourly weekday path to/from the HIT Table 7.13:Gap 12: Tyne Yard – Tursdale Junction – Scunthorpe 1 and 2 terminals at Immingham and Milford/ Gascoigne Wood. An additional eight paths per Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations day remain to/from Immingham Pad. capital proposed Network Rail are discussing bringing costs (scope & the timetable into operation shortly with appraisal) stakeholders. Short/ Medium term options: 10.2 Brigg Line £10m Appraisal under Scheme to progress subject to business case 12.1: Reactivation £7.25m Currently being Reactivation is likely by 2008/09. The upgrade (GRIP 2) development and funding. Key outputs: 1.) Up to eight of Boldon East (Grip 1) developed reactivation would allow a small number of additional paths per day between Immingham Curve further coal trains from Tyne dock to be routed via and the Trent Valley power stations/ Doncaster, the Durham coast away from the two track partially relieving Wrawby –Scunthorpe. 2.) bottleneck between Tyne yard and Tursdale Diversionary option to the SHML which will on the ECML, which is a particular constraint allow an improved maintenance window on this when diversions are underway from the Settle heavily used route. & Carlisle to the ECML. The section is also 10.3: Wrawby £2m Appraisal to be Further analysis required. Potentially gives 1 – increasingly becoming a constraint to pathing Junction linespeed (GRIP 1) completed 1.5 minutes improvement in junction clearance existing services particularly when matching increases. (involves times. Performance and timetabling benefi ts. paths are required across King Edward Bridge potential third party Junction funding) in Newcastle. 10.4: Further - Scope under An incremental approach is being taken. train lengthening development Immingham – Aire Valley 10.5: Increase Not yet High level A better understanding needs to be developed in permitted axle available assessment of the number of affected structures and the weights to 36 tonnes required impact on track renewals costs to properly assess this option

76 77 In the fi rst year (2005/06) since the base year In this context it is recommended that a 7.4 Capability options: Assessment Table 7.15 sets out the routes most likely to for the ten year industry forecasts, substantial number of relatively small scale schemes and recommendations be signifi cantly affected under the base case changes predicted in the baseline forecasts highlighted above should be developed further and sensitivity test scenarios and is limited to 7.4.1 Gross tonnage have already begun to take place at the key to address the Immingham – Wrawby – route sections where more than an additional Chapter 5, section 5.2.1 highlights the key east coast ports. New coal handling capacity Scunthorpe gap. Similarly, it is recommended one million tonnes per annum are expected to route sections where, after initial assessment, has come on line at Immingham (see Table that a scheme is progressed to address the operate. The table highlights indicative costs Network Rail believes there is most likely to B7, Appendix B), and additional volume is also shortage of capacity on the Hull docks branch that may be driven by the projected additional be a near term requirement for signifi cant being put through Hull, Tyne and potentially in as detailed above. tonnage and also provides a brief summary of volumes of track or structure renewals in the the near future Blyth. the nature of work required. Estimates refer 7.3.5 Hope Valley event of additional tonnage. An assessment to additional renewals that would be required As set out in Appendix B, all six of the Aire and Three to four additional daily trains are has not been made of the longer term impact during the period of the RUS and do not include Trent Valley power stations, which are the key forecast to and from the Peak District quarries on renewals requirements of the forecasts those already underway or committed to meet destinations of coal imported through the east and cement works and various locations. across the network. present tonnages. coast ports, are due to receive FGD equipment. In 2005/06 (the fi rst year of the forecasts) This suggests at least a medium term future for most of this growth occurred driven by each of the plants, and therefore a reasonable limestone movements from the Buxton area degree of certainty regarding the ongoing to de-sulphurisation plants at power stations. Table 7.15: Indicative costs structures and track demand for coal from the east coast ports over Cement from Hope and further general Indicative costs of upgrading route the lifetime of the RUS. aggregates traffi c from the Buxton/Peak Route section section to meet 2014/15 forecast tonnage Recommendations Forest area have also shown some increases, (both directions) Network Rail has recently been through the Structures Track suggesting that ten year growth is likely to process of optimising the existing number of exceed that originally outlined in the forecasts. Glasgow and South £9.6m £7 – 10m Further work is being slots to/from the coal handling facilities on Western (GSW) Mauchline progressed to quantify costs. Arch bridge Re-ballasting sites Immingham dock. This has involved moving Heavy construction services on the route Junction – Gretna Junction reconstructions and with accelerated some existing freight paths and minor retiming are diffi cult to path between local stopping strengthening ballast degradation of other services. Beyond this proposed services and the faster Trans Pennine Express Settle and Carlisle: Petteril £20.6m £25 - £40m Further work is being re-cast it is unlikely further re-timings could trains with which there is a signifi cant speed Bridge Junction – Settle progressed to quantify costs. Arch bridge Renewal of deliver a signifi cant number of additional slots, differential. Junction – Whitehall reconstructions and remaining jointed given other demands on capacity. In the Base Junction Depending on the outcome of further work on strengthening track, renewal Case of the Freight RUS forecasts, ESI coal costs and appraisal, this scheme would be of scarifi ed steel volumes are forecast to reach a maximum of sensible to take forward in the short to medium sleeper CWR, 27 trains per day out of Immingham exceeding re-ballasting sites term to meet an existing gap. the number of slots available from the recast, with accelerated even before a realistic utilisation level is ballast degradation. Renewal of 20 units considered. of switches and crossings. Crewe avoiding lines - Track and sleeper Further work is required to Table 7.14: Gap 13: Chinley East Junction – Dore West Junction renewals quantify cost. Track renewals would be co-ordinated with Handled by speed re-signalling proposals for Option description Indicative Further work Recommendations restrictions at economic delivery capital proposed present – renewal costs (scope & appraisal) estimate pending. £5 – 8m Short/Medium term options: Renewal of all 13.1 Introduction of Not yet Identifi cation of sites Further analysis. The performance and jointed plain line one 450m length loop available to be confi rmed, capacity benefi ts should be suffi cient and switches and each on the Up & indicative costs to be to accommodate projected growth crossings Down lines between updated, project to without signifi cant impact on passenger Chinley East and be appraised. performance. Grindleford

78 79 Table 7.15: Indicative costs structures and track (continued) Table 7.16: Gauge clearance options: Southampton – WCML Tottenham and Hampstead £12m £2 –3m Further work is being Tottenham and(Barking Hampstead – Gospel £12m Oak via £2 –3m Further work progressedis being to quantify costs. Strengthening or Renewal of jointed No Option Indicative Further Recommendations (Barking – GospelTottenham Oak viaSouth) progressed toLongitudinal quantify costs. timber bridge work Strengtheningreconstruction or Renewal of of jointedtrack and upgrade description costs work Tottenham South) Longitudinal wouldtimber bebridge co-ordinated work with reconstructiona largeof numbertrack andof upgradeat longitudinal proposed would be co-ordinatedstructure renewals with plans. a large numberbridges. of at longitudinaltimber bridges. structure renewals plans. bridges. timber bridges. Core route Earthwork 1 Southampton £52 Already Implementation: Subject to appraisal: Potential Earthwork strengthening at to WCML via million for being W10 demand suffi cient to merit further appraisal. strengtheningHarringay at Green Winchester, W10 appraised W12 demand yet to be quantifi ed. Harringay GreenLanes Reading West, as part of Lanes Larbert – Stirling - Coventry and SWML RUS Larbert – Stirling - No expenditure in Nuneaton addition to existing Diversionary routes plans. 1.1 Route via £30-40 Already Further work: This option represents a valuable The main costs highlighted are on the Gauge clearance: Southampton – WCML Laverstock and million for being diversionary route avoiding the SWML south of Andover only W10 appraised Basingstoke. Glasgow and South Western (GSW) and Settle The intermodal market from Southampton is as part of & Carlisle lines. These result from Sensitivity predominately deep sea (93 per cent) leading SWML RUS test 1 where signifi cant further additional to a gauge aspiration of W10 with W12 only 1.2 Southampton Not yet To be Further work: This option represents a valuable tonnage is projected between Hunterston/ required for the relatively small amount of to WCML via available appraised diversionary route avoiding Reading West short sea containers. Currently the core and Ayrshire opencast sites and the Aire and Melksham Junction which is a signifi cant constraint of the diversionary routes are cleared to W8/W9 Trent Valley power stations. In the Base Case route. Further work is required to quantify this where further growth in import coal volumes depending on route section. benefi t against the additional mileage compared to the core route. is focused through the east coast ports the Gauge clearance to W10 for this route is additional costs will not apply on the GSW considered as Sensitivity 3 within the Freight 1.3 Route via Not yet Dependent Potentially provides useful W10 diversionary Settle & Carlisle. RUS forecasts. This sensitivity predicts an Leamington available on Option route if core route is also cleared. Avoids key – Dorridge 1 being capacity constraints in Up direction at Nuneaton, additional six intermodal trains per day to 7.5 Gauge options: Assessment – Sutton Park implemented and allows improved maintenance access leave the Port of Southampton by 2014/15 Line – Bushbury window to the Nuneaton - Coventry – Leamington and recommendations over the Base Case. These additional trains – Stafford only route vs implementation of option 1 in isolation. As outlined in Chapter 6, there are aspirations are forecast to be destined for terminals in to enlarge the loading gauge on key routes the West Midlands and the North West via predominantly driven by larger containers the WCML (already cleared to at least W10). being used on deep sea and short sea The FOCs are considering the level of growth intermodal movements. which would be stimulated by W12 clearance above the W10 sensitivity predictions which The aspiration for the much larger UIC GB+ the fi nal Freight RUS strategy will take into (European Gauge) to accommodate possible account. future intra-European fl ows of very large conventional wagons is mentioned at the end The route currently accommodates High of this chapter. Cube containers on well wagons or lowliners although the high volumes of TEUs moved The following tables outline the principal gauge means the additional paths that could be options on a route by route basis. Outlined required in the future compared to using is an assessment by each aspiration and a standard wagons leads to signifi cant capacity recommendation of options to take forward issues around Reading. for further analysis at this stage. The tables highlight options which may need further consideration in the future and those which are unlikely to be taken further given the information available at this point.

80 81 Gauge clearance: south east ports to West An option is also available to clear the route Table 7.17: Gauge clearance options: south east ports to West Midlands/ Midlands/the North West to W10 at linespeed. the North West (core route already cleared) The intermodal market from the south east Stratford to Chippenham Junction is suitable ports is largely deep sea with some short sea No Option Indicative Further work Recommendations for well wagons (although not Megafrets) but description costs proposed traffi c leading to gauge aspirations for both Peterborough to Nuneaton is unsuitable for a W10 and W12. Currently the core route (via 2.1 Tottenham £10.5m for Appraisal To go forward subject to business case: This the wagon based gauge solution as parts are only and W10 underway preferred routeing for freight trains for Tilbury to the Great Eastern, NLL and WCML) is cleared W7. An alternative route from Peterborough Hampstead the WCML and a diversionary route away from to W10 with the diversionary routes cleared to to Nuneaton via Grantham and Line3 the NLL (which is currently W10) for other Tilbury W7/W8/W9 depending on route section. (currently W8), would involve diverting traffi c. A signifi cant part of the additional demand The NLL is currently heavily utilised with large signifi cant numbers of services over the most is dependant on the forecast growth from Shell Haven (Sensitivity 2) and Tilbury. Also this volumes of freight and a frequent passenger capacity constrained section of the ECML option provides a potential diversionary route service leading to capacity issues relating to between Peterborough and Doncaster. away from NLL which is forecast to experience accommodating the signifi cant growth forecast Well wagons require additional paths for signifi cant capacity constraints. from the Haven Ports (see Chapter 5). The the same quantum of freight lifted and 2.2 Peterborough £40-50m for Appraisal To go forward subject to business case. See forecasts predict over 20 additional intermodal therefore are better suited to less constrained to Nuneaton W10 underway references in capacity options 7.3 – 7.5. trains per day on the NLL. Options 7.3 to 7.5 in Infrastructure options to allow routeing of trains to sections of the network. Both well wagons the capacity section of this chapter refer to this the North West are being assessed (see Table 7.8). and Megafrets require operators to invest in growth further. 2.3 Stratford to £3m for Full appraisal Further work: this could provide a diversionary specialist wagons which is more expensive Chippenham W10 dependent route for the core traffi c avoiding the Great A relatively small amount of work would be for larger volumes of traffi c as more wagons Junction (via on emerging Eastern. Coupled with clearance of route 2.1, required to clear the Tottenham & Hampstead will be required. If only part of a route requires Cambridge) costs this could offer (with extended journey times) a Line to W9 (at low speed) which would allow use of a wagon solution then sub-optimal use associated W10 alternative to the NLL as well. This would 9ft 6in containers to be operated on well of capacity is made on the remainder of the with be particularly valuable during major engineering wagons or Megafrets. journey which could have been completed engineering works and the 2012 Olympics. W10 traffi c access on would however be likely to be subject to speed using standard wagons. GEML restrictions and therefore this option should not supplant 2.2.

3 As the T&H is not electrifi ed, the route could only accommodate growth in diesel-hauled trains.

82 83 European Gauge Table 7.18: Gauge clearance options: additional priorities The additional traffi c generated by clearing No Option Indicative Further work Recommendations routes to European Gauge needs to be description costs proposed quantifi ed further to enable further assessment 3 Canonbury Not yet Not to be If gauge cleared, this line could provide the core of options and appraisal. West available appraised route for traffi c from Tilbury and Thameshaven Junction to to the North East (connecting with the committed Peterborough W10 clearance routes). The Freight RUS forecasts 4 additional trains per day between these ports and the North East Unlikely to be suffi cient demand of deep sea or short sea containers to merit gauge clearance. Use of wagon technology such as well wagons is recommended. 4 Seaforth to £15.5m for Appraisal Further work Garston W10 underway 5 Teesport/ Not yet Appraisal Further work Wilton to available underway Doncaster 6 Earlestown Not yet Appraisal of Unlikely to be suffi cient demand from deep sea – Manchester available value as a or short sea services to merit gauge clearance – Leeds (via diversionary at this stage. Use of wagon technology such as Diggle) route to be well wagons is recommended. considered Value would exist however in a diversionary alongside W10 link between the ECML and WCML for Newcastle existing traffi c as no such route exists outside – Carlisle London. This should be considered further ECML- WCML alongside the Carlisle – Newcastle link when link. assessing the possibility of developing a W9/ W10 link between the ECML and WCML (again to aid engineering access).

Table 7.19: Gauge clearance options: other potential short sea routes

No Option Indicative Further work Recommendations description costs proposed 6 All other To be Dependent on Detailed information on additional freight fl ows potential short assessed demand being that would be generated by gauge clearing sea routes on a route agreed a route would be required before new gauge highlighted on by route clearance schemes can be assessed. Figure 6.3 basis once If the route is at least W8 then it is suitable for demand is well wagons. established.

84 85 8. Stakeholder consultation

8.1 Introduction 8.1.3 Industry Stakeholder Management 8.2 How you can contribute 8.3 Response date 8.1.1 Group (SMG) 8.2.1 8.3.1 Consultation with stakeholders within and The SMG consists of representatives from We welcome contributions to assist us in This RUS will have the standard formal outside the rail industry is essential to the freight train operators, ATOC, Department developing this RUS. consultation period of 12 weeks. The deadline successful development of a RUS. Close for Transport, Transport Scotland, Welsh for receiving responses is therefore 24 8.2.2 involvement of stakeholders helps to ensure Assembly Government, Transport for London, November 2006. Earlier responses would be Specifi c consultation questions have not that: the Rail Freight Group, the Freight Transport very much appreciated in order to maximise been set as we would appreciate comments Association and the Offi ce of Rail Regulation the time available to us to react and respond in ■ the widest range of options is considered on the content of the document as a whole. (as an observer). the fi nal RUS document. Particular reference should, however, be ■ the resulting decision approaches This group meets regularly, acting as a made in responses to the options we have 8.3.2 optimality steering group for the RUS. Although formal recommended as solutions for the identifi ed Consultation responses can be submitted ■ there is earlier delivery of the solution. presentations are made to SMG of work done, gaps. either electronically or by post to the the emphasis is openness in discussion and, 8.1.2 addresses below: wherever possible, issues were addressed by According to Network Rail’s network licence: more informal working groups. [email protected] 3(a) the licence holder shall develop a draft 8.1.4 Wider Stakeholder Group (WSG) route utilisation strategy in consultation with: Freight RUS Consultation Response The WSG is a larger, and hence necessarily National RUS Consultation Manager (i) providers and potential providers of more formal, group than the SMG. Network Rail services relating to railways Representatives are invited from: 40 Melton Street ( ii) funders and potential funders of ■ Rail Freight Group members London NW1 2EE services relating to railways ■ Regional Assembly members (iii) the Rail Passengers’ Council or such ■ Regional Development Agencies other public body or bodies as may be performing the Council’s duties, other ■ Local authorities

representatives of persons using ■ Elected members. services for the carriage of passengers by railway, and representatives of This group exists to ensure that stakeholders persons using services for the carriage beyond the rail industry have the opportunity to of goods by railway contribute to the RUS process and are briefed and prepared to make best use of the formal (iv) the Secretary of State [for Transport] consultation period. The fi rst meetings were and, in relation to a route utilisation held in London in February and Scotland in strategy that involves Scotland-only March 2006. These were followed by meetings services or cross-border services, in York, Birmingham, Wales and a further the Scottish Minister. meeting in London in June and July 2006.

Network Licence Condition 7 as modifi ed 10 8.1.5 Individual briefi ngs June 2005 Meetings have also been held on an individual In order to deliver this obligation in an effective basis with a number of key stakeholders to and consistent manner, two consultative understand their aspirations and concerns. groups were established for the Freight RUS.

86 87 Appendix A: Figure A1: Coal trains per day in 2004/05 Demand in base year and

existing network Key

0 - 4.9 trains per day

5 - 9.9 trains per day

10-14.9 trains per day

Inverness 15 or more trains per day

Aberdeen Fort William

Perth

Edinburgh Glasgow

Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle

York Hull

Manchester Immingham Liverpool

Crewe

Norwich

Birmingham

Ipswich Felixstowe

Swindon Reading Bristol

Cardiff

Ashford

Southampton

Exeter

Plymouth

Trains in one direction.

88 89 Figure A2: Metals trains per day in 2004/05 Figure A3: Intermodal trains per day in 2004/05

Key Key

0 - 4.9 trains per day 5 - 9.9 trains per day

5 - 9.9 trains per day 10-14.9 trains per day

10-14.9 trains per day 15 or more trains per day

Inverness 15 or more trains per day Inverness

Aberdeen Aberdeen Fort William Fort William

Perth Perth

Edinburgh Edinburgh Glasgow Glasgow

Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle

York York Hull Hull

Manchester Immingham Manchester Immingham Liverpool Liverpool

Crewe Crewe

Norwich Norwich

Birmingham Birmingham

Ipswich Ipswich Felixstowe Felixstowe

Swindon Swindon Reading Reading Bristol Bristol

Cardiff Cardiff

Ashford Ashford

Southampton Southampton

Exeter Exeter

Plymouth Plymouth

Trains in one direction. Trains in one direction.

90 91 Figure A4: Construction trains per day 2004/05 Figure A5: Gross tonnage levels in 2005/06 (Freight only)

Key Key

0 - 4.9 trains per day below 3 million tonnes

5 - 9.9 trains per day 3-5.9 million tonnes

10-14.9 trains per day 6-8.9 million tonnes

Inverness Inverness 15 or more trains per day 9-11.9 million tonnes

12 million tonnes or more Aberdeen Aberdeen Fort William

Fort William

Perth Perth

Glasgow Edinburgh Edinburgh Glasgow

Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle Carlisle

York York Hull Hull

Manchester Immingham Liverpool Liverpool Manchester Immingham

Crewe Crewe

Norwich Norwich

Birmingham Birmingham C

Ipswich Ipswich Felixstowe Felixstowe

Swindon Swindon LONDON Reading Swansea Reading Bristol Bristol Cardiff Cardiff Ashford Ashford

Southampton Southampton

Exeter Exeter

Plymouth Plymouth

Trains in one direction. Annual tonnage shown in both directions

92 93 Figure A6: Gauge envelopes and container sizes Figure A7: 2004/05 gauge clearance map (indicative)

Key

W6 Gauge

W7 Gauge

W8 Gauge

Inverness W9 Gauge

Key W10 Gauge Aberdeen Fort William W6 W10 but not W9 Gauge W7 UIC GC ‘European Gauge’ W8 Perth W9 W10

W12 Edinburgh UIC Glasgow

Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle

York Hull

Manchester Immingham Liverpool

Crewe

Table A1: Gauge requirements for container sizes Norwich Birmingham Minimum gauge

Length Height Width required on standard Ipswich height wagon Felixstowe Deep sea boxes Swindon Reading 8ft 6in (a handful of 8ft 20ft 2.44m W8 Bristol units exist) Cardiff

40ft 8ft 6in 2.44 - 2.5m W8 Ashford

40ft 9ft 6in 2.44 - 2.5m W10 Southampton Exeter Most common short sea boxes Plymouth 40ft or 45ft 9ft or 9ft 2in 2.5 - 2.55m W10 - W12 40ft or 45ft 9ft 6in 2.5 - 2.55m W10 - W12 40ft or 45ft 8ft 6in or 8ft 9in 2.5 - 2.55m W8 - W9 A review of gauge capability is being undertaken during this and next year. The programme which is agreed with the ORR, will verify the accuracy of published data for this measure.

94 95 Appendix B: Assumptions Business Driver Assumption Factor Comments Aggregates National Deputy Prime Minister’s offi ce average production of aggregates underlying forecast growth forecast 2001-2015 Aggregates W. Mids Exhaustion of locally produced stone leading to longer “railable journey”. Strong regional economic activity Table B1: Bottom Up: Ten year demand forecasts to 2014/15: Sub market Aggregates Northern Very strong regional growth and driver summary construction activity in Manchester and Leeds continuing Business Driver Assumption Factor Comments Aggregates London Accounts for 30% national activity, ESI Coal Electricity demand out-grows the rest of the country too ESI Coal Change in electricity supply Aggregates Special Market New EU road noise reduction leading to increasing demand for ESI Coal Carbon targets S. Wales gritstone for surfacing Domestic deep mined Progressive closure years 1-5. Daw Mill, Harworth, Thoresby and Kellingley remain and pick Aggregates Special Market Demand for ballast from LUL up some of the volume shortfall Aggregates Housing Various materials such as stone, Assumptions: Power station closures Tilbury, Kingsnorth, Ironbridge blocks, sand and cement Industrial Coal Construction general Used for manufacture of cement Building Materials Special/ Exceptional Customer intelligence outside London Building Materials Housing Various materials such as stone, Industrial Coal Chemicals Coal for ICI chemical plants blocks, sand and cement Industrial Coal General Industrial Building Materials Construction general Mainly commodities used for Coal cement, or fi nished product Metals: interworks Company factor Business Driver Comments feedstock Industrial Minerals Construction General Mainly commodities used for Metals: UK home market Domestic Cambridge Econometrics forecast cement, or fi nished product; sand, consumption 2002-2021 average used in SRA lime, etc. market study Industrial Minerals Glass Sand or glass Metals: rail Special market Network Rail Business Plan renewal rates Industrial Minerals Chemical market Limestone used in Cheshire chemicals industry Metals: UK export Trade trend Consistent with export trend 1995- 2004 Industrial Minerals Lime Metals: UK import Domestic Industrial Minerals Special market Clay used for pottery consumption Industrial Minerals Special market Clay used for paper Metals: Scrap Economic trend Economic trend, reduced scrap Waste Domestic waste Domestic waste reducing metals due to generally lower constantly as a result of land use manufacturing level planning and taxation Primary Aluminium Market judgement Consistent with OEF forecast for Waste Spoil Following general activity; project industry DTI based jobs Metals: raw materials Production Petroleum Aggregates National Bitumen for road surfacing ore Petroleum Railway Industry Fuel for trains, including EWS Metals: raw materials Production limestone Petroleum Aviation Fuels for planes. White paper passenger numbers 2005-2015 Metals: raw materials Production mid scenario coal Petroleum Primary Products Petroleum Crude Oil Refi nery capacity high none will close

To protect the commercial confi dentiality of the FOCs, the ‘Assumption’ and ‘Factor’ colums are not shown.

96 97 Table B2: Freight forecast assumptions: Table B4: ESI coal key Base Case assumptions Bottom up and top down assumptions Bottom up only General Factors: Domestic deep mined Progressive closure years 1-5. Daw Mill, Harworth, Thoresby Assumption Bottom Up Top Down and Kellingley remain and pick up some of volume shortfall GDP forecast Treasury GDP fi ve year defl ator GB FM standard Aire & Trent Valley power station import sourcing. Remaining shortfall in domestic ESI coal production picked up by projected forward assumptions. east coast ports: Immingham/ Hull/ Redcar/ Tyne/ Blyth. Anglo –Scottish volumes from Ayrshire and Hunterston drop back to Changes in HGV maximum weight Not Included Not included broadly 2004/05 levels, east coast ports pick up shortfall Lorry road user charging Not Included Not included Power station closures by 2014/15 Tilbury, Kingsnorth Signifi cant reduction in Channel Tunnel access Included Included Ironbridge charges No increase in mean train lengths/ other Included Included productivity gains Additional rail-connected warehousing Excluded Additional 2.2 million m² Table B5: ESI coal burn estimates

Railway infrastructure enhancements 2009: W10 Gauge clearance from 2009: W10 Gauge Study/ Scenario ESI Coal Burn 2014/15 (or nearest quote year)(mt) Haven Ports to ECML/Yorkshire clearance from Haven terminals ports to ECML/ Yorkshire DTI: UK energy and CO2 emissions projections: February 42.9 (2015) terminals + W10 2006: Favourable to coal scenario. Total ESI market Southampton – WCML DTI: UK energy and CO2 emissions projections: February 37.9 (2015) (Worked as Sensitivity 3) 2006: Favourable to gas scenario. Total ESI market DTI: Coal production outlook March 2004: High coal burn 56 (2012) scenario. Total ESI market Table B3: Deep sea intermodal: Base Case assumptions DTI: Coal production outlook March 2004: Low coal burn 30 (2012) scenario. Total ESI market Assumption Bottom up Top down Bottom up base case: ESI coal tonnes lifted to rail only 46 (2014/15) Overall market growth 5% per annum 3.75% per annum Bottom up Sensitivity 1: ESI coal tonnes lifted to rail only 48 (2014/15) Rail market share 10 year growth rate to match growth of Output of model Context Note: Rail currently has a market share of the mainland UK ESI coal market of 90%. ‘last’ 10 years 1996 to 2005. (17% in 1996 to 25% in 2005). Company Neutral Revenue Support Confi dential Total available budget reduced (CNRS)/ to £11 million per annum. Table B6: Flue gas desulphurisation equipment at UK power stations Station Owner Capacity: No. of Committed FGD Status Opt- Opt-outs GW units FGD: GW in Rail Environmental benefi t Procurement Schemes (REPS) Aberthaw RWE 1.5 3 1.5 Committed 1.5 Cockenzie Scottish Power 1.2 2 No 1.2 Committed enhancement schemes 2009: W10 Gauge clearance from Haven 2009: W10 gauge clearance Ports to ECML/Yorkshire terminals from Haven Ports to ECML/ Cottam EDF 2 2 2 Under construction 2 Yorkshire terminals + W10 Didcot A RWE 2 4 No 2 Southampton – WCML (worked Drax Drax 4 6 4 Operating 4 as Sensitivity 3) Eggborough British Energy 2 4 1 Under construction 2 Start date of step changes in port capacity: Ferrybridge SSE 1 2 1 Committed 1 Felixstowe South 2009 Before 2014 Ferrybridge SSE 1 2 No 1 Bathside Bay 2010 Before 2014 Fiddler’s Ferry SSE 2 4 1.5 Committed 2 Fifoot Point MBO 0.4 3 0.4 Operating 0.4 Shell Haven Not in base Before 2014 (worked as Sensitivity 2) Ironbridge EON 1 2 No 1 Kingsnorth EON 2 4 No 2 Longannet Scottish Power 2.3 4 2.3 Committed 2.3 Ratcliffe EON 2 4 2 Operating 2 Rugeley International Power 1 2 1 Committed 1 Tilbury RWE 0.9 3 No 0.9 West Burton EDF 2 4 2 Operating 2 Total 28.3 55 18.7 20.2 8.1

Source: Mott MacDonald/McCloskey’s for Network Rail.

98 99 Table B7: UK coal import facilities Figure B1: Key import coal routes and coal loading points Port Max Vessel Capacity Projected capacity increase. Dead weight Million tonnes tonnes (DWT) 2005

Redcar 165,000 3 Projected increase in capacity for power station coal of 2m tonnes Key Immingham HIT 120,000 6 Building of HIT 2 has increased current total capacity of HIT terminals to 10 million tonnes. Power stations

Immingham IBT 120,000 1 Major ESI coal import facilities Immingham Dock 30,000 2 Core east coast ports supply routes Blyth 25,000 0 Capacity to be increased by 2 million tonnes in 2007/08. Base case 18 additional trains per weekday over 2004/05 base Tyne Dock 30,000 0.65 Capacity to be increased to 3mt per year by end of 2006/07, 4m Inverness Core Anglo Scottish supply route by 2007/08, increasing max vessel Dwt to 50,000. Sensitivity 1: 13 additional trains per weekday over 2004/05 base Hunterston 200,000 7 Aberdeen Other key import supply routes Port Talbot 165,000 2 Fort William Brigg Line Leith 100,000 2 Leith tonnages may increase by 1mt in 2006/07 but there could be short term growth as Cockenzie has opted out of FGD fi tment. Surface mines and disposal points Bristol Portbury 100,000 5.5 Plans in place to upgrade to 8 million tonne. Perth Deep mines Liverpool 60,000 5 Hull 30,000 2 Could rise to 5 million tonnes total capacity.

Newport 30,000 2 Hunterston Edinburgh Kingsnorth 25,000 5 Glasgow Tilbury 25,000 3.5

Source: DTI Coal Production Outlook: 2004 – 16. Updated by Network Rail. Blyth Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle Tyne Dock

Redcar

York AIRE VALLEY Hull

Manchester Immingham Liverpool TRENT VALLEY

Crewe

Norwich

Birmingham

Ipswich Felixstowe

Swindon Didcot Bristol

Cardiff

Ashford

Southampton

Exeter

Plymouth

100 101 Figure B2: Additional trains by 2014/15: Construction Figure B3: Additional trains by 2014/15: Metals

Key Key

Reduction of 0 to 1 trains per day Reduction of 6 to 7.9 trains per day

No Change in traffic Reduction of 4 to 5.9 trains per day

0 to 0.9 additional trains per day Reduction of 2 to 3.9 trains per day

Inverness 1 to 1.9 additional trains per day Inverness Reduction of 0 to 1.9 trains per day

2 to 2.9 additional trains per day No Change in traffic Aberdeen Aberdeen Fort William Fort William 3 to 3.9 additional trains per day 0 to 1.9 additional trains per day

4 to 4.9 additional trains per day 2 to 3.9 additional trains per day

Perth 5 to 5.9 additional trains per day Perth 4 to 5.9 additional trains per day

Edinburgh Edinburgh Glasgow Glasgow

Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle

York York Hull Hull

Manchester Immingham Manchester Immingham Liverpool Liverpool

Crewe Crewe

Norwich Norwich

Birmingham Birmingham

Ipswich Ipswich Felixstowe Felixstowe

Swindon Swindon Reading Reading Bristol Bristol

Cardiff Cardiff

Ashford Ashford

Southampton Southampton

Exeter Exeter

Plymouth Plymouth

Additional trains are single direction Additional trains are single direction

102 103 Table B8: 2005/06 Growth by commodity compared to base year Figure B4: Additional trains by 2014/15: Petroleum Gross tonne kilometre growth 2005/06 against 2004/05 Commodity 04/05 05/06 Growth (%)

Key Coal ESI 13,834 16,698 21% Coal Other 875 938 7% Reduction of 0.5 to 0.9 trains per day Domestic/Maritime Intermodal 9,430 10,916 16% Reduction of 0 to 0.4 trains per day European Intermodal 714 634 -11% No Change in traffic European Conventional 507 399 -21% Inverness 0 to 0.49 additional trains per day European Automotive 56 45 -20% 0.5 to 0.99 additional train per day Aberdeen Enterprise 2,293 2,256 -2% Fort William 1 to 1.49 additional trains per day Construction Materials 5,414 5,664 5% Industrial Materials 1,767 1,561 -12%

Perth Steel 5,191 4,468 -14% Iron Ore 312 332 6% Petroleum 2,463 2,556 4% Edinburgh Glasgow Mail and Premium Logistics 137 229 67% Domestic Waste 515 532 3% Chemicals 29 16 -44% Stranraer Carlisle Newcastle Domestic Automotive 901 676 -25% General Merchandise 835 382 -54% Other 415 458 10% Total 45,689 48,761 6.7%

York Hull

Manchester Immingham Liverpool

Crewe

Norwich

Birmingham

Ipswich Felixstowe

Swindon Reading Bristol

Cardiff

Ashford

Southampton

Exeter

Plymouth

Additional trains are single direction

104 105 Applicable study Freight RUS Reading area Renewals scheme & Humber RUS & Humber RUS Freight RUS Even. peak Off peak CUI index (highest direction & highest point on section) Morn peak 53 46 51 RUS ECML Planned WTT paths 2004/05 21 75 61 59 Scotland RUS 16 Sb Av. Actual 2004/05 Av. Thurs daily average (max actual) Recorded Dumfries 13(25) 14 50 43 45 Anglia RUS -37 20 (31) -50 -50 27 (36) 27 38 (52) 48 25 61 30 66 39 66 53 Anglia RUS 53 62 62 Cross London RUS Cross London RUS -31 17 (25) 24 73 53 77 Anglia RUS -31 17 (25) 24 47 32 46 Anglia RUS -51 28 (37) 48 65 38 60 Anglia RUS Forecast wkday actual av. uncon- strained 2014/15 40 55 62 21 18 6(10) 14 47 49 54 Scotland RUS 37 37 55 c fi ows driver 1 57 37 (46) 60 31 41 36 Freight RUS 11 28 14 (19) 2,6 + General 24 41 (17) 11 27 (32) 14 443 263 48 17 62 52 15 (30) 40 29 -32 59 Freight RUS 23 (26) Freight RUS 18 30 76 84 28 85 30 Freight RUS 28 Freight RUS 51,5 34construction 36traf 14 (18)of existing 23 (28)Longannet fl 27 Nb 32 61 49 49 RUS ECML eld 2,6 fi – Carlisle station Petteril eld - Forest Gate 2,6 fi Route / Section Key growth Junction Junction GSW: Falkland yard – Annbank Junction Falkland yard – GSW: Mauchline Junction – Gretna Gretna Settle and Carlisle: Petteril Bridge Junction – Settle Junction Settle Junction – Skipton Whitehall 1Carlisle –Lancaster (data sample Carnforth – Upperby Bridge Junction) Junction – Winsford South Weaver 28Manchester Piccadilly - Deansgate 2,3,6 StationStafford CentralRugby – Wembley 15 (23) 69 - 74 2,3,6Sutton Park Line 52 (67)Leamington-Coventry-Nuneaton (recording point-Coventry Station) 29 19Millbrook – Southampton Central Eastleigh 2,6 JunctionEastleigh – Winchester Worting 3 Junction – Basingstoke Bas. Worting 73 3 2,3,6 Junction G.W.R. 17(22) 60 65 35-37 3 83 76 61 33-35 33 29 (38) 32(40) 60 60 52(67) 27 (34) Freight RUS 66 41 49 74 Freight RUS 35 89 48 45 40 79 48 RUS North West Joan Croft Junction – Hambleton 35 40 63 Junction – ScunthorpeWrawby 4 56 34 39 84Hull Hedon Road – Hessle Junction 54 40 Freight RUS Junction Yd – Tursdale Tyne 4 Freight RUS 4 Freight RUS 43 Freight RUS GE: Ipswich yard – Halifax Junction 17 31(44) 4 59 2,6 Stratford – Channelsea Nth JunctionChannelsea North – Camden Road Junction 15 (30) 2,6 46 (62) 65 2,6 JunctionHaughley– Kennett – Ely West ECML: Peterborough Crescent Junction 5 18– Doncaster Loversall Carr Junction 64ECML: Hare Park Junction – South Kikby 34Junction 30 JunctionChinley East Junction – Dore West 76 General 34 42 84 30Larbert -Stirling RUS ECML 85 34 Yorks Freight RUS & Yorks Freight RUS & Re-routeing Reading West JunctionReading West Didcot East Junction Leamington 3 3 30-32 46- 48 22 (30) 36 (46) 39 58 61 42 69 44 73 42 Freight RUS/ Freight RUS Junction – PeterboroughEly West 5 31 23(41) 28 32 34 34 Anglia RUS Bridge GE: Halifax Junction – Shen GE: Shen GE: Forest Gate – Stratford 2,6, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 J A K B D D C 11 10 12 13 EF GH Table C1: Key capacity gaps against 2014/15 base forecasts Table Freight RUS capacity gap No. Anglo-Scottish route (Sensitivity 1) (Base Case) Valley Aire/Trent North East Ports – West Coast Main Line (Base Case) West Midlands (Sensitivity 3) Southampton to West Haven Ports to London (Base Case) Hope Valley (Base Case) Hope Valley Scottish Coal (Base Case) Haven Ports to the North East (Base Case) Appendix C: Key capacity gaps (all numbers trains in busiest direction)

106 107 Assumptions: Glossary ■ Key constraints identifi ed against present passenger service base. Where information is available e.g. emerging 2008 WCML specifi cation, this has been considered. CNRS Company Neutral Revenue Support CTRL Channel Tunnel Rail Link Notes: DfT Department for Transport ■ Forecasts consist of bottom up forecast for Down Generally direction away from London 2014-15 overlay. Where top down fi gures differ signifi cantly a range is presented. ECML East Coast Main Line ESI Coal Electricity Supply Industry Coal ■ The bottom up forcasts do not at present include any additional light engine F2N Felixstowe to Nuneaton movements FGD Flue gas desulphurisation

■ “Planned” represents a sample of FOC Freight Operating Company Thursday booked WTT paths (highest GEML Great Eastern Main Line direction is quoted). Winter 2004/05 GBFM Great Britain Freight Model timetable base. HIT Humber International Terminal ■ CUI data: As at winter 2004/05. morn. HTA High capacity coal wagons peak: 06:30 – 09:30, off peak: 09:30 IBS Intermediate Block Signal – 16:30, evening peak: 16:30 – 19:30. NLL North London Line Key growth drivers: NRDF Network Rail Discretionary Fund 1: Coal: Sensitivity 1 : Hunterston/Ayrshire Up Generally direction towards London – Aire/Trent Valley RA Route Availability – a system to determine which types of locomotive and rolling- 2: Deep sea intermodal: Base Case: Haven stock may travel over a route, normally governed by the strength of underline Ports – the Midlands/the North West/ bridges in relation to axle-loads and speed Scotland REPS Rail Environmental Benefi t Procurement Schemes

3: Deep sea intermodal: Sensitivity 3: RUS Route Utilisation Strategy Southampton – WCML (W10 cleared) SHML South Humberside Main Line

4: Coal: Base Case: east coast ports SRA Strategic Rail Authority (Immingham/Hull/Redcar/Tyne/Blyth) – T & H Tottenham & Hampstead Line Aire/Trent valley TEU Twenty foot Equivalent Unit – standard measure of intermodal containers

5: Deep sea intermodal: Base Case: Haven TfL Transport for London Ports – Yorkshire/the North East TPD Trains per day

6: Deep sea intermodal: Sensitivity 2: Shell WCML West Coast Main Line Haven – the Midlands/the North West/ WTT Working Timetable Scotland & Haven Ports – the Midlands/the North West/Scotland

108 109 Network Rail 40 Melton Street London NW1 2EE

Tel: 020 7557 8000

www.networkrail.co.uk 703/september 2006