Network RUS: Alternative Solutions July 2013 Contents July 2013 Network RUS: Alternative Solutions 02 Foreword 03 Executive Summary 04 Chapter 1: Background 09 Chapter 2: Scope and policy context 11 Chapter 3: Drivers of change 15 Chapter 4: Baseline 21 Chapter 5: Gaps 64 Chapter 6: Options 68 Chapter 7: Consultation process 104 Chapter 8: Strategy 113 Appendix A: Tram and tram train in Great Britain 126 Appendix B: Tram train in Europe 128 Appendix C: Hybrid light rail 130 Appendix D: Community rail case studies 131 Appendix E: Community rail line infrastructure 140 enhancement case studies Appendix F: Bus rapid transit and guided bus case study 142 Appendix G: St Albans Abbey - Watford Junction: 149 Abbey Line Case Study Appendix H:Scoping document consultation summary 153 Appendix I: Summary of further alternative solutions 155 raised by consultees Appendix J: Glossary 159 Front cover image courtesy of Dr Robert Carroll (Stagecoach Supertram) Foreword July 2013 Network RUS: Alternative Solutions 03 Innovation is vital for the railway industry if it is to This Network RUS: Alternative Solutions complements and builds However, this RUS is not prescriptive. Each locality has its unique maximise value for money and will form an upon the Rail Technical Strategy published in 2012, to examine circumstances and solutions must be developed to meet specific solutions to challenges in the regional and rural markets. It local needs, working with rail industry partners and stakeholders to important element of economic and considers a number of areas where significantly different ways of achieve the most favourable outcome. doing things (the ‘alternative solutions’) could help the industry to environmental policy. As with each RUS, this strategy has been developed with the full achieve better outputs at lower cost. Equally importantly, the work input of the wider rail industry, including train operators as well as has also established circumstances where the solutions would not government and passenger representatives. It underwent two be a helpful option. It will help focus thinking more sharply on 60-day public consultations and I thank all who responded. solutions which could deliver benefit in a particular case whilst at Network Rail looks forward to working with the wider community to the same time minimising effort devoted to evaluating implement the recommendations of this strategy wherever clear inappropriate options benefit can be gained. The following main areas have been looked at: Paul Plummer • can the application of tram and tram train technologies deliver Group Strategy Director savings in capital, operating and maintenance costs whilst at the same time improving the offer to the travelling customer? • are there cheaper and more innovative ways of replacing diesel traction with electrically powered trains on low usage sections of track? • what is the role of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and guided bus systems? • does the Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) currently used in locations such as Heathrow Terminal 5 have wider applicability to increase access to the network? • to what extent could further development of community rail initiatives bring added value to local rail operations? Recent developments have assisted the study from the viewpoint of generating practical experience in a UK environment, for example • successful completion of the Paisley Canal electrification scheme, in which the use of extended neutral sections beneath bridges has substantially reduced cost and complexity • successful introduction of Class 139 vehicles on the Stourbridge Town branch • Government authority to proceed with the Rotherham – Sheffield tram train pilot, development of which is now under way. Executive summary July 2013 Network RUS: Alternative Solutions 04 The Network Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) The Network RUS: Alternative Solutions has followed a remit which they can share tracks with other passenger and freight services. This forms an important part of the Long Term allowed it to think imaginatively about cost effective solutions for avoids the need to segregate the services or sever through journeys. accommodating growth and operating services more efficiently. A tram train pilot is being funded by the Government and will start Planning Process. It considers issues which are The solutions which are considered are generally over and above the operating in 2016 between Sheffield City Centre and Rotherham. It conventional solutions in the railway’s toolbox, such as existing railway network wide. Alongside the Network will seek to address questions about the engineering and cost of the types of rolling stock and 25kV AC overhead line electrification. RUS: Alternative Solutions, four elements of the technology in a UK situation. Subject to the outcome of that pilot, Network RUS have already been established, The document complements the Rail Technical Strategy (RTS), and the technology may then become part of a tool-kit for planning for namely: Network Rail’s Technical Strategy, by looking at the market needs major urban areas. and economic case for emerging solutions. Based on current technologies, tram train is not likely to have a • Scenarios and Long Distance Forecasts The RUS has looked at how future innovations could lead to efficient good value-for-money business case when it does not serve urban and effective accommodation of growth in accordance with areas. However, technological developments in this area should be • Electrification Network Rail’s Licence. It has considered passenger needs, monitored. The advantages come from the ability of tram trains to • Stations stakeholder aspirations and has examined a selection of emerging operate on both a tramway and heavy rail network, serving a technologies. Manufacturers, and those who are actively number of stops within dense urban areas beyond the terminal • Passenger Rolling Stock. considering the development of these technologies, have worked stations whilst retaining through operation to the existing rail alongside Network Rail to make sure that delivery issues are fully network. understood. A ‘Refresh’ of the Electrification Strategy is Tram A number of the solutions have been applied successfully on the rail Tram systems have experienced a resurgence over the last 20 years. currently being developed. network in other countries. That experience gives useful pointers to There are six systems operating in Great Britain’s cities, with one the circumstances in which they could usefully be applied on the under construction. Many of these systems make use of, or have network in Great Britain. been converted from, former heavy rail alignments. In Croydon and Tram train Manchester, services formerly operated by heavy rail rolling stock have been converted to segregated tramways. Tram systems A tram train vehicle is best defined as a tramcar capable of include an element of on-street running and it is this characteristic operating on both a street tramway and heavy rail networks. Tram that has opened up new markets and increased ridership. trains share similar market characteristics with trams. They are best suited to a medium to high level of demand for passengers requiring Trams operate most effectively in densely populated urban areas frequent but relatively short distance services. Unlike trams they do, when passengers require frequent services to cover short distances however, have the ability to operate on both heavy rail with convenient frequent stopping patterns. Their ability to run on infrastructure and an on-street tramway. This enables them to streets allows them to penetrate urban areas, bringing rail transport operate through services onto the national rail network. close to homes and work places. The vehicles’ quick acceleration facilitates frequent stops without a significant reduction in overall Although tram trains do not currently operate in Great Britain, their journey time. characteristics suggest that they have potential to provide a new opportunity to make better use of some existing heavy rail corridors which serve dense urban areas. Tram trains share the advantage of trams of being able to penetrate city centres beyond the existing terminal stations using a suitably equipped road network. They also have the advantage that Executive summary July 2013 Network RUS: Alternative Solutions 05 As such, they are most appropriate for providing connectivity to city Battery power will not be considered to be an appropriate option for centres. This enables the dispersal of passengers to their operation of vehicles on the network until battery technology is destinations beyond the city centre station by going on to an developed to a sufficient degree to provide value for money as an on-street tramway. Taking heavy rail trains out of city centre option for replacement of diesel units. stations can release capacity, addressing urban transport problems Our current understanding of the technology suggests that it is by providing a frequent high quality public transport corridor. To unlikely that battery technology will be appropriate on parts of the maximise the benefits to passengers it is important that good network which have a strong case for conventional overhead wire interchange facilities are provided to the heavy rail services. electrification where vehicles operate at more than 100mph, for Conversion of heavy rail infrastructure or service to operation by substantial distances or when there is limited recharge time tram is unlikely to have a good economic case when