DOCSLIB.ORG

Remit Project Remit Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Remit Project Remit Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study Project Remit – Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study Project Remit Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study Prepared by: Senior Strategic Planner Matt Haywood Date: Checked by: Lead Strategic Planner Amanda Hoyland Date: Approved by: Principal Strategic Planner Claire Mahoney Date: Accepted by: Matt Haywood, Senior Strategic Planner Date: Accepted by: Daniel Round, Lead Development Manager Date: Endorsed by: Programme Director, Department for Transport Farha Sheikh Date: Endorsed by: Oxfordshire Growth Board Chairman Date: This document is the property of Network Rail. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party without prior written permission. Copyright 2015 Network Rail Document Ref: OCS remit Issue: v0.10 - UPDATE Remit Date:16th March 2018 - UPDATE Page: 1 of 19 19 Project Remit – Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study Document History Issue Date Originator Modification V0.1 16/03/2018 Matt Haywood First draft V0.2 28/03/2018 Matt Haywood Second draft V0.3 27/04/2018 Matt Haywood After review by Claire Mahoney and Daniel Round V0.4 03/05/18 Claire Review Mahoney V0.5 03/05/18 Claire Issued to DfT for comment Mahoney V0.6 11/05/18 Claire Updated with DfT comments Mahoney V0.7 14/05/18 Matt Haywood Updated with MH response V0.8 15/05/18 Claire Updated, and draft finalisation, with DfT Mahoney V0.9 30/05/18 Claire Review meeting with DfT/Oxfordshire County Mahoney & Oxford City Councils V0.10 31/05/18 Claire Updated with comments Mahoney V0.11 01/06/18 Claire Comments from OCC Mahoney V1.0 01/06/18 Claire Revision for Oxfordshire Growth Board Mahoney Document Ref: OCS remit Issue: v0.10 - UPDATE Remit Date:16th March 2018 - UPDATE Page: 2 of 19 20 Project Remit – Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study Contents 1 Purpose and aim ............................................................................................................ 4 1.1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................. 4 2 Project Context .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Rail network ............................................................................................................. 5 2.1.1 Rail Passenger Demand characteristics .................................................... 5 2.1.2 Current Investment Programmes ............................................................... 6 2.2 Oxfordshire County .................................................................................................. 6 3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................... 7 4 Project Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 7 5 Study overview ............................................................................................................... 8 5.1 Scope ....................................................................................................................... 8 6 Project Approach .......................................................................................................... 10 6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 10 6.2 Process .................................................................................................................. 11 7 Shareholders and Stakeholders ................................................................................... 12 8 Governance ................................................................................................................. 12 9 Indicative Programme and Cost ................................................................................... 13 9.1 Programme ............................................................................................................ 13 9.2 Cost ....................................................................................................................... 14 Appendix A – CMSP process ....................................................................................... 15 Appendix B – Strategic planning activity within CMSP process .................................... 17 Appendix C – Source References: ............................................................................... 19 Document Ref: OCS remit Issue: v0.10 - UPDATE Remit Date:16th March 2018 - UPDATE Page: 3 of 19 21 Project Remit – Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study The purpose of this remit is to define the scope and required outcomes of the Oxfordshire Rail Corridors Study. The aim of the study is to understand the options for development of the current and future rail network within Oxfordshire that best meets the needs of the rail industry and county in order to support its growth agenda, whilst considering the wider network strategic needs that have a bearing on rail in Oxfordshire. The study should align with other Government policy on housing, in particular the Oxfordshire Housing and Growth Deal (March 2018) and the wider England’s Economic Heartland (EEH) area and National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) Oxford to Cambridge Growth corridor. The requirement for this study has been driven by the National Infrastructure Commission’s (NIC) recommendation (November 2017) in relation to economic growth in Oxfordshire. It is anticipated that the outputs of this study will be used to inform the Government’s response to the NIC. From HM Treasury – from the November 2017 Budget1): As a first step towards opening a station at Cowley, the government will also make available £300,000 to co-fund a study of opportunities for new stations, services and routes across the Oxfordshire rail corridor This study should explore rail growth in the Oxfordshire Rail Corridor, and look at options for potential new services, stations (including Cowley, following the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation) and routes. 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/autumn-budget-2017-documents/autumn-budget-2017 Document Ref: OCS remit Issue: v0.10 - UPDATE Remit Date:16th March 2018 - UPDATE Page: 4 of 19 22 Project Remit – Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study Oxford sits at the heart of the rail corridor that links the Great Western Mainline (GWML) at Didcot with the London Marylebone to Birmingham line at Aynho Junction, south of Banbury. This corridor is vital for inter-regional passenger and freight services between a range of destinations to the south (including the south coast, the Home Counties, and the south west) and to the north (including the East Midlands, the West Midlands, and the North West). It is designated part of the national Strategic Freight Network, with Oxford Station being the hub of the rail network in Oxfordshire. Oxford itself is a key origin and destination for outer Thames Valley passenger services to Reading and London Paddington, for North Cotswolds services towards Worcester, and for East West Rail services to Bicester Village and London Marylebone. There is also an important local rail market centred on Oxford from all surrounding lines The GWML runs across southern Oxfordshire and provides passenger and freight links to London, the south coast, and the south west. Didcot is a vital node in the UK rail network and is a junction for all north-south passenger and freight traffic west of London. Didcot Parkway is a main line stop on the GWML and is the second busiest station in Oxfordshire, after Oxford station. 2.1.1 Rail Passenger Demand characteristics Demand for rail travel in Oxfordshire has grown rapidly with a 70% increase in journeys to and from Oxfordshire stations in the 10 years to 2017 against a UK average increase of 53%. In 2016-17, 18.3 million journeys were made to and from Oxfordshire stations. Oxford Station sees by far the most demand of Oxfordshire stations, with 6.6 million journeys made in 2016-17, almost one third of the county total, and an increase of 46% over ten years. Hanborough Station has seen significant growth in the last ten years, as has Radley. The introduction of East West Rail Phase 1 services between Oxford and London Marylebone in 2016 has significantly changed demand patterns in Oxfordshire, with stations towards Bicester seeing substantial growth following the Oxford Corridor Capacity Improvement programme Phase 0. It is likely that the single most significant factor in understanding future rail demand patterns in Oxfordshire will be the introduction of further East West Rail services. Document Ref: OCS remit Issue: v0.10 - UPDATE Remit Date:16th March 2018 - UPDATE Page: 5 of 19 23 Project Remit – Oxfordshire Rail Corridor Study 2.1.2 Current Investment Programmes Over the last few years, the delivery of the Great Western Route Modernisation Programme has seen introduction of new trains in Oxfordshire, with Intercity Express Trains replacing High Speed Trains serving Oxford, the Great Western Main Line, and the North Cotswolds Line, and Electric Multiple Units replacing diesel services serving Didcot. The proposed December 2018 timetable change will also introduce improved service frequencies and service patterns to maximise the benefits from the investment in trains and infrastructure. The Oxford Corridor Capacity Improvement programme Phase 1 is scheduled for completion in 2018, and Phase 2 is undergoing development and requires confirmation of implementation funding to complete. Both phases enhance the capacity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Framework Capacity Statement
    Framework Capacity Statement Network Rail December 2016 Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement December 2016 1 Contents 1. Purpose 1.1 Purpose 4 2. National overview 2.1 Infrastructure covered by this statement 6 2.2 Framework agreements in Great Britain 7 2.3 Capacity allocation in Great Britain 9 2.4 National capacity overview – who operates where 10 2.5 National capacity overview – who operates when 16 3. Network Rail’s Routes 3.1 Anglia Route 19 3.2 London North East & East Midlands Route 20 3.3 London North Western Route 22 3.4 Scotland Route 24 3.5 South East Route 25 3.6 Wales Routes 27 3.7 Wessex Route 28 3.8 Western Route 29 4. Sub-route and cross-route data 4.1 Strategic Routes / Strategic Route Sections 31 4.2 Constant Traffic Sections 36 Annex: consultation on alternative approaches A.1 Questions of interpretation of the requirement 39 A.2 Potential solutions 40 A.3 Questions for stakeholders 40 Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement December 2016 2 1. Purpose Network Rail Framework Capacity Statement December 2016 3 1.1 Purpose the form in which data may be presented. The contracts containing the access rights are publicly available elsewhere, and links are provided in This statement is published alongside Network Rail’s Network Statement section 2.2. However, the way in which the rights are described when in order to meet the requirements of European Commission Implementing combined on the geography of the railway network, and over time, to meet Regulation (EU) 2016/545 of 7 April 2016 on procedures and criteria the requirements of the regulation, is open to some interpretation.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Party Funding
    THIRD PARTY FUNDING IS WORKING IAN BAXTER, Strategy Director at SLC Rail, cheers enterprising local authorities and other third parties making things happen on Britain’s complex railway n 20 January 1961, John F. Kennedy used being delivered as central government seeks be up to them to lead change, work out how his inaugural speech as US President more external investment in the railway. to deliver it and lever in external investment Oto encourage a change in the way of into the railway. It is no longer safe to assume thinking of the citizens he was to serve. ‘Ask DEVOLUTION that central government, Network Rail or not what your country can do for you,’ intoned So, the theme today is: ‘Ask not what the train operators will do this for them. JFK, ‘but what you can do for your country.’ the railway can do for you but what However, it hardly needs to be said, least of Such a radical suggestion neatly sums up you can do for the railway’. all to those newly empowered local railway the similar change of approach represented Central government will sponsor, develop, promoters themselves, enthusiastic or sceptical, collectively by the Department for Transport’s fund and deliver strategic railway projects that the railway is a complex entity. That March 2018 ‘Rail Network Enhancements required for UK plc, such as High Speed 2, applies not only in its geographical reach, Pipeline’ (RNEP) process, Network Rail’s ‘Open for electrification, long-distance rolling stock scale and infrastructure, but also in its regularly Business’ initiative and the ongoing progress of replacement or regeneration at major stations reviewed post-privatisation organisation, often devolution of railway planning and investment like London Bridge, Reading or Birmingham New competing or contradictory objectives, multiple to the Scottish and Welsh governments, Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Brunel's Dream
    Global Foresights | Global Trends and Hitachi’s Involvement Brunel’s Dream Kenji Kato Industrial Policy Division, Achieving Comfortable Mobility Government and External Relations Group, Hitachi, Ltd. The design of Paddington Station’s glass roof was infl u- Renowned Engineer Isambard enced by the Crystal Palace building erected as the venue for Kingdom Brunel London’s fi rst Great Exhibition held in 1851. Brunel was also involved in the planning for Crystal Palace, serving on the The resigned sigh that passed my lips on arriving at Heathrow building committee of the Great Exhibition, and acclaimed Airport was prompted by the long queues at immigration. the resulting structure of glass and iron. Being the gateway to London, a city known as a melting pot Rather than pursuing effi ciency in isolation, Brunel’s of races, the arrivals processing area was jammed with travel- approach to constructing the Great Western Railway was to ers from all corners of the world; from Europe of course, but make the railway lines as fl at as possible so that passengers also from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South could enjoy a pleasant journey while taking in Britain’s won- America. What is normally a one-hour wait can stretch to derful rural scenery. He employed a variety of techniques to two or more hours if you are unfortunate enough to catch a overcome the constraints of the terrain, constructing bridges, busy time of overlapping fl ight arrivals. While this only adds cuttings, and tunnels to achieve this purpose. to the weariness of a long journey, the prospect of comfort Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway, a famous awaits you on the other side.
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Need for an Electrified Railway
    Britain’s need for an electrified railway A paper by Railfuture’s Network Development Team January 2009 www.railfuture.org.uk In 1981, reflecting uncertainty over future energy supplies, a joint British Rail/Department of Transport report established the need for strategic commitment to electrification and called for a rolling programme. In 1982 its findings and recommendations were broadly supported by the Transport Select Committee. However, since 1990, virtually no electrification has taken place. This must change, now! Benefit of Electric Trains Apart from Britain’s first high-speed line, the Heathrow Airport link and now Crossrail, extension of overhead wires has been limited to a diversionary No pollution at point of use; route on the West Coast Mainline, the reopening of a commuter route Quieter, cleaner, less vibration; south of Glasgow and the rebuilding of the Airdrie-Bathgate route. Little Better acceleration; more than 0.1% of the 17,000km network has been electrified since Not locked into source of fuel; privatisation, whilst wires have been erected over thousands of kilometres Regenerative braking; of routes across Europe and, expansion of electrification is continuing. Trains are cheaper and have longer life as fewer moving Lack of progress in the UK rests with successive treasury-dominated parts than diesel trains; governments, which seem resolutely opposed to any capital expenditure Capable of operating for that brings long-term benefits. All these governments have lacked vision. In longer hours as no fuelling the past this has merely affected Britain’s prosperity; now it risks our future. time required; Visible investment (the “Sparks effect”) encourages The need to be ‘green’ increased rail use.
    [Show full text]
  • 8. Portishead to Portbury Dock Junction Overview 17 9
    Ref: GS2/140569 Version: 1.00 Date: July 2014 Contents 1. Executive Summary 1 2. Introduction 3 3. Business Objective 6 4. Business Case 9 5. Project Scope 11 6. Deliverables 12 7. Options Considered 13 8. Portishead to Portbury Dock Junction Overview 17 9. Engineering Options 19 10. Bathampton Turnback 52 11. Constructability and Access Strategy 53 12. Cost Estimates 56 13. Project Risks and Assumptions 57 14. High level business case appraisal against whole life costings 58 15. Project Schedule 59 16. Capacity/Route Runner Modelling 60 17. Interface with other Projects 61 18. Impact on Existing Customers, Operators and Maintenance Practice 62 19. Consents Strategy 63 20. Environmental Appraisal 64 21. Common Safety Method for Risk Evaluation Assessment (CSM) 65 22. Contracting Strategy 66 23. Concept Design Deliverables 67 24. Conclusion and Recommendations 68 References 70 Formal Acceptance of Selected Option by Client, Funders and Stakeholders 71 GRIP Stage 2 Governance for Railway Investment Projects Ref: GS2/140569 Version: 1.00 Date: July 2014 Appendices A Drawings B Cost Estimate C Qualitative Cost Risk Analysis D Capacity Modelling E Environmental Appraisal F Signalling Appraisal G Photograph Gallery H Track Bed Investigation (Factual, Interpretative and Hazardous Classification) I Visualisations (Galingaleway and Sheepway Gate Farm) J Interdisciplinary Design Certificate K Portishead Station Options Appraisal Report (produced by North Somerset Council) GRIP Stage 2 Governance for Railway Investment Projects Ref: GS2/140569 Version: 1.00 Date: July 2014 Issue Record Issue No Brief History Of Amendment Date of Issue 0.01 First Draft 30 May 2014 0.02 Second Draft updated to include comments 13 June 2014 1.00 Report Issued 18 July 2014 Distribution List Name Organisation Issue No.
    [Show full text]
  • Thames Valley Branch Lines – Notes of Meeting
    Thames Valley Branch Lines – Notes of Meeting Date: 05 December 2016 Time: 10.00am Venue: 4 Marlow Road, Maidenhead Attendees: Cllr Phillip Bicknell, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Cllr Julian Brookes, Henley‐on‐Thames Council Martin Coker, Cookham Parish Council) Gerard Coll, Wycombe District Council Kevin Miller, Network Rail Philip Meadowcroft, Wargrave Users Group Gordon Oliver, Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Nigel Philips, Rail Futures / High Wycombe Society Tom Pierpoint, Great Western Railway Michael Porter, Henley Branch User Group Richard Porter, Maidenhead Marlow Passenger Association Cllr MJ Saunders, Cookham Parish Council / Richard Scarff, Cookham Society / Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Cllr David Sleight, Wokingham Borough Council Cllr Jocelyn Towns, Marlow Town Council David Wilby, Wokingham Borough Council ITEM NOTES ACTION 1.0 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Cllr Bicknell welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited attendees to introduce themselves. 2.0 NETWORK RAIL PRESENTATION Kevin Miller (KM) gave the presentation in place of Simon Maple who had been called away to an urgent meeting. He summed up progress on electrification to date: The 16 mile section between Didcot and Reading is complete and is being used for fleet testing. A link to Reading Depot has also been completed, so electric trains no longer need to be dragged in and out and can be moved within the depot, which is being used for training purposes. Changes at Old Oak Common will affect maintenance operations and some facilities are moving to Reading (e.g. wheel lathe). Some elements of the electrification programme have been deferred, in order to fund previously unfunded scope (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • West Midlands and Chilterns Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Contents 3 Foreword 4 Executive Summary 9 1
    November 2010 West Midlands and Chilterns Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Contents 3 Foreword 4 Executive summary 9 1. Background 11 2. Dimensions 20 3. Current capacity, demand, and delivery 59 4. Planned changes to infrastructure and services 72 5. Planning context and future demand 90 6. Gaps and options 149 7. Emerging strategy and longer-term vision 156 8. Stakeholder consultation 157 Appendix A 172 Appendix B 178 Glossary Foreword Regional economies rely on investment in transport infrastructure to sustain economic growth. With the nation’s finances severely constrained, between Birmingham and London Marylebone, as any future investment in transport infrastructure well as new journey opportunities between Oxford will have to demonstrate that it can deliver real and London. benefits for the economy, people’s quality of life, This RUS predicts that overall passenger demand in and the environment. the region will increase by 32 per cent over the next 10 This draft Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) sets years. While Network Rail’s Delivery Plan for Control out the priorities for rail investment in the West Period 4 will accommodate much of this demand up Midlands area and the Chiltern route between to 2019, this RUS does identify gaps and recommends Birmingham and London Marylebone for the next measures to address these. 30 years. We believe that the options recommended Where the RUS has identified requirements for can meet the increased demand forecast by this interventions to be made, it seeks to do so by making RUS for both passenger and freight markets and the most efficient use of capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • LNW Route Specification 2017
    Delivering a better railway for a better Britain Route Specifications 2017 London North Western London North Western July 2017 Network Rail – Route Specifications: London North Western 02 SRS H.44 Roses Line and Branches (including Preston 85 Route H: Cross-Pennine, Yorkshire & Humber and - Ormskirk and Blackburn - Hellifield North West (North West section) SRS H.45 Chester/Ellesmere Port - Warrington Bank Quay 89 SRS H.05 North Transpennine: Leeds - Guide Bridge 4 SRS H.46 Blackpool South Branch 92 SRS H.10 Manchester Victoria - Mirfield (via Rochdale)/ 8 SRS H.98/H.99 Freight Trunk/Other Freight Routes 95 SRS N.07 Weaver Junction to Liverpool South Parkway 196 Stalybridge Route M: West Midlands and Chilterns SRS N.08 Norton Bridge/Colwich Junction to Cheadle 199 SRS H.17 South Transpennine: Dore - Hazel Grove 12 Hulme Route Map 106 SRS H.22 Manchester Piccadilly - Crewe 16 SRS N.09 Crewe to Kidsgrove 204 M1 and M12 London Marylebone to Birmingham Snow Hill 107 SRS H.23 Manchester Piccadilly - Deansgate 19 SRS N.10 Watford Junction to St Albans Abbey 207 M2, M3 and M4 Aylesbury lines 111 SRS H.24 Deansgate - Liverpool South Parkway 22 SRS N.11 Euston to Watford Junction (DC Lines) 210 M5 Rugby to Birmingham New Street 115 SRS H.25 Liverpool Lime Street - Liverpool South Parkway 25 SRS N.12 Bletchley to Bedford 214 M6 and M7 Stafford and Wolverhampton 119 SRS H.26 North Transpennine: Manchester Piccadilly - 28 SRS N.13 Crewe to Chester 218 M8, M9, M19 and M21 Cross City Souh lines 123 Guide Bridge SRS N.99 Freight lines 221 M10 ad M22
    [Show full text]
  • Western Route Strategic Plan Version 8.0: Delivery Plan Submission March 2019
    Western Route Strategic Plan Version 8.0: Delivery Plan submission March 2019 Western Route Strategic Plan Contents Foreword and summary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Route objectives ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Safety ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Train performance .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 Locally driven measures ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Sustainability & asset management capability ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Financial performance ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maidenhead Bridge Proposed Work
    W01-W05.Maidenhead 25/8/04 5:19 PM Page 1 W1.1 Maidenhead Bridge Proposed Work The Maidenhead Bridge over the River Thames at Maidenhead is a Grade II* listed structure. Installation of overhead electrification on top of the structure would be required. The design is being undertaken in conjunction with heritage specialists to help ensure that the impact on the structure is acceptable. Once installed, the gantries are likely to be visible on the bridge from viewpoints along the river and nearby. As an example, electrification for the Heathrow Express involved the provision of overhead electrification over Wharncliffe Viaduct in Ealing. Wharncliffe Viaduct Example of similar overhead electrification installations. Maidenhead Bridge www.crossrail.co.uk Helpdesk 0845 602 3813 Crossing the Capital Connecting the UK W01-W05.Maidenhead 25/8/04 5:19 PM Page 2 W2.1 Maidenhead Maidenhead Stabling & Turnback It is proposed that a stabling facility be provided for up I Operational noise from the use of the sidings to 6 Crossrail trains in the former goods yard to the I Dust impact on nearby buildings during west of Maidenhead station, immediately beyond the construction. Appropriate dust mitigation junction of the Bourne End Branch. techniques would be incorporated within the The proposals are to modify the track layout and train Crossrail Construction Code in order to reduce sidings at Maidenhead to enable Crossrail trains to be the risk of a dust nuisance being caused. The reversed with a new siding to be developed within the Construction Code would require the establishment existing Network Rail sidings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great British Transport Competition 2 Foreword
    THE GREAT BRITISH TRANSPORT COMPETITION 2 FOREWORD The case for scrapping High Speed 2 (HS2) gets stronger by the day. Increasingly, people from across the political spectrum are waking up to the fundamental issues which have plagued this project. Whether it be the spiralling costs, environmental damage, consistent mismanagement or overwhelming unpopularity of the project, the tide is turning against HS2. With the latest evidence suggesting that costs could almost double, taxpayers are demanding more for their money. Even on current estimates, scrapping HS2 would free up at least £50 billion to improve transport links up and down the country. But were this to happen, what should replace it? With this question in mind, we joined the TaxPayers’ Alliance in launching The Great British Transport Competition in September 2018, to find popular alternatives to HS2. We asked all interested parties from across the United Kingdom to submit ideas for transport infrastructure projects. As the judges for this competition - including qualified surveyors, engineers, accountants, politicians and transport industry experts - we have been lucky to receive and assess so many fantastic entries from all around the country. The judging process began in early January and was concluded by early March. After many hours of detailed deliberation and discussion, 28 winning entries were chosen and the sum total of their construction costs came to £45.1 billion. We were incredibly impressed by the high standard and variety of the entries we received. What particularly stood out was that many of the entries required only relatively small sums of money to achieve vast benefits for local communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Western Route Strategic Plan V7
    Route Strategic Plan Western Route Version 7.0: Strategic Business Plan submission 2nd February 2018 Western Route Strategic Plan Contents Section Title Description Page 1 Foreword and summary Summary of our plan giving proposed high level outputs and challenges in CP6 3 2 Stakeholder priorities Overview of customer and stakeholder priorities 14 3 Route objectives Summary of our objectives for CP6 using our scorecard 26 4 Activity prioritisation on a page Overview of the opportunities, constraints and risks associated with each objective area, the 32 controls for managing these and the resulting output across CP5 and CP6 5 Activities & expenditure High level summary of the cost and activity associated with our plan based on the prioritisation in 41 section 4 6 Customer focus & capacity strategy Summary of customer and capacity themed strategies that will be employed to deliver our plan 66 7 Cost competitiveness & delivery strategy Summary of delivery strategies that will be employed, and of headwinds and efficiency plans 69 accounted developed to date 8 Culture strategy Summary of the culture themed strategies that will be deployed to deliver our plan 80 9 Strategy for commercial focus Summary of our strategy and plans to source alternative investment 86 10 CP6 regulatory framework Information relating to our revenue requirement and access charging income 88 11 Sign-off Senior level commitment from relevant functions 91 Appendix A Joint performance activity prioritisation by Overview of the opportunities, constraints and risks associated
    [Show full text]