DOCSLIB.ORG

Potential Risks to Integration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Potential Risks to Integration Potential Risks to Integration The principal risks are considered to be: · Delay to granting of required powers (hybrid Bill and Transport and Works Act Order) · Delay to/or misalignment of programme timelines · Changes to cost and programme commitments resulting from industry affordability and deliverability reviews · Complexity of Railway Systems interactions between HS2 and EWR2 HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 9 of 357 2 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2.1 Definitions The following definitions have been used throughout the text. Term Definition Base Scheme The scheme for HS2 contained in the hybrid Bill EWR2 Cross Network Rail generic cross section Section Network Rail proposed scheme for the East West Rail EWR2 Scheme project, Phase 2 HS2/EWR2 The scheme that would accommodate HS2 and EWR2 Integrated meeting the requirements of both railways Scheme Table 2 – Definitions 2.2 Abbreviations The following abbreviations and acronyms have been used throughout the text. Acronym Explanation AP Additional Provision ASPRO Asset Protection ATFS Autotransformer Feeder Site ATS Autotransformer Site CRD Client Requirements Document EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility EWR East West Rail EWR2 East West Rail Project Phase 2 GRIP Governance of Railway Investment Projects HS2/EWR2 The Integration Project at the interface of HS2 and EWR2 HS2/ HS2L High Speed 2/ High Speed 2 Limited IMD Infrastructure Maintenance Depot LoD Limits of Deviation MCJ Engineers Line Reference for the Marylebone Claydon (2,3,4) Junction Line NR Network Rail HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 10 of 357 Acronym Explanation OHLE / Overhead Line Equipment OLE ONW On Network Works OXD Engineers Line Reference for the Oxford to Bletchley line PDS Project Definition Statement PPA Protective Provisions Agreement Engineers Line Reference for the Princes Risborough to PRA Aylesbury line TWAO Transport and Works Act Order Waste management facilities in Calvert Green, WMF Buckinghamshire Table 3 – Abbreviations HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 11 of 357 3 INTRODUCTION 3.1 Background 3.1.1 This report concerns the interface of two railway projects, HS2 and EWR2. HS2 is a planned high-speed railway, Phase 1 of which will directly link the city centres of London and Birmingham. EWR is a planned upgrade of the existing conventional railway connecting East Anglia with central, southern and western England. 3.1.2 The geographical scope of Phase 2 the East West Rail project is as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 – Geographical Scope of the East West Rail Phase 2 Project 3.1.3 HS2 has an interface with the existing Aylesbury to Claydon Junction line between Quainton and Calvert for a distance of approximately 8km. HS2 crosses the existing Oxford to Bletchley line near Calvert. 3.1.4 The alignment proposed for HS2 would sever the existing Aylesbury line in two locations south of Calvert and would sever the existing Oxford line where HS2 crosses at Calvert. These three severing points are shown in Figure 2. HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 12 of 357 Figure 2 – Conflict between the existing EWR and the proposed HS2 lines 3.1.5 To resolve these conflicts, prior to deposit of the hybrid Bill, HS2 developed a scheme that would accommodate the two railways. This comprised realignment of a section of the Aylesbury line to the east of its current position. It also involved raising the level of the Oxford line in the Calvert area and moving it northwards so that the HS2 line could pass below, unobstructed. 3.1.6 The schematic arrangement of the lines included in the hybrid Bill is shown in Figure 3. HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 13 of 357 Figure 3 – HS2 and East West Rail Arrangement at Calvert 3.2 Respective Application for Powers 3.2.1 Both projects are seeking powers to allow construction to begin. HS2 has submitted a hybrid Bill and is seeking Parliamentary approval while Network Rail is preparing an application for a Transport and Works Act Order. Although the development of HS2 through the hybrid Bill acknowledges and allows for EWR, the development of EWR to date does not acknowledge HS2. 3.2.2 Under the hybrid Bill HS2L will acquire powers to build the high speed railway and, in addition, that part of the Aylesbury Line in the limited area south of Calvert where it runs closest to HS2. Further south HS2 and the Aylesbury Line diverge, the space between them becoming less constrained. Powers for upgrade of the Aylesbury Line in this area are being sought through the Transport and Works Act Order, which is promoted by Network Rail. 3.2.3 Also under the hybrid Bill, HS2 has sought powers to build a section of the Oxford Line in the Calvert area on a realigned section to the north of the existing line. Acquisition of powers by the respective projects is shown in Figure 4. HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 14 of 357 Figure 4 – Acquisition of Powers 3.2.4 At the time of publication of this report (January 2016) the hybrid Bill is in its Parliamentary committee stages. Royal assent is planned for December 2016. The Transport and Works Act Order, promoted by Network Rail, is expected to be submitted in 2016. 3.3 Aylesbury Line – Accommodation by HS2 3.3.1 In the section north of Quainton, where the Aylesbury Line and the HS2 lines are at their closest, powers are being sought by HS2 through the hybrid Bill to move the Aylesbury Line eastwards to accommodate the high speed alignment. Because of physical features such as SSSI’s (Sheephouse Wood), landfills, etc. along the proposed railway corridor, the width available to accommodate both Railways is constrained. 3.3.2 The two projects are being developed separately and there is a risk that one will proceed to construction ahead of the other. Successive construction would be technically challenging given the constrained working corridor. Close proximity of adjacent lines would mean that construction of the re-doubled MCJ3 line would prove challenging next to an operational High Speed Railway. 3.4 Oxford Line – Accommodation by HS2 3.4.1 Also included in the Network Rail proposals for EWR is an upgrade of the Oxford Line. This line would cross above HS2 at Calvert and run adjacent to the proposed HS2 infrastructure maintenance depot. In the HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 15 of 357 hybrid Bill HS2L based its scheme on the understanding that this Network Rail upgrade would be operational at the time of HS2 construction. As such it sought powers to build an elevated section of the Oxford Line to the north of the existing alignment (offline) thus allowing the HS2 line to run beneath it. This arrangement allowed construction of the scheme without disturbing the operational Oxford Line. 3.4.2 It is now more likely that works for HS2 will precede EWR in the Calvert area. Consequently there may be no need for an offline re-alignment of the Oxford Line at Calvert. Confirmation through development of an integrated programme could yield a capital cost saving. 3.5 Geographical Definition of the HS2/EWR2 Interface Area 3.5.1 The geographical scope covers the proposed works at the interface between the HS2 and EWR2 projects. In terms of HS2 chainage and existing features this is as follows. Line Reference Limits From Quainton in the south to West Street bridge (HS2 Aylesbury Line chainage 71+500m to 81+500m), covering both HS2 and Aylesbury Line corridors From Charndon overbridge (carrying Main Street) in the west to existing Middle Claydon No. 8 footpath level Oxford Line crossing (near Queen Catherine Road) in the east, covering the Oxford line Table 4 – Geographical Limits of the Interface Area This area is shown in the following drawing extracts. Drawing Number Title C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020- Main Line Sheet 27 000008 Chainage 70+400 to 76+800 C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020- Main Line Sheet 28 000009 Chainage 76+800 to 83+200 Table 5 – Interface Area Drawing References Calvert and Quainton, as shown on the plans, are approximately 18km and 11km north west of Aylesbury respectively. HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-PBR-REP-EMF-000002 Page 16 of 357 Figure 5 – C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020-000008 Extract from Main Line Sheet 27 Ch. 70+400 to 76+800 HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 17 of 357 Figure 6 – C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020-000009 Extract from Main Line Sheet 28 Ch. 76+800 to 83+200 HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003 Page 18 of 357 4 CURRENT STATUS OF THE TWO SCHEMES 4.1 EWR2 Scheme 4.1.1 The current scheme for the EWR2 project in the HS2/ EWR2 Interface Area does not consider HS2, i.e. EWR2 proposes to upgrade the existing infrastructure on the current MCJ and OXD alignments. It is defined on the 100000 series drawings in Appendix 2.2. They show the proposals for the OXD and the MCJ in the geographical area where HS2 and EWR2 would interface. 4.1.2 In order to deliver the NR requirements, a cross-section of the EWR2 twin track corridor with electrification was developed during the EWR2 feasibility stage. It is taken as a statement of NR’s spatial requirements along the OXD and MCJ corridors (i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Department for Transport
    Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Department for Transport 30 August 2017 Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Report OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Department for Transport’s information and use in relation to Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Business Case. Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 108 pages including the cover. Document history Job number: 5159267 Document ref: v4.0 Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Interim draft for client Rev 1.0 - 18/08/2017 comment Revised draft for client Rev 2.0 18/08/2017 comment Revised draft addressing Rev 3.0 - 22/08/2017 client comment Rev 4.0 Final 30/08/2017 Client signoff Client Department for Transport Project Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Document title Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme: KO1 Final Business Case Job no. 5159267 Copy no. Document reference Atkins Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme | Version 4.0 | 30 August 2017 | 5159267 2 Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Report OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL Table of contents Chapter Pages Executive Summary 7 1. Introduction 12 1.1. Background 12 1.2. Report Structure 13 2. Scope of the Appraisal 14 2.1. Introduction 14 2.2. Scenario Development 14 3. Timetable Development 18 3.1. Overview 18 4. Demand & Revenue Forecasting 26 4.1. Introduction 26 4.2. Forecasting methodology 26 4.3. Appraisal of Benefits 29 4.4.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Two: Full Speed Ahead?
    High Speed Two: Full Speed Ahead? The UK government has given the “green light” to the High Speed Two (HS2) rail project in its entirety, following the outcome of the Oakervee Review, ending months of speculation over the future of the scheme. Phase 2b of the project, linking Crewe to Manchester and Birmingham to Leeds via Sheffield, is subject to further review. It now forms part of an ambitious “High Speed North” integrated masterplan, including Northern Powerhouse Rail and other local rail improvements. What will this mean for landowners, occupiers and others who are directly affected by the HS2 scheme? Time will tell. However, the announcement is likely to be welcomed, as it provides certainty that the project will now proceed, although concerns over the long-term plans for delivery of Phase 2b will persist. HS2 Limited’s remit will be to “…focus solely on getting On all fronts, the government’s announcement gives phases 1 and 2A built on something approaching on time grounds for optimism. The government has pledged to learn and on budget” and, in respect of Phase 2b, new “delivery lessons from Phase 1 and improve how the project is being arrangements” will be put in place, but not before “…an delivered, highlighting the need for better communication and integrated plan for rail in the north” has been introduced. engagement with local communities impacted by the scheme. Grand plans no doubt, but close attention will be paid to the detail, including the enabling legislation required to deliver Major concerns will also remain over the delivery of the Phase 2a of the project and future plans for the design and scheme, including timescales for completion of each phase, delivery arrangements for Phase 2b.
    [Show full text]
  • Hampton Court to Berrylands / Oct 2015
    Crossrail 2 factsheet: Services between Berrylands and Hampton Court New Crossrail 2 services are proposed to serve all stations between Berrylands and Hampton Court, with 4 trains per hour in each direction operating directly to, and across central London. What is Crossrail 2? Crossrail 2 in this area Crossrail 2 is a proposed new railway serving London and the wider South East that could be open by 2030. It would connect the existing National Rail networks in Surrey and Hertfordshire with trains running through a new tunnel from Wimbledon to Tottenham Hale and New Southgate. Crossrail 2 will connect directly with National Rail, London Underground, London Overground, Crossrail 1, High Speed 1 international and domestic and High Speed 2 services, meaning passengers will be one change away from over 800 destinations nationwide. Why do we need Crossrail 2? The South West Main Line is one of the busiest and most congested routes in the country. It already faces capacity constraints and demand for National Rail services into Waterloo is forecast to increase by at least 40% by 2043. This means the severe crowding on the network will nearly double, and would likely lead to passengers being unable to board trains at some stations. Crossrail 2 provides a solution. It would free up space on the railway helping to reduce congestion, and would enable us to run more local services to central London that bypass the most congested stations. Transport improvements already underway will help offset the pressure in the short term. But we need Crossrail 2 to cope with longer term growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Management Case for High Speed 2
    Management Case for High Speed 2 1 Contents Introduction 4 Timetable to an operational railway 5 Governance 7 Planning 16 Risk Management 17 Issue Management 18 Change Control 19 Assurance 24 Benefit Realisation and Evaluation 25 Communication and Stakeholder Management 26 Building Capability and Capacity 28 Document Control 30 Annex A – Governance Framework for High Speed 2 31 Annex B – Remit letter 32 Annex C – DfT High Speed Rail Organogram 36 Annex D – HS2 Ltd Organogram 37 Annex E – Risk and Issue Management Strategy 38 Annex F - Integrated Assurance and Approvals Plan 53 Annex G – Benefit Realisation and Evaluation Strategy 73 Annex H - Communications Plan 84 Annex I – Resource Management Plan 111 2 Purpose 1. The purpose of the Management Case is to provide confidence that credible and robust arrangements are in place to deliver the High Speed 2 (HS2) programme to time, cost and quality. It includes: . an outline of the HS2 programme and how it will be delivered; . governance arrangements for the programme, including the role of the High Speed Rail Programme Board, the separate Project Boards and HS2 Ltd’s own governance; . details on the programme of work planned and how key milestones are tracked; . evidence on how risks and issues are managed and escalated; . detail on how change is and will be managed within the programme; . arrangements for programme and project assurance; . our communication plan for the programme, including how we engage with stakeholders; . how we plan to manage and record the benefits from the programme; . contingency and resource planning arrangements; and . document control arrangements. 2.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Two Limited
    High Speed Two Limited High Speed 2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) High Speed Two Limited H igh Speed 2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) March 2011 This r eport t akes i nto a ccount t he particular instructions and requirements of our client. It i s not i ntended f or a nd s hould n ot be relied u pon b y any third p arty a nd no responsibility i s u ndertaken to any t hird Ove Arup & Partners Ltd party The Arup Campus, Blythe Gate, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, West Midlands. B90 8AE Tel +44 (0)121 213 3000 Fax +44 (0)121 213 3001 www.arup.com Job number High Speed Two (HS2) High Speed 2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot Contents Page 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The December 2009 Report 1 1.2 Layout of this Report 1 2 Scope of Work, Methodology and Deliverables 2 2.1 Scope of Work 2 2.2 Meeting 1 2 2.3 Intermediate instructions 3 2.4 Meeting 2 3 3 Current Rail Operations and Future Developments 4 3.1 Context 4 3.2 Oxford - Bletchley 4 3.3 Aylesbury – Claydon Line 4 3.4 High Speed 2 5 3.5 Evergreen 3 5 3.6 East West Project 5 4 Functional Requirements 6 5 Site Location Options 7 5.1 Introduction 7 5.2 Quadrant 1 9 5.3 Quadrant 2 11 5.4 Quadrant 3 15 5.5 Quadrant 4 17 5.6 Sites on HS2 (north) 18 6 Cost Estimates 20 6.1 Matrix table for all Site options 20 7 Conclusion 21 8 Selected Option Development 23 8.1 General layout 23 8.2 Specific site details 27 8.3 Site operation 28 8.4 West end connections 29 9 Calvert Waste Plant 30 9.1 Rail Access 30 9.2 Heat and power generation 32 10 Use of site as a potential construction depot 33
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering High Speed 2 Major Project Report
    DELIVERING HIGH SPEED 2 MAJOR PROJECT REPORT New rail reality Developing a £33bn rail network to transform Uk’s north-soUth 03|2012 CONNECTIONS Special report | High Speed 2 03 | 2012 Foreword 04 infrastructure specialists who supply the rail Introduction industry. Many of them are already helping HS2 Ltd chief executive Alison Munro us deliver Crossrail, Thameslink, electrifica- updates on the project’s progress tion, and upgrades to major stations like Reading and Birmingham. But even the 08 largest of these schemes will be dwarfed in Technical challenge size by HS2. So the challenge is for British Why the current London to West firms to develop the expertise to compete Midlands route is the best for key high speed contracts, and help deliver Britain’s Victorian engineering HS2 on time and on budget. 12 pioneers built a railway that was the The government’s National Infrastructure Euston envy of the world. Such was their Plan makes clear the importance of a predict- vision and singular focus that able and transparent pipeline of infrastruc- Expanding the station presents a ❝ following the opening of the first intercity line regeneration opportunity ture projects that will help the private sector between Manchester and Liverpool in 1830, it invest and plan for the future. HS2 will form 14 took just a little over two decades to construct a a key element of that long-term pipeline, Euston masterplan national rail network which linked all our major providing certainty about future contracting cities, and transformed our economy. Designs for Euston station opportunities following the Yet the modern reality is that since the terminus are vital to the project completion of Crossrail in 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed Rail 2 (Phase Two) in Staffordshire Response to The
    High Speed Rail 2 (Phase Two) in Staffordshire Response to the Phase Two Route Consultation CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 QUESTION ONE ......................................................................................................................... 2 QUESTION TWO ...................................................................................................................... 17 QUESTION THREE .................................................................................................................. 19 QUESTION FOUR .................................................................................................................... 23 QUESTION FIVE ....................................................................................................................... 24 QUESTION SIX ......................................................................................................................... 25 QUESTION SEVEN .................................................................................................................. 26 QUESTION EIGHT .................................................................................................................... 33 QUESTION NINE ...................................................................................................................... 36 High Speed Rail 2 in Staffordshire Route Consultation Response Phase Two INTRODUCTION This is a joint response
    [Show full text]
  • High Speed 2: Spring 2020 Update
    House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts High Speed 2: Spring 2020 update Third Report of Session 2019–21 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 6 May 2020 HC 84 Published on 17 May 2020 by authority of the House of Commons The Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No. 148). Current membership Meg Hillier MP (Labour (Co-op), Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Chair) Mr Gareth Bacon MP (Conservative, Orpington) Kemi Badenoch MP (Conservative, Saffron Walden) Olivia Blake MP (Labour, Sheffield, Hallam) Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP (Conservative, The Cotswolds) Dame Cheryl Gillan MP (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham) Peter Grant MP (Scottish National Party, Glenrothes) Mr Richard Holden MP (Conservative, North West Durham) Sir Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) Craig Mackinlay MP (Conservative, Thanet) Shabana Mahmood MP (Labour, Birmingham, Ladywood) Gagan Mohindra MP (Conservative, South West Hertfordshire) Sarah Olney MP (Liberal Democrat, Richmond Park) Bridget Phillipson MP (Labour, Houghton and Sunderland South) Nick Smith MP (Labour, Blaenau Gwent) James Wild MP (Conservative, North West Norfolk) Powers Powers of the Committee of Public Accounts are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 148. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Local Area Plan for the Hs2 Interchange
    PROPOSED LOCAL AREA PLAN FOR THE HS2 INTERCHANGE & ADJOINING AREA INITIAL (REGULATION 18) CONSULTATION November 2014 This page is left intentionally blank CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 DUTY TO COOPERATE 4 3 FOCUS ON THE HS2 INTERCHANGE AND ADJOINING AREA 5 4 VISION 7 5 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 10 6 EVIDENCE 14 7 DELIVERY 16 8 PROGRAMME FOR THE LOCAL AREA PLAN 17 9 CONSULTATION QUESTIONS 18 This page is left intentionally blank 1. Introduction 1.1 Solihull Local Plan 2013 1.1.1 The Council has a statutory duty to prepare and review a local plan for its area, to address the spatial implications of economic, social and environmental change. A local plan can be reviewed in whole or in part to enable the Council to respond flexibly to changing circumstances. It must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. 1.1.2 The Solihull Local Plan was adopted in December 2013 and covers the period 2011 to 2028. Since the Local Plan was adopted a legal challenge has been heard and the judgment handed down in May 2014 requiring the parts of the Local Plan relating to the overall housing requirement and the safeguarded land in Tidbury Green to be remitted to the Planning Inspectorate for re-examination. In July 2014, the Council was given leave to appeal this judgment and the appeal is likely to be heard in November 2014. In the interim, the Council has agreed a policy position statement relating to the housing requirement for the Borough. 1.1.3 The remainder of the Local Plan 2013 is unaffected by this legal challenge and appeal and remains the adopted plan for Solihull.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Label: Public Development and Transport Policy Development & Scrutiny Panel Rail Developments in West Lothian Report By
    DATA LABEL: PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORT POLICY DEVELOPMENT & SCRUTINY PANEL RAIL DEVELOPMENTS IN WEST LOTHIAN REPORT BY HEAD OF OPERATION SERVICES A. PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to advise the Panel of future railway developments in West Lothian and beyond including a new Winchburgh Station, the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project (EGIP) and High Speed Rail. B. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Panel notes the: - 1) rephasing of the Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project to defer some of the previously announced interventions until later in Network Rail’s Control Period Five (2014 – 2019); 2) progress made towards developing a business case for a new Winchburgh station; and 3) opportunities that future High Speed Rail developments may provide for new services and connections in West Lothian. C. SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS I Council Values Focusing on our customers' needs; Making best use of our resources; and Working in partnership. II Policy and Legal (including Strategic Environmental Assessment, Equality None Issues, Health or Risk Assessment) III Implications for Scheme of None Delegations to Officers IV Impact on performance and None performance Indicators V Relevance to Single We make West Lothian an attractive place for Outcome Agreement doing business. 1 DATA LABEL: PUBLIC We realise our full economic potential with more and better employment. VI Resources - (Financial, None Staffing and Property) VII Consideration at PDSP Not applicable VIII Other consultations Consultation has taken place with Economic Development, Planning Services and SEStran D. TERMS OF REPORT Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Project (EGIP) The EGIP project was designed by Transport Scotland to increase capacity, reduce journey times and reduce the carbon footprint on the flagship Edinburgh – Glasgow via Falkirk High route.
    [Show full text]
  • East Midlands Route Study March 2016 Foreword March 2016 Network Rail – East Midlands Route Study 02
    Long Term Planning Process East Midlands Route Study March 2016 Foreword March 2016 Network Rail – East Midlands Route Study 02 We are delighted to present the East Midlands Route Study, a The work carried out within this Route Study enables us to identify document which sets out the building blocks of our strategic vision any gaps between the planned capability of the network in 2023, for delivering rail growth throughout the East Midlands over the and the capability required to meet forecast growth for passenger next 30 years. and freight demand. By also looking ahead over the longer term to 2043, we can build our understanding of capacity needs in the The East Midlands route serves many different rail markets, long future, making plans to deliver those in the most efficient manner. distance and commuting services operate regularly into London St Pancras International. Strong links between urban centres, such as Network Rail has led the development of the East Midlands Route Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, help people travel for work, Study which was published as a Draft for Consultation in January education and leisure. Being located at the heart of Britain’s rail 2015, and was open for consultation until April 2015. The study has network means the Route forms a key part of major cross country been developed using a collaborative approach with input from the and freight journeys. rail industry, local authorities, users and developers from the freight industry, the Department for Transport and Rail Delivery Group. Over recent years, the rail industry has seen consistent growth in demand and this is forecast to continue.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of High Speed 2 Dissenting Report by Lord Tony Berkeley House of Lords Former Deputy Chair of the Review Group Set up B
    A Review of High Speed 2 Dissenting Report by Lord Tony Berkeley House of Lords Former Deputy Chair of the Review Group set up by Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport in August 2019 5th January 2020 Review of High Speed 2 – Dissenting Report by Lord Tony Berkeley Page 1 Foreword By Tony Berkeley, former Deputy Chair of the Oakervee Review into HS2. In August 2019, the Secretary of State for Transport, Grant Shapps MP, appointed Douglas Oakervee to lead a report into ‘whether and how we should proceed’ with HS2 Ltd. ahead of the Notice to Proceed’ decision for Phase 1 (London to West Midlands) due by the end of 2019. Douglas Oakervee appointed me as Deputy Chair with a panel of experts to feed into and be consulted on the report’s conclusions. These appointments terminated on 31 October 2019 before the drafting was complete. I and panel members were shown a copy of the then final draft report in early November but were not given any opportunity to request significant changes. I was not asked to sign it as Deputy Chair and informed the Chairman that I did not support its draft conclusions. I wrote to Douglas Oakervee listing my concerns, including a bias towards accepting HS2’s evidence in preference to those of others, leading to what I considered to be a critical but supportive recommendation for HS2 Ltd. to continue. I do not believe that the evidence that the Review received supports this view. (See my letter in Appendix 2). Parts of the draft Review were subsequently leaked to the media in November, but it is not known whether the text leaked was and is the final text, and when and whether it was as submitted by Doug Oakervee to the Secretary of State for Transport.
    [Show full text]