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. new works are to incorporate corridors of dimensions as shown on that cross-section such that provision of twin tracks and OLE along the OXD and MCJ is not precluded, whether at first opening to the public or in the future). The generic EWR2 Cross-Section, which has been developed to a GRIP Stage 2 feasibility level of design, is as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7 – EWR2 twin track corridor with electrification (Dimensions in mm) 4.1.3 The 100000 series drawings together with the EWR2 Cross-Section in Figure 7 define the EWR2 Scheme.
4.2 Base Scheme
4.2.1 HS2L and Network Rail agreed that the version of the HS2 scheme design in the HS2/ EWR2 Interface Area to be used for the purposes of this HS2/ EWR2 integration exercise is the hybrid Bill scheme as amended by AP2 but together with the amended workable design for
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 19 of 357 the WMF sidings to the east (the latter formerly developed for and initially included in AP2 but transferred to AP4).
4.2.2 This scheme is referred to as the Base Scheme for the purpose of this report. Unlike the EWR2 scheme, this scheme seeks to accommodate both HS2 and EWR2. It is therefore taken as the starting point for developing an integrated design.
4.2.3 In the Base Scheme, the relationship between HS2 and the MCJ along this corridor is broadly as follows:
· from about HS2 chainage 72+200 to 76+400, HS2 and the MCJ are at broadly the same level, and the MCJ corridor is unaffected · from HS2 chainage 76+400 to approximately 77+700, including in the general vicinity of Sheephouse Wood, the two railways remain at roughly the same level, but the MCJ is shifted by about 1-2 metres eastwards, although without infringing upon Sheephouse Wood · from chainage 77+700 to Claydon Junction, the railways diverge increasingly, both vertically as HS2 descends to go under the OXD and the MCJ remains flat to meet the OXD, and horizontally as the MCJ4 chord is displaced eastwards to accommodate the HS2 IMD southern rail access.
4.2.4 The Base Scheme provides corridor width to the east of the HS2 alignment for the initial construction of a single track MCJ railway with passive provision for the later addition of a second track. This corridor width is provided over the northern part of the section from 76+400 northwards to Claydon.
4.2.5 The cross-section in the vicinity of Sheephouse developed for the Base Scheme is as shown on HS2 drawing number C241-PBR-RT-DSE-020- 000003 revision P01 dated 13/08/2013 entitled Calvert EWR – Aylesbury Line Cross Section at HS2 Chainage 77+294. This is shown on Figure 8 below. It shows that the Base Scheme accommodates two tracks on the MCJ, but does not actively consider lateral provision for future electrification of the MCJ. The assumption was that during HS2 construction, only one NR track on the MCJ3, the eastern of the two, would be operational, and that the second track would be provided in the future.
4.2.6 A set of drawings has been produced to show the Base Scheme in the HS2/ EWR2 Interface Area. They are the 200000 series of drawings. These are in Appendix 2.3.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 20 of 357 Figure 8 – C241-PBR-RT-DSE-020-000003, Calvert EWR – Aylesbury Line Cross Section at HS2 Chainage 77+294
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 21 of 357 4.2.7 The principal assumptions and/or constraints upon the HS2 Bill programme were as follows:
· EWR2 would be completed and operational before HS2 construction commenced, with (i) the OXD twin track and electrified, and (ii) the MCJ only a single track and not electrified. Accordingly the HS2 construction work would be carried out alongside an operational railway Rail access to the WMF had to be maintained throughout construction 4.2.8 A schedule of the HS2 documents and drawings that have been drawn on for this study is given in Appendix 3.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 22 of 357 5 REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Development of Network Rail’s Requirements for HS2 and EWR2
The development of NR’s requirements for HS2, culminating in the Protective Provisions Agreement (PPA), and subsequently of NR’s Client Requirements Document (CRD) for EWR2 is shown in the following table:
No Date Key document
1 11th October 2012 NR requirements (V1)
2 12th March 2013 HS2 v2.0 Requirements
3 9th April 2013 Network Rail HS2 Requirements 13-0409
4 15th May 2013 NR requirements (V2) Project Definition Statement (PDS) – 5 24th October 2013 Calvert East-West Rail 6 3rd February 2014 NR requirements (V3)
7 28th February 2014 Protective Provisions Agreement (PPA) NR’s Client Requirements Document 8 5th March 2014 (CRD) for EWR2 Table 6 – Development of Network Rail’s Requirements for HS2 and EWR2
5.2 HS2 v2.0 Requirements incorporating NR Requirements within the Base Scheme
The designs used for the HS2 hybrid Bill were based on the requirements in document number LWM-HS2-SA-WIS-000-000002 entitled ‘HS2 Project Requirements - Phase 1: Interim Preliminary Design V2.0’, dated 12th March 2013. Appendix A of the document contains the following requirements relating to the Interface Area:
Location Requirements
W12 + electrification clearances
Double track between Bicester Town & Bletchley Calvert – Remodelling of Claydon Junction and provision of 477m run- Infrastructure round loop for freight trains to and from Calvert (likely to be to be combined with 775m recessing loop) consistent with East West Rail 578m bi-directional passenger loop at Calvert project 100mph line speed between Bicester and Bletchley & 90mph between Claydon & Aylesbury Provision for extension of EWR services beyond Aylesbury Table 7 – HS2L’s Requirements for EWR2
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 23 of 357 5.3 NR requirements (V2) for HS2
Network Rail requirements for HS2 are contained in the spreadsheet entitled ‘Network Rail HS2 Requirements 13-0409’, dated 9th April 2013. A copy of this document is in Appendix 1.1. The main requirements in respect of EWR are as follows:
Ref. Requirements HS2 shall be integrated with EWR through collaboration with the EWR 1 project Double track shall be facilitated on the East West Rail (EWR), including the 2 Quainton to Calvert section. A run-round loop for freight trains of at least 477m in length shall be provided 3 for trains operating to and from Calvert. A bi-directional passenger loop suitable for trains of 578m shall be provided 4 at Calvert. A line speed of 100mph between Bicester and Bletchley and 90mph between 5 Claydon and Aylesbury shall be facilitated with the infrastructure. The risk assessment for all affected level crossings (Claydon Level Crossing (Queen Catherine Road) and the footpath crossings) shall be revised or 6 undertaken if not in existence to include all implications from HS2 and the necessary actions implemented. Sufficient clearance shall be included on the classic lines for electrification 7 OLE at all locations where HS2 intersects with the classic lines irrespective of whether electrification is currently installed or planned. Where HS2 runs adjacent to classic lines allowance shall be provided during the works and on completion for electrification of the classic lines irrespective 8 of whether electrification is currently installed or planned, for example avoiding stray currents and leaving space for OLE mast positions. Table 8 – NR’s Requirements v2 for EWR2 These were submitted to NR on 14th May 2013 as NR requirements (V2). With the exception of item 7, they were adopted by NR. (As regards item 7, HS2 stated their design is not anticipated to impact on the Claydon Level Crossing (Queen Catherine Road) as the HS2 works does not extend as far as the level crossing.)
5.4 HS2L’s Project Definition Statement for the Base Scheme
A copy of HS2L’s Project Definition Statement (PDS) C241 – Calvert East-West Rail, dated 24th October 2013 is in Appendix 1.2. This sets out NR requirements for this area as follows:
Ref. Requirements
1 Provision of W12 + electrification gauge clearance on all NR lines
2 Allowance for double track and electrification on the OXD
3 Passive provision for double track on the MCJ
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 24 of 357 Ref. Requirements
4 Details of the remodelling of Claydon Junction to be provided by project Provision of 477m run-round loop for freight trains to and from Calvert (likely 5 to be combined with 775m recessing loop) 6 Provision for a 578m bi-directional passenger loop at Calvert The alignment of the OXD and MCJ should permit lines speeds of 100mph 7 and 90mph respectively Table 9 – NR Requirements in HS2L’s PDS
5.5 Protective Provisions Agreement (PPA)
The PPA was signed on 28th February 2014. The requirements with respect to EWR include those in the following table (see Appendix 9 for extracts from the PPA):
Location Requirements
HS2 shall be integrated with EWR through collaboration with the EWR project. Double track shall be facilitated on the EWR, including the Quainton to Calvert section. A run-round loop for freight trains of at least 477m in length shall be provided for trains operating to and from Calvert. Passive provision shall be made for Up and Down freight loops suitable for 775m long trains between Claydon and Bletchlev. It shall be permissible for active provision of one of the 775m long loops (NR-HS2-0408) to satisfy the requirement for the 477m long run-round loop (NR-HS2-0409). Crossing Of East West Rail A bi-directional passenger loop suitable for trains of 578m shall be provided on the MCJ lines at Calvert. 100mph line speed between Bicester and Bletchley & 90mph between Claydon & Aylesbury HS2 will undertake risk assessment model to demonstrate if HS2 impacts on Claydon Level crossing. Any risks that are identified from the risk assessment will be agreed between HS2 and NR as to the action ownership. Compensated equivalent gradients on the Oxford to Bedford (OXD) track shall be no steeper than 0.67%. Compensated equivalent gradients on the Marylebone to Claydon (MCJ) track shall be no steeper than 0.90%. HS2 to provide minimum clearances in accordance with NR Conventional Rail track design standards for current and possible future Systems electrification Table 10 – PPA Requirements related to EWR
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 25 of 357 5.6 Network Rail’s Requirements dated 5th March 2014 for the East West Rail Phase 2 project
NR’s Client Requirements Document (CRD) for EWR2 is in Appendix 1.3. The CRD includes the following requirements in either the Infrastructure Specification (section 6 of the document) or the Electrification Specification (section 7 of the document:
Ref. Requirements
Route between Oxford and Bletchley (Denbigh Hall Junction) to be 1 electrified on behalf of the “Electric Spine” project (see section 7 below) New structures to be built to W10 AND W12+ (electrification) gauge 2 between Princes Risborough and Claydon Junction. Target line speed between Oxford – Bletchley - Bedford is 100mph unless 3 this is not realistically achievable due to infrastructure constraints or high cost. Target line speed between Claydon and Princes Risborough is 90mph 4 unless this is not realistically achievable due to infrastructure constraints or high cost. 5 Minimum Route Availability (RA) 10 or RA 12 if deliverable at marginal cost. Interface with HS2 at Claydon to be designed to take into account HS2 6 requirements in the area, in particular access to the HS2 maintenance depot and the alignment of the intersection bridge. Signalling control strategy to be developed in accordance with wider 7 national strategy. The route between Oxford and Bletchley (Denbigh Hall Junction) is to be 8 electrified as part of the East West works, under remit from the Electric Spine Project Team. The Claydon Junction – Aylesbury section will not be electrified at this stage, but will form part of any subsequent project to electrify the Chiltern routes out of Marylebone. All new works should, therefore, be designed to 9 accommodate electrification at a later date, although there is no requirement at this stage to clear the whole route to W10 AND W12+ (electrification) gauge unless a case can be made for doing so. Table 11 – NR’s CRD Requirements related to the Interface Area In summary, the NR requirement is that the OXD and the MCJ are both to be double track, the OXD is to be electrified, and the MCJ is to accommodate electrification at a future date.
5.7 HS2L’s Requirements for HS2 in the interface area
HS2L’s requirements for HS2 in the interface area are that HS2 is to be double track, is to be electrified, and is to be designed for up to 18 trains per hour travelling at up to 360 kph.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 26 of 357 6 DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED SCHEME
6.1 Introduction
6.1.1 This section examines how far the Base Scheme delivers the current HS2L and NR requirements. It finds that a number of modifications should be made to achieve a fully integrated scheme, in particular in order to resolve a shortfall in the width of the combined HS2/MCJ corridor where the two railways run in parallel between Quainton and Calvert.
6.2 Assumptions and Constraints
6.2.1 The key constraints on developing an integrated scheme include, for example:
· The HS2 LoD · NR’s property boundary · Provision for the WMF sidings · HS2 alignment constraints · Sheephouse Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest · Interactions and compatibility between HS2 and NR Rail Systems. · Mitigation of environmental impacts, including the Sheephouse Wood Mitigation structure
6.2.2 The hybrid Bill scheme is based upon HS2L’s and NR’s respective requirements as understood at the time of its preparation by HS2L in 2013.
6.3 Methodology
6.3.1 The report examines two principal issues:
· To what extent does the Base Scheme deliver both HS2’s and NR’s current requirements, and if not what are the features of the scheme that need to be addressed in order to obtain an HS2/ EWR2 Integrated Scheme · the most cost effective way of delivering this scheme in the HS2/ EWR2 Interface Area
6.3.2 The approach taken to establishing how far the Base Scheme accommodates NR’s requirements for ERW2 is as follows:
· Overlay the EWR2 Cross-Section on the Base Scheme along the MCJ and OXD to confirm that it can fit within the available space. This was done by setting the EWR2 Cross-Section alongside the
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 27 of 357 eB Ref: 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
High Speed 2 / East West Rail Phase 2 Integration
GRIP Stage 2 Feasibility Report February 2016
Network Rail Contract Number 148476 HS2 trace to see if the eastern side falls within the LoD/NR property boundary. (It could equally have been done by setting the EWR2 Cross-Section alongside the LoD/NR property boundary to see if there was any overlap with the HS2 trace – the result conclusions would have been the same). The results are shown on a set of drawings, the 200500 series, showing cross- sections taken through the MCJ and OXD in the Base Scheme, including at all bridges, and representative locations along the MCJ and OXD · The EWR2 Scheme drawings (the 100000 series) and the Base Scheme drawings (the 200000 series) are used to populate a Schedule of Works (see Appendix 7.1), recording for any given location (for example a bridge) the works that EWR2 would carry out, and the works that HS2 would carry out. This schedule is in turn interrogated to establish whether any changes are required to the Base Scheme to achieve the functionality required by EWR2.
6.4 Track and Alignment: OXD Corridor.
6.4.1 In the Base Scheme, the OXD is shifted approximately 30 metres to the north (so that it can be constructed off-line of the operational OXD, which it was assumed would be in place before HS2 construction commenced). It is raised on embankment and new bridges to carry it over HS2 and the HS2 southern rail access into the IMD.
6.4.2 Because the OXD is now not expected to be operational before the start of HS2 construction, and provided a blockade is acceptable, there is the opportunity to construct the OXD “on-line”. This would avoid abortive work. It is subject to design verification that a revised design is compatible with the HS2 LoD and/ or the NR property boundary.
6.5 Track and Alignment: MCJ Corridor
6.5.1 Development of the EWR2 alignment between Claydon Junction and Aylesbury to feasibility stage was completed in May 2015. This alignment was produced on the basis that there was no proposal to build HS2. By contrast, this report considers the arrangement that includes both railways alongside one another occupying a shared corridor between Claydon Junction and Quainton Road, a distance of approximately 6.8 kilometres.
6.5.2 Requirements for EWR2 prepared by Network Rail anticipate that the route will be electrified at a later date. Accommodation of electrification masts and associated lateral clearances, along the MCJ corridor was not provided for in the HS2 Base Scheme.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 28 of 357 6.5.3 The cross-sections along the combined HS2/MCJ corridor are drawn, based on:
· the HS2 generic cross-section based on drawing C241-PBR-RT- DSE-020-000002 P01 · locating the EWR2 cross-section alongside the HS2 generic cross-section
6.5.4 Combined HS2/MCJ Corridor Study
6.5.4.1 A detailed analysis of the combined cross sHS2/MCJ corridor follows below.
6.5.4.2 The two railways run alongside each other from Claydon Junction southwards to Quainton, which is approximately between HS2 chainage 80+000 and 72+000. North of chainage 76+400, the HS2 LoD lie on the eastern side of the MCJ, and south of it they lie on the western side.
6.5.4.3 North of chainage 78+400, HS2 and MCJ diverge both horizontally and vertically. It can be seen from the cross-sections on drawings 200506, 200507 & 200508 (see Appendix 2.4) that the EWR2 Cross-Section can be accommodated and NR’s requirements met in that part of the MCJ.
6.5.4.4 Further south the two railways are alongside each other, and their relative positions are shown in a series of sections (see the 200500 drawing series in Appendix 2.4). These show that the combined HS2/EWR corridor, including the NR generic section and the HS2 generic section, needs to be optimised in order to keep the railways within the NR property boundary and the HS2 LoD.
6.5.4.5 The corridor between HS2 chainages 78+400 and 72+000 is shown on Drawing EWRH-EMD-DRG-PBL-200201 Revision P03, ‘NR and HS2 Quainton - Calvert Potential Corridor Width Constraints’. This drawing is in Appendix 4. It comprises a plan of the alignment, relevant cross sections and a tabulation of results. In addition to the railway alignments the plan indicates the HS2 LoD. Also shown is the NR property boundary, which has been taken from the current EWR2 consultation drawings. Various geographical features are shown including Sheephouse Wood which is immediately east of the railway alignments.
6.5.4.6 At a number of locations, the generic cross-section from the Base Scheme is compared to the Network Rail generic cross section. A simple check is carried out to identify whether the combined corridor, needs to be optimised in order to keep the railways within the NR property boundary and the HS2 LoD.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 29 of 357 6.5.4.7 Areas where optimisation is needed are tabulated on the drawing in 50 metre chainage intervals. These indicate in green those areas where the proposed EWR2 generic cross-section can be accommodated, and in red those areas where modification will be required to achieve a fit. This tabulation and the representative cross-section numbers 10-10, 6- 6 and 2-2, where the typical cross-sections from the Base Scheme are compared to those with the EWR2 trace overlain, are reproduced below for convenience.
6.5.4.8 Between chainage 77+500 and 76+700 the railways pass the western boundary of the Sheephouse Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest notified under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The status of the woodland means that encroachment of its boundary to construct railway works is unlikely to be acceptable. Section 10-10 shows the HS2 and the EWR2 proposed cross section, applied at the most constrained point opposite Sheephouse Wood. This section also includes a notional outline of the proposed Sheephouse Wood Mitigation Structure.
6.5.4.9 Sections 6-6 and 2-2 show the HS2 and EWR2 generic cross-sections in other areas along the corridor.
6.5.4.10 It is clear from this study that optimisation of the HS2 generic cross- section and the Network Rail generic cross section is needed in the locations identified in Figures 9 to 11 where the two railways run in parallel between Quainton and Calvert.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 30 of 357 7,700.000 52-tO 7f7SO.OOO 2.m ~·- 76100.000 ,~,. ~·-~w- 76450.000 ~"'" 16900..000 ·tAtS ~·- 7.. 50.000 ·U.S ~·- nooo.ooo ., t5 ~·- n050.000 O.S34 ~·- ntoo.ooo 0.676 ~·- ntso.ooo 0~ ~·- 71200..000 ·1.2117 ~·- rrno..ooo ~ ~·- n2k000 .)M) ~w-~lofttO.tOI~·- 17)()0.000 -3.562 17350.000 ~-"' ~·- n.oo.ooo 1.$64 ~·- n•so.ooo uoo ~·- nsoo.ooo 8.5$5 ~·- nsso.ooo UQ• ~·-(S«dott~·- ,,.,,, n&oo.ooo 1.)90 n&so.ooo 10.101 ~·- moo.ooo ~·- n1so.ooo 10-$31' ~ " ~·- n-ooo t:: 10,340 ~·- naso.ooo z0 t.a.c7 ~·- ntoo.ooo 1.737 o.c_..sw-~·- mso.ooo 7AIO 1tOOO.OOO 5.)0t ~·- noso.ooo ~~ ~·- 11100.000 '·'" ~~·- w-(S«dott 11·121 11150.000 .a. .. HS2LOO-- _,.o.c_..sw- 1I20o.OOO .a. .. HS2LOO-- he~ 11250.000 .a. .. HS2LOO-- WWISoc:Uon t).t)CIITI•ml 11)00,000 rio *'HS2LOO-- w ,. r..-y 11)50.000 M*'HS2LOO-- w ,. r..-y MIHHS2LOO-- -~''-'41 ~000 MHHS2LOO-- Wute ~ 1l5oo.ooo MIHHS2LOO-- w.,. ~ -11)50.000 rio .. HS2LOO-- w ,. r..-y '*'HS2LOO-- w ,. r..-y 11650.000 .a. .. HS2LOO-- w •• F..-y 11700.000 MHHS2LOO-- WHit ~ -11750.000 MHHS2LOO-- he~ neoo.ooo .a. .. HS2LOO-- ,.. ~ 11*50..000 .. HS2LOO-- r..-y 1ltOO..OOO .a. .. HS2LOO-- F..-y 11950.000 .a. .. HS2LOO-- F•81y
Figure 9 – Combined HS2/MCJ corridor Section 10-10
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 31 of 357 •. •
twork Rail bound ry
Section 6-6
.,._...... ,tot.,.~ --·0U - ... N~ IIOurld.llyOI H~L..o 110'*' lo-tb() tool
74350.000 1»0 7.UOO.OOO ..m 7«50.000 Ll71 74*-000 U3Ci 74550.000 U.ct 74iCIO.OOO 0611 74650.000 .0.107 747 000 o.t4) 747!i0.000 OJI7 1.-ooo O.IM 74t!.O.OOO ·'-'1!1 7 000 .u .. 74950.000 - I~ 7~000 l .lO$ 7~000 U04 ~I 000 1.17$ 7SI50.000 ·I,IU 7~.000 .0.320 7$250.000 0.101 7»00.000 1.002 7S3 000 7S.OO.OOO 5241 7~:.0.000 '.)29 7$$(0000 € )707 1')$50.000 0 ~000 z 7~.000 ~71». 000 7S750.000 ~.000 75150.000 7-000 rw.oo.ooo 71000.000 ·IMI ~:.0.000 0.211 NIOO.OOO OAU NI!.O.OOO 0.101 ~000 .OAI7 nlSO.OOO .0.741 "*-000 .0.202 mso.ooo OA-47 -000 1.2tt n450.000 2.111 71000.000 O.JOI mso.ooo ·1.201 n600.000 OAOO ~000 U3l
Figure 10 – Combined HS2/MCJ corridor Section 6-6
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 32 of 357 • HS2 corr dot posltloned on currMt HS2 llgnmMt • ......
Section 2-2
71 000 nooo.ooo noeo.ooo 71100.000 n1:oo.ooo 7noo.ooo 722$0.000 moo..ooo 723$0.000 uoe rtoiOO.OOO 2~ n4:i0.000 2.012 ~000 1~ 72$50.000 0.995 ~000 0.3e0 7-.GOO .0.11) moo,ooo .uot 1n:oo.ooo ~U6 neoo.ooo .... Tll$0.000 -3.1N ntoo.OOO ..,.rs 7~ -4.645 cw-..,_..,OIIIC-2~ 7-.ooo ...737 71050.000 ... 107 7)100.000 .uu 7)1$0.000 ·1.1)5 7l200..000 0.16) 7»50..000 1.Ut 7»00.000 1Mt 7»SS.OOO 2.100 7)4()0.000 ).J2t 7)450.000 )7$0 7»00.000 3242 7)$$0.000 ) .1.. 7ll00.000 2.427 7~ 11 71700.000 1.12t 7)1$0.000 uos neoo.ooo .one 7~000 .0.0<1 7-.ooG 0.11) 7-000 7-.GOO 144 7~000 U100.000 ·- 7.,:oo.ooo 7~ 7-000
Figure 11 – Combined HS2/MCJ corridor Section 2-2
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 33 of 357 6.5.5 Mitigations
6.5.5.1 The study results have indicated that there are a number of areas where the the HS2 generic cross-section and the Network Rail generic cross-section need to be optimised.
6.5.5.2 There are a number of mitigations that should be examined in order to accommodate the two railways within the existing LoD. These mitigations include, but are not limited to:
· Using a twin track cantilever OLE support on one side of the EWR2 alignment · Using a twin track cantilever OLE support on one side of the HS2 alignment · Develop an integrated design for the HS2 and EWR2 track drainage · Explore walkway designs for both HS2 and EWR2 · Further design development of the Sheephouse Wood Mitigation Structure to optimize footprint · Sharing of the combined corridor (such as the “10 foot”) and structures by HS2L and NR, although it is recognised the intention is to have separate systems · Optimisation of both HS2 and MCJ alignments to increase the overall width of the combined corridor.
6.6 Bridges - Accommodation of OLE
6.6.1 The headroom of each bridge along the MCJ was checked, using the 200500 series cross-section drawings, to confirm that an OLE clearance of 5600mm required by NR clearance is being provided. The result is that all bridges have clearance between top of rail and soffit of structure in excess of 5600mm.
6.7 Rail Systems
6.7.1 It is recommended that the design for NR Rail Systems on the MCJ, and for the HS2 systems along the parallel HS2 trace, are developed to confirm the various cable routes and other trackside equipment to be accommodated, in sufficient degree to determine spatial requirements.
6.7.2 In addition, the mutual interactions and compatibility between the HS2 and NR Rail Systems (the former including Quainton Autotransformer Feeder Station) should be investigated in order to establish the isolation/separation and/or interconnection arrangements that are necessary, and to determine the corresponding spatial requirements and implications along the combined HS2/MCJ line. This would involve development of, amongst other things:
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 34 of 357 · a co-ordinated earthing & bonding strategy · an EMC approach and mitigations, and · respective electrification designs
6.7.3 These should address relevant hazards and risks, including for example:
· rise of earth potential · transferred potentials · touch voltages · EMC coupling · control traction/fault return current paths for both HS2 and NR electrification systems
6.7.4 A specific issue concerns the proposed HS2 Autotransformer Feeder Station site at HS2 chainage 73+900 near Quainton, as illustrated in Figure 12. This feeder station and HS2 are on opposite sides of the MCJ line and so some form of physical route will be required to transfer the traction power cabling across the MCJ lines between the Autotransformer Feeder Station Site and the HS2 lines.
Figure 12 – HS2 Autotransformer Feeder Station
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 35 of 357 6.7.5 A GRIP 2 Telecoms Network Impact Assessment is required by the remit. This is in Appendix 5. The works in the Calvert IMD area will require the relocation of an existing train radio base station and associated fixed telecommunications network (FTN) node, and probably the creation of a telecoms network interface between NR and HS2. The precise location of the new base station will be determined as design and integration with the new OXD OLE substation at Claydon develop. Its proposed approximate location is shown on Drawing 200014. The relocation of the mast can be accommodated within the HS2 LoD and the provisions in the hybrid Bill. The area will also require cable route diversions at the IMD Southern Access overbridge, where the HS2 southern chord passes under EWR2 Section 2B to enter the IMD, and the EWR2 chord MCJ4 connecting Section 2E to 2B at Claydon Junction requires slewing eastwards. Most of the northern half of the Section 2E alignment is slewed eastwards and the trackside cable route must be realigned accordingly. The pinch point at Sheephouse Wood will only present a challenge if one or more High Voltage cable routes are also required along the EWR2 Section 2E alignment – this is subject to the nature of the electrification solution arrived at. The High Voltage cable must be adequately separated from the Low Voltage /S&T route to minimise EMC problems and would normally be on the opposite side of the track. The Low Voltage /S&T cable route should be on the east side to maximise separation from the HS2 traction power system.
6.8 Impact on signal sighting and existing NR access arrangements
6.8.1 The impact on signal sighting has been assessed.
6.8.2 The alignment of rail through the area is generally straight with a slight left hand curve in the up direction around Sheephouse Wood; the HS2 alignment is on the outside of the curve so any fencing at the HS2 boundary will not directly interfere with signal sighting on EWR2.
6.8.3 The adjacent HS2 must be given consideration during the positioning of signals on EWR2. Some increase in the reading time of signals may be considered appropriate due to distraction factors, and consideration of the adjacent HS2 should be given in the GRIP 3 signal sighting report for EWR2
6.9 Environmental Mitigation
6.9.1 The environmental impacts of HS2 have been comprehensively assessed. A summary of the HS2 environmental issues and the corresponding works proposed as mitigation is given in Appendix 6.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 36 of 357 Of these notable inclusions are the Sheephouse Wood Mitigation Structure and the green overbridges.
6.9.2 Although the environmental assessment of EWR2 is at an earlier stage than HS2, there will be mitigation works proposed for EWR2 that could be delivered as part of HS2/EWR2 integration, given the proximity of the two schemes. The approach to the EWR2 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was subject of a formal Scoping Report submitted to the Department for Transport in June 2014. The Scoping Opinion was received from the Department in August 2014. This Opinion included comments from Natural England concerning the methodology to be used to determine the environmental baseline and the methodology that NR will apply to determine the impacts of EWR2 on the natural environment. These observations are taken into account in the studies currently taking place. The Scoping Report acknowledges the need, under the relevant Regulations, for the EWR2 Environmental Statement to consider the cumulative environmental effects the scheme will have in combination with other development proposals. Principal among the schemes to be subject of this cumulative assessment is HS2.
6.9.3 Additional assessments will be required where there are changes to the Base Scheme to achieve an integrated scheme.
6.9.4 There are two areas of flood risk (Areas of both Zones 2 and 3) relevant to the integration of EWR2 and HS2 (see Figure 13 below for clarity); one associated with a watercourse running along the southern edge of Sheephouse Wood, which extends west from the middle of Sheephouse Wood towards Greatmoor, and another watercourse crossing the track close to Woodlands Farm. These add another environmental constraint to an already sensitive area (i.e. Sheephouse Wood) in a confined corridor. Once conclusions are reached about the integrated design, it will be possible to confirm whether the sensitivity applied when modelling the impact of the Scheme was appropriate and the capacity of the flood plain storage that is proposed to mitigate the impact is adequate.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 37 of 357 Report Title : HS2 EWR2 Integration GRIP Stage 2 Feasibility
Report Status : For Issue
Job No : 3513769B
Date : February 2016
eB Document Number :
Version Control Version Status Date By Reviewed By
1.0 For Issue 25/01/2016 RGA S. Brunton
1.1 For Issue 08/02/2016 RGA S. Brunton
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 2 of 357 Figure 13 – Main Rivers, and Land within Flood Zone 3 Note: the figure is reproduced from the Environmental Agency’s Flood Map for Surface Water Basic & Flood Zone Data (September 2015)
6.10 Utilities
6.10.1 The affected utility suppliers have been identified in the Schedule of Works in Appendix 7.1
6.10.2 Schematics of the principal diversions are included in Appendix 7.2.
6.10.3 Diversion of the utilities in the existing Calvert Station Bridge (MCJ3/563) to facilitate its replacement by the proposed School Hill Green overbridge is addressed in section 7.7.
6.10.4 New road bridges are proposed at Perry Hill and Addison Road. These need to be constructed prior to the diversion of the existing utilities and the demolition of the existing bridge.
6.10.5 Planning of the works needs to take due account of:
· High Pressure gas mains diversions often incur a 12 month ‘Feasibility Phase’ in advance of the construction works, to allow for activities such as the feasibility study, detailed design, procurement, resource and outage planning · Long lead time for materials associated with the HP gas main
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 38 of 357 · Interruptions to the supply of the HP gas mains, in order to make the new connections, can only be undertaken during the summer months · Assumptions, to be confirmed, that construction of new ‘offline’ HP gas mains can be undertaken during winter months · Phasing associated with the diversion of telecoms, and outages are not usually permitted close to major events
6.11 Highways
6.11.1 Preliminary design drawings from HS2 show the majority of the new bridges on the MCJ being constructed ‘off line’ next to the existing structure. This allows the existing carriageway to be used during the construction of the new structure. Once the new bridge is finished the traffic is moved over onto the new structure, allowing the original bridge to be demolished to accommodate the new rail corridors.
6.11.2 The only bridge over the MCJ that is shown as being reconstructed on line is School Hill bridge. This is addressed in section 7.7
6.11.3 The replacement Charndon Lodge, Perry Hill and Addison Road bridges are all proposed off line of the existing highway, and could be constructed without affecting the existing highway route, and then traffic swapped over onto the new road to allow the HS2 works to commence. If the OXD is built on-line, it may be possible to reduce the length of Addison Road bridge, having to span across only the existing OXD corridor and not also the off-line OXD.
6.11.4 The temporary traffic diversions associated with the rebuilding of West Street Bridge and School Hill Road Bridge, both use Perry Hill Road as diversionary route. As Perry Hill Road will also be subject to temporary closure (for bridge construction) it is important that this is phased such that all three roads are not closed at the same time. The relative location of the three roads and diversions are shown on Figure 14, below:
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 39 of 357 Figure 14 – Highway Diversions in the Calvert Area 6.11.5 The current HS2 proposals for the Quainton end of the parallel running section show that two roads - Station Road and Fidlers Field Road - are severed by HS2. This is addressed by a realignment of Station Road approximately 400m north of its current location with associated new bridges over both EWR2 and HS2. Fidlers Field Road is tied into this new road layout. The phasing of these works will need to be such that the HS2 proposed road network to the east and west of the MCJ corridor is in place before the existing Station Road is closed. This will ensure that when Fidlers Field road is closed, there will be an alternative available in the interim. The realignments of Station Road and Fidlers Field Road are shown on Figure 15, below:
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 40 of 357 Figure 15 – Highway Realignment in the Quainton Area 6.11.6 It should be noted that the EWR2 scheme replaces the existing Upper South Farm user worked crossing with a new farm accommodation bridge at approximately HS2 chainage 72+200.
6.12 Schedule of Works
6.12.1 The Base Scheme and the EWR2 Scheme are each broken down into elements of permanent work. Typical elements are bridges, earthworks, retaining walls, utility diversions, etc. They are used to populate a “Schedule of Works” covering both schemes.
6.12.2 This schedule is used to identify any works that are required by EWR2 and HS2. These are used to establish any additions required to the Base Scheme in order to achieve an Integrated Scheme. The “Schedule of Works” is in Appendix 7.1.
6.13 Network Change
6.13.1 This is not an issue for this stage of the integration study, but in due course Network Rail will be required to submit a Network Change application to gain agreement for the changes proposed to the infrastructure within the integration area:
· Re-location of the waste management facilities private siding to the east of the MCJ3 with associated junction re-modelling · Connection between the HS2 IMD sidings and NR infrastructure on the OXD lines in the vicinity of Claydon Junction
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 41 of 357 · OXD freight loop
6.13.2 The hybrid Bill does not gain consents for Network Change and it will need to be sought separately through the Network Change regulatory process. Although Network Rail has to make the Network Change request, a combined Network Rail and HS2L strategy will be required.
6.14 Proposed solutions to achieve an HS2/EWR2 Integrated Scheme
A number of developments are proposed in order to meet both HS2L’s and NR’s requirements, and to facilitate a more integrated solution which avoids abortive work. These are as follows:
Proposed solution to Base Scheme Location EWR2 Proposal achieve Proposal Integrated Scheme MCJ Twin tracked HS2 with Twin tracked HS2 twin tracked Corridor electrification & twin with electrification MCJ with HS2 tracked MCJ (one track & twin tracked passive Chainages passive provision) with MCJ with passive provision for 72+000 - no provision for provision for electrification 78+000 electrification electrification new EWR2 electrification Claydon substation Junction new EWR2 required – early east of No proposal electrification development work revised substation ongoing and MCJ4 chord options being considered. Coordinate Mast Claydon and new Junction Relocation of mast to substation adjacent to southern perimeter of No proposal locations so that relocated OXD corridor mast is at least MCJ4 chord 100 metres from substation Build a new OXD off- Upgrade OXD to line to prevent twin track with Both options to be disruption during HS2 electrification on OXD Line considered in next construction (EWR2 existing corridor, design stages. operational prior to without HS2 construction) considering HS2
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 42 of 357 Proposed solution to Base Scheme Location EWR2 Proposal achieve Proposal Integrated Scheme
Existing bridge to be Incorporate bridge reconstructed OXD/29 into the HS2/ (note that Charndon No proposal EWR2 Integrated delivery of this Overbridge Scheme bridge is EWR2 development TWAO dependent)
New bridge required to Incorporate bridge Queen replace level into HS2/ EWR2 Catherine crossing (note No proposal Integrated Road that delivery of Scheme Overbridge this bridge is development EWR2 TWAO dependent) Table 12 – Proposed solutions to achieve an HS2/EWR2 Integrated Scheme
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 43 of 357 7 INTEGRATED PROGRAMME
7.1 Assumptions and Constraints upon the Integrated HS2/EWR2 programme:
7.1.1 Any dates stated concerning the hybrid Bill and its enactment or the EWR2 TWAO process are those assumed as at the outset of the study. They are subject to change and should be regarded as indicative only.
7.1.2 The assumptions and/or constraints upon the Integrated HS2/EWR2 programme are as follows:
· No work will have started on EWR2 in the interface area before the hybrid Bill is enacted if abortive work is to be avoided. · The scope of the EWR2 works within the integrated scheme, and therefore to be addressed in the integrated programme, includes (i) the OXD twin track and with electrification, and (ii) the MCJ with twin track, and passive provision for electrification · As before, rail access to the WMF has to be maintained throughout construction · Mass haul is not taken into account as far as development of the integrated programme is concerned. · hybrid Bill Royal Assent – December 2016 · HS2 earliest start of construction – July 2017 · EWR2 TWA Order application to be submitted May 2016 · EWR2 TWA Order made by the Secretary of State – November 2017
7.2 Operations
7.2.1 An operations analysis for HS2 and East West Rail Integration is included in Appendix 8.
7.2.2 This concludes as follows:
7.2.2.1 Whilst EWR2 is being constructed, at least one route (MCJ or OXD) must be maintained open for freight traffic, primarily for WMF, but also for Bicester Ministry of Defence until such time as the normal route via Oxford is restored to use. The latter is expected to be in Spring 2016 and therefore should not affect the programme.
7.2.2.2 WMF traffic currently has paths on the Chiltern Main Line from the London area via Princes Risborough and Aylesbury. However if the MCJ line is closed, this route will not be available. Possible alternatives are shown in the following table:
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 44 of 357 Implications Alternative route Other Comments Infrastructure Timetabling West Coast Main Spare paths on Bletchley – Claydon EWR Bletchley Line West Coast Main currently out of use. – Claydon Bletchley - Line (London to Not operationally Junction must Claydon Junction Bletchley) are desirable to reverse at be operational - Calvert limited Bletchley. Spare paths on Great Western EWR Bicester – Great Western Main Line Claydon Main Line This is the current Oxford -Claydon Junction must (London to – WMF diversion route. Junction (reverse) be operational Oxford) are - Calvert limited Chiltern Main EWR Bicester – Line Claydon Requires two reversals Princes Junction must Spare paths on en route, but this could Risborough- be operational Chiltern Main Line be made more Bicester- Bicester Bicester north of Princes operationally efficient Ministry of Ministry of Risborough are by running with a Defence sidings Defence sidings limited locomotive at each (reverse) – available for end Claydon Junction train reversal (reverse) - Calvert Table 13 – Alternative routes to WMF Of the three alternative routes, the route via the Great Western Main Line and Oxford appears the most suitable from a freight train operation point of view, although it may be difficult to obtain paths, particularly between Didcot and Oxford.
7.2.2.3 If EWR2 is still under construction during the period when HS2 is being constructed, any materials delivered to the Calvert area would have to be routed as described in 7.2.2.2 above. The route via Princes Risborough and Aylesbury would be the optimum route if available; it may be possible to path HS2 delivery trains in the “vacant” train paths not used by WMF trains.
7.3 Future NR Long-Term Workbank Plans
7.3.1 A meeting was held with NR on 15th September 2015 to understand what constraints and/or opportunities might arise from their current workbank proposals in respect of construction of the HS2/ EWR2 Integrated Scheme.
7.3.2 NR referenced a drawing showing the proposed 2016-2019 works in the area, an update of which they subsequently provided, as follows:
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 45 of 357 Figure 16 – Chiltern Proposed Access Strategy 2016-2019
Figure 17 – Chiltern Proposed Access Strategy 2016-2019 7.3.3 The conclusion of the meeting was that nothing in the 2016-2019 NR workbank precludes blockading the MCJ and/or the OXD. It is noted
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 46 of 357 that any blockade strategy would need, nevertheless, to be looked at in a routewide context.
7.3.4 (NR noted that the HS2/EWR2 integration works on the OXD provide an opportunity to carry out reconstruction/ replacement of bridge NAJ23 (NAJ3/27 = OXD37) carrying the Chiltern Line over; the OXD runs underneath this. This bridge is not part of the integration works. However, its reconstruction could be done at the same time as the OXD works, perhaps during a 52 hour possession on the NAJ or OXD.)
7.4 Consents
Background
7.4.1 The hybrid Bill, if enacted, will grant the powers to construct Phase One of the HS2 network, but will also grant powers to:
· build and maintain HS2 and its associated works (including works to the railway network as specified in the HS2 Bill) · compulsorily acquire interests in the land required · affect or change rights of way, including the stopping-up or diversion of highways and waterways (permanently or temporarily) · modify infrastructure belonging to statutory undertakers (e.g. utility companies) · carry out work on listed buildings and demolish buildings in conservation areas, and · carry out protective works to buildings and third-party infrastructure.
It will also grant the necessary changes to existing legislation to facilitate construction and operation of Phase One of HS2.
7.4.2 The consents strategy for EWR2 is to secure powers to acquire land and deemed planning consent through the submission of a Transport and Works Act Order application. The scheme is currently at public consultation stage and GRIP 3 designs are being developed. As at the start of this study it is envisaged that this application will be submitted in May 2016 and determined by November 2017, a year after the HS2 Bill. However, these dates are subject to change.
Accommodating Change
7.4.3 The intent is that the changes arising from integration should be managed within the Limits of Deviation (LoD) in the HS2 hybrid Bill, and, where appropriate, by including provisions for the HS2/EWR2 Integrated Scheme in the EWR2 TWAO.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 47 of 357 Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7
2 DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... 10 2.1 Definitions ...... 10 2.2 Abbreviations ...... 10
3 INTRODUCTION ...... 12 3.1 Background ...... 12 3.2 Respective Application for Powers ...... 14 3.3 Aylesbury Line – Accommodation by HS2 ...... 15 3.4 Oxford Line – Accommodation by HS2 ...... 15 3.5 Geographical Definition of the HS2/EWR2 Interface Area ...... 16
4 CURRENT STATUS OF THE TWO SCHEMES...... 19 4.1 EWR2 Scheme ...... 19 4.2 Base Scheme ...... 19
5 REQUIREMENTS ...... 23 5.1 Development of Network Rail’s Requirements for HS2 and EWR2 ...... 23 5.2 HS2 v2.0 Requirements incorporating NR Requirements within the Base Scheme...... 23 5.3 NR requirements (V2) for HS2 ...... 24 5.4 HS2L’s Project Definition Statement for the Base Scheme ...... 24 5.5 Protective Provisions Agreement (PPA) ...... 25 5.6 Network Rail’s Requirements dated 5th March 2014 for the East West Rail Phase 2 project ...... 26 5.7 HS2L’s Requirements for HS2 in the interface area ...... 26
6 DEVELOPING AN INTEGRATED SCHEME ...... 27 6.1 Introduction ...... 27 6.2 Assumptions and Constraints ...... 27 6.3 Methodology ...... 27 6.4 Track and Alignment: OXD Corridor...... 28 6.5 Track and Alignment: MCJ Corridor ...... 28 6.6 Bridges - Accommodation of OLE ...... 34 6.7 Rail Systems ...... 34 6.8 Impact on signal sighting and existing NR access arrangements ...... 36 6.9 Environmental Mitigation ...... 36 6.10 Utilities ...... 38 6.11 Highways ...... 39 6.12 Schedule of Works ...... 41 6.13 Network Change ...... 41 6.14 Proposed solutions to achieve an HS2/EWR2 Integrated Scheme...... 42
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 3 of 357 7.5 Protective Provisions (including ONW & ASPRO)
7.5.1 The HS2 hybrid Bill will grant powers for scheduled works (set out in Schedule 1 of the Bill) that will modify NR infrastructure. A Protective Provisions Agreement (PPA) has been agreed between the Secretary of State for Transport and Network Rail to safeguard Network Rail interests. A summary of those parts of the Protective Provisions Agreement between Network Rail Infrastructure Limited and the Secretary of State for Transport as is relevant to this report is given is in Appendix 9 of this report.
7.5.2 The Protective Provisions set out in the PPA apply to the following categories of work – On Network Works, Specified On Network Works, Overbridges and Underbridges, and Future Provisions.
7.5.3 On Network Works are defined in the PPA as any part of the High Speed 2 Works (including any Protective Works) as requires the modification, relocation, removal or replacement of any Railway Property within the Relevant Limits but excluding any Specified On Network Works.
7.5.4 NR can elect not to carry out any ONW, in which case these works will be carried out by the Secretary of State. Such works are called Specified On Network Works. A Schedule of these works is set out in the PPA, with those relevant to this report being in item 8 of schedule 5. These are shown Appendix 9.
7.5.5 The list of Specified On Network Works contained in Item 8 of Schedule 5 of the PPA has been reviewed against the works recommended to be in the HS2/ EWR2 Integrated Scheme. Should Network Rail agree with HS2 that these are works that should be undertaken by the Secretary of State, consideration should be given to including the following infrastructure in the proposed HS2/EWR2 Integrated scheme:
· Upper Farm South (overbridge required to maintain agricultural access) · Queen Catherine Bridge (overbridge required to accommodate diversion resulting from level crossing closure)
7.5.6 Specific provisions relating to works to construct new or modify existing structures and bridges are set out in clause 12 of the PPA and will be subject to the Secretary of State and Network Rail entering into Overbridge or Underbridge Agreements prior to carrying out the works.
7.5.7 Clause 13 of the PPA requires the consent of Network Rail to the closure of level crossings required for HS2 Scheme.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 48 of 357 7.6 Undertakings and Commitments
7.6.1 Schedule 10 of the PPA contains a list of Network Rail Requirements (extracted in Appendix 9 of this report). As with all the provisions contained in the PPA, these Requirements form part of the HS2 project’s Undertakings and Assurances. Should NR and HS2L agree that works to accommodate the future electrification of the MCJ are part of the EWR2 project, then the commitment (NR-HS2-0400) to project collaboration and integration is a compliance issue. Schedule 11 provides further specific details in relation to the table in Schedule 10.
7.6.2 Clause 5 of the PPA relates to Asset Protection and Approvals and requires that the Secretary of State enters into an Asset Protection Agreement (a framework template for which is included in Schedule 9 of the PPA) prior to the commencement of works. The PPA commits the Secretary of State to procuring and carrying out works in accordance with the terms of the Asset Protection Agreement. The identification of works requiring Asset Protection Agreements and completion of these agreements will require contractor involvement and therefore no further consideration can be given to the provisions for asset protection at this stage.
7.7 School Hill Green Overbridge / MCJ3/563 Calvert Station Bridge
7.7.1 The existing Calvert Station Bridge (MCJ3/563) carries the single carriageway Werner Terrace over the existing MCJ corridor and the WMF sidings.
7.7.2 The bridge is proposed to be replaced by the HS2 079-S1 School Hill Green overbridge, spanning across HS2, MCJ and the WMF.
7.7.3 The existing bridge carries utilities for Anglian Water & Sewerage, British Telecom and Western Power. There is also an overhead power transmission cable route running northeast/southwest approximately 200m south of the bridge. These need to be diverted temporarily to facilitate construction of the new bridge.
7.7.4 The current proposal for the bridge based utilities is to temporarily divert them south along Brackley Lane for approximately 200m, then to pass under the existing operational MCJ3 railway corridor and WMF sidings before continuing in a northeast direction through open land to eventually re-join the School Hill Road. Once the new bridge has been constructed, all utilities (including the overhead power transmission cables) will be permanently diverted into the new road alignment and bridge.
7.7.5 The temporary utility diversion facilitates the main construction works during which School Hill Road is closed for 1.5 - 2 years. The proposed School Hill Green overbridge has two spans: the western one spans over the existing MCJ3, the existing waste transfer sidings, the
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 49 of 357 proposed HS2 up and down tracks, and the HS2 IMD southern access tracks; the eastern one spans over the relocated MCJ3 and the new WMF sidings.
7.7.6 The utility diversion allows demolition of the existing bridge (under a NR possession). Following local slewing of the MCJ line the new bridge can be constructed off line without blockading the existing MCJ3 corridor (including WMF). Once these elements have been completed the new MCJ3 and waste transfer siding can be moved to their new location. Following the track move to the east, the existing redundant track can be demolished, followed by the final diversion of the utilities into the new bridge.
7.7.7 It should be noted that the relocated WMF will not be functional until the new bridge is completed, giving road access to the new WMF facility.
7.8 Scenario Options
7.8.1 The construction sequencing for the permanent works in the HS2/ EWR2 Interface Area should be such as to avoid abortive works. There are in principle two programme options driven by the WMF constraint, namely:
Scenario 1: prioritise the construction of the new OXD: · Initially maintain rail access to the WMF facility from the south via the PRA and MCJ, close the OXD, MCJ4 and that part of MCJ3 north of the WMF · Construct the new OXD on-line, over both the future HS2 mainline and the HS2 southern rail access into the IMD · Construct the new WMF facility, the relocated MCJ4 chord and that part of MCJ3 north of the WMF, with its connection into the new WMF · Connect these new works to the section of OXD between Calvert and Bicester, and test and commission (subject to the EWR2 OXD being complete) · Switch the WMF facilities from the existing to the new location, with rail access coming via the OXD, thereby releasing the MCJ to be closed under a blockade and the works along the new HS2/MCJ combined corridor to be constructed. · Connect these new works to the section of MCJ between Quainton and Aylesbury, and test and commission
Scenario 2: prioritise the construction of the new MCJ: · Initially maintain rail access to the WMF facility from the north via the OXD, MCJ4 and that part of MCJ3 north of the existing WMF facility
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 50 of 357 · Construct the new MCJ3 north of Quainton, the relocated MCJ4 chord, the new WMF facility, and that part of MCJ3 north of the WMF, with its connection into the new WMF · Connect these new works to the section of MCJ between Quainton and Aylesbury, and test and commission · Switch the WMF facilities from the existing to the new location, with rail access coming via the new MCJ, thereby releasing the OXD to be closed under a blockade and the works to provide the new OXD on-line, over both the future HS2 mainline and the HS2 southern rail access into the IMD to be carried out. · Connect the new OXD to the section of OXD between Calvert and Bicester, and test and commission
7.9 HS2/EWR2 Construction Programmes
7.9.1 Neither of the scenarios shows an advantage over the other as regards total time. Prioritising the new OXD has advantages of giving earlier access to the IMD
7.9.2 Delivery programmes for each scenario are in Appendix 10. The dates are tentative, and assume construction starts mid 2017. They contain sufficient elements of HS2 works to complete the EWR2 works within the area of integration. At completion of the programmes the EWR2 works within the HS2/ EWR2 Interface Area are ready to be connected with the complete EWR2 works (Phases 2A – 2F) and the route is available for HS2 to install their works unrestricted by EWR2.
7.10 Programme advantages of an Integrated Scheme
7.10.1 In the Base Scheme, there would be regular passenger services on both the OXD and the MCJ throughout the construction period. In the case of the OXD, it would be up to three passenger trains and one freight train per hour, the passenger trains travelling at up to 100 mph. In the case of the MCJ, it would be up to one passenger train and one freight train per hour, the passenger trains travelling at up to 90 mph. There are no planned blockades in the Base Scheme and the rail services restrict construction access.
7.10.2 In comparison, in either scenario, under the integrated scheme the works would be carried out under a blockade in place with no trains running, excepting only those areas where rail access to the WMF for up to five freight trains per day is maintained. There are no passenger services to be maintained through the integrated works scheme during construction.
7.10.3 The Base Scheme mitigates the impact of the OXD services to a considerable extent by building the new OXD civils works off-line, but at the cost of additional civils works. However, there is not the available
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 51 of 357 land to mitigate in a similar manner the impact of the MCJ services operating during construction of the Base Scheme
7.10.4 The integrated scheme, by contrast, affords easier access for construction, giving consequential efficiencies, and provides a safer working and construction environment. The construction efficiencies would offer opportunities to shorten the construction durations as compared to the Base Scheme.
7.10.5 This comparison can be summarized as follows:
Planned EWR Train Service Specification Operating During HS2 Construction Period Passenger Freight Trains Scheme Trains (each (each Consequence direction) direction) · Restricted construction 3 trains per 1 train per hour access along the MCJ hour on OXD · Longer construction on OXD line Base line duration 1 train per hour 1 train per hour · Requires greater on MCJ line on MCJ line mitigation measures to ensure safety · Relatively unrestricted construction access Up to 5 trains · Shorter construction Integrated None per day to the duration WMF · Inherently safer environment Table 14 – programme advantages of integrated scheme 7.10.6 The extent of the potential efficiencies of the Integrated Scheme should be evaluated as the design of the scheme and construction planning is developed.
7.11 Consequences of Delay in Receiving Consents
7.11.1 If there are delays in obtaining HS2 Bill Powers, then construction of the integrated works cannot commence.
7.11.2 If there are delays in obtaining EWR2 TWAO Powers, then the majority of the integrated works can still be progressed, including the new WMF facility; however, construction of the following works would be deferred:
· Queen Catherine Road Bridge and approaches · OXD/29 Charndon Road Bridge
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 52 of 357 7.12 Delivery Strategy
7.12.1 The key to successful delivery of the integrated works is development of a coordinated design that meets the requirements of both projects.
7.12.2 To achieve this, it is anticipated that HS2 and NR would cooperate to produce coordinated designs that are mutually acceptable. This would start with the two railways and their respective systems, and, once resolved, followed by development of the supporting civils and structural works.
7.12.3 A construction delivery strategy should be developed at the next stage.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 53 of 357 8 SAFETY AND TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE
8.1 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations
Design and implementation of the works will be conducted in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015. Compliance ensures proper consideration of health and safety during a project’s development so that risk of harm to those who build, use and maintain the works is reduced. This includes identifying, eliminating or controlling foreseeable risks throughout the project lifecycle.
The integrated project includes works sponsored by two client bodies (HS2 and NR). Consequently, agreement will need to be reached regarding which entity operates as ‘Client’ under CDM. In addition each of the client entities is likely to appoint its own design organisation to lead the design of their respective works. Again an agreement will have to be reached regarding which of them is the Principal Designer under CDM.
8.2 Access for Maintenance and Future Construction
8.2.1 Access and fencing arrangements need to cater for:
· Construction, including if EWR2 becomes operational whilst HS2 construction is continuing alongside · How maintenance access to EWR2 infrastructure will be achieved · How maintenance access to HS2 infrastructure will be achieved · The future installation and ongoing maintainability of OLE along the MCJ. · Security of each Railway
8.2.2 Access points to EWR2 have been considered in the HS2 PDS. In the area of parallel running, access to the HS2 and EWR2 infrastructure needs further development to ensure that sufficient vehicular and pedestrian access is available to each infrastructure system independent of the other. This will be subject to how the issues along the MCJ are resolved, which must take due account of maintenance.
8.2.3 Finally a solution must take due cognisance of security, and its spatial implications.
8.3 Common Safety Method
The Common Safety Method (CSM) regulations were published as European Directive 2004/49/EC Article 6(3) (a). They provide guidance on a common approach to safety for changed or new systems. At the current stage of design (GRIP Stage 2) design interfaces are not yet
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 54 of 357 fully defined. Network Rail is facilitating workshops to identify hazards and assess risk.
8.4 Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI)
Both HS2 and EWR2 are being designed to meet the European Union Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSI).
This report recommends that designs and programmes are integrated in the area in question and therefore attention is drawn to particular issues as follows.
· Current noise limit value requirements cover the main operating conditions for single railway running. An assessment of noise levels as a result of the integration of both schemes should be made · Electromagnetic compatibility of the two systems should be demonstrated. This has not yet been carried out. Consequently it should be addressed at a later design stage · Derailment protection
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 55 of 357
10 CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Integrated Scheme
Foremost among the conclusions is that in the Calvert area the two schemes can be integrated so that each meets its requirements. It is acknowledged that a significant amount of design development work will be required to achieve integration.
It has also been concluded that the two schemes can be integrated without alteration to the current applications for powers in the HS2 Bill, although the EWR2 draft Order would need amendment from one based on the current EWR2 scheme. It is anticipated that the proposed railway alignments may need to be optimised (without changing the HS2 LoD) during the development of the integrated scheme.
10.2 Integrated Programme
The integrated programme for HS2 and EWR works in the Calvert area has been developed to take account of the sequencing scenarios described in section 7.8. This work has concluded that through integration of the programmes there is an overall reduction in the scope of infrastructure construction, avoiding abortive work on both the OXD and the MCJ. In addition the important rail access to the waste management facility at Calvert is preserved throughout. The integrated scheme affords improved access for construction, giving consequential efficiencies, and provides a safer working and construction environment. The construction efficiencies may offer opportunities to shorten the construction durations as compared to the Base Scheme. In comparing the possible programme sequences, neither of the two scenarios demonstrated an overall time saving over the other at this stage of development. This needs further programme and construction sequencing development to better understand the preferred delivery strategy going forward.
10.3 Benefits
By combining the schemes as a single integrated project in the Calvert area there are significant benefits available. These are as follows.
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 57 of 357
11 RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1 Principal Recommendations
The integration study has developed the following primary recommendations.
Principal Recommendations Develop a single integrated design solution for HS2 and EWR2 which builds upon the HS2 Base Scheme and resolves the issues identified 1 within this report in order to deliver the requirements of HS2 and Network Rail. Obtain unified direction regarding the integration of HS2 and EWR2 to 2 prevent further abortive development work on the East West Rail Phase 2 project
3 Promote a single approach to public and stakeholder engagement
Develop a programme for design and construction of the integrated 4 scheme building upon the scenarios described in this report. Table 15 – Principal Recommendations
11.2 Supplementary Recommendations
Acceptance and implementation of the above primary recommendations will allow the development of an integrated design of HS2 and EWR in the Calvert area. The following supplementary recommendations apply to the process of developing the integrated scheme.
Ref. Supplementary Recommendation
The integrated design should recognise and deliver the 1 requirements of HS2L and NR. The integrated design should meet the technical standards of both projects
In addition to meeting the current requirements of both railways the integrated design should allow for future upgrade of the lines 2 in terms of predicted capacity and technical systems of traction, signalling and telecommunications
A combined stakeholder management team should be 3 established to communicate, with a consistent approach, the promotion of a single integrated project Access should be provided for maintenance to be carried out safely whilst recognising the specific characteristics of the 4 railways in terms of operating speed, noise generation and restrictions on timing
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 59 of 357 Ref. Supplementary Recommendation
The security requirements of the two railways should be 5 compatible with their operation and maintenance regimes
All electromagnetic effects should be investigated, mitigated and 6 controlled so that the integrated railways remain functional and safe.
A co-ordinated strategy should be developed for earthing, 7 bonding for the integrated design and to minimise the hazards associated with earth, touch and transferred potentials
Allowance should be made for all physical space requirements 8 generated as a result of achieving electrical system safety and functionality Table 16 – Supplementary Recommendations
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 60 of 357
Table 15 – Principal Recommendations ...... 59 Table 16 – Supplementary Recommendations ...... 60
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Geographical Scope of the East West Rail Phase 2 Project ...... 12 Figure 2 – Conflict between the existing EWR and the proposed HS2 lines ...... 13 Figure 3 – HS2 and East West Rail Arrangement at Calvert ...... 14 Figure 4 – Acquisition of Powers ...... 15 Figure 5 – C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020-000008 Extract from Main Line Sheet 27 Ch. 70+400 to 76+800 ...... 17 Figure 6 – C222-ATK-CV-DPP-020-000009 Extract from Main Line Sheet 28 Ch. 76+800 to 83+200 ...... 18 Figure 7 – EWR2 twin track corridor with electrification (Dimensions in mm) ...... 19 Figure 8 – C241-PBR-RT-DSE-020-000003, Calvert EWR – Aylesbury Line Cross Section at HS2 Chainage 77+294 ...... 21 Figure 9 – Combined HS2/MCJ corridor Section 10-10 ...... 31 Figure 10 – Combined HS2/MCJ corridor Section 6-6 ...... 32 Figure 11 – Combined HS2/MCJ corridor Section 2-2 ...... 33 Figure 12 – HS2 Autotransformer Feeder Station ...... 35 Figure 13 – Main Rivers, and Land within Flood Zone 3 ...... 38 Figure 14 – Highway Diversions in the Calvert Area...... 40 Figure 15 – Highway Realignment in the Quainton Area ...... 41 Figure 16 – Chiltern Proposed Access Strategy 2016-2019 ...... 46 Figure 17 – Chiltern Proposed Access Strategy 2016-2019 ...... 46
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 6 of 357 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed design for High Speed 2 (HS2) in the Calvert area significantly impacts upon Network Rail infrastructure. The proposed East West Rail Phase 2 (EWR2) scheme seeks to upgrade the infrastructure and its current proposals conflict with HS2 as both projects stand.
The purpose of the High Speed 2 and East West Rail Phase 2 integration study is to identify these conflicts, consider the requirements of both projects in their current stages of development and investigate possible options for integration. The options will try to minimise construction and environmental impacts whilst delivering an economically viable solution (subject to funding) that will benefit the UK taxpayer.
This report details the key issues and proposed scope of works. It identifies constraints, impacts and interdependencies. Furthermore it develops a number of integrated construction delivery scenarios which should be investigated in further detail as the design of both schemes progresses.
Findings
It is feasible to integrate both schemes. There are however a number of technical and programme challenges which need to be resolved to deliver both schemes requirements whilst generating efficiencies and benefits.
The principal design and construction challenges to achieving an integrated scheme are as follows:
· Progress the Base Scheme design and incorporate the EWR2 requirements that are not currently addressed in the Base Scheme · Further development of both projects’ cross-sections is required to fit within the combined railway corridor identified in the Base Scheme. Relevant, practical mitigations are outlined in this report which are feasible but technically demanding · HS2 and EWR2 run in close proximity for approximately 7km. Through this area the railway system requirements will need to be considered and developed jointly · Timescales for delivery of HS2 and EWR2 are not currently aligned in the Calvert area, particularly in relation to acquisition of powers and construction programmes. Were they to be aligned in an integrated manner, efficiencies could be realised
HS2-EWR Integration GRIP 2 Feasibility Report 148476-NWR-REP-MPM-000003
Page 7 of 357