Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Foreword It is a pleasure to introduce the Route The additional capacity provided at Leeds in Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for Yorkshire and the last five years has already been largely Humber. This RUS, like the previous ones, used up as a result of the growth in demand, sets out the strategic vision for the future of and the RUS identifies the best solution for a particular part of the rail network. the next decade as being the introduction of more short distance cross-Leeds services in The network in Yorkshire and Humber is the peak. It proposes an additional service incredibly diverse, with heavily used services each hour between Leeds and Manchester, and fast-growing demand into the larger cities as well as some journey time improvements. such as Leeds and Sheffield and across the Additionally, the proposal in the East Coast Pennines to Manchester. There is a great Main Line RUS to introduce a regular clock- deal of freight traffic, particularly to and from face timetable should assist considerably the ports. By contrast, some rural parts of the in terms of both local and “east to network are relatively lightly used. west” services. A number of generic gaps have been Further into the future we can expect to see identified. These include the need for further journey time improvements between additional capacity at peak hours for Leeds and Manchester, between Leeds and commuters into the cities and in the core Sheffield, between Sheffield and Manchester, Leeds to Manchester corridor; the need to and between Bradford and Manchester. A improve inter-urban connectivity in certain “standard hour” service of three fast trains places, including Bradford to Manchester; per hour is proposed between Sheffield and a requirement for greater freight capability Manchester. More freight paths will become in terms of capacity, loading gauge, route available across the Yorkshire and Humber availability and diversionary routes; and a region to respond to the projected demand. pressing need to address those parts of the infrastructure which can cause very As with each of our Route Utilisation significant delays. Strategies, this has been developed with the full input of the rest of the industry including This strategy recommends a number train and freight operators. I thank them for of options to be taken forward to address their contribution to date. This is a draft for these gaps. Key to the strategy is consultation so we are now seeking feedback addressing peak-hour passenger growth and comments to support and inform our through train lengthening, supplemented further analysis. Comments are invited before by additional shuttle services at the times a deadline of 18 December 008 and we are of heaviest demand and as new rolling working towards publication of the final RUS stock becomes available, and to address for Yorkshire and Humber in Spring 009. the issues surrounding the presently limited freight capability. Iain Coucher Chief Executive Executive summary Introduction The RUS covers broadly the area from This Yorkshire and Humber Route Utilisation Scarborough, Hull and Cleethorpes in the east Strategy (RUS) Draft for Consultation has to Newark, Chinley, Stalybridge, Rochdale and followed the now well-established RUS process, Skipton in the west, with the exception of the with extensive stakeholder involvement. The East Coast Main Line (ECML). It considers RUS area is characterised by a diversity of issues over an 11-year time period from 008. both train service and stakeholders. On the one It has had issues passed to it from the North hand, there are heavily used inter-urban and West RUS, the Lancashire and Cumbria RUS, urban services, and on the other, particularly the ECML RUS and the Freight RUS. The in the eastern part of the area, relatively lightly Network RUS currently under development used rural operations. Some parts of the will also address some issues such as network, such as Immingham, are very heavily electrification, which may impact on the used by freight traffic whilst others are solely RUS area. passenger. Similarly, there is no one body responsible for transport planning such as Process Transport for London or Transport Scotland. The RUS initially analyses the current Whilst the interests of the principal urban areas capability and capacity of the railway in order are represented by South Yorkshire Passenger to measure its ability to cater reliably for Transport Executive (PTE) and West Yorkshire existing demand and thereby highlight any PTE (and to a lesser extent – in terms of present-day “gaps”. Forecasts of predicted geography rather than roles and responsibilities demand over the coming 11 years are then – Greater Manchester PTE), local authorities examined, and forecast future gaps identified. in the remainder of the area range from These forecasts take account of committed geographically very large shire counties such schemes which are known to be coming on as North Yorkshire to quite compact unitary stream in the next few years. authorities. The National Park Authorities also A set of options is then generated which could have a role to play. potentially bridge the known and predicted Scope and background gaps. These options are then analysed in The Yorkshire and Humber RUS adjoins order to gain an understanding about which the infrastructure covered by the of them look to offer the most promising and already-published East Coast Main Line, value-for-money solutions. North West and Lancashire and Cumbria At this stage, the RUS is put out to RUSs, and the East Midlands RUS currently consultation in order for stakeholder responses in preparation. Several members of the rail to be sought and considered, and thereby industry Stakeholder Management Group for options to be refined. This consultation (SMG) are common to some or all of these document has been prepared to support this RUSs. There is a considerable interface part of the process. A finalised strategy will with the North West RUS in the corridors then be prepared and published in early 009. from South and West Yorkshire to Greater The Yorkshire and Humber RUS process is Manchester. overseen and directed by the SMG, which comprises representatives from the Train Increasingly, these do not fit comfortably with: Operating Companies (TOCs), Freight demand for passenger services to operate Operating Companies (FOCs), the Department later on weekday evenings and to start earlier for Transport (DfT), Network Rail, Association on Sunday mornings; growing demand of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), – especially on south Humberside – for Passenger Focus, the PTEs and the Office of -hour freight access; and a strong desire Rail Regulation (ORR) (as observers). that passenger services in key corridors should as far as possible be free from bus Gaps substitution. This RUS identified six generic gaps: Regional links: There is a perception of poor Peak crowding and suppressed growth: connectivity in certain corridors. In particular, Demand for rail commuting into Leeds, the service between Bradford and Manchester Sheffield and Manchester has been growing is slow by comparison with services between strongly in recent years with the result that other major centres, as a result of numerous many trains during the high peak are now station stops combined with some low speed close to or in a few cases beyond their nominal restrictions. The Sheffield – Manchester capacity. Significant overcrowding in peak hours service is considered to be unattractive at two is forecast if additional capacity is not provided. fast trains per hour when compared with the Off-peak crowding and suppressed growth: Leeds – Manchester frequency. Growth in demand for fast cross-Pennine Freight capability: Parts of the RUS area services in the core Manchester – Leeds via have restrictive loading gauge clearance when Diggle corridor has been exceptionally strong compared with the Freight RUS aspirations in recent years and significant overcrowding for W9, W10 and W1. Such restrictions is forecast such that demand management reduce the suitability of the lines affected for measures will be required if additional diversionary purposes, as well as hindering capacity is not provided. This prediction is development of the intermodal container based on growth predictions of an average market. Identified key capacity pinch-points, of .6 percent per year and is dependent on such as the Hope Valley and Hare Park a number of assumptions, in particular fares – South Kirkby, threaten to handicap future policy (RPI+1 percent is assumed, potentially growth in the freight business. The absence of conservative for unregulated fares) and any loops of 77 metres within the RUS area external effects such as road congestion and limits the options for running the longest freight motoring costs. There are only very limited trains in line with FOC aspirations. opportunities to add services to meet this demand without restructuring the timetable. Engineering access: On certain route sections, present methods of maintenance and renewal imply regular and lengthy possessions to keep the infrastructure fit for purpose. Reactionary delays: A number of key Short-term strategy 2009 – 2014 locations have been identified where very (Control Period 4) significant delays occur, notably Whitehall Train services Junction, Sheffield station, Swinton junctions The general approach will be that of and Rochdale station. Congestion at these progressive train lengthening